Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Did anyone happen to catch Bob Woodward discussing his book and the surge in the media this week?

He is claiming that covert operations are the real reason for the success in Iraq right now and that the surge has little or nothing to do with it. He can't say where he has obtained this information, but Woodward, much like Chomsky, is known for not revealing his sources, and for good reason. He wants to maintain his relationships with his sources and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it would be an act of treason to reveal strategic military secrets especially during the time they might be in use. Also, he probably wants to not be killed.
So, if this is true, than the GOP and General Petraeus have (not surprisingly) made a false claim that the surge: increase in troops and the overall tactics, are responsible for the increased success in the war right now. "The surge is working." has been repeated an innumerable amount of times. Even McCain is taking credit for this success.

Answer Question
 
CluelessCarrie

Asked by CluelessCarrie at 9:50 AM on Oct. 5, 2008 in Politics & Current Events

Level 4 (39 Credits)
Answers (10)
  • (Continued... ) I'm prone to believe Woodward and have confidence in his sources. He has been a reputable reporter for- how long since Watergate now? 35 years? So, what does this mean if this is true? Lying about the status of the war is nothing new. But bi-partisan rhetoric is obviously more critical now. Obama has been criticized a lot for not supporting the surge. How would this development affect the election? Any thoughts?
    CluelessCarrie

    Answer by CluelessCarrie at 9:51 AM on Oct. 5, 2008

  • Obama supports the surge now that it's (based on personal opinion) working, he said so in his interview with oreily and he said it in the debate. And if the real reason for the success in Iraq is secret missions, maybe we shouldn't say that outloud, you know just incase the insurgency is listening. Now, I haven't read the book although I have heard about it on CNN, but maybe the surge is the key because it was a cover up for these supposed "highly secret missions". Now, this is all assuming that Woodward is right, I don't think we will know for sure for a couple years.
    lilac84

    Answer by lilac84 at 10:37 AM on Oct. 5, 2008

  • I really don't think we're revealing anything to the insurgency. lol. I doubt they're scoping Cafemom for our military secrets.
    CluelessCarrie

    Answer by CluelessCarrie at 11:08 AM on Oct. 5, 2008

  • I think that they are listnening to the president, General Pertraeus, Barack Obama, or John McCain, and taking everything they say very seriouly. So maybe they shouldn't be talking about what secret missions we are currently undertaking.
    lilac84

    Answer by lilac84 at 11:17 AM on Oct. 5, 2008

  • IMO I think that is a twisted statement. We need covert operations in order to find the "hotspots" to place the soldiers of the surge where they are needed most to take out the enemy. Also wouldn't an increase in covert operations be considered a surge?
    Soniam301

    Answer by Soniam301 at 9:15 PM on Oct. 5, 2008

  • I'm not arguing against covert operations. They worked better than any other strategy we've had! Second, it's not the soldiers sent in because of the surge that are performing these ops.I think you're really missing something here. But, according to the other poster on here, it would be DANGEROUS for me to discuss this further. Lastly, look up what the surge was. Not a surge. What they named "The Surge". No, it had nothing to do with adding more soldiers for covert operations. I'm guessing, just GUESSING, without even looking at your profiles, that you're both military wives. I'd bet money on it. So, just to be clear, I'm not criticizing the soldiers fighting in Iraq. They're very brave and I support them. This is about politicians using a lie to boost their popularity and credibility.

    CluelessCarrie

    Answer by CluelessCarrie at 4:17 AM on Oct. 6, 2008

  • I'm also guessing that you did not see any of the interviews with Woodward that this question is based on so why are you replying with "IMO I think that is a twisted statement"? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about at all?
    CluelessCarrie

    Answer by CluelessCarrie at 4:19 AM on Oct. 6, 2008

  • No I did not see the interview I am going off of what you wrote.
    "He is claiming that covert operations are the real reason for the success in Iraq right now and that the surge has little or nothing to do with it"
    Also, if we moms can find this stuff on the internet, don't you think the terrorists have alreaady found this stuff? Unless you are on this "inside" which if you are I hope you are not posting secrets on the internet ;) I see no harm in chatter!
    I agree that covert operations had a great deal to do with how the Surge suceeded, without them the surge would probably have failed, and yes I did look it up. CONT..
    Soniam301

    Answer by Soniam301 at 11:44 AM on Oct. 6, 2008

  • I did look up what surge means and like I said before, one has to do with the other, do you know how big terror cells are? You think a few special forces can do it all on there own? I will watch the interview when I have a chance today, But like I said before, I was going off what your first sentence said and I think it is false. And yes my husband is military and my exhusband, my son's father was killed in one of those secret operations.
    Soniam301

    Answer by Soniam301 at 11:48 AM on Oct. 6, 2008

  • Again, I think you're missing the point. I think you're imagining that covert ops means just secret raids by special forces. I'm telling you that what he said is that there were covert operations- which could mean anything- and they are classified. He knows what they are but he's not going to tell us, obviously, and he credits these operations with the decreased deaths since the surge compared to before, rather than crediting the Surge. He knows what these, let's call them strategic maneuvers, are. We don't. Neither does the internet. It's classified. It may have nothing to do with soldiers at all.
    CluelessCarrie

    Answer by CluelessCarrie at 7:14 PM on Oct. 6, 2008

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN