Yet another lousy, cut-n-running defeatist whinning about Iraq...

[PixelPusher]

...even back in 1922. (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/files/public/Ungrateful_Volcano.pdf)



Winston S. Churchill to David Lloyd George
(Churchill papers: 17/27)
1 September 1922

I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming
really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions.
The Turkish menace has got worse; Feisal is playing the fool, if not the
knave; his incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces
and failing to collect the revenue; we overpaid £200,000 on last year's account
which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing
a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never sanctioned by
Parliament; a further deficit, in spite of large economies, is nearly certain
this year on the civil expenses owing to the drop in the revenue. I have had to maintain British troops at Mosul all through the year in consequence of the
Angora quarrel: this has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly
lead to further expenditure beyond the provision I cannot at this moment
withdraw these troops without practically inviting the Turks to come in. The
small column which is operating in the Rania district inside our border
against the Turkish raiders and Kurdish sympathisers is a source of constant
anxiety to me.

I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here or from India. There is scarcely a single newspaper - Tory, Liberal or Labour - which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. The enormous reductions which have been effected have brought no goodwill, and any alternative Government that might be formed here - Labour, Die-hard or Wee Free - would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. Owing to the difficulties with America, no progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources.

I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent
Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own
terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the
close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and
if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner
I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. Whether we
should clear out of the country altogether or hold on to a portion of the Basra
vilayet is a minor issue requiring a special study.

It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum the King,
and still more the Constituent Assembly, will implore us to remain. If they do, shall we not be obliged to remain? If we remain, shall we not be
answerable for defending their frontier? How are we to do this if the Turk
comes in? We have no force whatever that can resist any serious inroad. The
War Office, of course, have played for safety throughout and are ready to say 'I told you so' at the first misfortune.

Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this
stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of
the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world.
At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.

From Martin Gilbert, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL IV, Companion Volume
Part 3, London: Heinemann, 1977, pp. 1973-74. Reprinted by kind permission
of Winston S. Churchill.
Just wanted to add a little historical context, to the oversimplistic WWII mythos of Churchill that righties use ad nauseam.

p.s. apologies for the funky paragraph formatting ^

[Nbadan]

Great find PP!

Here is some mandatory viewing from the Daily Show:

The Daily Show - America To The Rescue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8maMmj5u58)

[Wild Cobra]

Great find PP!

Here is some mandatory viewing from the Daily Show:

The Daily Show - America To The Rescue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8maMmj5u58)
Now that is a good comical piece based on truth. Finally watched it.

[boutons_]

Here's another whiny, wimpy, lefty, socialist, terrorist-hugging sonofabitch wanting to cut and run, saying Army ain't tuff enuff to keep fighting dubya's fraudulent wars.

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

Top General to Urge Iraq Troop Cut

By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 24 August 2007

Advice by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs poses a potential clash with supporters of the buildup.



Washington - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

Petraeus is expected to support a White House view that the absence of widespread political progress in Iraq requires several more months of the U.S. troop buildup before force levels are decreased to their pre-buildup numbers sometime next year.

Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it.

According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

( so JCoS and SecDef wanna cut way down, while dubya and his current ass-kisser Petraeus want to keep surging, while dickhead is going to bomb Iran. I figure dubya will fire the entire JCoS. )

Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report. Still, the position of Pace and the Joint Chiefs could add weight to that of Bush administration critics, including Democratic presidential candidates, that the U.S. force should be reduced.

Those critics include Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, who on Thursday called on Bush to begin withdrawing troops in September to pressure the Iraqi government to move toward political compromise.

Any discord among the top U.S. generals could be awkward for Bush, who professes to rely heavily on advice from military leaders. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif But there also is tremendous pressure for military officers to speak with one voice and defer to Petraeus and other field commanders. It remains possible that the Joint Chiefs may opt to weaken their stance before approaching Bush.

According to a senior administration official, the Joint Chiefs in recent weeks have pressed concerns that the Iraq war has degraded the U.S. military's ability to respond, if needed, to other threats, such as Iran.

