Not really true, but close enough. lets just say they think the [possibility of 'winning' especially with a continuation of the status quo, is highly unlikely. And this would be an interesting academic argument, except for the fact that the 'stay the course' plan is getting Americans killed, and pouring tens of billions of US dollars down a hole. And the best the 'stay the course' people can advocate is 'just kill some MORE americans, and pour MORE tens of billions down a hole, and who knows, something good might happen!!

Its the insistance on killing more Americans for such a lost cause that is really shocking, and the insistance on demonising those who want to end the killing of Americans even more so.




No actually, the only similar past war is Vietnam. The war is a progressive quagmire with increasingly obvious failure written all over it, and the far-right (in diminishing numbers) keep insisting on having more Americans die and spending more money to further the total fiasco.

The second world war was 'not being won before Normandy' (actually false, but not the place for that debate) because the US and the UK were not engaged with the enemy except in relatively irrelevant sideshow fronts like North Africa and even Italy. Its not like they had been FULLY engaged for years and had been losing at every step of the way. Again to make bland attempt to compare this mess to WWII is farcical, and to ignore the FAR loser parabole in SO many ways to Vietnam is even more so.



Funny, the ISG: the bipartisan group created to solve this exact question, completely disagrees with you Ted. I think nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of the diminishing number of war supporters than the way they adored Baker and the ISG until he released a report saying something other than what they all wanted, and the subsequent demonisation and ignoring of the entire process.


Oh, and it seems I was right. Challenge assertions that Ted made-up on the fly in previous posts, and guess what happened? That's right... cut-and-run. Exactly as predicted.

Yeah, neither did Bush....oh wait...

Seems he had a different standard for Clinton.

Ya I read their ideas – pull back and let the Iraqi army sink or swim when they are clearly not ready – this would give us a nice weak position. Why would Al Sadre or anyone else want to negotiate with a government that cannot seriously oppose them.

I will trust Petreaus – if he fails I agree its over. And if the Dems put a binding pubic timetable on withdrawal I say pull out as fast as possible because there will be only chaos we start to redeploy.

Clearly you didn't. Set a timetable for withdrawal of a year to 18 months and then do everything within the power of the US within that time to build up the autority of the Iraqi government. In the meantime, with a solid withdrawal date on the table, the Iraqi government will no longer be able to use the US as a crutch and will be forced to take responsability for governing; something they have been unwilling to do so far. They also carefully examined all the alternatives and explained in great detail why they are inferior suggestions. It makes for interesting reading, I suggest you examine it.



Well then what are you complaining about? Bush Jr asked for his 6 to 8 month troop surge and got it, including all the money needed to fund it, and far more. The only person who has in ANY way stood in the way of Petreaus is Bush jr who gave him less than a third of the troops he felt would be necessary to accomplish the task. The Democrats have given him everything he asked for.




Yes, well as I have pointed out several times, that doesn't even make any sense. As you never explained why the US should take its toys and go home regardless of the consequences if Bush Jr doesn't get a universal blank cheque, it is hard to rebut further.

Again it is unfortunate you chose to cut-and-run from the remainder of the points in the last three posts, including yet another few requests for you to substantiate things you made up (we'll just add those to the list, shall we?), it would have made for a much more interesting debate...

As usual you put words in my mouth and this is why I rarely respond to you. Who said Bush wants a “blank check”. He just wants a bill that has no binding pullout date. Did he ever say he had no criteria? No – the opposite. But the Dems are interested in political position here which requires very “public” criteria. To show they are in charge of the strategy. Certainly I would expect that if Petraeus says he will have positive results by year end and the situation is the same that we should discuss why and consider other options including leaving.

So far there has been progress but results are still “mixed”.


“The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and incoming units in many parts of the city are still conducting initial, labor-intensive operations to “clear” neighborhoods before setting up patrol bases, a pillar of Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plan. Iraq’s security forces have contributed the nine battalions pledged for the Baghdad operations, and rotate those forces every 90 days.
The bases – which so far comprise 21 combat outposts and 26 joint security stations run together with Iraqi forces – are a key building block in the effort to increase security for Baghdad residents. Another part of the strategy is to wall off communities along their traditional boundaries to prevent attacks.”

http://www.thenewstribune.com/358/story/45118.html

Again, Ted, I agree that General Petraeus is a good man, but your faith in him seems a bit naive.

Like other military people in high position, he serves at the pleasure of the president, in Bush's case I'd call it "whim." This creates enormous pressure.

If Petraeus has a major disagreement with Bush, does he sacrifice himself, become a hero; does he buck the president and possibly lose his career or does he "toe-the-line" and become anothery General Betray-us, "us" meaning the American people? Maybe we neeed annother one of those WW_D things - in this case "What Would Petraeus Do?" There's an old saying about "idols having clay feet."

I personally think the Bush administration, for political reasons as always, has put Petraeus on too high a pedestal. If he falls, will they make your hero another scapegoat?

Why? What is so great about this one guy? Who is he, Erwin Rommel? But even if he were, war is war, one guy with a bunch of stars on his shoulders doesn't have the answers to it. Frankly I doubt if Rommel would have looked that good if he'd been the one that Hitler asked to hold down Yugoslavia, which is pretty much the sort of thing Petraeus has to do here.

And what makes you think there won't be another "brilliant" general after Petraeus, and another one after that? There will always be some rearrangement of the deck chairs that these guys can call a plan for victory, you know? Generals love war, for crying out loud. They're the last ones to ask whether it's time to pack it in.

The handwriting is very, very plain on the wall, it seems to me. Better to pull out now and save some American lives, not to mention money.

Oh is that why? I assumed it was because I kept calling on you to evidence the things you make up. I assumed that your inability to do so was why you never answered those portions of my posts. I assumed that because I don't put words into your mouth, I just ask you to justify the hilarious words that come out of your mouth. Those are the times you cut-and-run.

Yes, he wants no binding pullout date (though had you read the Bill just VETOed, the pullout date was not binding and allowed significant room for Bush to delay), but thats too bad. The American people and the Senate and the House want a timetable for withdrawal. The ISG advised it. The proposed timetable was carefully laid out so that it in NO WAY interfered with the 'troop surge', it would be allowed to complete the time Bush asked for, and a lot more. So what's the problem?

Bush Jr has now prevented the budget from passing, and prevented the troops from getting the money they need. His decision, and nobody elses.



Come on Ted, knock it off. They have no desire to show they are 'in charge of strategy', in fact they have been extremely careful to make sure they do not interfere at all with Bush jr's strategy (such as it is). They are answering the will of the people, the American people Ted who ELECTED them for this task. The electorate is quite strong its support of a pullout date, so for that matter are a majority of US troops on the ground in Iraq. So don't accuse the Democrats of 'playing politics'.


If the surge works or does not work, it doesn't matter as regards the withdrawal date. It will have time to finish and be long over before the pullout date arrives. This has nothing to do with the Democrats affecting strategy, and everything to do with the democrats doing what the electorate demanded they do when they were put into office.

My guess is since you hate Bush – god could not satisfy you as the general. From what he says – things like he is horrified by the state of Anbar – I kinda doubt he is a Bush mouthpiece.




He wrote the book on insurgent warfare. He seems to be smart and competent and since the solution will be as much “political” as military it helps to have a man who has the right stuff in that area as well. If he fails I see no other gereral to do “better” – do you?


Petraeus left the 24th's 19th Infantry to continue the higher education he began at West Point, earning the General George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He subsequently earned an MPA and Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1985 and 1987, respectively, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy. His doctoral dissertation, "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam", dealt with the influence of the Vietnam War on military thinking regarding the use of force. He also completed a military fellowship at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service in 1994-95, although he was called away early to serve in Haiti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

Just out of curiosity Ted, what is the name of Petraeus's book. Do you have an amazon .com link?

Have you read it or is this just talking points handed off by the Bush administration to Faux News and from Faux News to you?

Actually, there is an article from Military Review that can be downloaded through Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/Learning-counterinsu...2575&sr=8-1

I'll bet you didn't know that.

Actually it was a manual for the war college, as you no doubt know.



http://www.boston.com/news/education/highe...raeus_doctrine/

http://themoderatevoice.com/entertainment/...heavy-rucksack/



Oh I guess there is a lot I don’t know BoF. But when I fail to understand something I know I can just ask you to get it right.

Personally I think he is about as good a general as they could get for the job. I have no dispute with his qualifications at all. I just think asking him to solve this conflict is beyond his means right now. But don't ask me my opinion, lets find out from an expert on General Petreaus.... Lets ask Lt. Gen. David Petraeus!!

In his Congressional confirmation hearing, Petraeus said that would indicate a minimum of about 120,000 security forces to control the 6 million resident of Baghdad alone.

"In the Army's counterinsurgency field manual, (co-authored by Petraeus) it states that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops."


Sadly, Bush Jr gave him about a third of that. According to the counterinsurgency expert Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the surge is nowhere NEAR large enough to pacify baghdad, let along do anything about the rest of Iraq, even if commanded by Petraeus.


Perhaps it might have been wise to set up a genuinely non-partisan groups which, in full cooperation with the pentagon and senior military and political figures, could come up with the best possible way out of this quagmire. Oh wait, we did that! Pity Bush Jr, the man who set up the ISG, chose to completely ignore it when its advice did not play to his personal opinions. NOW who is playing politics with people's lives?

If we pull out quickly, take our toys and go home, then the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've cooperated with us will be slaughtered, just like the US loyalists in Vietnam and the French loyalists in Algeria, among others. The Dems, who clearly do want us out of Iraq ASAP, are not addressing this issue, among others.

