Petraeus: The Surge is Working, Premature Pull-Out Would Be Devastating

This "another year" stuff is supposedly coming from the generals. Well, supposedly our generals kept telling Bush for 4 straight years we didn't need more troops when we actually did. Either it's Bush strong-arming the generals or our generals are just idiots about Iraq. Choose which one you believe but the forecasts have always been wrong, incredibly wrong, from day one of this catastrophe. This "one year away" thing for the Iraqi army is another optimistic and wrong prognostication that serves the administration.

Many people don't realize the relationship military leaders have with administrations and how hard it is for them to publicly confront and embarrass their Commander-In-Chief (Bill Clinton excepted). This is why so many generals have ripped Bush AFTER they retire and not while serving.

 

Answer me a hypothetical question: What if you knew for a fact the Iraqi army wouldn't be "ready" (whatever that means) in a year? What you knew if the military and Bush would say next summer that another year was needed to make sure? What would that make your position right now?

There has been a consistent pattern in this war from the very beginning. It is to constantly understate the cost & commitment needed and avoid acknowledging reality until it smacks the public in the face. Instead of being truthful, only acknowledge what you have to after being dragged kicking and screaming to the podium. The administration has done this to avoid a complete loss of public support.

 

I agree. There is the possibility that occupying Iraq removes a possible training ground/staging area, but I think the possibilities for such are numerous. If the camps aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan they can be in Iran, Syria, most of Africa, or many other places.

There could be a draft for civilian service if this became a critical issue. I think the national guard is the wrong tool in many cases anyway. We should expand our regular first response forces so the national guard is not needed for such activities as riot control, evacuation, etc.

On the other hand our military is gaining valuable real combat experience and learning such skills as counter-insurgency that can be hard to gain through peacetime training.

The war also stimulates the economy. I will leave it to others who know more about macroeconomics than me to argue if the war is a net plus or minus economically for America.

Overall, I would say that there is no situation that could arise that are military will not be able to handle because of the occupation of Iraq. If necessary, we can just redeploy them from there to a location where they are needed more urgently. Also, the majority of our military is not in Iraq. Of the approximately 2.6 million people on active or reserve duty in the US military, about 160,000 are deployed to Iraq. So, the remaining ~94% of the military can be used somewhere else (obviously some portion of this group is deployed around the world, and not all of them can be used at one time for any extended period).

 

Excellent post. We've seen this again and again. Why it doesn't penetrate some brains around here is a mystery to me.




D&D. Impeach the Living Embodiment of the Peter Principal.

 

This war is a classic example of "pass the buck". No one is willing to accept full responsibility for it, and the "give it a year" adage is a load of BS. Plans need to be made to pull out NOW.

Vote Ron Paul

 

This thread illustrates why we are in Iraq. Lies, misinformation and non-communicated objectives.

First, there cannot be a war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an enemy.
We are fighting against radical extremist aggressors who happen to be radical islamic factions.

There are the radical Sunni factions- does everyone realize Al Queda is a radical Sunni faction?

There are the radical Shiite factions- that would be Hezbollah.

There tactic is terror. It would help all of us if the politicians would forget political correctness and state the truth and the obvious we are fighting against Islamic fanatics- those who have turned a moderate peaceful Islam to an agressive violent Islam. We are also fighting because we are occupying someone elses sovereign nation.

The radical Sunnis have been at war against the west for centuries.
The radical Shiites only recently turned to agression through the radical factions in Iran back in the '80s.

Saudi Arabia is the hot bed for the radical Sunni, Iran is the hot bed for the radical Shiite. 85% of Islam is Sunni.

Somalia and Sudan are major hotbeds for radical Sunni and terrorist training, but they lack a strategic energy position so I doubt we will be bombing there any time soon.

Al Queda has never been strong in Iraq and they are only now having opportunity to move in and gain ground among the Iraqi Sunni.

The battle between the Sunni and Shiites is not going to be fixed.
Our presence in Iraq is only galvanizing the agenda of the radical factions in both sects.

That is why we are building military bases and that is why we are trying to secure the region for our future energy needs.

And that is why we cannot withdraw. Withdrawal is not the goal. The goal is to have military capability in the region and to have justification to use it to protect energy assests. Not only for the US but for every other nation willing to accept our vision of our energy future. We are basically there for the wealthy and the powerful, bankers and industrialists. Those who use governments and armies to gain and keep power.

