General Petraeus report to the US congress
Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
talk about it... ... pretty interesting.. reinforces my dislike for the democrats
phoenix80
Banned
I actually thought the Dems were representing the Iranian/Syrian alliance in the hearing. And you have to see the ad calling this fine gentleman Petraeus, "General Betray Us", which come to think of it, makes me dislike the Dems too. Disgusting!
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/91382a76-bfbe-44ba-9d08-e0199142f9cc
phoenix80
Banned
Rock On, Duncan Hunter! [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Since the House can't get the general a working microphone...let's watch Duncan Hunter's opening statement. The man is a great American:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZmMTk1ZGU3MWE3ZjEwYjE5Zjk4ZTEzYzQ3NTQxZDk
Since the House can't get the general a working microphone...let's watch Duncan Hunter's opening statement. The man is a great American:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZmMTk1ZGU3MWE3ZjEwYjE5Zjk4ZTEzYzQ3NTQxZDk
Last edited:
I watched it live. The General did great. So did the Ambassador. The democrats tried to destroy the General 's reputation and his report BEFORE he even started. The podium was occupied inappropriately for far too long beforehand. They had the General sat waiting like a spare, but he maintained his dignity and then put them to shame.
Their reports confirmed some of the front line military reports we have had here.
Just imagine, if they pull it off! A strong peaceful situation right there?
Wow. That's worth going for. Yeah, they tell me I'm a dreamer, but I believe in USA. My money's always on them. God Bless 'em.
Their reports confirmed some of the front line military reports we have had here.
Just imagine, if they pull it off! A strong peaceful situation right there?
Wow. That's worth going for. Yeah, they tell me I'm a dreamer, but I believe in USA. My money's always on them. God Bless 'em.
Last edited:
phoenix80
Banned
Leftist were up in arms to disgrace Gen. Petraeus but failed to do so
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
What disturbs me is what wasn't included in Petreaus' report ... American troops are affecting the level of violence where troop strength has been increased ... but ... in areas where no increases have been accomplished, the level of violence continues unabated. Petraeus seemed to gloss over the actions (or lack of action), on the part of the Iraqi government to make even the slightest effort to resolve the sectarian differences which are leading to the sectarian violence that continues.
Amb. Crocker has painted a verbal picture of the Iraqi people who generally believe that the Americans are not doing their jobs and responsible for much of the violence because of their presence at levels which are too low to handle the violence ... they are also skeptical that the American troops are having the effect that Petreaus reports.
Between you and me, I am not sure just which report is the more accurate.
All I know, is the fact that the Middle East experts have continuously stated that a military solution alone is not sufficient ... a political resolution of sectarian differences must be brokered before the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people have a chance of peace - this is the ONLY thing that can ensure a safe withdrawl of our troops.
Amb. Crocker has painted a verbal picture of the Iraqi people who generally believe that the Americans are not doing their jobs and responsible for much of the violence because of their presence at levels which are too low to handle the violence ... they are also skeptical that the American troops are having the effect that Petreaus reports.
Between you and me, I am not sure just which report is the more accurate.
All I know, is the fact that the Middle East experts have continuously stated that a military solution alone is not sufficient ... a political resolution of sectarian differences must be brokered before the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people have a chance of peace - this is the ONLY thing that can ensure a safe withdrawl of our troops.
mmarsh
Active member
I don't trust the report of a variety of reasons. But most of all because the people who wrote it wasn't Gen Patreaus or Amb. Crocker. They were only allowed to 'comment' on it. It was the White House that wrote the report and then trotted these two out to give the illusion that it was a fair and accurate report. Even if I am totally wrong about this (which I doubt) the problem with having a White House that constantly lies is that you can never trust them on anything later on, even when it happens to be the truth. The report never seemed to mention or at least glossed over the known problems in Iraq, and seemed very much like it was cherry picking.
I'd like to restate something Chief Bones said because its extremely important. The whole purpose of the 'surge' was reduce the violence for a time so that the Iraqi Government could get its house in order. That was the idea behind this plan
But both Patreaus and Crocker were silent about the status of the Iraqi government, and coupled with the disasterous July report of the Iraqi Government where only 7 of 18 goals were achieved (with a sharp grading curve) that speaks volumes. Even if we are to believe the White House's blind optimism of the military situation (which I don't) the surge is still a failure because the primary objective of creating a stable functional Iraqi government has failed.
UPDATE
Another thing that bothers me. Before the surge we had 130,000 troops in Iraq. The surge adds 30,000 thats 160,000. Bush has just announced he will follow the Patreaus suggestions (my that was fast, what a surprise!). So that means by April we will be back at 130,000.