As a result, I do not think the surge is a ploy but is rather our attempt at implementing a counter-insurgency strategy that ultimately will lead to our being only advisors to a 300,000 man Iraqi army/police force that will finally calm the insurgency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

Ted,

I don't dispute Petraeus's brilliance, even though I wouldn't be surprised if it were somewhat exaggerated. But I don't think that our problems in Iraq have a military solution, at least without a vastly greater infusion of U.S. manpower. Rommel could outmaneuver the British in a tank war in the desert, but this isn't a tank war, and no surprise maneuver is going to win it.

"Counterinsurgency" is an idea that's been around since Kennedy sent U.S. advisers to Vietnam, and the bottom line is that if you have a big slice of the populace totally against you, there's not much that you can do. You can stay as long as you want with your helicopters and your tanks and you can kid yourself that you're killing off the enemy, but you'll never win.

And I don't see, when the situation fails to improve in a year or so, what's to prevent another brilliant general from popping up with his plan to save the occupation. Rather than wait for Operation Recharge Batteries or whatnot, I would rather save the money of the taxpayers and the blood of the troops and admit now to the obvious fact that George Bush has lost his war.

Oh geez...a Neal Boortz talking point was destined to show up sooner or later I suppose.

But let's pretend this doom and gloom scenario is accurate. Given these stakes, why would you leave someone in charge who has gotten NOTHING (and in nothing, I mean 0% - he's been wrong 100% of the time) correct about any aspect of this invasion, has shown incompetence on levels not even fathomed before, and is too hard headed to do anything different? An election that sent a message to change course (clearly emboldening the enemy using Mr. Talking Point logic) didn't even work.

If you believe this talking point and are actually that concerned about it, it is criminal not to do anything serious to avoid it. Basically, by continuing to support Bush, you are supporting this massacre that you believe to be on the horizon.

This fiasco needs competence in a bad, bad way. Unfortunately, the republicans want power more than they want results.

OK, let's talk about death. In South Vietnam, 2,000,000 civilians died, a large number due to our shelling and bombing of "free fire zones" in a deliberate attempt to weaken the enemy's support in the countryside. In North Vietnam, a further 2,000,000 died (remember when we carpet-bombed Hanoi at Christmas time, for example?). There were 250,000 ARVN deaths, 600,000 NVA deaths, and 60,000 US deaths. These figures are all from Wikipedia. Now, how many of our "loyalists" actually existed, and how many were "slaughtered" when Saigon fell? Personally I do not know of any; I am aware that several thousand people were sentenced to "re-education" camps. I was in the service at the time and I am certainly not aware of any reports of widespread slaughter.

Perhaps you could supply some figures, but I think it is safe to say that the loss of life among US loyalists in the final days was insignificant within the total scope of that war.

In Iraq, we've already been responsible for the deaths of on the order of 100,000 people; some put it much higher. And the killing goes on. War kills people, and not only the precise ones you're shooting at. When you call in an airstrike or an attack by a helicopter gunship, the odds are good that there will be some bystanders among the dead. And what about the Iraqis shot to death because they drove a little too fast when approaching one of our checkpoints? Because they were in a house that our forces assumed to be a refuge for insurgents? Are we not responsible for these deaths?

How many "US loyalists" are there in that country? Even Maliki doesn't look like a US loyalist to me. But assuming that there are any, what's keeping them from being killed today? It isn't even a war between the US and anyone in particular, for crying out loud. It's very much a civil war with us in the middle of it. The "loyalists" over there are loyal to this cleric or to that sheik; none of them are loyal to us, and why should they be?

What is that about Algeria, a joke? You want that the French should still be in Algeria? The French themselves certainly don't.



See my above remarks to Ted about "counterinsurgency." But in any case, the current tactics are really not so different from the tactics we've been using for four years, and during that time, the insurgency has only grown stronger.

Nearly 3 million Iraqis seeking asylum outside their country isn’t a real good sign that Iraq is “under control” or even that violence is abating, and hardly an indication that the military escalation is working. Heck, at this rate, maybe all the citizens will leave the country and it will just be American troops sniping at insurgents in perpetuity.



Without violating the board’s rules by posting too many paragraphs, here’s a sample of one day’s violence since the escalation:

That’s just in Baghdad, and less than half the incidents that particular day…and only those incidents that were actually reported.

12 weeks into the escalation, and nothing has really changed. Insurgents have killed 40% more people in 2006 than in 2005, and 2007 looks to be on track to be just as bloody, if not bloodier.

A quick Google search reveals 4 more soldiers killed today, another bomber in Baghdad killed 9, a senior Iraqi government official was killed, snipers killing people...

Yep, making real progress.

I agree – there will be no US forced “military solution” and this is why Petraeus is the right man for the job. He understands that he needs to put the Iraqi government into a strong enough position to bring about an accommodation between Sunni and Shiite. Hopefully this happens sooner rather than later

I see. Apparently you consider Petraeus to be not merely a general but a sort of viceroy. Well, if he has these personal powers and skills that you assert, let him don a business suit and exercise them; he doesn't need full combat gear, and he doesn't need 15 brigades standing behind him, or three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. If the brigades and carriers could have brought about the accomodation of the Sunnis and Shiites, Iraq would be stable by now.

