This Patraeus guy is no crony. He has had a very strong record in Iraq and is credited with really building up the Iraqi army. Also, he was confirmed unanimously by the senate despite the "Patraeus Doctrine" which included the surge as a counter-insurgency force (his specialty). I think you are proving my point by trying to attach Petraeus so tightly to Bush. In terms of timelines, Patraeus has been honest, saying this is a decade long affair, and the key is to relieve the burden on the nation by reducing troops once a sustainable state can be reached. I think I'm willing to give this more time. I think the nation will as well. Leaving a vacumm is not wise, and we shouldn't waste gains we are making and just give up. Not if there is a pathway to success, even limited success. It's not Bush's strategy I believe in, it's our military. Maybe they can succeed - let's give this guy a chance.
from my understanding of the word "opposite" I think it means that he is a Bush crony, and doesn't have a record of really building up the Iraqi army.
You might be referring to back in 2005? or so when he said (maybe even before congress, I forget) everything was going great and the "We'll stand down as they stand up" strategy was going perfectly and right on schedule, and that we would be able to hand things over to the Iraqi army any day now, just like GWB promised. Anyway, no point in digging up the quote for folks like basso or new yorker. No point.
He built it from 0. Raising an entire army from scratch in six months isn't a small feat. I think they finally put the right man in charge, someone who has the skills to actually make a difference. Now, he should be given a chance, and if he fails, then we should withdraw. But let's give him a chance. He literally wrote the book on the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq. He's having success against Al Qaeda - they just took out the guy behind a major bombing. I don't think people can expect change overnight. Progress has to be measured in small doses. And see if momentum can build. You have to give the military command a chance.
The sad truth is that it's not working. Had Bush fired those who were on board with, or proposed, the mad plans that ignored the recommendations of a several hundred thousand man force, and a comprehensive, realistic plan of occupation, with retaining the Iraqi Army intact, except for the top officer corps, keeping the soldiers on a payroll to feed their families, and within their barracks, an agreement to do just that being in place and blown off by Rumsfeld and company... a host of things that should have been done, that were recommended and ignored, old stuff, now... if those things had been done pre-war, during and just after the occupation, the whole crazy idea of invading and occupying Iraq may still not have worked, but it would at least have had a fighting chance. Those who cling to this fantasy that at this late date, somehow all the stupid failures of the Administration and their military yes-men and women, their nodding automatons, can be undone, the genie put back in it's box, and a thriving Iraqi democracy will emerge are simply fooling themselves. They are not fooling anyone else. Certainly not the American people, who are overwhelmingly against this continued insanity. It is really pretty depressing. Why anyone would honestly believe that there are those here who want Bush's adventure to fail, who relish reading of the daily bombing of dozens of Iraqis, the tortured and murdered victims found every morning, the continued killing and maiming of American service men and women, that anyone would think that is something desired by anyone here, only reveals a deep sickness rooted in their being. An inability to accept the truth, and a need to strike out, however irrationally, at those merely reflecting the opinion, in BBS form, of the vast majority of the American public. There can be no good end here. There can only be, with luck, limiting the damage. Given the continued unreality that represents the world occupied by Bush and his closest advisors, and their collective incompetence, limiting the damage will take a miracle. I think we are fresh out. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
I will agree with you that people are often quick to attack the source rather than the substance of news or opinion which applies to all sides and this did appear the case. At the same time there often is good reason to question the source of news. You've stated a perceived a lack of interests in considering the news which very well maybe the case but do you see merits in the criticism of the source? Might there be something to the possibility that the source is inherently biased enough to not be trustworthy? I will give you your due in that I don't think you are conservative, liberal or Republican or Democrat. That said I challenge you to make a critical evaluation of the substance of the critique that the source might be biased instead of just saying that the news is being dismissed out of partisanship. I no longer have use of the search function but my charge of you as intellectually dishonest is based on your own words. You have prior said on many occasions that you take positions that you don't necessarily believe to incite and that you are engaged in an intellectually game. If so then since from your posts I don't believe you are gullible or an idiot, even though others might disagree, but that your quick switches and inconsistencies are that you are being intellectually dishonest to try to incite.
