Fncking over and killing the US military until 20 Jan 2009

[boutons_]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/06/june_17_petraeus_hints_iraq_su.html?hpid=news-col-blogs


June 17: Petraeus hints Iraq "surge" may be needed longer

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said he does not expect the "surge" of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to finish their job by September, a critical month when lawmakers expect a clear read on whether the larger troop presence is having an effect.

"Fox News" Host Chris Wallace asked Petraeus, "You surely don't think the job would be done by the surge by September?"

"I do not, no," Petraeus replied. "We have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007 ... was substantial."

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/06/17/PH2007061700526.jpg
General David Petraeus (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
Petraeus also did not dispute reports indicating he might want to extend the troop increase into next year, simply calling them "premature."

=================


The dubya/dickhead/Repug strategy is NOT to withdraw from Iraq befor 20 Jan 2009, so the Repugs can then blame the eventual withdrawal from Iraq on the Dems who will take the Exec 20 Jan 2009.

Iraq was NEVER about US security, nor WMD, nor terrorism, but about oil.

Now that the oil for US/UK oilcos receding into unreachability, Iraq is exclusively about saving face and legacy of dubya/dickhead/neo-cunts/Repugs, no matter what it costs to the US military and treasury. 1000s more US dead, 100s more of $Bs wasted.

All you right-wing dumbfucks care about is smoke-screen distractions and pissing on Gore, Sheehan, Moore, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

Petraeus' strategy could end up being much different from what Congress actually approves going into the next election.

[Nbadan]

In a long string of bad choices by this adminstration going back to day 1 of the invasion, Petraeus has been a decent choice, but he won't get enough time by the politicos trying to save their own skins.

[boutons_]

"politicos trying to save their own skins"

The Repug Exec politicos trying to escape responsibility for the already-lost Iraq bullshit and their own legacies will give him all the time they have: until 20 Jan 2009.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Im just curious, now i know i hear about a new strategy from the white house and this Petraeus guy a lot...my problem is, i really dont know what that strategy is...do any of you.

Im not being a smart ass here, i really just want to know the actual strategy the pentagon has for iraq right now.

[Yonivore]

Im just curious, now i know i hear about a new strategy from the white house and this Petraeus guy a lot...my problem is, i really dont know what that strategy is...do any of you.

Im not being a smart ass here, i really just want to know the actual strategy the pentagon has for iraq right now.
Why? Are you engaged in executing the strategy?

I think the problem has been, to a large degree, that too many people who have absolutely no need to know have demanded to know how we are going to fight this war.

Either it is a just war and those who are charged with prosecuting it should be left to do so, or; it is an unjust war and those who believe so should work to stop it. Chewing over the particular strategy is not working toward either of those objectives.

[boutons_]

"should be left to do so,"

That has worked out wonderfully, hasn't it?

[Thunder Dan]

It has taken our leaders longer to secure the road in Iraq from the airpot to Bagdad than it took our leaders to finish the Axis powers in WWII. It might be time for a change

[ChumpDumper]

Why? Are you engaged in executing the strategy?

I think the problem has been, to a large degree, that too many people who have absolutely no need to know have demanded to know how we are going to fight this war.

Either it is a just war and those who are charged with prosecuting it should be left to do so, or; it is an unjust war and those who believe so should work to stop it. Chewing over the particular strategy is not working toward either of those objectives.That's the absolute stupidest thing you have ever said about this war, Yoni -- and you've been impressively and constantly stupid for over four years. There are right and wrong ways to fight any war, and definitely right and wrong ways to conduct a counterinsurgency. The simple fact is that Bush, Rumsfeld and Franks paid very little attention to what could happen after removing Saddam from Iraq. They did not allow for the possibility of an insurgency at all much less prepare for one, and their choice of a severely underqualified Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez to take over in 2003 and his resulting tenure was a disaster that is now used as a cautionary tale in military colleges.

Petraeus has an MPA and a PhD in International Relations and most importantly was one of the surprisingly few generals with a deep knowledge of the history of and strategies and tactics involved in counterinsurgencies. He knew that once Saddam was gone the rules and goals of military action would have to change. Since no guidance was forthcoming from Sanchez or Rumsfeld, he took the initiative to implement many counterinsurgency methods himself and trained the officers under him in their use. Then-Colonel James Mattis of the Marines was planning much the same thing when his division was moving into Fallujah, but his plans were foiled when those stupid contractors got killed and strung up on the bridge, causing Bush and Rummy to order a full-scale assault on the city.

Petraeus led the 101st Airborne in several successful military operations during the war, but he gained notice for the relatively peaceful occupation and rebuilding of Mosul and Ninevah using many of the counterinsurgecy tactics he spent years studying. After the 101st was rotated out (and Ninevah went to shit soon afterwards BTW), Petraeus was put in charge of training Iraqi security forces with mixed results, since the special forces that would normally do this kind of work were never allowed to; regular drill instructors and contractors were used. Nevertheless, the Iraqi security forces numbers went from near zero to a much more substantial number.

From 2005-2007, Petraeus became the commanding general of Fort Leavenworth, which put him in charge of over a dozen officer training programs. While there he revamped the Army's methods for training foreign security forces and coauthored with Mattis a new 472-page Field Manual for counterinsurgency that is now extensively studied in the armed services.

Now Yoni says none of that matters or ever did matter. I disagree. Petraeus' and Mattis' records are not perfect, but they are precisely the kind of strategic thinkers that should have been in charge of Iraq war planning all along, not a SecDef who thought he could hit it and quit it with no problems and the general who wouldn't stand up to him.

[PixelPusher]

Why? Are you engaged in executing the strategy?

I think the problem has been, to a large degree, that too many people who have absolutely no need to know have demanded to know how we are going to fight this war.

Either it is a just war and those who are charged with prosecuting it should be left to do so, or; it is an unjust war and those who believe so should work to stop it. Chewing over the particular strategy is not working toward either of those objectives.
You don't need a degree in cartography to realize daddy is lost and can't read a map. Your appeal to authority has no merit.

As for leaving the strategy to the war supporters only, a withdrawl from Iraq, regardless of the method (immediate, phases, all forces, leave a few behind, etc.) requires a strategy too. Call me crazy, but I don't thing we should just wing that one either.

[ChumpDumper]

And Harrison Ford is going to play Mattis in the movie about Fallujah, so you know he's a badass.

[medstudent]

Harrison Ford

haha I want Short Round in here now. that kid cracks me up :lol

[xrayzebra]

The whole problem with Iraq is simply put: politicians. Same as
VN.

[ChumpDumper]

The whole problem with Iraq is simply put: politicians. Same as
VN.Far too simply put. The military made more than their share of mistakes, largely because they forgot the lessons of Vietnam and the counterinsurgency tactics learned there. I would agree that politicians were the root cause since they started the whole thing or neglected to stop it when they had the chance.

[Yonivore]

You don't need a degree in cartography to realize daddy is lost and can't read a map. Your appeal to authority has no merit.

As for leaving the strategy to the war supporters only, a withdrawl from Iraq, regardless of the method (immediate, phases, all forces, leave a few behind, etc.) requires a strategy too. Call me crazy, but I don't thing we should just wing that one either.
Who says we're winging it? I'm saying you have no need to know.

[ChumpDumper]

Who says we're winging it?We were winging it. Now any planning might be too little, too late.
I'm saying you have no need to know.:lol "Bad news is no news."

[Jamtas#2]

I'm sorry. I feel we do have a right to know that we have a solid plan. We don't need to have the dates and locations of troops, but by no means do we just say "I trust the goverment is doing the right thing. If they weren't, I really believe they would tell us they made a mistake, as politicans often do..."
But to say this is onyl on the shoulders of the republicans is wrong. Did a majority Republican congress authorize it, yes. Did a majority democratic congress just cave in and let the White house keep doing the same thing and not stand their ground, yes. I'm so glad that when it comes to moral victory, the democrats will stand firm and vote no confidence in the Attorney General, but when it comes to standing the ground on the issue that got them elected, they give in?!? That was the time for a moral victory. Our country definately needs a change in leadership and I so want the Democrats to offer that, but they just don't seem to have the will power that the Republicans have.

[boutons_]

"don't seem to have the will power that the Republicans have."

It was not a question of will power, It was dubya vowing he would veto any military finance bill with even an odor of a pull-out schedule.

dubya/dickhead/Repugs abused the trust and solidarity of Americans after 9/11 to start a bogus war, and use the war on terror for every single Repug partisan move. Americans didn't want to believe that the Repugs would like to them about the reasons for starting the Iraq war. Now, they know they were lied to and they see that the Repugs were never trustable with national security (they allowed 9/11 to happen), nor trustable to put the country first, before Repug and/or corp interests.

It's beyond silly that anybody would ask the US to trust the Repugs at this point.

btw, the all-holy, untouchable, irreprochable military went along with Rummy covering up Abu-Ghraib, putting the military careers ahead of the the Army's and country'sinterests. So don't ask me to trust the military to do the right thing. They'll be "good Germans" and follow the civilian DoD orders wherever it takes them. Just ask Generals Shinsheki or Taguba or any of the career officers who resigned and are now vehemently against the Iraq war, about speaking their minds and trying to discover the truth.

Trust the Repugs or the military at this point? GMAFB

[Jamtas#2]

"It was not a question of will power, It was dubya vowing he would veto any military finance bill with even an odor of a pull-out schedule."

So if they know Dubya won't go along with them, best not try? So when the American people elected them to force Bush to change strategy and bring the troops home, if Bush threatens to veto, they should fold up and go along with him? not put the ball in his court and make him follow through with his threat?
If that's the mindset, they're gonna have a great run in power.

but hey, they knew that their no confidence vote wasn't going to happen but they still made sure they made their point. Good priorities there.

[boutons_]

"best not try?"

I don't know what the Dems calculation was, but now they've got a lot of people pissed at them for not forcing the issue. I would have put a hard benchmark / schedule in there, and let dubya veto, putting the blame where it clearly belongs. now the Dems are being blamed along with dubya, and the Iraq war issue is what is dragging down the Congress approval ratings into the 20s with dubya's ratings.


================

Newly Empowered Democrats Draw Wrath of Voters

By Thomas Ferraro
Reuters

Monday 18 June 2007

Washington - The new Democratic-led Congress is drawing the ire of voters upset with its failure to quickly deliver on a promise to end the Iraq war.

This is reflected in polls that show Congress - plagued by partisan bickering mostly about the war - at one of its lowest approval ratings in a decade. Surveys find only about one in four Americans approves of it.

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high."

In winning control of Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans last November, Democrats told voters they would move swiftly to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

But they now say voters must understand they need help from Republicans to clear procedural hurdles, override presidential vetoes and force Bush to change course.

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he explained this recently to anti-war demonstrators. "'We know. We know,'" he quoted them as replying. "But we are so disappointed.'"

Biden, seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said: "Voters are going to be mad with us until we end the war."

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said some Democrats understand "we can only do so much."

"Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them," Pelosi, of California, told The New York Times.

Republicans have increasingly voiced their own concerns. Yet most have stood by Bush - at least for now - and given him the votes he needed to block timetables for withdrawal.

Republicans also are tweaking Democrats on other fronts, such as stalled efforts to upgrade health care and reduce the cost of college and energy.

( good old Repugs, always protecting the corps and super-rich while fucking over the country )

"Do-Nothing Congress"

They are even adopting the same line Democrats once used against them, calling this "a do-nothing Congress."

"If Democrats fail to reverse course, the dynamics in the 2008 elections may shift significantly, allowing Republicans to run as the party of change ... only two years after Democrats successfully campaigned on that same theme," Senate Republican leaders told their ranks in a letter last week.

Just as it was before last year's elections, polls show most Americans believe the United States is headed in the wrong direction.

"The primary reason is war," said James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.

But there are other reasons. "People have problems in their lives and they don't see the White House or Congress dealing with it," Thurber said.

A Quinnipiac University poll this month found Congress with an approval rating of just 23 percent. "People voted for change. But they don't think they got it," said Peter Brown, an assistant director of the poll.

A Gallup poll last month put Congress's approval rating at 29 percent. The number had fallen to 21 percent last December, just weeks before Republicans yielded control.

Still, the new polls have stung Democrats and put them on the defensive.

Democrats point to the nearly daily congressional oversight hearings they have held into how Bush does business, many dealing with the war. They also note that unlike Republicans last year, they passed a federal budget plan.

But among Democrats' top legislative promises, just one, the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade, has been passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush.

Congress recently approved another priority - a bill to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research. But Democrats are not expected to be able to override a Bush veto.

On another high-stakes issue, top Senate Democrats and Republicans were struggling to pass legislation to overhaul U.S. immigration laws, despite attacks from many conservative Republicans and some liberal Democrats.

Democrats intend to crank up pressure on Bush with votes on proposals to revoke Congress' 2002 authorization of the war, set a deadline for troop withdrawals and increase requirements for troop readiness. Republicans will likely block them.

"We're disappointed the war drags on with no end in sight, but realize Democratic leaders can only accomplish what they have the votes for," said Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change, a liberal group active in the anti-war movement.

Pelosi and Reid wrote Bush last week urging him to listen to the will of people on Iraq. "Work with us," they pleaded.

[Jamtas#2]

What they need to do is call out the President and be as tough as they were when they were running for office... not plead and urge him to work with them.

This is where all that "no backbone" talk comes from.
Do you think that a Republican congress with a democratic president are going to go all wishy washy and use the "but he won't listen to us, wah wah wah" attitude, or do they challange him and put him on the defensive?
Fast forward to the presidential election next year, here will be the 2 attacks if things don't change:
Democrats - "Look what Bush did!"
Republicans- "They lied to get into office and didn't hold true to any of their promises, we will hold true to our pledges to right this country"
Wonder what the results will be?

"You don't just fight the battles that you can win, you fight the battles that need to be fought" - rough quote from The American President.
Maybe that last quote is a little idealistic, but it is what I would like to expect from our elected leaders... especially when they campaign on it.