Look at his background. I posted it above. He understands the situation and is trying to bring about a political solution. His controversial statement referring to the Madhi Army as a “private police force” is evidence that he “gets it”.

If you know someone better – name him. But unlike Vietnam where after we left all that happened is millions lived in Communist hell to this day, Iraq is in an are vital to this country and our 12 trillion $$$ economy. So as Quick has pointed out, just picking up our marbles and going home is not as easy as just running out of South Vietnam.

Patraeus may be the *best* person for the job, but that doesn't mean it is possible to do the job. Petraeus asked for triple the number of troops to quell Bagdad -- he didn't get them. If his leadership, insights and experience are as great as you believe, then why, oh why, are his needs not being met?

This whole wait-and-lose strategy emboldens the terrorists. The Republicans who support this wait-and-lose strategy are emboldening the terrorists. If the President and pro-war Republicans cannot pony up the necessary troops to police Iraq, then they are tacitly supporting the terrorists by taking half measures.

He did not and has not asked for more troops for the serge. That quote was from well in the past and taken out of context to the serge (naturally).


BAGHDAD -- General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said yesterday that he would examine "some months" from now whether to seek an extension of the administration's troop increase, and that he had no plans to request additional forces.

Troops

Not so fast Ted.

The Boston Globe article you linked us to is dated March 9.

On March 16, one week later, the Globe published an update that said Petraeus would indeed seek more troops.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...rigade_in_iraq/.

Firstly, you are mistaken he did ask for more troops. Your article is simply out of date.

EDIT to add: I see BoF got there first, with a link. Thank you.


This is apart from the fact that , as you say Ted, he wrote the book in Counterinsurgency, and IN that book he stated quite clearly that it would take an absolute minimum of 120,000 troops to pacify baghdad for the SHORT term, to say nothing of the rest of the country.

So explain it to us Ted, you idolise the man, well, was he right when he wrote the book on counterinsurgency? Was he your idol when he said you could not pacity baghdad with less than a minimum of 120,000 troops? Cause it seems to me Bush Jr gave him about a third of that amount.



Making things up again Ted? Vietnam has been a free-market economy since 1986 and currently has the fastest growin economy in the entirety of Asia.




That is an odd thing to say considering YOU have been advocating this very strategy as the only alternative to the status quo.


So I guess you still won't be evidencing all those wild assertions you have previously made, despite repeated requests that you do so? Unsurprising...

You are correct – ha asked for ang gor the 3,000 troops. I was referring to the dated info posted by V which was from at least 2 years ago and not related to this mission.




What I have said is if we plan on hiding in compounds as Iraq goes in the tank it is better to just leave. We could have stayed to watch South Vietnam fall if we had wanted to as well but chose to get out.

There was a new article on MSN this morning that presented another downside of the surge. Rotating soldiers into battle without the normal downtime and retraining might well be contributing to a worsening of post traumatic stress disorder.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18488585/

I didn't realise that was referring to my statements. So now you are asserting that his earlier comment that pacifying Baghdad would take an absolute minimum of 120,000 troops was 'well in the past and out of context'? Ted, that's just plain silly. It wasn't 'well in the past' at all, in fact I bet real money at the time you wrote that comment you had NO idea when he wrote that and just made the comment up, and the comment of it being 'out of context' is hysterical.

How could it possibly be 'out of context'? he laid out in a co-authored standard text on counter-insurgency operations a series of rules and basic principles on how to enforce and maintain order in a heavy insurgency situation. His formula very clearly and very simply calls for an absolute minimum of 120,000 troops for a city such as Baghdad. How in the name of all that is holy could that possibly be considered 'out of context'?

I think you had better justify that comment Ted and explain it more than your glib one-line dismissal which did nothing but reveal you had never read the work you ere dismissing. After all YOU are the one who has been going on and on and on and on about how Petreaus 'wrote the book' on counter-insurgency. Well, you are right, he did. The standard army manual on the topic. Now you are claiming that what he wrote IN the book is 'old and out of context'? You can't even seem to make up your mind as to weither you trust the guy or not. He's your idol in a dozen posts, except when his direct work and specific comments disagree with your opinion, then suddenly his comments are 'old and out of context'? (They are in fact recent and could not possibly be more IN context)


Somehow (saldly) I get the sneaking suspicion you will make no effort whatsoever to justify those comments, and cut-and-run as always. However, I sincerely hope very much I am mistaken...

Ted,

I know you don’t like polls unless Republicans organizations conduct them, but a Newsweek poll released today (May 5th), indicates that Bush is in real trouble with the public on Iraq - despite General Petraeus.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

Since, when have polls ever mattered to this president? Don't you think, that if he was really concerned about polls, he would have looked at the ones before the mid-term election. Then radically changed course in order to stave off an election defeat? Look at the Rumsfeld situation. Why, would he have waited till after the election to fire his grossly unpopular SecDef, when he could have done it before and helped his cause? Does that sound like somebody closely watching the polls?
http://blog.myspace.com/themightygwinn

So when was it said? Yes out of context, in the past, not relevant – pick one. The man seems honest and I will take him for his word – although you never will it seem – unless of course his “word” is years old.