You're a smart replicant, I'm sure you will get the hang of it. Millions of Peaches.. Peaches for me...
Interesting, so you are saying that in order to change one's mind you have to be disingenious, an idiot, or gullible? No wonder people dig themselves into positions. You'll have to use your own judgement then. But I really don't wish to spend an inordinate amount of time getting of track and discussing myself again - it really won't acheive anything nor is it interesting to anyone. And again, your classifications are your perception. "quick switches" is interesting, as I haven't switched positions. I'm only saying i'm re-evalutating what's going on right now. Nor have I claimed that these guys are free from bias. But it does seem odd that they are "pro-war" when they come from a liberal think-tank and I did look up their names and they have been war critics. So yes, I am suspicious that people are digging up instances where they may have seen some positive stuff about the war and then trying to paint them as bushies in order to undermine their creds. Furthermore, their assessment doesn't paint a rosy picture, it's not like they are saying, yeah, we're going to win - only that there is some positive change happening. it's realistic, and doesn't appear contrived. Now, that's my judgement. I don't have to prove that to you. Or do an inordinate amount of research. I've looked into it enough to feel confident that I think what they wrote at face value is fairly accurate, and that those who are attacking them are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps this will be borne out to be incorrect. I mean, I can attack any source as biased - anyone can spin something one way or not. But you have the liberal leaning media reporting good news from two guys who have been critical and come from a liberal think tank, and somehow it's war propaganda after two minutes is really eye-opening into how dark and partisan the two sides have become. Perhaps this is why i am forced to stay in the middle, because both sides are all about being right and having their way and the notion of logical discourse and consideration are long gone.
It's hard to have logical discourse with illogical people. Take the first paragraph above for instance. It's been shown that these guys have been behind the war from the beginning and they have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to make it sound good. Even the piece ROX cited showed how deeply one of these guys was for the war before it ever began. That people who were for the war before it ever began (do you remember the 100's of thousands who marched against the war before it started... well these two guys were not part of that) can be held up as war critics changing their mind and have it bought by people like you boggles my mind.
One of the more hilarious and self-serving things I've read today. So, with a smile on my face, I think I'll go to bed. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Most of the country was behind the war before it began. Are all of those people now dismissed as having any ability to support or critize the war? Are only war protesters from the get-go the only unbiased source? Hardly. They are the most biased.
No, but people who have been for the war the whole time shouldn't be allowed to be trumpeted as critics of the war.
Hitting the snooze bar of death! (thanks TP ) O’Hanlon And Pollack Call For Another ‘Six Months Or So’ In Iraq On Fox News Sunday yesterday, O’Hanlon and Pollack put a timeframe on their call for stay the course: six months. “It’s basically saying nothing more dramatic than give it six more months or so, maybe nine more months,” said O’Hanlon. “I agree with Mike entirely that we can’t give this much more time,” added Pollack. The media watchdogs at FAIR noted in 2006 that New York Times columnist Tom Friedman had been repeatedly claiming the “decisive” six months in Iraq were right around the corner. FAIR report that Friedman’s “‘decisive’ six months have lasted two and a half years.” Many in the blogosphere warned that O’Hanlon and Pollack were engaging in the same tactic. As Atrios has frequently noted, many proponents of the war have offered “Friedman Units (F.U.)” — i.e. a continual “six-month period that would be required in order to determine the outcome of the Iraq War” — as a way to seek public acquiescence for the occupation. This is not the first time O’Hanlon and Pollack have called for six months to bring stability to Iraq. On March 1, 2007, O’Hanlon penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal arguing for the same extension he called for yesterday: There are good reasons to give the war effort, now almost four years old, another six to nine months before concluding that the current strategy should be discarded and a much different one… One year earlier — on March 2, 2006 — Pollack told students at Georgetown that there was “a critical six month window of opportunity to bring some form of stability to Iraq.” http://thinkprogress.org/
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/05/2007-08-05_i_have_seen_the_horror-2.html more, from someone who's actually been there. [rquoter] I have seen the horror Al Qaeda is guilty of monstrosities in Iraq - no matter what anyone says MICHAEL YON Sunday, August 5th 2007, 4:00 AM Major Mark Bieger, an American soldier, holds a wounded child after a suspected Al Qaeda car bomb exploded in Mosul in 2005. Amid all this talk of timetables for the War in Iraq, blurred as they are by a strange lemming-like compulsion to declare the "surge" strategy a failure almost before it actually began, one deadline looms larger with each passing day: It's time for a reckoning with the truth. The problem is that almost none of those who have cast themselves as truth-tellers have the requisite credibility for the job. The one man who does was told he had only until September to evaluate progress. I'm not suggesting that I make a worthy substitute for the commanding general, David Petraeus, on this or any subject, but since December of 2004, I have spent roughly a 1½ years on the battlefields of Iraq. I've traveled alongside American Army and Marines and British forces, from Basra to Mosul and just about anywhere of note in between. When it comes to Iraq, being there matters because of the massive disconnect between what most Americans think they know about Iraq, and what is actually going on there. The current controversy about the extent to which Al Qaeda is a threat to peace in Iraq is a case in point. Questions about which group calling itself an offshoot of Al Qaeda is really an offshoot of Al Qaeda is a distraction masquerading as a debate. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, intentionally inflaming sectarian hostilities, deliberately pushing for full scale civil war. They do this by launching attacks against Shia, Sunni, Kurds and coalition forces. To ensure the attacks provoke counterattacks, they make them particularly gruesome. Five weeks ago, I came into a village near Baqubah with American and Iraqi soldiers. Al Qaeda had openly stated Baqubah was their worldwide headquarters — indeed, Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed just a short drive away. Behind the village was a palm grove. I stood there, amid the crushing stench of death, and photographed the remains of decapitated children and murdered adults. I can still smell the rotting corpses of those children. Clearly, not every terrorist in Iraq is Al Qaeda, but it is Al Qaeda that has been intentionally, openly, brazenly trying to stoke a civil war. As Al Qaeda is now being chased out of regions it once held without serious challenge, their tactics are tinged with desperation. This may be the greatest miscalculation they've made in their otherwise sophisticated battle for the hearts and minds of locals, and it is one we must exploit. In fact, some Sunni insurgents who formerly were allies of Al Qaeda have turned on them simply because Al Qaeda has proven it will murder anyone — and in the most horrible ways. One of these groups is called the 1920 Revolution Brigade, which turned on Al Qaeda and joined forces with the U.S. On July 16, I was with American Army forces, Iraqi Army forces and 1920 fighters when together they went off to hunt Al Qaeda. The 1920s guys were in front of us. They got hit by a bomb that was almost certainly planted by terrorists. A major gunfight ensued. Anyone who says Al Qaeda is not one of the primary problems in Iraq is simply ignorant of the facts. I, like everyone else, will have to wait for September's report from Gen. Petraeus before making more definitive judgments. But I know for certain that three things are different in Iraq now from any other time I've seen it. 1. Iraqis are uniting across sectarian lines to drive Al Qaeda in all its disguises out of Iraq, and they are empowered by the success they are having, each one creating a ripple effect of active citizenship. 2. The Iraqi Army is much more capable now than it was in 2005. It is not ready to go it alone, but if we keep working, that day will come. 3. Gen. Petraeus is running the show. Petraeus may well prove to be to counterinsurgency warfare what Patton was to tank battles with Rommel, or what Churchill was to the Nazis. And yes, in case there is any room for question, Al Qaeda still is a serious problem in Iraq, one that can be defeated. Until we do, real and lasting security will elude both the Iraqis and us. Yon is a former Special Forces soldier who later became a writer and a photographer. His work appears in the Weekly Standard, the National Review and on www.michaelyon-online.com [/rquoter]