We have just come full circle, and thats supposed to be an accomplishment?
I'd like to restate something Chief Bones said because its extremely important. The whole purpose of the 'surge' was reduce the violence for a time so that the Iraqi Government could get its house in order. That was the idea behind this plan
But both Patreaus and Crocker were silent about the status of the Iraqi government, and coupled with the disasterous July report of the Iraqi Government where only 7 of 18 goals were achieved (with a sharp grading curve) that speaks volumes. Even if we are to believe the White House's blind optimism of the military situation (which I don't) the surge is still a failure because the primary objective of creating a stable functional Iraqi government has failed.
UPDATE
Another thing that bothers me. Before the surge we had 130,000 troops in Iraq. The surge adds 30,000 thats 160,000. Bush has just announced he will follow the Patreaus suggestions (my that was fast, what a surprise!). So that means by April we will be back at 130,000.
We have just come full circle, and thats supposed to be an accomplishment?
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The numbers on the ground will surge before going down again, and with the objective of going down even further from that point. The goal is to reduce numbers by a such and such date, so between now and then if there is a period where the numbers on the ground are increased, so what? Sometimes you have to take one step back to move a thousand paces forward but sometimes the opposite is true as well. You have to take a step forward to slowly back out.
Also, the government in Iraq hasn't failed. I know it's not where we all want it to be, but failure comes with premature withdrawal or a complete collapse. The thing is, now there may actually be a plan that may work in Iraq, the replacement of US forces with Iraqi forces - which took a HUGE step back when the Iraqi Army was dissolved entirely, the one thing I believe was the single most biggest mistake during the entire operation there. It's going to take time. This isn't MTV where you get your satisfaction in under four minutes and anything clocking at five minutes seems tedious. Right now the operation is to BUILD A COUNTRY. That's hard enough to do even with no one shooting at you. People fail to realize what an ambitious goal that is. I believe most of the enemies encountered now are actually territorial tribes who are very much like gangs, also there is Al Qaeda and the Iran factor.
A complete loss here would be a HUGE victory for Iran which right now it seems has hands everywhere all over the middle east. You know what that means? In a few years, our guys have to come back to fight an even tougher opponent under worse conditions.
I understand that the reasons for going in could have been questionable (then again there's a good explanation that does not involve WMDs or terrorism that it was the right decision, I'd explain it if the politics forum opens again or if you want, through private message) but right now the situation is that an absolute defeat is unacceptable for all.
Any sort of defeat, especially the ones that make it look like it was easy for the enemy, empowers our enemies. People in fact fail to realize how much the 1993 pullout of Rangers and SF in Somalia empowered Al Qaeda and other enemies of America.
This naysaying really has to stop. No one wants to be in there. I bet George W Bush goes to bed wishing he never did, but the truth of the fact is there is a conflict there and it has to be won.
You may not understand this mmarsh but right war or wrong war, the war needs to be won or else the next time a right war rolls along, it's going to be MUCH harder to win.
Also, the government in Iraq hasn't failed. I know it's not where we all want it to be, but failure comes with premature withdrawal or a complete collapse. The thing is, now there may actually be a plan that may work in Iraq, the replacement of US forces with Iraqi forces - which took a HUGE step back when the Iraqi Army was dissolved entirely, the one thing I believe was the single most biggest mistake during the entire operation there. It's going to take time. This isn't MTV where you get your satisfaction in under four minutes and anything clocking at five minutes seems tedious. Right now the operation is to BUILD A COUNTRY. That's hard enough to do even with no one shooting at you. People fail to realize what an ambitious goal that is. I believe most of the enemies encountered now are actually territorial tribes who are very much like gangs, also there is Al Qaeda and the Iran factor.
A complete loss here would be a HUGE victory for Iran which right now it seems has hands everywhere all over the middle east. You know what that means? In a few years, our guys have to come back to fight an even tougher opponent under worse conditions.
I understand that the reasons for going in could have been questionable (then again there's a good explanation that does not involve WMDs or terrorism that it was the right decision, I'd explain it if the politics forum opens again or if you want, through private message) but right now the situation is that an absolute defeat is unacceptable for all.
Any sort of defeat, especially the ones that make it look like it was easy for the enemy, empowers our enemies. People in fact fail to realize how much the 1993 pullout of Rangers and SF in Somalia empowered Al Qaeda and other enemies of America.
This naysaying really has to stop. No one wants to be in there. I bet George W Bush goes to bed wishing he never did, but the truth of the fact is there is a conflict there and it has to be won.
You may not understand this mmarsh but right war or wrong war, the war needs to be won or else the next time a right war rolls along, it's going to be MUCH harder to win.
mmarsh
Active member
Build a country (aka nation building).