Note: I deleted the My Space page link in the material I quoted above, because it was irrelevance to this question at hand.

What makes you think I linked this poll with Bush in mind? It is rather obvious that Bush doesn't care what his bosses, the American people, think. The poll, however, may tell us something about what happens in the 2008 election cycle, something I'm sure some Republicans, DR excepted, don't want to hear. I have a conservative friend who thinks Republicans may have done better in 2006, if Bush had fired Rumsfield sooner. The poll was more for Ted's information than anything else. As far as I know, Bush isn't on this board. He probably doesn't care what any of us think, either.

An Update

Here’s still more evidence that the surge is not working. Please notice the carnage in the picture at the top of the link. Maybe Gen. Petraeus could give his assessment early – you know, expedite things.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18515265/

Ted this is the absolute worst example of you just making things up on the fly. It's clear you never looked at the book and have no idea when it was written or what the context was, you just made up the dismissive statements 'old and out of context' off the top of your head based on absolutely nothing.

Let's look at your absurd dismissal, shall we?

'out of context': Despite being the person who stated again and aganin and again that Petraeus was the man who 'wrote the book' on counter-insurgency, you now DISMISS what the book SAYS about Iraq out of hand. That's just baffling. So please, if the book is 'out-of-context', then can you please explain how that is so? Can you please explain what context it is in and how that does not apply to Iraq?

Let me give you a hand Ted, since you have clearly never read or even looked up the book. It is "Counterinsurgency", US Army Field Manual 3-24. Co written by D.H. Petraeus and James F. Amos. That's right Ted, it is the US Army primary field manual on how to conduct counter-insurgency operations in a foreign country. Not only is that incredibly IN context, but for heaven's sake the book itself actually USES the situation in Iraq as an example and a tactical lesson. It's not just a general fielfbook (which would be still supremely relevant) it actually cites this Iraq war IN SPECIFIC in its pages. It cites commanders on the ground in Iraq, it points to specific operational failures in Iraq, it deals with both Iraq and Afghanistan at great length and in great detail. Not only that, he focusses on previous 'local troop escalations' carried out in half a dozen places in Iraq in the past 4 years, and their methodology and failures. (Because these local 'troop surges' have ALWAYS failed in the long term every time they have been used in Iraq before...)

So please Ted, let us all know you weren't just making this silly comment up, and show us how this book is 'out of context'.


'old', or 'out of date'. This is even more hilarious. You dismiss Petraeus's book several times with hilarious statements like 'only listen if it is years old', or the like. What makes these hilarious is that it is obvious you are making them up without even going to the effort of looking the book up and seeing when it was written. If you had, you would not make such ill-considered comments: Petraeus's book 'Counterinsurgency' was published by the Headquarters: 'Department of the Army' in December 2006. Not decades ago, not years ago, not even a single year ago: FIVE MONTHS AGO.

So please Ted, let us all know you weren't just making this silly comment up, and show us how this book is 'years old' and 'out of date'.


Here is a link to his work, since you have obviously never looked it up or seen it before now: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

I have never seen more obvious proof of you just making things up on the fly than this Ted. Having been caught doing it SO many times, one wonders why you still do it in your posts so frequently...



ANYways, going back to the original point, now that was have made abundantly clear that Petraeus's text is neither old nor out of context, in this book he lays out clear guidelines for active counter-insurgency oprations, and states that to pacify a region like Baghdad would require an [u]absolute minimum[/i] of 120,000 troops, preferably more. So since this is HIS words, since he IS the absolute expert as you repeat yourself, how do you explain your continued blind optimism in face not only of the daily news showing its lack of sucess, but more importantly the clear-cut words of its commander (who you idolise) stating he currently has been provided by Bush Jr. about a THIRD of the troops he feels would be the absolute minimum required to do the job?

Please explain your statements to us Ted, we are all waiting. Or will this be yet another cut-and-run moment?




You are correct, it is obvious Bush Jr doesn't care one whit for the will of the people, after all the polls of the American people are overwhelmingly for him withdrawing or setting a strict timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Polls of US troops IN Iraq also agree, as do polls of what the Iraqi people want.

But its far worse than that. Ignoring dozens of consistent opinion polls is one thing, he is also ignoring the very group he set up to come to a solution on the Iraq problem, the 'Iraq Study roup', a bipartisan committee which consulted with all the military experts before releasing its well sructured and careful recommendations. The result, Bush Jr totally blanked them, ignored everything they had to say and ent off on his own personal strategy: the same action whcih got the war into such an unpleasant failure in the first place.

The most honest thing I've read is from Gen. Lynch, who predicts more casualties. Pretty safe prediction IMHO. The surge is - not - working. Nothing has changed. Bombers still occur in the so-called "safe" green zone. Bombings and dying occur with horrific regularity. Iraqis are fleeing their country in droves.