The chiefs are pushing for a significant decrease in troop levels once the current buildup comes to an end - perhaps to about half of the 20 combat brigades now in Iraq. Along with support units, that would lower the U.S. presence to fewer than 100,000 troops from the current 162,000.

But military leaders in Iraq, as well as senior officials in the White House, are pushing for troop levels to return to the prior level of about 15 brigades, or about 134,000 troops, once the current buildup is over.

Despite signs of progress in some locales, the Iraqi government has failed at national reconciliation, a new National Intelligence Estimate reported Thursday. White House policymakers argue that such weakness means they cannot dramatically reduce U.S. troop levels, at least through the end of the Bush presidency.

Bush has said publicly he hopes to move toward troop levels recommended by the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group, which had called for drastic reductions in combat power to focus on training and counter-terrorism missions. Such a shift would lead to a force of 20,000 to 50,000 soldiers. That now appears unlikely.

Planning within the White House has shifted in recent weeks to focus on how large a presence can be maintained in Iraq through the end of 2008.

"If it's going to take time, and if we can't afford to just walk away from this, then . . . we better get ourselves structured for the long haul," said the senior administration official, explaining the White House position.

Administration and defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because neither the White House nor Pentagon has made any final decisions on Iraq policy.

As the top American combat general, Petraeus wields wide authority and commands considerable attention in Washington. But U.S. law gives the Joint Chiefs responsibility to ensure the long-term well-being of the military and makes their chairman the president's principal military advisor.

"Petraeus and [Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker are coming to testify, but this is the president's decision," said a senior military official in the Pentagon. "As the chairman, Gen. Pace, by law, has a big role in that and he will provide his advice to the president."

Pace was not nominated by Bush for a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs and will leave the post at the end of September. He is being succeeded by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the current Navy chief, who has been even more vocal in his concerns about the stresses on the Army.

Although the role of Defense Department civilian leaders has been highly controversial since the start of the Iraq war, strains between ground commanders and the Pentagon's military brass have been comparatively rare. Previous U.S. commanders in Iraq, such as Petraeus' predecessor, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., emphasized low force levels, in part to ensure the overall health of the Army.

Pace has gained a reputation as a consensus builder who is loath to confront civilian leaders on war strategy. With his term nearly up, he is facing his last opportunity to affect the war effort and is stepping up the involvement of the Joint Chiefs in planning for Iraq.

Pace has assigned a handpicked group of high-ranking Iraq combat veterans, known as his "council of colonels," to help formulate the Pentagon military leadership's assessment of current strategy, according to military officials.

Pace created the council last year. Although the chiefs' specific recommendations to Bush were pushed aside then in favor of the troop buildup ordered in January, Pace has asked the council to look at various military problems since then. The process has been credited with reinvigorating the relevance of the Joint Chiefs.

Membership on the council has shifted since last year, and Pentagon officials say Pace now has a fresh group, convened this summer, examining potential changes to Iraq strategy. Past council members have included Army Col. Peter R. Mansoor, who is now Petraeus' executive officer in Baghdad. Officials would not identify the officers now on Pace's panel.

Senior military officers in Washington believe that by next year, the Iraqi military will be able to shoulder more of the burden now carried by U.S. forces, according to defense officials.

Before the 2006 Samarra mosque bombing touched off cycles of sectarian violence, military officials believed they were on the path to reducing U.S. forces in Iraq to 10 brigades. Officers in the Pentagon now believe advances in the Iraqi army mean that U.S. and coalition forces may be once again on that path.

"The 25-cent question is, 'What is the size of the force?' To say there will be a smaller force is not accurate. There will be a smaller coalition force, but not necessarily a smaller overall force," said a senior military officer. "The Iraqi security forces are making progress."

The Joint Chiefs have become increasingly vocal about the need to keep Army and Marine forces at home longer between deployments so the military can train for other challenges besides the counterinsurgency fight in Iraq.

"Today's Army is out of balance," Casey said last week in a speech at the National Press Club. "We're consumed with meeting the current demands, and we're unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as we would like for other contingencies."