Audio: Hoyer credits surge with quelling violence in Iraq
posted at 10:07 am on November 7, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Another issue that divides Democrats: Why is the violence going down in Iraq? They’re no longer arguing that it is going down, but why. Rep. David “idiot liberals” Obey thinks it’s because the various factions over there have run out of people to kill. Rep. Steny Hoyer thinks the violence is abating because of the surge.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the troop surge, which began in June, has had a significant impact on the situation in Iraq and noted that he had always been critical of the Bush administration for deploying an insufficient number of troops in previous years.
“Stability and a decrease in violence, they’ve done that - God bless them. I’m not surprised that they did,” Hoyer told Cybercast News Service in response to a question about steadily declining U.S. casualty rates in Iraq.
Here’s audio of Hoyer’s remarks. Other liberals like Sen. Pat Leahy prefer to emphasize the negative (that’s how liberals gain and keep power, by convincing enough voters that liberals are needed) by touting the fact that 2007 has been the bloodiest year yet for US troops in Iraq. Which is true. But. The trend line of that violence is crucial.
We’re not out of the woods in Iraq by any means, but when the Democrats’ majority leader in the House acknowledges that the current strategy is working, it’s worth mentioning.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The Democrats are inching toward taking credit for it.
Just watch.
JammieWearingFool on November 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Yeah, but the path the demoncrats take has so many twists and turn they’ll wind up running over themselves in the end.
Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Notice how he says:
So - he was for the surge before:
He was against it…
before he is now for it.
Still a tool.
nailinmyeye on November 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Oh, and with his vote linked above, this is a joke:
nailinmyeye on November 7, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Yeah CNN and the AP played up “Bloodiest year yet” angle the other day the second the soldier that put it over the top was pronounced. Pretty disgusting, but there you are.
Props to Hoyer on this, he’s right.
Dash on November 7, 2007 at 10:29 AM
One more:
Not surprised they did it huh?
nailinmyeye on November 7, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Hoyer is nothing but a self nacrcissitic ass and is now trying to cover the same.
rplat on November 7, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Well you know this can’t go unpunished.
Blue-on-blue blowback in 5…4…3…
KelliD on November 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM
So, knowing what he knows now, what would he do? Not surprised they did it? Then why this?:
I really have to get back to work. This just pisses me off.
nailinmyeye on November 7, 2007 at 10:34 AM
And I’ve always been critical of Democrats raising the hopes of our enemies by constantly degrading our troops and not supporting our president in this war, purposely, and without interruption, for the past four years.
fogw on November 7, 2007 at 10:34 AM
How do you tell when a Democrat is flip-floppping? Easy, just take their pulse rate:
- If it is ABOVE ZERO, they will be flip-flopping to try to get on whatever side of any issue it seems at the moment might get them the most votes in the next election.
- If it is ZERO, they will be giving a full and detailed explanation of what positions and accomplaihments of theirs have contributed to your country’s safety.
drunyan8315 on November 7, 2007 at 10:40 AM
KelliD on November 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM:
That’s not small-arms fire you hear, it’s the sound of moonbat heads exploding.
least1 on November 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I’d like to ask a question and I am serious. Why didn’t we try a surge earlier?
thuja on November 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I seriously hope all those Dems who got elected or re-elected in ‘06 by pushing for withdrawal from Iraq because thigns weren’t going so well are made to pay for their betting against their own side. I know that’s a strong statement to say they were “betting agaisnt their own” but considerig how they went about their effort to thwart Bush at every turn for the sake of politcal advantage is beyond criminal IMO.
Yakko77 on November 7, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Ummm, I dont know, maybe because the defeatocrats were trying their damnedest to to undercut any and all strategy’s and surrender to anyone or thing they could, kind of like Saddams armies in the first gulf war?
doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 11:32 AM
They’ll just claim “they forced Bush to revise his failed Iraq plan, and it worked“.
49% are gullible enough to swallow anything.
Ask the intern.
profitsbeard on November 7, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Is Harry Reid still saying the war is lost?