This is from a gentleman from the U.S. Agency for International Development’s National Capacity Development Project:


And this assessment from William Buckley:

Bottom line - the surge is not working, and in reality, cannot work. Bush is just killing time (and American troops and Iraqi citizens) until he leaves office and dumps the whole mess on someone else.

The context has much to do with the year doesn’t it??? The book is about tactics, and he has said he can do the job with 25,000 or so men. Can you let the man do his job for god sake.

We do not need any more “armchair generals”.

The book is about counterinsurgency, and in the book he explains (in great detail, if you bothered to read it) how you cannot pacify Baghdad with fewer than 120,000 troops. This is HIS book, published just 5 months ago. Perhaps you could explain to us all how the 'context' of counterinsurgency in Iraq has changed so much? You keep insisting on this point but seem (unsurprisingly) reluctant to explain or justify it. Shall I just add that to the list of made-up arguments of yours we are waiting for explanation or justification? It's getting fairly long...



Forgive me, but Petraeus is no armchair general Ted he is YOUR idol. and these are HIS words and argu,ents I am repeating. We have a situation where the troop escalation in Iraq, vastly unpopular with everyone involved, has made little to no progress whatsoever in Iraq. It's still ongoing, but signs so far are truly abysmal. When we look for reasons for this failure, we find the 'Counterinsurgency' army manual written by Petraues, explaining why it is failing, and why it will likely continue to fail: because Bush Jr gave the general less than half the absolute minimum number of troops he felt he needed to accomplish the task. The ISG, which also examined the idea of troop escalation, also came to very similar conclusions as to why it would not work.

Now if this were an academic excercise, I'd just wait until the end of summer and then watch you try and wiggle out of admitting that the surge has been a failure. Sadly its not an academic excersise, and every month hundreds of Americans are killed and wounded, and thousands of Iraqis join them. You seem astonishingly unconcerned about the lives of your own countrymen, to say nothing of their opinions.


Still, I should not be too hard on you: you have openly admitted here that if the violence has not substantially abated by end of summer beginning of Autumn, Bush and his 'troop surge' will have been a complete failure: another in a long list in this awful war. I wonder then if your Jonestownian devotion to him will have cracked enough to allow you to consider alternatives even if (gasp!) they don't conform to your world view, or come from members of the far-right...


This debate has nothing to do with Amchair generals, it has to do with getting the best possible outcome from Iraq which saves the most lives: and that (ironically) is what the ISG was set up to figure out. Pity the far-right ignored (and even demonised) it as soon as it released its findings...

First of all, sorry that I didn't respond to you earlier Ted. I was kind of busy the last few days.
You point out to an important aspect in regard to the Iraq war. It is obvious that the Iraqi society has fallen in disarray and daily life and politics are continuously disrupted by rivalries between ethnic groups, religious groups and clans. It is also obvious that the U.S. has no control over the situation in Iraq and the current administration is rapidly loosing support at home to continue this military campaign. The war (I am not even sure if you can call it that any longer, it looks more like a failing peace keeping campaign to me at this stage) will end, U.S. soldiers will return in the near future and in all probability without solving any real problems in Iraq. Whether or not there is (should be) a public pull out date is in essence irrelevant. (this whole pull out date debate is nothing more than political manouevring, it does not change the fact that the U.S. is just not able to pacify and stabilize the situation in Iraq)

A more important aspect of this Iraq war lies in the future consequences for your own country. Iraq, unfortunately, is lost (like many other countries that have suffered the same in the past), but what damage will this have on the U.S. and its standing as the most powerfull country in the world? And what effect will this have on the stability in the world in the future? You said it yourself; "To say that a country with the largest military in the history of the world, cannot win in Iraq says bad things about our capabilities." The war in Iraq has undoubtably showed the rest of the world that the once presumed almighty U.S. has its weaknesses and is not so almighty after all. The damage is already done.



I agree. This is exactly what Bush is trying to do at the moment (as a fact it is probably his only sensible personal and political option). Leave it for someone else to clean up the mess you have made yourself. It is just politics as usual.

Editted to add:

I have no clue what happened to Ted's quote I used. It is all messed up (I did not put those euro signs on purpose in the text). (Mike?)

Here is the original quote:

Petraeus is your idol Ted, but I think you would support Bush if he put Taylor Hicks in charge of combat operations in Iraq.

It seems one U. S. General predicts casualty rates will climb in Iraq.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...story?track=rss

If casualty rates continue to climb, as Gen. Lynch predics, then sometime around September Petraeus will be faced with an interesting dillema - tell the truth or try to make a case that increased deaths are a sure sign the surge has worked.

If he tells the truth, he might be forced to retire a three star general - not a bad option. If he's a "good boy" and trys to make Busy look good, he might get a fourth star.

A
Yes I agree and now maybe it will be time top let the rest of the world – the ones that sat on their butts while Saddam flaunted the UN to take over the role of peace keeper and protector of the worlds oil. As far as Darfur and all of Africa and any other hole – lets let the rest of you folks in the UN have some fun with it. Don’t call us – we will call you.

