Is The Surge Working? An Interview With General Petraeus

[phoenix80]

Gen. Petraeus on Iraq, the surge & war on terror



Is The Surge Working? An Interview With General Petraeus:

HH: Now stepping back a little bit from the day to day, General Petraeus, how would you explain to the civilians listening, and hundreds of thousands of them at this moment, the strategic interest of the United States at stake in Iraq?​

DP: Well, I think just first of all, we have an enormous responsibility, because of course, we did liberate this country........ So there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region.​

Read the whole thing here:Hugh Hewitt Interviews MNF-I Commander General Petraeus

 

[mmarsh]

Oh yeah, thats a real un-bias opinion you found there Pheonix01.

You didn't even need to provide the link, Patreaus wasn't appointed Iraqi War Bush lackey because of his ability to be honest. I am sure he'd say things are going 'swimmingly' (Ann Coulter's words) if he though we would believe him.

 

[03USMC]

, Patreaus wasn't appointed Iraqi War Bush lackey because of his ability to be honest. I am sure he'd say things are going 'swimmingly' (Ann Coulter's words) if he though we would believe him.

You know what I'm gonna take freakin exception to that comment.

You may not agree with the reasons the US went to Iraq-Thats Your Right

You may not agree with the policies of the Bush administration-Thats Your Right

You may not (given your oh so informed opinion and vast amount of experiance in the field) agree with the conduct of the war in Iraq- Thats Your Right

You may support a total and complete withdraw of US forces from the region- Thats your right

But. You have no right to slander and question the integrity or honesty of a General Officer just because you do not like the current Political Administration of the US.

 

[mmarsh]

You know what I'm gonna take freakin exception to that comment.

You may not agree with the reasons the US went to Iraq-Thats Your Right

You may not agree with the policies of the Bush administration-Thats Your Right

You may not (given your oh so informed opinion and vast amount of experiance in the field) agree with the conduct of the war in Iraq- Thats Your Right

You may support a total and complete withdraw of US forces from the region- Thats your right

But. You have no right to slander and question the integrity or honesty of a General Officer just because you do not like the current Political Administration of the US.

------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. I have every right. As you pointed out, I am not in the military, so I don't follow the US military code of ethics, and furthermore as General Patreaus's direct boss is now the Administration, (an Administration known for its dishonesty) which makes me doubt Gen. Patreaus truthfulness. I don't trust a single thing associated with this Administration, why should I? they've lied on just about everything. Remember Gen. Patreaus works DIRECTLY for a politician. Like all political peons, he's going to repeat whatever he's told to say. I wouldn't trust him if Bush were a Democrat neither. So yes, I have every reason to be distrustful of whatever he says. Just because he wears a uniform doesn't not mean he's the Pope, I'm sure you'll remember the Pat Tillman cover-up.

You are of course entitled to believe him if you wish, but I'm very skeptical that he'll be truthful in his August report. But I'll tell you what, as I didn't mean to offend you, if Patreaus comes out next month and says something totally contrary to the Bush Platform I will come right out here to this very thread and openly admit I was wrong about him.

Here's my prediction: I suspect his report will be 50-50 with the word 'progress' mentioned a few dozen times as usually his the case whenever the Administration talks Iraq. This will mean what it what it has before, that we are in a bloody stalemate.

And finally, if you really don't believe that the Administration would stoop to having military officers spout political propaganda on their behalf, just read what the ex-Surgeon General Admiral Carmona says:

"Richard Carmona, U.S. Surgeon General from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee Tuesday that he was not allowed to speak out on stem-cell research, sex education and other issues. He said anything he tried to say that didn't fit the administration's political agenda was ignored, marginalized, or simply buried".

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-11-voa10.cfm

 

[03USMC]

Ya know I get it. I really do. YOU DON'T LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. We all get it.

IMO given your view Mother Teresa could be appointed to a post in the Bush Administration and instantly become a running dog lackey willing to lie, cheat, steal, burn,kill and pillage at the behest of George Bush.

I have to believe that Gen. Patreaus is a bit more intelligent than you give him credit for. He had to know this would be a career killer. But hell he's got 4 stars. He knows he'll never be Chief of Staff or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Maybe he thought he could do some good.

And having served under him he takes care of the troops and thats the most important thing.

 

[phoenix80]

He is just an anti-Bush french! let it go...

 

[mmarsh]

Ya know I get it. I really do. YOU DON'T LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. We all get it.

IMO given your view Mother Teresa could be appointed to a post in the Bush Administration and instantly become a running dog lackey willing to lie, cheat, steal, burn,kill and pillage at the behest of George Bush.