Kini on November 7, 2007 at 11:45 AM
The traitorous dems will never be able to take credit for this. We have too many sound bites of them persisting in their blathering that putting more troops in will have no effect whatsoever. I predicted last fall that Bush would pull a win in Iraq in the summer of 08. I was late on that, but it makes sense because we need a year or so to hoist these traitors high on their petards!
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Thuga
Not a simple question to answer, partially politics, but the success of the surge is a combination of things.
Not just troop numbers but a new strategy along with it which is even more important, add to that timing where the Iraq people had finally gotten fed up with AQ targeting them as soft targets and fighting back and ratting them out. Also important was the number of trained Iraq Army and Police so that combined with our numbers we were able to clear and hold rather than just react. Each day the numbers grow as more locals are trained. Also they are suffering lower losses just like we are and thus the net number is growing even faster.
With pushing the AQ to areas that don’t support them they can’t hide and they are being increasingly outnumbered each day.
CommentGuy on November 7, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Good question. CommentGuy is right that a number of factors are contributing to the success of the surge. I’m not sure if a similar boost in forces would have worked if we had tried it a year earlier. It’s too bad there wasn’t a long term strategy in place at the start of the war - had there been you might not have to ask your question.
Just be glad the current strategy is working and we are making serious progress, and hope/pray that we continue to do so.
BadgerHawk on November 7, 2007 at 12:19 PM
The army we are training up in Iraq is much more professional than the cannon fodder Saddam kept in the field. Each day they fight and win against AQ they gain valuable experience.
As the belt areas are finally cleared, plus having local neighborhood watch people available, I fully expect to see by early next year movement of a large contingent of Iraq Army into the worst areas still in Baghdad where by recognition of who doesn’t belong there better than we can and tips flowing in from the locals that major changes will happen to root out the bad guys causing issues and raising the hopes of the locals.
CommentGuy on November 7, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Someone needs to ask the democrats what Iraq would look like today if we had followed their policy of pulling out. Will anyone hold them to their retreat and defeat position? To any sevice members that read this. Thank you for fighting for my freedom. God Bless you, and your families for all the sacrifices for our nation.
chief on November 7, 2007 at 12:22 PM
That’s my big worry. They’ll go from betting against theit own side (and getting a majority of the people to vote for them in the process) to taking credit for the surge with just a little bit of political spin.
Yakko77 on November 7, 2007 at 12:24 PM
and similar posts. It is not just the “surge” that’s working.
I’m no expert, but what I understand is that there are at least three factors: 1. Anbar Sunni tribes getting fed up with Al Quada brutality almost a year ago, and with local/regional US military cooperation, started local, tribal controlled security forces. This is now a model for other areas; 2. New strategy started early this year to have joint US/Iraq forces in lots of neighborhood “police stations” with lots of personal contact with civilians; 3. a surge of additional troops to implement the new strategy.
It has not been just throwing more troops into the same old strategy - it’s more troops with a new strategy. I cringe when I hear the “pro-surge” administration and Congressional proponents not mention the new strategy aspect.
My last 2 cents: for thousands of years tribes ruled the lands that are now Iraq. The only central government known to most Iraqis was the recent brutal one. In hindsight it seems obvious to build on and extend upwards the traditional tribal government instead of forcing an unnatural strong central government on the people. Also, in hindsight, probably a big mistake to fire the whole Iraqi army without pay back in 2003, instead of trying to maintain it with pay while vetting, retraining, etc. Again, 20/20.
fred5678 on November 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I am so bone weary of that “no plan” canard, I can hardly type this comment right now.
TO all the J-3 and J-5 wannabes - of course we had a long range plan - but it rested on the not irrational assumption that Iraqi civil society would be stronger and more resilient than it proved to be. We assumed the Iraqis would be people like the Czechs, Poles, East Germans, etc. They would rejoice in their freedom, and strive to uphold it right away. However, what we found was more like what has turned out in Belorussia, Uzbekistan and Tajikstan. People that had been beaten down so hard, it took longer than anticipated to lift themselves up and fight for their new found liberties. (We are still waiting for the Uzbeks, Tajiks and Belorussians, unfortunately - I had rather hoped they would be more “Ukrainian” in their resolve).
Tomorrow, I will start on my small part in helping the Iraqis keep that which they have been given.
major john on November 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM
fred, the IA fired itself in 2003. The conscripts melted away, the Ba’athist officers became insurgents. There was no army to keep around. Also, not really a good idea to keep people you have just thrashed on the battlefield organized and such - we would have had to have the entire OIF force become jail warders around their bases.
major john on November 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Major John - thanks for your correction. I am glad I said “I’m no expert.” I thought Bremer had made that ‘decision’, at least for the officers.
Many thanks for your service. I am greatly encouraged by the great news lately. I hope all those “purple thumbs” get what they risked their lives for.
Be safe.
fred5678 on November 7, 2007 at 2:28 PM
fred,
You are not wrong re: Bremer - but it was more a formality than an actual large change.
Thanks for the kind words - I have almost always tried to stay safe!
major john on November 7, 2007 at 2:30 PM
I should have been more clear in my post, instead of implying that there was no long term strategy. I apologize, obviously there was long term planning done. None of my frustration rests on the military side of the planning either. My frustration lies with the civil side doing too much of their planning based off of the assumptions you spoke of. It seems to me that those assumptions were taken as fact, meaning that the Iraqis would stand up for their newfound democracy right away. It doesn’t seem that a lot of effort was put into figuring out what to do if they didn’t.
I may be wrong, and if I am I’ll stand down.
Good luck with your mission and stay safe, sir.
BadgerHawk on November 7, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I am really sick of the, “too few troops,” line. Why is our political strategic thinking so one dimensional?
Al Qaeda believes, and has admitted that if they can hit us hard enough we will be forced to withdraw all of our troops from everywhere around the world in order to protect/react here in the homeland. What makes anyone think Saddam or Iran didn’t/doesn’t believe the same, or at least that our war planners had to consider this in their planning.
We have a massive nation to protect - it isn’t like we could just throw everything into one small nation and forget the rest.
But it does score political points - the only meaningful strategic focus of the left.
DKK
LifeTrek on November 7, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Because Donald Rumsfeld was dead-set against it.
In one of the oddest twists of fate imaginable on the issue, Rumsfeld’s position coincided more closely with Democrats than with most of us here on HotAir. That we generally overlooked it is due IMHO to our bifurcated reporting in this day and age, with the MSM on the one side and the “right-wing” media on the other, each with a critical blind spot.
The MSM was too busy bashing Rumsfeld on almost every topic imaginable to notice that he was doing their bidding, turning over control to the Iraqis over the objections of our fighting men on the scene; the alternative media was too busy defending Rumsfeld to call him on it, or to acknowledge that those most opposed to Rumsfeld’s approach were those who wanted to stay and fight, not those who were anxious to leave.
Again, my two cents. I’m happy to be refuted and/or proven wrong.
RD on November 7, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Just to clarify: He was opposed to the current strategy of “clear, hold and build”, not to a surge per se — though without the new strategy, a surge in troops was arguably academic.
The plan he clung to until the bitter end, long past the time its failures were evident, was the “light footprint” plan.
RD on November 7, 2007 at 9:44 PM
The Dems knew it would work, and would have worked better if the administration would have just listened to the Dems.
Just like Murtha the other week trying to take credit for Rush’s ebay slapdown.
The Dems have no shame, by next year they will be saying the killing of citizens were their idea, it finished the war early. Unfortunately the Republicans killed the wrong civilians, the Dems would have targeted the bad ones. We only killed the woman and children.
right2bright on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 PM
As long as they switch between being for, against and neutral, I’m glad to see it. Wishy-washy for the sake of emotional indecisiveness, flip-flopping for the sake of pandering, and stonewalling for the sake of preventing themselves from being pegged can’t possibly hurt us or help them, so it’s all good.
Rugged Individual on November 8, 2007 at 12:15 AM