You know, George Bush came to office in 2000 saying he didn't believe in Nation Building. That was the one and perhaps only time I agreed with him. Nation Building does not work it didn't work in South America, it didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work with the Russians in Afghanistan, it definatly wont work in the Middle East. We can stay the next 50 years and we will be in the same sh**hole we are in now.
You simply cannot force people to change if they don't want to at gun point. The Arabs do not want a democracy, they want to pursue ethnic interests instead. We gave the a choice in 2005 elections and Constitution. Either Democracy or ethnic violence, they chose ethnic violence. Its time to go and let them sort this out themselves. We have 'helped' them enough. We might have broke Iraq, but only the Iraqis can fix it. Its unfair but its a fact.
Iran already has won. We have to accept that fact too. Unless you are willing to start WWIII (which would be very bloody) there is nothing we can do to stop their influence in the region. Hanging Saddam was the biggest gift we ever gave them, which is why the much wiser Bush Sr didn't remove him in 1991. All we can do is limit their influance, but the Genie is already out of the lamp on Iran.
The worst we can do is stay, because the longer we stay the weaker we get, the stronger they get. The US Military is already stretched to the limits. If we leave Ieave Iraq becomes Iran's and Saudi Arabia's problem, because there is no way there are going to let Al-Qaeda set up shop next door to them.
But right now both countries like America to keep doing the heavy lifting.
I am surprised you have faith in the Iraqi Government as thats probably the one area the Dems and the GOP agree on. The Malki government is at best totally dysfunctional, at worst it is actively aiding the Shiite insurgents.
You know, George Bush came to office in 2000 saying he didn't believe in Nation Building. That was the one and perhaps only time I agreed with him. Nation Building does not work it didn't work in South America, it didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work with the Russians in Afghanistan, it definatly wont work in the Middle East. We can stay the next 50 years and we will be in the same sh**hole we are in now.
You simply cannot force people to change if they don't want to at gun point. The Arabs do not want a democracy, they want to pursue ethnic interests instead. We gave the a choice in 2005 elections and Constitution. Either Democracy or ethnic violence, they chose ethnic violence. Its time to go and let them sort this out themselves. We have 'helped' them enough. We might have broke Iraq, but only the Iraqis can fix it. Its unfair but its a fact.
Iran already has won. We have to accept that fact too. Unless you are willing to start WWIII (which would be very bloody) there is nothing we can do to stop their influence in the region. Hanging Saddam was the biggest gift we ever gave them, which is why the much wiser Bush Sr didn't remove him in 1991. All we can do is limit their influance, but the Genie is already out of the lamp on Iran.
The worst we can do is stay, because the longer we stay the weaker we get, the stronger they get. The US Military is already stretched to the limits. If we leave Ieave Iraq becomes Iran's and Saudi Arabia's problem, because there is no way there are going to let Al-Qaeda set up shop next door to them.
But right now both countries like America to keep doing the heavy lifting.
I am surprised you have faith in the Iraqi Government as thats probably the one area the Dems and the GOP agree on. The Malki government is at best totally dysfunctional, at worst it is actively aiding the Shiite insurgents.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Didn't say I have faith. It's just gotta work. And if you do fail, you have to make it as difficult for the enemy as possible because that in fact, can give you a partial victory.
I hate to make a comparison but Vietnam is such an example.
North Vietnam won, but at a terrible cost.
But when North Vietnam tried to invade Cambodia after that, the war became unpopular instantly. The losses the North Vietnamese sustained during the Vietnam war had a HUGE impact on that matter. Had the North Vietnamese won a sweeping victory, that war very well could have been popular.
So either way you stay and win or you stay and you exhaust the enemy to death and make sure that's where it stops.
Personally if you ask me, I am not a huge fan of nation building either. But this is also a conflict against Al Qaeda, it's a conflict also against Iran. A war against Iran would not make a World War III, I really don't know where you pulled that out of. I don't think it's a very good idea, but it won't be a World War III. That's the sort of language people used for invasions of Iraq... Iraq... World War III... please.
In fact, maybe the best way to leave Iraq is to level Iran, then leave. At least then it'll be a draw. Might as well destroy Iran as a viable country on the way out. Then their impact on the region will probably be lessened.
But you realize by making a quick withdrawal, you are making any future confrontation even harder, right? And as long as the damn oil companies have their hands all over US politics, there WILL be another conflict.
But we are off topic.
So the conclusion is, you want the General to fail badly so that you get it your way? Is that the point? Because like I said, to change policy just change the president to someone who has your view on what to do. Then he'll order the General to pull out the men and he'll do that. And for that I'm sure you'll want a competent General because pulling out is also a tricky and hard to do operation.