As much as I want us to withdraw immediately, it won't happen. It can't.

Just my opinion

 

Here is Obama's plan. Basically to withdraw by the end of 2008 and leave behind a "strike force". He isn't that far off. I believe this should be a very significant strike force tucked somewhere out of harm's way in Iraq, probably in the Kurdish region. We also will need a combat brigade or two (or three) IMO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politicsSeptember 13, 2007
Obama Offers Most Extensive Plan Yet for Winding Down War
By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL R. GORDON

Senator Barack Obama yesterday presented his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war in Iraq, proposing to withdraw all combat brigades by the end of next year while leaving behind an unspecified smaller force to strike at terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests.

Speaking in Iowa, Mr. Obama combined an attack on both parties in Washington for having gotten the United States into the war with the outline of an approach for getting out that immediately drew criticism from the left of his party for being too timid and from Republicans as being irresponsible.

“What’s at stake is bigger than this war: it’s our global leadership,” Mr. Obama said. “Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown.”

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, used the speech to highlight again his early and consistent opposition to the war, and to compare it to the votes in 2002 by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and John Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. But Mr. Obama’s strategy for where to go from here, especially in maintaining an American military presence in Iraq and the region, is similar to the plan embraced by Mrs. Clinton, who is leading the Democratic field of potential presidential nominees in most opinion polls.

One day after questioning Gen. David H. Petraeus as he testified before Congress, Mr. Obama and other candidates took their respective cases to voters. On one side of Iowa, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, argued that the administration’s strategy should be given more time to succeed, while across the state, Mr. Obama offered a conflicting view.

“The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops,” Mr. Obama said. “Not in six months or one year — now.”

In his address, Mr. Obama proposed removing American combat troops at a pace of one or two brigades a month, which is about twice as fast as American commanders in Iraq have deemed prudent. There are currently about 20 combat brigades in Iraq, which General Petraeus has committed to reducing to 15 next summer.

Under the Obama plan, no more than 10 brigades would be in Iraq at that point. Military experts who supported the administration’s “surge” strategy called the troop levels proposed by Mr. Obama insufficient.

“That is a precipitous withdrawal,” said Jack Keane, the former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and an early proponent of the administration’s strategy. “What it does is squander all the gains we made in the past five to six months. What it would do is turn Baghdad over to the extremists.”

Polls suggest that there is considerable public support for the approach outlined by Mr. Obama. In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, 56 percent of Americans said they favored reducing troops levels in Iraq, but leaving some forces in place to train Iraqi forces, fight terrorists and protect American diplomats.

Twenty-two percent favored a complete withdrawal in the next year, and 20 percent favored keeping the same number of troops “until there is a stable democracy in Iraq.”

Several of Mr. Obama’s Democratic rivals said yesterday that the senator was taking a step backward by not giving a specific deadline for withdrawal.

“Senator Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity,” said one of them, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.

Another, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, said: “Leaving behind tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time is nothing new. This plan is inadequate and does not end the war.”

Mr. Obama delivered his remarks in an address at Ashford University in Clinton, Iowa. While he did not directly mention Mrs. Clinton by name, the words in his speech and the name of the city in which he chose to give his speech made his point clear.

“Too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the president at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves,” Mr. Obama said.

He added: “I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006.”

With less than four months remaining before the first voters declare their preferences in the presidential nominating process, Mr. Obama is seeking to gain ground on Mrs. Clinton. He has sought to use the Congressional war authorization in 2002, which she supported, as a crucial distinction between them.

For months, the two senators have tussled over who has more experience and who represents the voice of change. Mr. Obama’s speech was filled with references that he offered voters a new direction.

“I come from a new generation of Americans,” Mr. Obama said. “I don’t want to fight the battles of the 1960s.”

Mrs. Clinton did not respond to Mr. Obama yesterday, but turned her attention to Mr. Bush, urging him to accelerate the troop withdrawals in Iraq. The president is scheduled to address the nation Thursday evening on Iraq, and in her letter, released by her campaign, she asked him to “seize the opportunity” and offer a candid assessment of the war.

“One year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago,” Mrs. Clinton wrote. “Mr. President, that is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war.”

 

it's actually from a retired general - james jones, who led a group of former pundits and generals. They actually advocate withdrawing because the Iraqi Army isn't ready.

I say, first let's give the Army more responsibility and wean them off of needing us, and then withdraw.

 

The leader of the one success in Anbar province, overwhelmingly cited by the president as the reason to stay in Iraq ,was just blown up by a car bomb - from BBC:


Iraqi insurgents kill key US ally

Abu Risha was celebrated by the US as a key opponent of al-Qaeda
A key Sunni ally of the US and Iraqi governments has been killed in a bomb attack in the city of Ramadi, Iraqi police and media say.
Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was the leader of an alliance of Sunni Arab tribes that rejected al-Qaeda because of its methods and worked with the US.

 

As opposed to tj, who is brave enough to cheerlead from the sidelines and watch others spill blood in a fight he thinks should be fought. A Real American Hero.

 

You are the one who was so scared of the "mighty Pakistani army" that you would rather not go after the people who were responsible for 9/11.

You are the last person on the board who has room to call someone cowardly.

 

It's so totally worth the lives of more US soldiers and billions of dollars to keep pursuing the Bush Administration's completely credible and coherent Iraq policy.


Oil Buddies

An article in tomorrow's Times reports that the long-negotiated compromise which seemed to be leading towards an Iraqi oil law -- a key 'progress' benchmark -- has apparently collapsed. All gone down the drain.

The story though connects up with another one we told you about just a couple days ago -- the decision of the Kurdistan regional government to sign an oil exploration deal with Dallas-based Hunt Oil, run by Mr. Ray L. Hunt.

The Shia and Sunni leaders believe the Kurds are opting for a sort of oil secession that puts them outside the whole concept of a law to share the country's oil resources. And the Hunt deal is apparently the straw that broke the camel's back, shall we say.

But remember, Hunt, in addition to being the son of legendary Texas John Birch Society extremist H.L. Hunt, is also a pal of the president's. Indeed, President Bush has twice appointed Hunt to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So while the president is striving to get the Iraqis to meet these benchmarks one of his own pals -- and more importantly, political appointees -- is busy helping to tear the whole thing apart.

--Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

actually, attacking pakiston would more like stabbing an ally - which is behavior you'd expect from a coward.

 

LOL, yes Pakistan is a huge ally, what with selling nuclear technology to North Korea and harboring all of Al Qaeda's senior leadership.

Maybe you should go back to ranting about thermody-whateveritis.

 

This whole thing reminds me of the name of a movie "China Town".

 

What if we pull back into Kurdistan, secure it for it's oil resources and let the Sunni and Shia forces battle it out for Iraq. The Saudi's will have to supply the Sunni's and Iran will have to back the Shia. They will have to flood the world market with oil to pay for the civil war. All the violence can be focused within Iraq's borders, they can kill each other till they can't kill anymore.

I don't think Iran and Saudi Arabia would fight directly so OPEC oil would stay plentiful and therefore cheap...that's a win.

Radical fundamentalist would have to focus on the Iraq civil conflict so they worry less about us...that's a win.

We could supply humanitarian aid for way less than the $2 billion a week we spend on occupying Iraq...that's a win.

Hundreds of thousands of people are subjected to the worst atrocities imaginable...that's a loss (But at least it's on Al Jazeera not Fox News)

3-1 positive.... Kurdistan the new Qatar!

 

The problem with this approach though it is essentially surrendering our right to express disagreement with what the government does and also forgetting accountability. At the same time there still is the possiblity of political change here that could alter the course of the war. While I believe that the political reality is that things want change as long as GW Bush is in office there still is the possibility that things might.

To follow up though again on A3PO's point though how do you know that the Iraqi army will be ready in a year when the history of our occupation has been overinflated and over optimistic reports? You seem willing to swallow the line when if anything the history of this conflict should lead to greater skepticism.

 

I remember Robert Novak said that the first thing he thought when he heard that Kennedy was assassinated was that the JBS was responsible.

 

Sam had it right. Pakistan isn't really a great ally.

Furthermore you misrepresent Obama's suggestion towards Pakistan. He never suggested we attack Pakistan.

Not only that, even going after Al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan wouldn't be a stab in the back. The policy suggestion is already on the table. Furthermore Pakistan could easily avoid it by actually shutting down the terrorists.

If anyone is so afraid of Pakistan that they won't go after Al-Qaeda leadership, then they are behaving cowardly. TJ has already made his belief known, that Pakistan is too strong for us to really go after the Al Qaeda leadership.