All along dems have been saying we cannot win in Iraq militarily. Of course the neocons jumped on this and mis-represented these statements as not supporting the miltary. Well here you go..We have been right all along
Petraeus: More Needed to End Iraq Unrest
By LAUREN FRAYER
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Military force alone is not sufficient to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday. "This is critical," Gen. David Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month. He noted that such political negotiations "will determine in the long run the success of this effort." American troops have stepped up efforts to clear and secure major highways around the capital as part of the Baghdad security crackdown, which began last month. The Pentagon has pledged 17,500 combat troops for the capital.
Petraeus said "it was very likely" that additional U.S. forces will be sent to areas outside the capital where militant groups are regrouping, including the Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.
The region has become an increasingly important staging ground for groups including al-Qaida in Iraq. Meanwhile, many Sunni extremists apparently have shifted to Diyala to escape the Baghdad clampdown.
Petraeus declined to predict the size of the expected Diyala reinforcements.
He said that "any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency in Iraq."
"Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient," Petraeus said. "A political resolution of various differences ... of various senses that people do not have a stake in the successes of Iraq and so forth _ that is crucial. That is what will determine, in the long run, the success of this effort.
U.S. officials, including Petraeus' predecessor Gen. George W. Casey Jr., have long expressed the opinion that no military solution to the Iraq crisis was possible without a political agreement among all the ethnic and religious factions _ including some Sunni insurgents.
However, previous overtures to the insurgents all faltered, apparently because of political opposition within Baghdad or Washington to some of the conditions.
Last year, 11 Sunni insurgent groups working through mediators offered to immediately stop attacks on American-led forces in Iraq if the Shiite-led government and Washington set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all coalition forces from the country, according to insurgent and government officials.
The groups did not include several major groups, including the Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad's Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella for eight militant groups including al-Qaida in Iraq.
The Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported last year that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad met seven times with insurgent representatives in late 2005 and early 2006. But the extremists broke off the contacts in April 2006 after the U.S. side failed to respond to a series of demands.
The U.S. never confirmed details of the account but Khalilzad later said he believed his contacts with Sunni groups had contributed to a temporary decline in U.S. battle deaths, which fell in March 2006 to 31 _ their lowest level in two years.
One of Iraq's most expansive militias _ the Mahdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr _ appears to have set aside its weapons under intense government pressure to lend support to the Baghdad security plan.
Mahdi militiamen also have allowed Iraqi authorities to try to protect at least 1 million pilgrims heading to Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad.
Many are making the traditional trek on foot for rituals beginning Friday to mark the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Hussein's death in a 7th century battle near Karbala cemented the schism between Sunnis and Shiites.
The processions have proved to be vulnerable targets, with attacks killing more than 170 people this week.
Al-Sadr issued a statement urging pilgrims to join in chants denouncing the attackers. "I ask almighty God to protect you from the sectarian sedition," said the message.
Petraeus denounced the "thugs with no soul" who have targeted Shiite pilgrims. "We share the horror" of witnessing the suicide bombings and shootings, he said.
He said U.S. forces are ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.
"It is an enormous task to protect all of them and there is a point at which if someone is willing to blow up himself ... the problem becomes very, very difficult indeed," he said.
Security forces in Karbala have taken unprecedented measures, including checkpoints for top-to-bottom searches and a six-ring cordon around the two main Shiite shrines. At least 10,000 policemen have been placed on round-the-clock patrols.
"All the city's entrances have been secured, and I call upon the pilgrims to follow the instructions of the security forces and let them do the necessary searches," Iraq's minister of state for national security, Sherwan al-Waili, said in Karbala.
In Baghdad, a mortar attack shattered some windows at the Iraqi Airways office on the airport compound, but the s s landed hundreds of yards from the passenger terminal and caused no serious flight disruptions.
Such attacks, however, send chills through Iraqi officials preparing to host an international conference Saturday on ways to help rebuild and stabilize the country.
The session will be a rare instance of Iranian and the U.S. officials at the same table. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, in September. Washington cut diplomatic ties with Tehran after the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by radicals in the wake the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The United States has accused Iran of backing anti-American Shiite militants in Iraq, has detained Iranian officials there and has angered Tehran by bolstering its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Washington is also pushing for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Wednesday his country hoped "the conference will bring forward the end of the presence of foreign forces" in Iraq _ reiterating Tehran's stance that U.S. troops should withdraw.
"student of history"
Obviously, no students of history, general, military or VN, are among the AEI/PNAC/WH/neo- s.
So while the non-combatant knee-jerkers claim the US military is "kicking ass", General Surge says the US military can't win, says the only victory is via diplomacy. General Petraeus, you're a traitor to the head oil grab.
Last edited by boutons_; 03-08-2007 at 07:40 PM.
What a stupid way to screw America's image in the rest of the world.
Start a war under phony premisses and then run away.
Vietnam all over again.
I agree with the later and disagree with the first part of
your statement. I don't think it was started under false
(phony) premise but running away is certainly wrong.
The liberal mind is a woozy and amorphous phenomenon: wrapped in a hazy gauze of vague benevolence, kept from dispersing into utter formlessness by a canon of rigid prejudices, it is hard to identify as either a solid or a liquid. It doesn't think, it coagulates, like blood forming a scab over wounded pride. What, one hastens to ask, is so hard to swallow – that George W. Bush is a liberal do-gooder, just like you?
What we are witnessing, here, is the Great Switcheroo – liberals are having touchy-feely "second thoughts" about the international mission of mercy that is our foreign policy of perpetual war, while conservatives are beginning to get a little cranky as their president lectures them about the necessity of "ending tyranny in our world."
Liberals like the "nation-building" phase of American imperialism: it makes them feel good about themselves. It has so many televised "mission accomplished" moments, in which cheap sentimentality replaces actual knowledge and the narrative of "liberation" spun out by the White House's information warriors gets them high on their own insufferable self-righteousness. They love imagery, mostly because it replaces thought: emotionalism is the warp and woof of American liberalism. The very idea of all those poor downtrodden Iraqis being lifted up into the warm light of modernity and gathered in the welcoming arms of American GIs, social workers, and taxpayers – what a rush!
"international mission of mercy"
holy ing . What the dubya fiasco has unleashed in Iraq is "merciful"?
Switcheroo? How about dubya's s game of selling WMD as the overwhelmingly sole and primary reason for invading Iraq?
No WMD found, he switches to "bring democracy to Iraq"
Having failed that, "to bring stabilty to Iraq".
Having failed that, he will be forced to withdraw in total defeat.
The real reason, US oilcos getting the hands on plentiful, cheap, high-quality Iraqi oil, will very probably never happen. Iran, Russia, and China will probably split that hydrocarbon pie.
Last edited by boutons_; 03-08-2007 at 08:00 PM.
boutons, I feel more confident than ever in saying you are the dumbest person I've ever talked to, be it in person or online.
If history repeats, this Gen. will either shutup or be shown the door.
http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/ Lets look a little more at What Gen Petraeus agrees with. and it isn't cut and run.
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php...on_to_Iraq_War
US General David Petraeus made these key points today during his first Baghdad news conference since taking command of US and coalition forces in Iraq last month:
-- There's no immediate need to request more US troops for Iraq beyond those in the pipeline.
-- US forces will reach peak strength in June and will remain at that number "well beyond summer."
-- "Military action is necessary... but it is not sufficient" because Iraqi political action and reconcilation are necessary to achieve peace and stability.
-- "sensational attacks" on US and Iraqi forces will continue, but "there have been a few encouraging signs" of progress -- notably a decrease in sectarian attacks in Baghdad.
-- He felt "shame, horror, and sadness" when he learned of suicide attacks that killed more than 100 Shia pilgrims in Iraq Tuesday, and he called the killers "thugs wih no souls."
etraeus: Iraq Security Plan Can Work, But Will Take Time
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 8, 2007 – A new strategy that puts U.S. and Iraqi forces inside Baghdad neighborhoods to safeguard residents against insurgent and sectarian violence can work, but it’ll take time to be fully implemented, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said in Baghdad during his first news conference today.
“We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope,” said Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who became Multinational Force Iraq commander Feb. 10. “The upward spiral we all want begins with Iraqi and coalition forces working together and locating in the neighborhoods those forces must secure.”
http://www.defenselink.mil//news/new...e.aspx?id=3299
This is a must read ^^^^^^^
Do you think the general might be speaking too much truth to the press? Perhaps he will be the shortest term commander in country of this misbegotten war.
The le of this thread would lead people to believe the General believes in Cut & Run.
Nah, that's what the knee-jerkers would think.
Petraeus would be the personal choice for commander by Iraq war critics like Tom Ricks. If he can't make things work in Iraq, no one can.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2027289,00.html
A warrior and a scholar - America's last best hope for salvation in Iraq
Petraeus's willingness to kick out against authority is the untold story of an otherwise orthodox career - and offers a clue to what may happen next in Iraq.
He has surrounded himself in Baghdad with a team of officers described as "defence dissidents".
His intellectual restlessness is typified by his now famous quizzing of an embedded reporter during the 2003 march on Baghdad. "Tell me how this ends," he repeatedly demanded.
Now he has a chance to answer his own question.
Petraeus's scrappy, relentless, questing style could spell trouble for the White House. He knows he does not have enough troops and more will not be forthcoming. According to O'Hanlon, he knows political and public backing for the war is "very fragile".
So during his congressional testimony Petraeus made clear that by late summer he would report back to Congress and the American people, not just to the Pentagon and president. "I want to assure you that should I determine that the new strategy cannot succeed, I will provide such an assessment," he said.
NOPE SURE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE IS ON THE DEMOCRAT BANDWAGGON YET.
That bold move potentially gives Petraeus considerable political leverage and practical autonomy. Yet the White House needs him badly. "If he were to resign, their last shred of credibility on Iraq would disappear," said one analyst.
Petraeus could in effect call time on the war - or demand a further escalation. That will not happen, said Sarah Sewall, because in the end Petraeus is a dutiful soldier, not an elected politician. But the final showdown could nevertheless be equally explosive. "Petraeus's role could indeed prove pivotal," she said. "He does not make the policy. He is the executioner of the policy.
But it's really important that those who set the policy have their feet held to the fire."
The General could always retire if he holds to many feet to the fire
Chump, you and I posted at the same time.
No general could ever take ultimate responsibility for the failures in Iraq. They were working for idiots like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney who thought the US could invade and occupy and nation-build on the cheap. Whenever someone didn't agree with what they wanted, they simply found someone who would. Now they've come hat in hand to Petraeus, who has had a decent amount of success in Iraq doing things his own way. Hopefully it's not too little, too late.
I also hope it's not too late. If he can't do it maybe we still have time
for the General to get to Afganistan
before that's too little, too late.
The problem with Afghanistan is Pakistan -- the Taliban base themselves there like the Vietnamese did in Cambodia. Musharraf can't do anything about it because he's overextended himself already and no central power has ever controlled that area of his country. There was the slightest possibility we could have acted in that area to take care of the original nest or terra-ists instead of making new ones in and around Iraq -- but that opportunity is lost. All we and NATO can do now is wait for the inevitable spring offensive from the Taliban we failed to eliminate in 2001-2002.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
