I don't believe that his report was conditioned by the administration either, but you write as if you know for sure......and you don't.

That is correct and perfectly consistent with the General's testimony before Congress. Basically he told Congress what HE told his chain of command, not the other way around as has been suggested by some. What the chain of command does with his recommendations is ultimately up to the Commander In Chief.


Edited to add a response to DTOM......



No, only General Patraeus knows that for sure I suppose and that was his testimony before both houses of Congress. I know you personally don't agree with the surge strategy, you've made that clear here and as the General said in his testimony there are different opinions on it from every soldier in Iraq. Each to his own I suppose in this modern age of the Internet. I don't know for example what my nephew thinks about it because the only way we hear from him is with a pre-paid cell card that we send to him and even then it's filtered through my sister. He doesn't have internet access I guess.

What I do find somewhat disturbing though is that you would take issue with someone believing what General Patraeus said in his testimony before Congress and not take issue with those here who have branded him a traitor. That bothers me..... ALOT......



Aquilla

All I know is what the man said and as i have said numerouus times I believe him.

What I find disturbing is just as people know that Bush lied or Petraeus lied or whathaveyou, others take the same approach from the opposite angle. An argument not bolstered by facts or experience, but somehow knowing. When you state that I take no issue with people here branding him a traitor.......do you mean when I posted No.....the adjective used by MoveOn.org is another act of immature name calling, usually used when one has little to no substance to their ascribed position. in response to a poster saying the name Betrayus is a deserving acronym?

I know its hard to tell who is friend or foe and why. Personally having gone out after a cold run to confront on a basically one on one format to having that person killed later by friendly action its hard to say who is really what these days. Personally I know that most of management is sort of full of manure really when it comes down to it, of which you probably personally know but really what’s the point. AQ is the enemy that needs to be killed basically, I mean how many times have they promised death to just about everyone, but yet what is our main focus? It makes about as much sense and pushing a square peg into a round hole but time will tell if it already has not. I am with you really in arms against what seems to be a giant confusion that should not exist if things were really just amount intelligent adults you know...

Our troops matter, our people matter, so what should be the course of action, obviously bush is not right for the job, his vision is dangerous really to just about everyone in this day and age, and the American public really needs to wake up and react.

Perhaps we should reserve our judgment on the veracity of the General but the track record regarding Bush speaks for itself. He has lied repeatedly and systematically regarding Iraq and other matters. General Petraeus' testimony has been refuted by several other analysises including that of the GAO and General Jone's Commission as well as media sources. It may be that he is blinded by his own close association with the design and execution of the Surge or simply by his own self admitted ambitions. On the other hand, some others in the military don't hold him in high regard. Admiral Fallon, the new head on CENTCOM apparently dosen't.

See This Article.

The Admiral is reported preparing his own report and recommendations but our illustrious President has chosen to proceed without the benefit of this advice.

That's from here and IPS isn't a real news source. Further no one else reported this when it allegedly happened - but it suddenly surfaced for Petraeus' testimony.



So a single source who is familiar with reports of the meeting not at the meeting, not in possession of the reports of the meeting heard this in March and IPS is reporting it on the 12th.

Sorry - this story reeks.

IPSNews.com isn't even hosted on their own stuff... They hide behind their registrant... please.

WHOIS for this site:

Registrant:
America's Debate, Inc.
PO Box 10303
Savannah, Georgia 31412
United States

WHOIS for The Wall Street Journal:

Registrant:
Dow Jones & Company, Inc
P.O. Box 300
Princeton, NJ 08543-0300
US

Domain Name: WSJ.COM

WHOIS for DrudgeReport.com:

Registrant:
Drudge, Matt
Matt Drudge
1425 Brickell Avenue
#47C
Miami, FL 33131
US

Domain Name: DRUDGEREPORT.COM

****
****
And WHOIS for IPSNews.com:

Moniker Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain Name: IPSNEWS.COM

Registrant [23658]:
Moniker Privacy Services
20 SW 27 Ave
Suite 201
Pompano Beach
FL
33069
US

I've submitted a request to the authour of that article and he will hopefully address how he came upon the supposed antagonism between the two men on Monday.



Copy and paste that thought when Petraeus gaffed "I wrote this response all by myself" and especially that one line response out of Centcom. That wasn't exactly a detailed response.

Ahh but it won't matter. Even if it isn't exactly true it'll be Fake But Accurate.

Even Petraeus cannot say that the war has "made Americans safer" – and wasn’t that (one of) the justifications Bush used to take this country to war? And if he can’t say with any certainty that this war is "making America safer", then what the hell is the point of giving up another American life in the big suck that is Iraq?

Maybe part of the reason is Petraeus’ own presidential ambitions.



Petraeus may have believed every word he said, or he may be savvy enough to know that if he is to have any hope of running for president one day it wouldn't pay to PO the Commander in Chief. There’s no way to know. What I do know is that he is a loyal Bush man, and smart enough not to make any undue waves. And as anyone loyal to the lying Bush administration, there is a very real possibility that his report was mere fluff to pacify a skeptical public.

If you listened to George W. Bush last night, you might be led to believe the surge is working.

If one read a FactCheck.org article released today, entitled Operation Iraqi Gloss-Over, they must not only doubt the surge is working, but wonder if Bush knows truth from falsehood and if he does know the difference, whether or not he ever thinks he is under any obligation to tell the truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/operation_iraqi_gloss-over.html

So your test of a news source is who hosts them? The New York Times, Washington Post, and practically all other corporate media sources except the McClatchy chain swallowed and regurgitated administration propaganda about evidence for Iraqi WMDs and al Qaeda connections and bear some responsibility for getting us into the mess in Iraq. Alternative news sources like Antiwar.com, Commondreams, Truthout, Asia Times, Juan Cole, and IPS were far more correct. They have remained far more accurate than the main stream in reporting the conduct of the invasion and occupation.

If you read the IPS article you know that the (rear end) Kicking remark was only a small part of the article which was devoted to the overall disagreement between Admiral Fallon and General Petraeus. Much of the material was sourced from articles in the NYT and Washington Post. Maybe that is the part we should question?

For those interested in the International Press Service.



See their Homepage for the variety and quality of the things they cover.

No, it's for admitting who you are and not hiding behind your host. IPS is the Weekly World News of the web.

Because some might not take time to read, you know, the facts, posted by Bof, I gave the summary.

Summary
President Bush played loose with the facts in his address to the nation Thursday night as he tried to convince the American public that the surge in U.S. troops in Iraq has made the country more stable.

He said "36 nations ... have troops on the ground in Iraq." In fact, his own State Department puts the number at 25.
He said “ordinary life” was returning to Baghdad. Perhaps. In fact, news reports describe the city as starkly segregated with Shiites and Sunnis living in separate neighborhoods, which are walled off from one another with huge concrete barricades.
He said Baqubah in Diyala province was "cleared." But the Washington Post quotes a State Department official as saying the security situation there was not stable.

He said that “the Iraqi Army is becoming more capable,” which may be true. But the Iraqi defense minister says it’ll be 2012 before the army will be even 60 percent capable of protecting the nation from external threats.


Woohoo, only 5 year until almost 60percent capable.

Ya, not working is pretty evident.

1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

Over the last dew days since the Petraeus brief, I’ve had time to pore over the recent events that have occurred in my little slice of paradise here in Baghdad. All events that occur (that we know about) whether it involves US forces or not, are logged at the Tactical Operations Center. Commonly known as significant events or SIGACTS; IED’s, small arms fire, RPG fire, grenade attacks, arrests, murdered bodies found, sectarian intimidation, unexploded ordinance, etc…are all tracked and recorded and analyzed for trends and future operations. When we arrived here, the number of daily SIGACTS approached triple digits. After the various clearing operations, numerous arrests and the reform and re-institution of essential services, the number of daily SIGACTS has leveled to an average of around 15. The number of US killed and wounded from my unit has (thankfully) decreased as well, compared to the first six months.
Part of this trend can be explained as insurgents ‘testing’ the new unit on the block when we arrived. Part can be explained by the continuing segregation of Shia and Sunni. And part can be explained by effectiveness of the clearing operations themselves.
So, based on my experience, I can believe Gen. Petraeus when he submitted the statistics to congress. However, this ‘success’ has not brought about any more legitimacy to the Iraqi Government. This ‘success’ has not stemmed the corruption in the ministries or the Iraqi and National Police forces.

The security situation has improved markedly compared to six months ago, but I do not expect it to improve further. We came in strong and pushed hard, but the bottom line is, we’re tapped out. We continue steady state operations, but only another ‘surge’ would be able to completely lock down Baghdad. Another ‘surge’ is not sustainable by our military. And for what purpose? The security situation is stable enough that progress should be occurring on the political front, yet just as that stability arrived on the scene, the Iraqi Parliament left. On vacation. While their country is in flames.

All we have really accomplished is give Sunni’s breathing room to arm and prepare for the day we leave Iraq. Kudos to many them for also turning against AQI, but I believe that was generated far more by self interest than any allegiance to our cause.

Good update, DTOM, thanks for sharing it. One area of Ambassador Crocker's testimony before Congress that isn't getting much attention though is something we hit on in the debate in this thread. The "indicators" thread where I presented the dual concept of a "top down" and a "bottom up" approach to the political situation. It would appear both from Crocker's testimony and your update that while the centralized government is an abject failure in most respects, there is progress being made at the local level (bottom up). Perhaps that is the path that the Iraqi people will decide to follow? And, is that so bad?

I would think Libertarians would be heartened by the bottom up concept of government. States rights, local control, all of that is right out of the Libertarian 101 lesson plan. Could it be that Iraq might just make that concept work? Wouldn't that be something of a Libertarian utopia? Strong local governments, weak centralized government supplying only the most basic of services such as revenue sharing, border security and a national infrastructure. Could that form of a democracy work in Iraq?

On a side good news-bad news note, my nephew is home from Iraq, against his will I will add and with a Purple Heart that he doesn't want to talk about. He doesn't have to, it's pretty evident why and he'll likely receive a medical discharge from the Army in the next 6 months and move on from there. Not his choice, but when did the Army ever give a soldier their choice. At least he has a chance to move on, his best buddy from basic doesn't.

It seems to me that this surge either continues to work in the next few months, or it doesn't. If it does, great, there will be a semi-stable democratic nation in the Middle East acting as a buffer between the terrorist nations of Syria and Iran. And, that will be a good thing, a very good thing for the region and indeed for the world. If the surge falters, then it's time to get the hell out of Dodge, and not in some "bleed down". Just pack up and go and let the Sunnis and Shiites go at it. Them them, "knock yourselves out, I'm going home and you best stay the hell out of my neighborhood".

We'll see, I hope it continues to "work".


Aquilla

I don't think al-Qa'ida ever had any illusions about being able to take over all of Iraq. Their goal, by all available indications, has been to set up shop in the western, Sunni part of the country and then expand operations to Jordan, Syria, and the Peninsula. And I do think that's something that should be prevented.



The only people who "acknowledged" that "fact" are some anonymous sources quoted by the LA Times. Your link contains a link to the Times article in question, and it very much seems to contradict itself. Near the beginning, it states, referring to the General's report: "Petraeus has not told the White House where he might recommend reductions." He hasn't told the White House what the White House itself has supposedly written? This in addition to the fact that Petraeus himself made clear in his report (PDF): "At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."

There's a bit too much of a danger in relying on anonymous sources, and I think this article provides a good illustration as to why.



That analysis could itself stand some analysis. I tries to contradict the President's statement that the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, by pointing out that "the Iraqi defense minister says it’ll be 2012 before the army will be even 60 percent capable of protecting the nation from external threats." But external threats aren't the issue here. For our purposes, the more relevant question is how long it will be before they're able to handle threats to internal order. Since internal threats are generally less powerful than foreign armies, it makes sense to conclude that it would be sometime before 2012 that the Iraqi army is ready to begin taking over from us.

Hold on a minute. Bush didn't send anything, he approved the plans, personnel and supplies according to the plans developed by his military staff. Therefore, the level of troops was decided by generals and approved by Bush. Can I assume everyone that thinks Bush is a moron would want those decisions left to military officers? Since Democrats complained about shortage of troops earlier, and now that they are their, complaining the surge isn't working and can't work are liars. They can't have it both ways.

The early estimate from the field was for a much larger force than is in Iraq today.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...5-iraq-us_x.htm



The general in this case was apparently overruled by Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who reports directly to Bush.

Considering Shinseki’s original request, I think the surge is too little and way too late.

It’s convenient to just say Rummy could have sent in as many troops as we did in Gulf one but wrong. The fact is we did not have the Army in 2002 we had in 1991. Bush I started cutting troops after Gulf one and Clinton took the Army down drastically. We did not and do not now have nearly the combat troops we had in 1991 and Rummy believe the lighter force could take Iraq. They did - the Disastrous disbanding of the Iraqi army was one of the events that got us to where we are today.


The Army consists of four corps and 18 divisions. In the active Army, there are ten divisions: two forward deployed in Europe, one in Korea, one in Hawaii, and six in the continental United States. The remaining eight are Army National Guard Divisions. The U.S. Army had 28 Divisions - 18 active and 10 National Guard -- in 1991. Eight Army divisions were deployed to the Persian Gulf, just as eight Army divisions had been deployed to Korea four decades earlier. The Reagan administration boosted the Army from 14 to 16 divisions during the mid-1980s.

By the end of FY 1993 the Army consisted of 4 corps, 14 active Army divisions, and 8 National Guard divisions.

The Secretary of Defense's October 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR) recommended that the Army continue to reduce to ten fully organized active Army divisions. The BUR also recommended cutting reserve component force structure to five divisions and thirty-seven combat brigades. Fifteen of these brigades would be "enhanced" to increase readiness and improve their ability to deploy throughout the world.

In late 1994 Secretary of the Army Togo D. West Jr. and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan announced a plan to restructure the Army to encompass 10 active-duty divisions. The plan, implemented over two years, was directed by the October 1993 Bottom-Up Review. It represents the final phase in the Army's post-Cold War drawdown, stabilizing the force at 495,000 active-duty soldiers by the end of fiscal year 1996. It is one step in a journey that really began in 1989 to bring the Army down from 18 active divisions to 10, and 10 National Guard divisions to eight, and from 780,000 active-duty soldiers to 495,000. The new 10-division Army consists of four light divisions and six heavy divisions, all stationed at existing installations.




http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/age...my/division.htm

I'll ignore the rest of your post since you just cut and pasted it without quote tags or something else to distinguish it from your own sparse words.

The Bush administrtion has had 6.5 years to reverse the size of the military, most of that with a Republican Congress. Both Bujsh and Congress could probably have gotten anything they wanted immediately after 9/11. It's to the point Ted that you can't lay the failures of the Bush Administration at the feet of the Clinton Administration. That dog quit hunting long ago.

According to Bob Woodward's State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III, 2006:



Don't blame Clinton for Donald Rumsfeld's mind-set.

Blame - maybe not but the fact is the army was far smaller in 2002 and there was no way to “get back” the army we hade in 1990 for the war. This means we did not have the option to use 500,000 men.


I love this Texas phrase.





And he did and that Army took Iraq quickly. The blunders that followed were not the fault of the Army but Bremer and those who agreed to disband the Iraqi Army.

When it went to hell Rummy did not have 300,000 meant to send over to “fix” it quickly.

Good bad or indifferent Clinton – like a good Democrat – reduced the size of the Army and Bush believe (incorrectly) Rummy when he said he could do without. In any case it will take many years to grow the army we had in 1991 – and we really have not done much yet.

Our Army is now too small and we know it. This from 2006.

“By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 15, 2006; Page A01

“In particularly blunt testimony, Schoomaker said the Army began the Iraq war "flat-footed" with a $56 billion equipment shortage and 500,000 fewer soldiers than during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Echoing the warnings from the post-Vietnam War era, when Gen. Edward C. Meyer, then the Army chief of staff, decried the "hollow Army," Schoomaker said it is critical to make changes now to shore up the force for what he called a long and dangerous war.
"The Army is incapable of generating and sustaining the required forces to wage the global war on terror . . . without its components -- active, Guard and reserve -- surging together,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6121400803.html

I am no fan of L. Paul Bremer, or most of the policies that he implemented under the dubious authority of the Coalition Provisional Authority. But I believe it to be a waste of breath to blame the current woes on his disbandment of the former Iraqi Army. The Army had de facto disintegrated in the face of the American invasion in 2003. Soldiers, mostly conscripts, simply dropped their weapons, took off their uniforms and went home. And I couldn't blame them.
Those who continued the fight, were either killed, captured, or went to ground forming several nuclei of today’s insurgent cells.
The only members by and large who petitioned for any recognition of the former regimes armed forces, were some officers who had pensions to be concerned for.
There was and remains little confidence that the largely Shi’ite rank and file would return to active duty under the American occupation, and especially serving under a largely Sunni officer corps.



All the more reason to leave Iraq. There are plenty of people smarter than I who make a good case that America doesn’t need a large military structured to invade and occupy nations. If you disagree with that theory, then you must at least agree that we are not capable of responding to an actual threat to our nation, should one come from North Korea or China, for example.
The surge has proven its worth in the short run, but in the long run, it and the entire occupation have become a drain on our military’s readiness and morale. Congress can authorize additional strength in terms of manpower, but that’s meaningless if there are not enough willing recruits to fill the quota.
This current theme runs close to being off topic for this thread, so I will save my myriad of ideas ‘if I were in charge’ for the appropriate thread if one is started.

Remember when we had a military designed to fight 2 enemies at once – as we did in WWII. I guess those days are over – and you can be sure China and NK have noticed. That said I see no threat from those two right now since NK is nearly starving to death and we are a very important customer of China and vital to their economic expansion.

They are currently building up their military rapidly and I expect to see them as more of a threat in say 10 years.

The Middle East is too important to leave now and imo regardless of who is the next president we will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

It would be far easier to leave if we were say – energy independent!

I'm confused, you advocate building our military back up to cold war strength, yet you support keeping most of our military engaged in Iraq, sapping our strength and morale. How does that bring back our ability to fight a two front war?

How many more years of deaths of servicemembers do you think the public will stand for? Or the servicemembers themselves, for that matter?

Not to use this a sound box or whatever but I feel this is appropriate. I suffer from insomnia, I have attacks of paranoia in which I feel like everyone is out to get me, they mostly come with driving at night. The anxiety attacks were minor but annoying and have seemed to go away now. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night to gunshot sounds like they were in the room. When I think of this I feel weak and personally I just plan to ETS in luckily about four months. I praise all of our troops over there that can keep going and going and going. I don’t know how the U.S can really ever repay them. I experience minor horrors compared to what someone can overall. I don’t think anyone really notices this or cares to be honest, that in large a very large group of people will for lack of better words have to live that for X amount of time, which will in turn impact America and I sure at some point will even be the basis of movies. Its so easy to just say stay the course, but nobody and I mean nobody can actually speak with command and authority about Iraq, or what it will be in say a year from now. I think sometimes I am the only person that notices this, and we have hundreds of thousands of our troops for lack of better words imprisoned in such confusion.

Then what of Iraq and the people themselves? What will the return be on that culture over this? Or the middle east at large. There are so many important questions with no answers, and lastly no real leadership. Its a massive fubar all around the board with a trail of the defeated and those that were replaced and or left period. Its relation to America and the rest of the world is also quite devastating, and of course none of this has any end in sight, much like the current threat of terrorism itself.

So what’s one to think?

Iraq is a one front war and our present Army cannot even handle it. I would like to see an army capable of handling Iraq without forcing us to over extend the Army.

Weather we need the ability to fight 2 major wars at once is not my call. I am not sure we need an army at Cold War strength.

Is the surge working?
No. It may appear so on the surface, but in reality, and in my opinion, it is not working.

In the last couple of months of the almighty surge, several well organized Indirect Fire Cells, IED Cells and EJK (Extra-Judicial Killing) Cells have been disrupted or eliminated, their leaders detained or killed, and their safe havens cleared. But new figures rise to take their place. In a culture of strict obedience to the Imam, it doesn’t appear difficult to ‘persuade’ young Iraqi’s to rise up and fight Shia, or Sunni or the Americans……..even at the expense of seeing your family killed, your neighborhood decay and your country in flames.

Reconciliation continues to be a pipe dream of Iraqi’s ensconced in the International Zone and American politicians and policy makers within the Beltway. Sadr’s Shia militia continues it’s publicly abiding cease fire; while it’s Special Groups continue to kill with impunity. Sadr is apparently attempting to politically legitimize his organization as a political party, while continuing to be withdrawn from the Iraqi Government, acting instead as an opposition group. Sadr pursues a shift in the balance of Shia power away from the Badr Organization’s clerics to a nationalistic Sadarist controlled and unified Iraq, free of western influence.

The Sunni’s have incorporated themselves, by and large into national level Sunni Insurgent Councils. They seek to overcome divisions within the Sunni community to become and remain a competitive rival to Sadr and Badr, in the countryside first, eventually in Baghdad. The Sunni repudiation of Al Qaeda will likely continue, and recently the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade has been working in pursuit of common goals with American and Iraqi Army forces to clear areas of AQI.

The consolidation by both major Shia and Sunni insurgent groups may play out well in the long term for US policy, as it will be easier for us to make diplomatic overtures to both groups in the search for an eventual cease fire. But in the short term, the goal of both groups is to rid Iraq of American intervention and western influence. The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer the sectarian violence will continue. There is almost no hope, in my opinion that peace and stability will occur as long as we remain in Iraq.

