• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Patraeus: Surge a Failure?

Did you catch the Congressional hearing that was on CSPAN this morning, mrbaracuda? You might have found it interesting. The opening statements are here but the transcripts come out later usually. The hearings started a couple days ago and have a few more days of testimony left.

Lt General Odom's testimony is of particular interest. I urge everyone to read it. It is really critical information.

NYTimes story
A panel of retired generals told a United States Senate committee today that sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq will do little to solve the underlying political problems in the country.

“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.

“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”...

...The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

“There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests,” he said.
Click to expand...
One of the generals in discussing the failure of the Iraqi government to step up to the plate suggested only another military strongman was likely to succeed and he was concerned Muqtada al-Sadr was looking to be the next Ayatollah. The other thing mentioned by the generals in their testimony was the fact the Iraqis are so sick of the violence they would prefer a military strongman to the current situation.


Saddam was contained. What comes next is an unknown. Just reciting the mantra that Saddam was a bad man does not make the invasion the right choice or even support the claim that things are better without him.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm ... the dispair of the democRATS seems a bit at odds with this:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/933bmtiu.asp

Iraq's Benchmarks
Who's Moving the goalposts now?
by Frederick W. Kagan
04/03/2008

AS THE REDUCTION IN violence in Iraq has become incontestable (the insistence of early critics that no such reduction was possible notwithstanding), war opponents have fallen back on their next line of defense--that the military progress has not been matched by the political progress it was supposed to enable. This talking point, however, is also outdated and invalid.

... snip ...

But critics have long dismissed these developments on the grounds that they meant nothing if the central government did not meet the key benchmarks established in 2007 as the basis for continued American support.

... snip ...

As a recent study (http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2008/0319_iraqi_politics.html ) by the U.S. Institute of Peace noted, "It may be that February 13, 2008 will be remembered as the day when Iraq's political climate began to catch up with its improved security situation--or, more to the point, when Iraqi leaders discovered the key to political compromise and reconciliation."

As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder.
Click to expand...

See the link for a detailed description of what is done and not done. The surge has worked and liberals just can't stand it. Not that they don't have enough problems as it is with democRATS showing their true colors in the battle being waged between Hillary and Obama. :)
 
Before the Iraq invasion, Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said there was no evidence the Shiites and the Sunnis would break down into fighting a civil war. His magazine reflects that degree of inaccuracy about a lot of things.

Why not try a more direct source of information like the hearings this week on this matter before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Several retired generals testified today in advance of Petraeus testifying next week.

Here's Lt General Odom's opening statement.
Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.
Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.
Click to expand...
It goes on from there with additional examples of how the surge is not working.

The other two generals had similar opinions about the surge and the need to get out as things were not going to get better with us there.
 
mrbaracuda said:
So when did those generals retire?
Click to expand...
You'll have to show they have not kept up on the Iraq situation, they have not discussed things with all their active duty colleagues, they have no interest in following what is occurring since retiring, they didn't have a good enough command of the facts before retiring to know what to be watching for in terms of progress and so on. And you really need to show why Bill Kristol would be capable of knowing better what the situation was in Iraq than these 3 retired generals.

And you'll have to consider that since retiring, they are free to speak their mind publicly as opposed to Petraeus who is hamstrung by the appearances he must keep up.

Did any of you catch Juan Williams, known right leaning political analyst, on FAUX News accusing Bill Kristol of being a less than objective "Bush cheerleader" today? Neocons eating their own is a good sign. ;)
 
Last edited:
mrbaracuda said:
Nice way to answer a simple question, lol.

Oh wait. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You mean because I anticipated the pointless point you were trying to make and addressed it before you could make it? You need merely address your original point that somehow being retired meant the three generals were not giving informed opinions.

But you can't address that point and you most certainly cannot support the claim, Bill Kristol, known erroneous opinion giver on the subject of Iraq, could possibly be more informed than these generals. Bill Kristol was never even in the military now was he? See for yourself.

Who served?

This is interesting.
Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)

* George Will, did not serve
* Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve. (However, apparently served in the Peace Corps.)
* Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
* Paul Gigot, did not serve.
* Bill Bennett, Did not serve
* Pat Buchanan, did not serve
* Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
* Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
* John Wayne, did not serve
* Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
* Bill Kristol, did not serve
* Sean Hannity, did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr, did not serve
* Antonin Scalia, did not serve
* Clarence Thomas, did not serve
* Ralph Reed, did not serve
* Michael Medved, did not serve
* Charlie Daniels, did not serve
* Ted Nugent, did not serve
* Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1)
* Radio Host Phil Hendrie, did not serve.