I have to believe that Gen. Patreaus is a bit more intelligent than you give him credit for. He had to know this would be a career killer. But hell he's got 4 stars. He knows he'll never be Chief of Staff or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Maybe he thought he could do some good.

And having served under him he takes care of the troops and thats the most important thing.

Wouldn't happen. Mother Teresa as one of those pesky 'do-gooders' She had this habit of helping the needy and the sick which would have been considered by the Bush Administration as supporting the welfare system and supporting Universal Heath Care and therefore incompatible with their schemes to end social security and medi-care/aid. Furthermore, Mother Teresa already has a boss, one that wasn't so keen on the idea of 'soul insurance' as wanted by the HMO's, and the Administrations idea to privatize Heaven was also very badly received.

No, she wouldn't do at all. :cowb:

As for Patreaus, I sure his job change was good for his career. I just hope his new 'political' role doesn't result in many more members of the Armed Forces having their careers be cut violently short as a result. Time will tell.

I have got nothing against Patraeus himself, and I'll take your word for it that he's a good man. Still, we have seen many good men (including those in uniform) falter as a direct result of this government. That makes me worry.

 

[Marinerhodes]

Wouldn't happen. Mother Teresa as one of those pesky 'do-gooders' She had this habit of helping the needy and the sick which would have been considered by the Bush Administration as supporting the welfare system and supporting Universal Heath Care and therefore incompatible with their schemes to end social security and medi-care/aid. Furthermore, Mother Teresa already has a boss, one that wasn't so keen on the idea of 'soul insurance' as wanted by the HMO's, and the Administrations idea to privatize Heaven was also very badly received.

No, she wouldn't do at all. :cowb:

As for Patreaus, I sure his job change was good for his career. I just hope his new 'political' role doesn't result in many more members of the Armed Forces having their careers be cut violently short as a result. Time will tell.

I have got nothing against Patraeus himself, and I'll take your word for it that he's a good man. Still, we have seen many good men (including those in uniform) falter as a direct result of this government. That makes me worry.

I have to agree with 03. You have the right to your opinion. But you coming right out and saying the guy is now a liar and a cheat just because he took the job is rediculous. That would be like me saying you are a crackhead because you live in a poor neighborhood.

mmarsh, you really need to get your high horse to the stable and come on down to the fields with the rest of the joes. In almost all your posts, it seems to me, you seem to be against the government. Unless of course, it seems to me, to benefit you. Can't point at any one thing specifically but, it seems to me, the overall attitude is there.

Oops...that was just my opinion and my thoughts. Myself and others have "earned" ourselves (and yourselves) the right to express that opinion. Specifically the General in question that you so blatantly slandered in the above posts.

 

[phoenix80]

I have to agree with 03. You have the right to your opinion. But you coming right out and saying the guy is now a liar and a cheat just because he took the job is rediculous. That would be like me saying you are a crackhead because you live in a poor neighborhood.

mmarsh, you really need to get your high horse to the stable and come on down to the fields with the rest of the joes. In almost all your posts, it seems to me, you seem to be against the government. Unless of course, it seems to me, to benefit you. Can't point at any one thing specifically but, it seems to me, the overall attitude is there.

Oops...that was just my opinion and my thoughts. Myself and others have "earned" ourselves (and yourselves) the right to express that opinion. Specifically the General in question that you so blatantly slandered in the above posts.

And he doesn't know Mother Teresa too... Tell him to read Christopher Hitchens' book on her! :type:

 

[mmarsh]

MarinerRhodes

I prefer the high horse. I see much clearer that way. The rest of the 'joes'? You mean the famous 28%? Or are you talking about those who have fought in Iraq? Like these people...

http://www.ivaw.org/view/profiles

I am alittle surprised by your comment, in two years have you not discovered that am against the government? Of course I am. Its corrupt, it dishonest, its incompetent, its dangerous, and its run by the worst types of extremists imaginable. Your right the system is not benefiting me, but its not benefiting anybody but the few very well placed individuals at the top of the food chain.

We are way past Liberal vs Conservative or Republican vs Democrat. You've probably guessed I lean left. But I would glad put in the WH, a honest hardcore conservative who respects the constitution than a dishonest liberal who doesn't. I would readily seek the impeachment of any Democrat who acts they way Bush as done recently. Can some of you say the reverse? So far, not many of you. Thats the difference between me, and some of you.

The real question is not why I am against the Government (I already stated way), the question is why aren't you all?. Some of you claim to be patriots, but no patriot has sat idly by and watch their country sink into totalitarianism. I'm not a liberal (or a democrat), but the liberals are right to say that we are heading in that direction. Just read the newspaper there is a power grab going on. As a matter of fact, conservatives are FINALLY beginning to say the same thing (sooner would have been better).