The Iraqi and National Police remain a festering hotbed of corruption and infiltration. Without going into classified specifics, I have now lost count of how many entire IP stations have been disbanded and its officers detained due to their complicit involvement in IED’s or mortar/rocket fire into ours and other bases. Not to mention the kidnappings and EJK’s……..that is almost regarded as the norm now. I have similarly lost count at the number of high ranking IP/NP officers that have been arrested for various crimes, against either American of rival Iraqi forces. The last nail in the coffin of integrity is the alarming number of IED’s emplaced within visual range of IP and NP checkpoints. That this occurs is either a concrete sign of complicity or incompetence.

The surge Brigades are going to start leaving soon and the security of Baghdad will revert to the number of Brigades previously responsible for the city. Any gains made in the last six months, I believe to be unsustainable. I further believe, with the political machinations of rival factions, that many gains trumpeted are temporary at best and outright facades at worst.

The fielding of the MRAP vehicles in the coming weeks and months may provide an increased level of protection as long as we are here, but it’s really just an expensive band-aid. The morale and overall combat effectiveness of Army units has been damaged to a point that it will literally take years to recover. The surge simply extended that time frame, since I see the outcome as inevitable. Anyone who exhorts to stay the course, and stay as long as it takes has not an iota about the pain of sacrifice and long term damage, for no appreciable gain.

US casualties had been lower recently, but with the end of Ramadan, we are starting to lose more soldiers. Recently I lost one of my close friends to an IED. He leaves behind two little girls, about the same age as mine. How could I possibly ever look at them and try and explain to them that their Daddy died for a noble cause? That his sacrifice somehow will make their world a better place for them to grow up in.

And if we just pull out it will be better – or more likely a disaster?




IMO its far to late to consider pulling up stakes. The “appreciable gain” has to be measured against the disaster that would follow a pullout leaving Iraq a shambles that would allow AQ and Iran to move in, in force.

Greenspan was right – its about oil as well as security. Since the sixties our incompetent Congress and one administration after another has done squat to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. We had a spurt of effort in the 70s that quickly died as the price dropped and since then all we do in restrict drilling and refuse to fund nuclear or the development of alternatives.

Now we are stuck with even greater dependency and Iraq is right smack in the middle of more than ½ the worlds oil. We are over the barrel here imo and no sane Congress would just pull out and hope "things work out for the best”.

We will pay and pay with blood and money for out decades old energy stupidity that goes on today – to date we have not opened up drilling in Alaska or the gulf, done little for alternative energy and approved only one nuclear plant.

Meanwhile Congress is deep in partisan cow poop leading up to the election in 08 so kiss another year or 2 goodbye.

We are getting what we deserve for decades of energy stupidity and inaction while the EU leaves us in the dust.

There are two types of disasters for Iraq. One disaster is happening right now. The other disaster could occur if we pull out. Which disaster is more pressing: the one that is actually happening or the one that could theoretically happen?


Wait. You're saying that Iraq is about oil? It's not about ridding us of a "vile dictator" or democratization or WMD or imminent threats or terrorism? So, if the American people were told in the spring of 2003 that we need to invade Iraq because of oil, do you think we would have? Are you saying that we were mislead as to the reasons for invasion and occupation?


Ha ha. It's Congress' fault? That's pretty funny. No, this is Dubya's War. It will always be Dubya's War. When he leaves office, it will continue to be Dubya's War. Dubya started this war and continues this war. He will never escape his legacy. He will be used as the canonical example in history textbooks of how it is possible that the greatest military on Earth (with all its weapons, intelligence and tactical brilliance) cannot overcome the profoundly bad strategy of Dubya.

DTOM, have you seen this report from Northwest Baghdad?



edit - link to transcript of these remarks.

I'm terribly sorry about your friend.

Quote someone who feels pulling out would not be a disaster. Not even Hillary would do it.

?


It was about all of those things. Certainly if Iraq was say where North Korea is our “vital interests” would not be as strong.

Are you trying to say that the oil rich area is not vital to our interests?

And ya I say both Bush I Clinton and GW should have made this point clear. Certainly Greenspan “gets it”. Do you?



Try reading my statement. Congress and former and current administrations going back to the sixties got us here – totally dependant on foreign ME OIL- get it?

Former CIA Chief John Deutch: http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2...afx2140520.html
45% of the US public wants troops out in less than a year: http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Some Senators (Rep and Dem): http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/13/us.iraq/index.html and http://www.economist.com/world/na/displays...tory_id=9475911
Former General Batiste: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/us/13generals.html
Let's also not forget the Zogby poll from last year indicating that 72% of troops stationed in Iraq want out: http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

I could go on. I'm sure there are others on AD who have kept a whole host of links available. However, I fully anticipate you disregarding this as it is goes completely against what you want to believe.



Okay, so you're saying that the reason we invaded Iraq was because of oil, right?


I am saying that an oil rich area is not vital enough to spill American blood over. Are you posting on AD from a military base in Iraq? I doubt you are willing to make this sacrifice.


Get what?


I did read your statements. Please back them up.

Note that I do agree with you that US foreign policy has been a major factor for the rise in terrorism and general anti-Americanism. This would argue for a less antagonistic foreign policy platform, however, and not a foreign policy based on preemptive war.

Well.....if we pull out now, we'll keep soldiers from needlessly dying. How about that for starters? Add to that, we can finally begin rebuilding our military to face a possible foe who really is a threat to US national security.
Whomever rises to the top of the Iraqi dung heap, Sunni or Shia, they will sell their oil to us. That much is guaranteed, there is no use sitting on oil reserves unless one can get rich from it.

I think you are missing a couple of key points. As long as we stay in Iraq, the central government will continue to be propped up by us, and will continue to have little to no public support. Leaving us to steady a house of cards at the expense of our own countrymen.
You also believe that once we send in 'enough troops to do the job', we will see victory. This premise is based on your estimation that in around ten years, we have have built up our military to the extent to accomplish that. What you are missing is that it isn't congressional limits on military manpower that is keeping that from happening, it is the fact that people do not wish to spend most of their careers in Iraq, away from family, and getting killed or maimed. If you think that attitude will change over the next few years, you are sorely mistaken.

Iraq has emerged from decades of dictatorial rule. They are finding their way. It may not be pretty and it may not be quick, but they won't find their way any faster under an occupation. Iraq needs to find its destiny, not ours.



The only problem that I see with 'good news' stories such as this, is I have found there are trends of violence in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. VBIEDS may be down in Karada District, but up in Ameriya. Murders fall in Massafee, but rise in Bayaa. In my own little slice of paradise, the number of attacks againts US forces was fairly low over the last month, but they're picking up within the last week. We went from around 2 US KIA early September to early October, but we've lost around 8 since the beginning of the month. Reports such as these may be good indicators only if taken into context with the surrounding districts, and the overall tactical picture.

I cannot share much optimism when I see the state of affairs on the streets every day. As I alluded to before, the central government doesn't even provide much in the way of basics to its citizens. In much of my area, JAM provides fuel, medical care and garbage pick up. Why would the average Iraqi put any stock into the government? And if the government is never going to win the war for the 'hearts and minds' of it's own citizens, why are we even here?

Not my estimation – that of the commander there. Running will be a disaster and I cannot see it happening.

All we need is a regional conflict in the oil rich ME. Did you notice the stock market today? Guess what $150/barrel oil would do to out 12 trillion $ economy.

Count on the war going on until we see some level of stability there. Yes and it will cost us lives and lots of money but hell we had 40 years to deal with our dependence on oil and failed – and now that is the price we will pay.

The chance of Iraq “finding their destiny” without US guns over the next 3-5 years is zero. In fact I would be willing to bet we have bases in Iraq indefinitely.

Ted, as long as Bush puts somebody in place that will serve you absurdities, he can count on your support. In fact, most republicans in office don't have to do anything to earn your vote because all they have to do is run against a democrat.

There have been countless generals, troops (via op-ed pages), and our own roving target right here on AD that have supported what the facts show - the surge has failed. Of course, violence is down. Is it down because we were always 30,000 troops shy and this magic number turned everything around? Or is it because of Ramadan? Or is it because of the millions of Iraqis who have fled their homes giving murderous thugs there less people to kill? Or is it because so many people have been killed, there are less to kill? Maybe it's because the local militias have beaten their territories into submission and don't need to kill as many to secure their areas.

In any case, the political process is going backwards. If I were a soldier, I would be furious at the relevance you give to Al Qaida in Iraq. What you are basically saying, is that it looks like we've finally defeated an enemy that is 2% of the problem. With only 98% to go, we're well on our way to victory. After 5 years, 100's of thousands of deaths, a half trillion dollars, and 4,000 American troops, we've only managed to defeat 2% of the enemy.

But I have turned that corner and I am with you, although for different reasons. We should stay as long as it takes, and since the stakes are so high, we shouldn't allow our troops to come home. They need me to support their desire to stay there and get killed, maimed, and psychologically destroyed, so by God, I will give them all my support. I hope everyone of them stays safe and gets to go home the moment this global war on terror has ended victoriously for us. I hear everyday from intellectuals much smarter than me that they are winning, fighting for our freedoms, and making America safe, so I've reversed my call to bring the troops home. So, we need more surging and more sacrifice because even if there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000002% chance of success, we need to accept the risk to prevent situations that only exist in our heads from happening.

If only those useless liberal democrats could see things the way you and I do Ted....

And the chance of Iraq finding their destiny under a US occupation with an embattled figurehead government is also zero. The chance of Shia and Sunni reconciling while US guns are present is again, zero. Why do you think they are still fighting each other for power? Why haven't they seen the light and surrendered their arms and their turf to the Iraqi government?

The surge only delayed the inevitable at the cost of lives; lives you Ted, are only too willing to sacrifice. The status quo will return when the surge units leave, because the insurgents run Baghdad. They run the streets, they run the Ministries and they run the police. I'm still waiting for your solutions to these problems. Solutions that don't simply consist of more years, more money and more lives.

I'm sensing a fatigue and a lack of optimism that things cannot continue as they are. I've never supported the war from day one but I may switch and support Ted's ideas albeit for much different reasons.

I was amazed at the sophistication of the bomb attack in Pakistan, only hours after Benazir Bhutto entered the country. It is already being compared to Iraqi styled attacks in ruthlessness, timing and efficiency. I can't help but wonder if this is a glimpse of things to come as members espousing western values may be on the decline. What I am saying is the war polarized many moderates who may have been more accepting had this war not occurred. By continuing the surge the positions can only become more entrenched.

As an ardent non-interventionist, this is the silver lining on an otherwise dark cloud known as the theatrical war on terror. If these states can become hardened enough to resist outside influence - most notably regime change we may yet revive an old fashioned dialog. By dialog, I mean talking to people who do not support our views rather than installing those of like mind and dealing with the fallout consequences later. And that may be a good thing.

DR I disagree and so does most of the press and even Dems. So what is your plan. Run for the border and cross your fingers?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/Iraq.cfm




Is that right – so you ignore the progress in Anbar nad elsewhere? Certainly the central government needs to move faster but the progress is there and real.




And the chance for anything but a slaughter if we leave is 100%. The chance for a safe haven for AQ is 100%. The chance for regional conflict is high and the chance that it will push oil well over $100/barrel is high too. IMO the cost of leaving is far higher than running and hoping for the best.