Unfortunately because we are hopelessly tied to oil from the ME (and Israel) we are doomed to be involved there forever.




I believe Petraeus said that as well. Certainly if you go from a protected position to the field you can expect this. If it brings a favorable political solution it will be worth it.

Out of curiosity, what happens if it doesn't bring a favorable political solution? Do you believe it still would be worth it?

At some point IMO we would need to “settle” for the best political solution we can bring about short of precipitously pulling out and allowing chaos to ensue. Hopefully that will involve an Iraq with a democratic government.

If we pull out too soon IMO we will have an Iraq run by a Shiite dictatorship and aligned with Iran. Or the country will split into 3 pieces after much bloodshed. One thing I think we can be sure of is that the Kurds and the Sunni will not submit quietly to a Shea dictatorship and Imo other Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria my get involved to prevent it. Could be a monumental mess - right in the middle of more than 1/2 the worlds oil.

Understood. My question though was this. If the political situation turns out unfavorably, would you then believe this Iraq adventure (or, more narrowly, the escalation) was not worth it?


Iraq is a monumental mess right now. Note that a democratic theocracy would likely be a worse outcome for the US yet perhaps a peaceful one for Iraq itself.

As long as the Kurds remain relatively independent, then they won't have a big issue with a Shea dictatorship. The Sunnis will never accede to a Shea dominated government, be it a dictatorship or a democracy. Also, other neighboring countries are already involved; their involvement will only increase.

I more or less agree with you here Ted, unfortunately I have the feeling that no matter what the U.S. forces in Iraq and the U.S. administration at home will try to change the situation for the better the Iraqi society is already hopelessly lost. U.S. troops can leave now or somewhere in the near future (the whole time-table debate), but it probably has little influence on how things will evolve in Iraq in the future. Perhaps the best thing is to wait from a distance (outside of the country) untill the fighting factions in Iraq will get tired of the violent struggle and war. Only then there will be room for a pragmatic attitude for solving this awful situation. In the mean time I believe it is better for the U.S. to stop spending so much money and manpower (lives) for a cause that can never be won.

No. But sitting in the protected “green zone” while the city is taken over and the mission goes to hell never made much sense to me. Until we can get the Iraqi army up to speed and/or we get a political solution we need to keep fighting IMO.





It is possible the Shea will try to keep the Kurds in and a bloody war erupts. As you say it is nearly certain a bloody Sunni – Shea war would develop and be far worse than what we see now. IMO the Shea would massacre the Sunni many of whom would fight to the death and rest would run from the country. The new Shea majority might even invite Iran in to help slaughter the Sunni minority.

Needless to say a spreading conflict could force oil well over $100/barrel.





This would insure the result we would least like – that is Iraq as a client state of Iran. They could then go right back to the WMD programs and be a future threat in the area.

Just so I completely understand. You're saying that if Iraq has either a favorable or an unfavorable political outcome, it will still be worth it to you, correct? I guess I'm confused as to why you wrote this:


Because it seems to me that Iraq is "worth it" to you whether or not the outcome is favorable. Perhaps, you can explain this in more detail?


Ironically, this is exactly what's happening now between Suni and Shea. There is in fact a bloody war growing in bloodiness every day, with increasing numbers of refugees (particularly Sunni) fleeing Iraq. We have a name for this: ethnic cleansing. However, I doubt Iran is interested in slaughtering anyone, even Sunnis. Iran wants Iraq to be a vassal state -- a desire that seems more of a reality every day.


Iraq right now is not a significant player in the overall oil market. If all the oil stopped flowing from Iraq, the price of oil would not change significantly -- mostly because other countries would increase their production. I will agree that a larger ME conflict would disrupt supplies moving oil closer to the $100/barrel mark. Still, other oil extraction technologies become economically viable at certain per-barrel price points acting to keep prices lower than they would otherwise, such as Canadian oil sands and US oil shale.

Update:

Apparently there was a meeting at the White House yesterday in which eleven Republican lawmakers drew a line in the sand for Bush. Ah, maybe this is Bush's Alamo.

Was this:

11 Republican Congressmen : George W. Bush :: Barry Goldwater : Richard Nixon?

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&a...sn.com/&fg=

You mean another Alamo. Bush jr has been sent so many signals and given so many clear messages and told so many times... Remember how they used to call Clinton 'slick Willy' for his way of talking his way out of difficult situations? he was an amateur.

Let us not forget that it was a Republican party revolt before the Mid-terms which forced Bush Jr to 'consider alternative strategies' and set up the Bi-partisan ISG committee to deal with the issue. He dealt with that 'Alamo' by ignoring everything they had to say.

Then we have the mid-term elections, a clear rebuttal of the Party, the leader and the policies which have marked them both the last 4 years: he dealt with that 'Alamo' by ignoring them completely.