This current Government's threat to our Democracy is real, but instead the sheep stand idly by make excuses and repeat the same government propaganda because they are either too intellectually lazy to inform themselves, to arrogant to admit error, to afraid to take a stand, or in the case of our Congress worse, not willing to make a political splash. That goes for BOTH parties. Whatever happen to the brave Republicans in 1972 who told another our-of-control Republican President to Resign or face Impeachment.

As for Patreaus. Patreaus might wear a uniform but HE CHOSE to work for a dishonest government. If you check the polls, the Presidents credibility is lower than a used car salesman. What do you expect me to do? Congratulate Patreaus for deciding to work for a certified liar? BTW, I didn't accuse him of being a liar or a cheat, I accused him of being a Bush sock-puppet. To me he is no different than Tony Snow, a walking mouthpiece who will recite whatever he is told to say. I don't trust Tony Snow either.

You want to talk about slander? Ok, fine. How about the vicious attacks on General Shiniski, General Odom, General Casey, or General Peter Pace (and many, many others). Pace was recently let go as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because DARED contradict some of the Bush Talking points about Iran's involvement in Iraq. I congratulate those military officers who had the guts to put whats right over their career and speak the truth against this disaster that has forsaken us.

Its funny how some of you leap to Patreaus defense, but said nothing about the other generals or government officers were thrown out like dirty linen by the people in power. At least I am consistent.

 

[03USMC]

I don't know where you get the idea that Gen. Pace resigned over the conduct of the war, or more precisely took a stance against the administration on the same.

My understanding is that the Administration was unwilling to fight an extended battle at the reconfirmation hearings for several reasons.

1. Stated that hard timelines for withdrawal of US Forces from Iraq were not a good idea and might result in "spillover" to other regions such as the 'stan.
2.Took a stance counter to Sen. Obama pubilicly in Austrailia when Obama was trading punches with the Aussie PM over Austrialias commitment to Iraq.
3.Made public statements calling homosexuality "Immoral" and pretty much refused to issue an apology public or otherwise for "personal views."
4.Was accused by members of the armed services committee of being too subserviant to the SECDEF and the administration.
5.Wrote a letter of support for Scotter Libby.

My understanding is that there was no way he was going to get recomfirmed without bloodbath so he resigned. Because the administration didn't want the headache.

 

[Gator]

You want to talk about slander? Ok, fine. How about the vicious attacks on General Shiniski, General Odom, General Casey, or General Peter Pace (and many, many others). Pace was recently let go as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because DARED contradict some of the Bush Talking points about Iran's involvement in Iraq. I congratulate those military officers who had the guts to put whats right over their career and speak the truth against this disaster that has forsaken us.

Its funny how some of you leap to Patreaus defense, but said nothing about the other generals or government officers were thrown out like dirty linen by the people in power. At least I am consistent.

Many believe (myself included) that General Wallace, former V Corps Commander, was replaced in Iraq because he said.... "The enemy we're fighting against is a bit different from the one we'd war-gamed against".

Oh, and word on the street is the reason former United States Army Chief of Staff, General Schoonmaker, had to be brought back on Active Duty just to take the job was because of a refusal by Active Duty Generals to take the job under former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

General Pace was in my opinion the worst possible pick for the CJCS, as General Pace is a Marine, and if one were allowed to pick just one reason there had never, in the history of the Nation, been a Marine to hold that job, well it would no doubt be because the United States Marine Corps is subordinate to the Department of the Navy.
The Marines are not a Service Department, the Marines are but a Corps of the United States Navy..... and yet a Marine was given the job as top man in Uniform for the entire United States Military, by Republicans, who by the looks of things do not understand the Chain of Command.

Tough luck for the Marine Corps, as General Pace, in my opinion, did not do all that well in his Post as CJCS, because of Iraq, and trouble still with the Afghan Op.
But such is life in the big city.

 

[03USMC]

Yeah. And the Army was still war gaming Fulda Gap type massive armor formations on the Soviet Model ala Desert Storm. With exception of some Ranger and SF units the Generals in the Army really didn't take into account the need to train up line units in COIN.

To put a point on it the Marine Corps is a separate branch of Service within the auspices of the Navy Dept. Not just a Corps within the Navy. Were it only a branch of the Navy it would rely upon the Navy for budgetary allocation. Congress Allots the Budget for the Corps. The Corps exists by Congressional Act. So get it right.

 

[mmarsh]

I'm relieved to see the inter-service rivalry is alive and well. People from different branches were too friendly with each other here, I was starting to worry something was wrong. :camo:

USMC03

You left out the biggie..

You might recall Peter Pace came under serious fire from his bosses (about 3-4 months ago) because he publically refuted the NEOCONS claim that captured insurgent weapons found in Iraq had Iranian Government tags on them.

And since the Bushies have been clamoring for military action against Iranian Government for months this public rebuke of the official SPIN proved rather embarrassing. Don't assume that the Bushies forgot this humiliation, they have a very long history of vindictiveness towards perceived slights (real or imagined).

 

[03USMC]

I'm relieved to see the inter-service rivalry is alive and well. People from different branches were too friendly with each other, I was starting to worry something was wrong. :camo:

USMC03

You left out the biggie..

You might recall Peter Pace came under serious fire from his bosses (about 3-4 months ago) because he publically refuted the NEOCONS claim that captured insurgent weapons found in Iraq had Iranian Government tags on them.

And since the Bushies have been clamoring for military action against Iranian Government for months this public rebuke of the official SPIN proved rather embarrassing. The Bushies have a long history of vindictiveness.

Naw he didn't refute it. He wouldn't comment on it. Happened when he was in Oz. The claim was made by Officers in country that hi-tech IED'S were being rat lined in from Iran.

Pace told the media he hadn't reviewed the report and was not aware of all the facts so he refused to comment, hence media spin that CJCS refutes Iran connections.

I highly doubt that the report made by the officers in country was totally bogus or contrived.And I don't see Pete Pace discounting said report before an investigation could etheir confirm or deny it.

FWIW: That wasn't inter-service rivalry (I wear a U.S. Army Uniform now.) That was a correction of a mis-statement of facts.

 

[mmarsh]

Actually what Pace said was while that he thought Iran was supplying weapons but that he hadnt seen the evidence to prove it. Thats a much different statement that the 'Slam Dunk' the NEOCONS were trying to force feed us.

Its similar to the Nigar yellowcake story. The Neocons tried to shove their BS theories down the throat of people, but that the guy in charge refused to play ball. When Bush+Cheney decided to ignore his conclusions and spout their lies anyway, he contradicted them. For that insolence it was decided to go after his wife.

 

[03USMC]

Actually what Pace said was while that he thought Iran was supplying weapons but that he hadnt seen the evidence to prove it. Thats a much different statement that the 'Slam Dunk' the NEOCONS were trying to force feed us.

Hmmmmm. Seems different than your intial statement that Pace fell on his sword. But okay whatever .

Once again go back to previous post and reread it. He withheld comment. And it wasn't the "NEOCONS" in some smokey backroom that came up with the report. It was officers in country who filed it and it was being investigated.

 

[Gator]

Yeah. And the Army was still war gaming Fulda Gap type massive armor formations on the Soviet Model ala Desert Storm. With exception of some Ranger and SF units the Generals in the Army really didn't take into account the need to train up line units in COIN.

To put a point on it the Marine Corps is a separate branch of Service within the auspices of the Navy Dept. Not just a Corps within the Navy. Were it only a branch of the Navy it would rely upon the Navy for budgetary allocation. Congress Allots the Budget for the Corps. The Corps exists by Congressional Act. So get it right.

The United States Marine Corps is not a Service Department, such as the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and Department of the Air Force. The United States Marine Corps is a Corps of the United States Navy.

That's just the way it goes.

In my own opinion, your open contempt of the United States Army, and to a lesser degree the United States Navy, draws into question just how well you did your job as an NCO of the United States Army, and why you are allowed to stay in Uniform.

Oh, and the United States Army (and Navy) has something much more Powerful than a Congressional Act, the United States Army (and Navy) is Constitutionally Mandated.

 

[Donkey]

Please mmarsh show me an administration that was ever honest?

On top of it please give some facts of how the current administration is a bunch of liars, more so than any other administration, or that they lied to the world about the Iraq war when most all of the world countries intelligence agencies agreed....

I mean I just don't see any substance to your arguments they seem like opinion based off of the latest BBC news cast....

 

[MontyB]

Please mmarsh show me an administration that was ever honest?

On top of it please give some facts of how the current administration is a bunch of liars, more so than any other administration, or that they lied to the world about the Iraq war when most all of the world countries intelligence agencies agreed....

I mean I just don't see any substance to your arguments they seem like opinion based off of the latest BBC news cast....

GROUND HOG DAY!!!

Seriously how often is this same argument going to be repeated before people draw the conclusion that the other side has their fingers in their ears shouting LA LA LA LA LA LA every time they get an answer they don't like.