I hate to make a comparison but Vietnam is such an example.
North Vietnam won, but at a terrible cost.
But when North Vietnam tried to invade Cambodia after that, the war became unpopular instantly. The losses the North Vietnamese sustained during the Vietnam war had a HUGE impact on that matter. Had the North Vietnamese won a sweeping victory, that war very well could have been popular.
So either way you stay and win or you stay and you exhaust the enemy to death and make sure that's where it stops.
Personally if you ask me, I am not a huge fan of nation building either. But this is also a conflict against Al Qaeda, it's a conflict also against Iran. A war against Iran would not make a World War III, I really don't know where you pulled that out of. I don't think it's a very good idea, but it won't be a World War III. That's the sort of language people used for invasions of Iraq... Iraq... World War III... please.
In fact, maybe the best way to leave Iraq is to level Iran, then leave. At least then it'll be a draw. Might as well destroy Iran as a viable country on the way out. Then their impact on the region will probably be lessened.
But you realize by making a quick withdrawal, you are making any future confrontation even harder, right? And as long as the damn oil companies have their hands all over US politics, there WILL be another conflict.
But we are off topic.
So the conclusion is, you want the General to fail badly so that you get it your way? Is that the point? Because like I said, to change policy just change the president to someone who has your view on what to do. Then he'll order the General to pull out the men and he'll do that. And for that I'm sure you'll want a competent General because pulling out is also a tricky and hard to do operation.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Ya know this is why vinyl records were doomed to failure they had a habit of getting stuck and usually required a nudge to get them moving again.
Anyway on this one I tend to agree with redneck as far as the consequences of losing go but at the same time I can't realistically see a winning scenario without somehow forcing the Iraqi's to step up and take over and I think that setting a departure date is about all that will force them to do something.
Anyway on this one I tend to agree with redneck as far as the consequences of losing go but at the same time I can't realistically see a winning scenario without somehow forcing the Iraqi's to step up and take over and I think that setting a departure date is about all that will force them to do something.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Someone has to try. Petraeus is willing to have a go so I think it only makes sense that people give him the support he needs. Or else that's just defeatism.
MontyB, it's natural that you do not realistically see a winning scenario or a solution. Heck even the professionals, people who make a living finding solutions to these problems are having a tough time. It'd be tough enough without the Democrats screaming for a defeat but of course that too is a factor.
But you have to try.
In history there have been many seemingly impossible situations in which either victory was achieved or at least a total disaster was averted but all these have one thing in common: perseverance.
But again, if this is really not what the public wants, then you can vote in a new president who will order an immediate pullout and then deal with the consequences of that action at a later date.
Remember, the public has the right and the freedom to choose the leader. But the public is responsible for the outcomes and consequences of their choice. That is democracy. There really is no need to go and hang a General who's doing his job. You go to the booth on election day and make your choice. If enough of the population agree with you, you're golden. If not, shut up for four years.
Personally, I don't know what's so difficult about this.
MontyB, it's natural that you do not realistically see a winning scenario or a solution. Heck even the professionals, people who make a living finding solutions to these problems are having a tough time. It'd be tough enough without the Democrats screaming for a defeat but of course that too is a factor.
But you have to try.
In history there have been many seemingly impossible situations in which either victory was achieved or at least a total disaster was averted but all these have one thing in common: perseverance.
But again, if this is really not what the public wants, then you can vote in a new president who will order an immediate pullout and then deal with the consequences of that action at a later date.
Remember, the public has the right and the freedom to choose the leader. But the public is responsible for the outcomes and consequences of their choice. That is democracy. There really is no need to go and hang a General who's doing his job. You go to the booth on election day and make your choice. If enough of the population agree with you, you're golden. If not, shut up for four years.
Personally, I don't know what's so difficult about this.
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
I think the best course of action for the United States is leave, regroup, and reinvade in 6 months with a million Combat Troops, killing Iraqis en masse.
Make the entire nation of Iraq a US Territory and set a Government up as a US Territory, giving Iraqis total Freedom from the US in about 99 years.
That would be a clear win, and the United States Taxpayer would have all that Oil.
Make the entire nation of Iraq a US Territory and set a Government up as a US Territory, giving Iraqis total Freedom from the US in about 99 years.
That would be a clear win, and the United States Taxpayer would have all that Oil.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
A possible solution might be a pull out of American troops and a substitution of them with PMCs. The Iraqi government is clearly going to take a VERY long time to get up and running. Mercenaries might be the answer to fill this void.
Plus I wasn't saying you had a problem with Petraeus, I was referring to people who had a problem with Petraeus.