Then there are years of polls, showing that Bush Jr's popularity rating hasn't been above 35% for almost 2 years now, that the majority of people in the US feel going into Iraq was a mistake, and a LARGE majority feel the Republicans have mishandled the war and want either an immediate or scheduled pullout of Iraq. He dealt with that 'Alamo' by ignoring everything they had to say.

Then there was the Generals revolt, when over a dozen of the United States's most outstanding retired military commanders, all generals, wrote to Bush explaining how the war had been horribly mishandled, that there needed to be an entirely new strategic direction for the conflict, and that the errors and blunders had and would continue to have a serious destabilising effect on the Midle East. He dealt with that 'Alamo' by ignoring everything they had to say.


I strongly suspect that Bush will placate this latest Republican revolt by calming words and signs of compromise, then when they are out of the office, ignore everything they had to say. The man is simply incapable of even considering the possibility that his personal off-the-cuff opinion isn't the divine truth, no matter what anyone else says...

PLEASE don't compare GW to Nixon. Nixon was actually a half-way decent president who just got caught up in scandal. (remember... he was the one who began the withdrawl from Vietnam/ that Kennedy got us in to/he and LBJ passed a ton of civil rights law, etc). GW... well... umm.. can't read a cue card on American Idol without making the leader of the known free world sound like a 3rd grader.

I knew of three or four generals that spoke out but I didn't think there were a 'dozen'. Can you substantiate that with a link?

You clearly did not read the NY Times article I cited; you now need to register to do so, but it is worth reading (and has nothing to do with Neal Boortz).

Our entire philosopy is so different, I hardly know where to start.

First, I am not so worried about people we kill in combat, even if civilians, so long as we are not overtly trying to wipe out civilians in a terrorist manner, i.e. attacking targets with no military value. If the cause is to our benefit, then such killing is an inevitable part of making war.

However, if the new army, police and govt officials get harmed or dispatched after we turn tail and leave, what is going to happen the next time we ask for cooperation in a nation where we are at war, be it hot or cold? I can assure you, anyone who cooperated with our program in any way will be brought to task. When you ask people to buy into a program like this, you must succeed and finish the job or else you are killing your credibility for the future.

Second, as far as Algeria is concerned, the French won on the battlefield, but lost politically, much like we are doing now and did in Vietnam. I do not care why they were there; if the French thought it in their national interest to be there, fine; the point is from a tactical perspective, they left and their loyalists were killed by Muslim nationalists.

Here are a few key quotes from the NYT article I cited by Arthur Herman, an author who has taught history at George Mason and Georgetown:

"There [in Algeria], French troops and a beleaguered local government faced an insurgency mounted by Muslim extremists who had managed to gain the upper hand."

After weeks of hard fighting, Massu and his paratroopers broke the back of the insurgency in the city, installing a block-by-block intelligence network that kept the FLN on the run and encouraged moderate Muslims to step forward. Indeed, the 1957 battle for Algiers marked a crucial turning point in the fight against the FLN. By 1959, Galula's principles had been extended across Algeria. Some 600 "specialized administrative sections" were set up, each headed by army officers to oversee civil as well as military affairs.... Helping to put the guerrillas on the defensive were such tactics as the division of troops into "static" and "mobile" units to deal with terrorist outbreaks; the use of helicopters for counterinsurgency operations; and construction of a 200-mile, 8-foot-high electric fence (the so-called Morice Line), which shut down the FLN's sources of support from neighboring Tunisia. By January 1960, the war that many had considered lost three years earlier was virtually won. "

"The result [of the French pullout from political pressure at home] was the massive flight of Algerian whites and, at home, a bloodbath as FLN terrorists put to death tens of thousands of Muslim Algerians who had been loyal to the French regime. Soldiers who had fought alongside the French were forced to swallow their medals before they were shot. "


The problem with the typical Iraqi war critic I hear is that they do not realize we have created a bad situation, and have NO OPTION but to fix it--our national credibility is at stake for decades into the future; that they do not realize this is but a battle in a very long war with Muslim extremists, a new "cold" war if you will that will sometimes turn hot; and that they do not have any viable alternatives but "getting our troops out of harm's way", running home, which does nothing to stamp out Muslim extremism and terrorist activities in a part of the world where we must have influence.

While this may have not been the right battle to fight in our long and continuing war with Muslim extremists, and while it may have been mishandled, we are pregnant now and we must deliver the baby--we cannot turn and run. No one can give any good argument on how we do get out, unless and until the insurgency is broken and the new govt has taken charge. This may not be as far into the future as you believe, but it will likely take another 24 months for the French "Algerian" style tactics Petraeus is using now to bear fruit, at which time we can began revisiting the number of and tactics of our troops in Iraq.

I think quite to the contrary you will find most Iraq war critics understand all too well the stakes for US credibility as well as dealing with extremism. Many understand that we have "NO OPTION". However, the "NO OPTION" they see is that there is *nothing* positive we can do militarily in Iraq. They see the battle as lost. Most everyone wants "success" in Iraq (whatever that means now), but the Iraq war critic believes that the damage is already done; that all we can do now is to mitigate our losses.