100%.......wow, that's a pretty solid statistic coming from someone as much on the periphery of this situation as you are. I wonder what mathmatical formulation drove you to this assurance. So if we leave, you're saying that the Shia and Sunni will be bent on killing each other? I hate to inject some reality into your placid world, but that is already occurring. We are standing in between two warring factions and, I'll quote you, 'hoping for the best'.

Again you give AQI more credit than they deserve. How are they going to turn Iraq into a safe haven, when the Shia will fight them, the Sunni will fight them and the Kurds will fight them? Do you not realize that JAM Special Groups comprise more of a daily threat to US forces than AQI? Do you not realize that all of the major players in Iraq have as THE plank in their platform - to rid Iraq of western and American influence, save the ones ensconced in the IZ?

If we were to 'stay your course', we would end up destroying our military beyond repair. We do a pretty good job of dropping the hammer on the bad guys. But we do nothing to address the core issues that turn an Iraqi citizen into an insurgent, because we cannot. Iraqi's do not want our vision for Iraq. They, by and large, wish to live by the edict of the Imam and the clan chief. We can keep killing and detaining insurgents, we can keep finding cache's......but we will also keep losing American lives. And the Iraqi's don't want us here.......

I ask again, to 'stay your course' we have to have in place a stable and neutral Iraqi and National Police. How would you see that come to fruition? To 'stay your course', the Iraqi citizens would have to be served by and place trust in the central government, instead of the militias which currently serve the needs of the people. How would you see that happen?

It's quaint that you would keep sending soldiers to die, and my tax money into the abyss........but how would you actually solve any of the problems????? The surge certainly hasn't.......

DTOM, I think Ted has a valid point that total withdrawl may create a void which could be filled by an anti-american group. After watching the president for seven years it has become clear the surge is an outgrowth of ideological fervor, one that is independant of the daily realities you may experience.

Withdrawl will most likely mean an 80,000+ reserve left at various key locations withing Iraq. I am doubtful George will ever leave Iraq completely if he can help it. This will not make your life easier.

You've arrived at the point where Mr. Fisk has talked extensively, you can't go forward, and you cannot leave, you are stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq.

I would contend that there are already anti-American groups in Iraq.....they're commonly known as Iraqi's. I find the idea ridiculous of Iraq turning in to the Islamic Caliphate of Al Qeada upon our departure. Although AQI may actaully suceed where we have failed - reconciling Shia and Sunni.

As for the quagmire you speak of - ala Fisk, once we reach that point you describe, the greater long term good must be taken into account, once it is realized that the short term good cannot be realized.

I believe that if we are to sustain an occupation in Iraq for the next decade or so, as some 'believers' would have us do, then we would be forced to enact a draft. I foresee enlistments dwindling and re-enlistments declining. Retirements are already at a high, with myself being one of that number. We would face the same problems that we had to deal with post-Vietnam. It took a decade of massive spending and training to get the armed forces to the point they were by Desert Storm. Esprirt do Corps, morale, institutional knowledge and capabilities had to be restored or re-learned during that time. I do not wish that upon my military again, especially with an emerging China threat, Iran and the overall war on terror.

For all the Hannity-esque punditry, individual soldiers know full well what is happening here, we're running around like a gerbil on an exercise wheel, we move fast and we look cool, but we're not getting anywhere. Unless I see some actual solutions to some of the core problems - and soon...... pulling out of this quagmire is the only sensible thing to do.

The ideological fervor is real and tangible, and our presence doesn't diminsh it in the least. The insurgent PR campaign is much more effective than ours; it is home grown, it appeals to the common person who is not terribly savvy, and the insurgents stage incidents and aftermaths for greater effect. We - the western outsiders - cannot hope to compete for that, on this dusty stage.

This line of logic assumes that the US military has enough power currently in Iraq so that its removal will create this so-called vacuum. I don't accept this assumption and ask you to demonstrate with evidence that such a situation actually exists. And in order for this evidence to be relevant you must demonstrate how military strength as it currently deployed has (or will have) any effect on the political/social situation in Iraq (and not just the Green Zone).


Ultimately, I think you've indirectly touched on the real reason why we continue with this "surge". If we pulled out, then the Green Zone will no longer be protected. Thus, the Iraqi "government" (such as it is) will no longer function (if you can call it functioning now). A new government will quickly take its place (probably highly religious Shi'a). That government will ask the US to leave.

In other words, we continue the "surge" so that we aren't asked to leave Iraq. If we are asked to leave, then we cannot have permanent (or semi-permanent) bases in Iraq. If we cannot have bases, then we cannot have a foothold. If we cannot have a foothold, then securing Iraq's oil assets and acting as buffer to Iran will be impossible. Oh... and, of course, we create this so-called "vacuum" (which I suspect really means -- the US won't be a player in Iraq's government anymore).


No, we always have a choice. If we have no choice, then we lose. Our choice is to admit this ill-conceived campaign has been spectacularly unsuccessful and expensive. We need to pull out before any more American blood spills. Unless, of course, you're planning on enlisting, Trouble. I hear that US citizenship is on the table .

I didn't say anything about a caliphate only that the chances of installing an unfriendly group of people were high. There is an excessive aversion to talking to people who are not liked by this administration. This needs to happen but will not occur until the military is no longer able to exercise control. Change will not come until the military is no longer able to continue the present mission.

My concern is when the surge exhausts itself and the military reaches a crisis point, the air power will be unleashed at a level not seen since Cambodia. From your reports that could very well be next year.

Let's be clear, the quagmire isn't coming, it is here. I have my doubts a draft will ever be considered. I think the way of the future are independant contractors. There will be time in the near future when they will outnumber the military by a 2 to 1 ratio.



The American power has manifested itself in the wildly unpopular oil law getting pushed through. Their power in the green zone is being challenged as attacks in the green zone are up. Attacks are high enough to prohibit Iraqi mp's from attending parliament and accusations of corruption are forcing members to quit. I'm not even sure if Maliki has enough members to stay in power but I am quite sure the American presence is keeping him in power despite his loss of parliamentary standing. Maybe DTOM can provide further details. This all is dependant upon American involvment.




I think we both can agree on that. Whoever replaces Maliki is unlikely to include American involvment to the degree Mr. Maliki has. After all the investment put into the basing, do you really think we could just walk away?


To exercise that choice the opposition must demonstrate that it has oversight over the appropriations committee. So far the war has gone on without appreciable oversight in my opinion. This lack of oversight was particularly useful in establishing harsh interrogation policies which manifested at Abu Gharib. Complicating the effort are the rules for classification which prevents members who view classified material from acting on it. A significant portion of the war expenses are classified. With this in mind making the change you speak of will come from only two sources, a push from the joint chiefs of staff, or from an opposition party that manages to cut off the budget ala Dennis Kucinich. For this to occur increased oversight needs to happen as spending has approached that of WW2. The endless classification of expenses needs to addressed in such a way that does not tie senators hands.

The main difference of opinion here is that one group believes we are part of the solution while the other thinks we are part of the problem.

Everything anybody has warned about has come to fruition - chaos, civil war, ethnic cleansing, etc. Yet, the same people in charge keep moving the goalposts while people grasping at any vindication to their views look for glimmers of hope.

Our presence in Iraq is not helping - it is hurting. Al Qaida is irrelevant in Iraq because they have been rebuked by almost everyone. For the other 98% of the problem to reconcile, you need to remove the obstacles. And the biggest obstacle is us. We are fermenting deeper problems - not preventing them.

The reason some neighborhoods are in better shape now is because not as many people live there any longer. We've claimed "success" in areas where many people have been run out of their homes are have been slaughtered as if we had something to do with it.

Yes, Iraq's current pro-US, propped by the US, non-functional government of the Green Zone could not exist without the US. If the US withdraws, then that regime ceases to exist. That doesn't mean Iraq would be without a government though. Quite to the contrary, a homegrown government would arise. You could even argue that it already has in the form of the Shi'a militias controlled (or at least influenced) by Sadr. So, this vacuum is an artificial vacuum created by our own devices.


Yes, I think we could just walk away. To do otherwise is to engage in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy.


I don't disagree with anything you've stated here.

Yes hoping for the best but with lots of firepower. The Shia would have buried the Sunni years ago if we were not there. And certainly the need to come to a power sharing agreement – as in their elected government. If they cannot do this then I agree we are toast. I would still give Petraeus time to make it happen.




My impression is that JAM has stood down for the time being and AQI is still a major threat as long as they can mount mass casualty attacks – although this has been cut way doen since the Surg.






And the alternative? Show me one source that has a credible plan to just leave and not see chaos in the region.

The “central government” now has the opportunity to pull it together. And as I have said 50 times they either do that by next fall or we have a serious problem. But if you favor just pulling up stakes and leaving I disagree.

Well at least you're consistent, I'll give you that much.........the only solution you ever offer is more firepower, more lives, and more time. Next year, you'll see a light at the end of the tunnel and say, just a little more firepower, more lives and more time. Firepower doesn't reconcile Shia and Sunni. Firepower doesn't cleanse the Iraqi and National Police of corruption and insurgent infiltration. Two weeks ago we disbanded an entire IP station and detained it's officers for being absolutely complicit in the recent rocket attack into Camp Liberty. How does more firepower stop this trend from happening?




If you would have actually read what I have posted previously, JAM had announced publicly, a cease fire. However, they skirt that by having their brutal Special Groups carry on a campaign of IED's, indirect fire and sectarian violence. They pose a far greater threat than does AQI. AQI cells have been largely dismantled in the last few months.......but why oh why do our casualties continue? It's because aside from detonating the odd VBIED, they are not a major player in Iraq



The central government has had time......and done little to nothing. You do understand that for a government to function and thrive, it must have the support and trust of the people don't you? As I was awoken by yet another rocket barrage into my FOB today, we already have a serious problem Ted.

Can’t say since I am not there. Obviously the bad cops need to be weeded out. Same as here or any other country.



I never said it was all peachy there and I understand that you would just as soon pull out and let them go to hell in the proverbial hand-basket – I might feel the same way if I were there. The government has done "something" but certainly not enough.
"September 21, 2007 (WebMemo #1632)
With mounting evidence showing that the Bush Administration's surge policy has made significant military progress, the congressional debate has shifted to focus on the need for political progress toward national reconciliation in Iraq. Many opponents of the surge continue to argue that the way to force Iraqis to compromise is to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops. But such a policy is likely to have the reverse effect. A premature reduction in troops would squander hard-won gains in security, take the lid off sectarian violence, strengthen the hand of Sunni and Shia hard-liners at the expense of moderates, and set back efforts at national reconciliation. The United States must maintain enough troops in Iraq to help Iraq's young government to establish the security conditions necessary to forge a durable power-sharing agreement."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/Iraq.cfm



The reality is that our interests in the area are strong. You can bet that if this war was in the middle of Africa or South America we would have been gone by now whatever the o