* Ollie North - Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at least he served.
* Charlton Heston - served in WWII, but went AWOL when Michael Moore asked him some tough questions.
* Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association - did not serve (apparently pulled lottery #97 in 1969 as a campus radical at SUNY-Albany, but weaseled out by getting a family doctor to claim he had a nervous disorder).

* James Carville, a.k.a. "Corporal Cueball" - Served in the United States Marine Corps, 1966-'68. (1)
* Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. "Kos" (leading liberal blogger) - Served in the United States Army, 1989-'92. (1)
* Randi Rhodes - enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1977 and worked stateside as a mechanic in Texas, achieving the rank of Airman First Class. (link)
Click to expand...
Not sure what to make of the Charlton Heston comment.
 
Last edited:
Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)

* George Will, did not serve
* Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve. (However, apparently served in the Peace Corps.)
* Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
* Paul Gigot, did not serve.
* Bill Bennett, Did not serve
* Pat Buchanan, did not serve
* Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
* Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
* John Wayne, did not serve
* Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
* Bill Kristol, did not serve
* Sean Hannity, did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr, did not serve
* Antonin Scalia, did not serve
* Clarence Thomas, did not serve
* Ralph Reed, did not serve
* Michael Medved, did not serve
* Charlie Daniels, did not serve
* Ted Nugent, did not serve
* Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1)
* Radio Host Phil Hendrie, did not serve.

* Ollie North - Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at least he served.
* Charlton Heston - served in WWII, but went AWOL when Michael Moore asked him some tough questions.
* Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association - did not serve (apparently pulled lottery #97 in 1969 as a campus radical at SUNY-Albany, but weaseled out by getting a family doctor to claim he had a nervous disorder).

* James Carville, a.k.a. "Corporal Cueball" - Served in the United States Marine Corps, 1966-'68. (1)
* Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. "Kos" (leading liberal blogger) - Served in the United States Army, 1989-'92. (1)
* Randi Rhodes - enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1977 and worked stateside as a mechanic in Texas, achieving the rank of Airman First Class. (link)
Click to expand...


Hey, the 102 was not being phased out of Vietnam service. Wait... you didn't mention me? Uh, forget it!
 
Well here we are, Joe Biden's big day! No doubt he's been anxiously awaiting this day for months, another day that's all about him!

Oh, what's that, you thought this was Petraeus's day? Watch and learn, see how Biden's "questions" will amount to 5 minutes of pontificating, culminating in a loaded question of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety.

Because petty politics is what's really important here. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I've seen these dog and pony shows too often before to put my money on the integrity of the US Congress.
 
Last edited:
mrbaracuda said:
Still not answering my simple question I see. :rolleyes:
You know what? Forget it.
Click to expand...
I doubt many non-Bush apologists fail to see that I very clearly answered it and you continue with this avoidance approach.

You cannot make your point now. My answer does not prevent you from making that point now does it? My answer does however take away the value of the point you were trying to make.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
...Shiites outnumber Sunnis in Iraq and al-Qaeda is mostly a Sunni group. The Sunnis getting the most attention right now for militant resistance are loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, not Bin Laden....
Click to expand...
Correction, I do know Muqtada is a Shiite and misspoke here, not to mention the bizarre grammatical construction of that second sentence.

I don't know if it is better to never review a thread and feel blissfully perfect or to find and correct these imperfections in the ever continual aim to actually reach perfection. ;)
 
WildCat said:
Not true at all! It's also a completely different strategy - for example, troops are no longer confined to a few large military bases but are spread out in many smaller bases to keep a more constant presence in problem areas. It also entails seeking the cooperation (and in many cases getting it) of insurgents and turning them to our side of the conflict. In many cases, US soldiers are fighting side by side with Iraqis who once fought them.

That the deaths among Iraqis and troops have gone down is indisputable, what needs to happen is for the Iraqis to take advantage of this situation and get the political process moving. Unfortunately, Petraeus can't do that for them.
Click to expand...
That's really smart! As if the US would've cooperated with germans and japanese who didn't have the decency to admit defeat.

I doubt that Iraq will be a decent place before Turkey joins EU (wich will make Iraq more of a problem for EU to solve.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom