Army General in Iraq rebuffs calls for pull-out

[Pengwuino]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601427.html

"Setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain," said Army Maj. Gen. William Webster, whose 3rd Infantry Division is responsible for security in three-fourths of Iraq's capital.

Looks like one again, the democrats are trying to fight our military and demanding a surrender.

Do we listen to politicians or our men and women fighting for freedoms you take for granted?

 

[Smurf]

I don't know about that guy. It seems fairly odd that a Maj. Gen. would say not to pull out because his men would have died in vain and yet completely miss that if we don't pull out he'll just lose more.

It seems that he's assuming that if you just stay then eventually you'll accomplish something and your (now higher) losses won't be "in vain".

 

[Pengwuino]

It seems that he's assuming that if you just stay then eventually you'll accomplish something and your (now higher) losses won't be "in vain".

Quiters never win, what can you say. Our whole school system over here seems to be a failure yet i don't see any schools giving up and shutting down.

 

[Skyhunter]

Quiters never win, what can you say. Our whole school system over here seems to be a failure yet i don't see any schools giving up and shutting down.

No WMD. Saddam and the Baathists out of power. Iraq has a sovereign democratic government.

Mission accomplished. All we are doing there now is making things worse.

 

[Skyhunter]

And your poll is a joke.

 

[Pengwuino]

And your poll is a joke.

Basically the same as half the liberal polls... oh oh ok i get what your saying.

 

[pattylou]

Hi Pengwuino.

I listen to the military. I notice that the politicians only changed their tone when they were pretty sure that the majority of US citizens wanted us out of Iraq. Disgusting.

Yesterday (in the Wp thread) I quoted the military as saying that those left in Fallujah were "insurgents and their sympathizers."

Seems to me some of those sympathizers probably had children.

Seems to me the military is saying that they are comfortable targeting whoever was in fallujah, even if it meant children being subjected to WP..

Do *you* listen to the military?

Would you like a link to the thread/post?

Thanks for the poll. In regards to Iraq, I doubt anyone here would listen to politicians over the military. Interpretation about what the military is saying, however, is bound to vary.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yesterday (in the Wp thread) I quoted the military as saying that those left in Fallujah were "insurgents and their sympathizers."

Seems to me some of those sympathizers probably had children.

Seems to me the military is saying that they are comfortable targeting whoever was in fallujah, even if it meant children being subjected to WP..

patty... you do know in your heart that that is a HUGE logic jump don't you?

 

[pattylou]

I don't, no.

I can't imagine the mental blocks needed to be put in place by aggressors, to allow the use of white phosphorous - by calling the remaining people in the city by the labels of "insurgents" and "their sympathizers." The blocks necessary to not recognize there are children (even if that recognition is only at a subconscious level). And those children are understandably present --- if they are the children of "sympathizers."

At some point you have got to identify with the people you are maiming. Unless you wish to be a monster.

 

[Skyhunter]

patty... you do know in your heart that that is a HUGE logic jump don't you?

Not as huge a leap as calling the phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq "surrendering to terrorists" and "handing the country over to murderers".

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know about that guy. It seems fairly odd that a Maj. Gen. would say not to pull out because his men would have died in vain and yet completely miss that if we don't pull out he'll just lose more.

No, you completely misunderstand the mentality from which he is arguing. It's common for people who have never been in the military, though. It's the same as why Clinton completely lost the respect of the military when the US pulled out of Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" thing. People just don't understand that those in the military really do value their mission and quitting without finishing is failure - even if it means more soldiers will die if they stay. For those in the military, keeping the casualty count down is secondary to completing the mission.

Soldiers sometimes die, guys. They know it when they sign up for the job. They accept it and people should respect that they are willing to make that sacrifice to complete a mission.

Yesterday (in the Wp thread) I quoted the military as saying that those left in Fallujah were "insurgents and their sympathizers."

Seems to me some of those sympathizers probably had children.

Seems to me the military is saying that they are comfortable targeting whoever was in fallujah, even if it meant children being subjected to WP..

Lemme help you figure out the problem with that. Sometimes it is impossible to separate terrorists from their kids. Sometimes those terrorists even strap bombs on pre-teen kids and send them into restaraunts. The point is, it is the terrorist parents who are putting the kids in that situation, not the military fighting the terrorists.

If you don't understand it when explained like that, flip it over and see how absurd it would sound: What if the American soldiers brought their kids with them? Who would you blame for the kids deaths if they did?

And yes, I know many of them lived in Fallujah. But that does not excuse the parents from putting their kids in that situation. The US military would not have gone there if there weren't fighters there.

 

[Skyhunter]

People just don't understand that those in the military really do value their mission and quitting without finishing is failure - even if it means more soldiers will die if they stay. For those in the military, keeping the casualty count down is secondary to completing the mission.

What exactly is the mission?

I thought we were after OBL and his terrorist organization.

Has it been redefined now to defeat the Iraqi' insurgents that don't want a foreign power occupying their country?

If completing the mission is the number one priority, the soldiers must feel disgrace for not being able to get OBL.

Do they blame Bush for diverting assets from the hunt for OBL in order to invade Iraq?

They completed the mission. I saw the banner on the aircraft carrier.

Why does the administration keep moving the goal posts?

This war is insane. There is nothing good going to come from us remaining there. Any good we could have done was squandered by the way the CPA conducted the occupation. Now our soldiers are targets for Iraqi wrath. Operations like the attack on Fallujah are not going to endear the Iraqi people to our soldiers.

 

[Polly]

In addition to everything Skyhunter has said, 80% of the Iraqis have in a recent poll indicated that they want the coalition forces to leave. Being a cruel, unclever disinformation-teller is one thing, but being a cruel, unclever and thick-skinned disinformation-teller? Do you have any respect for other's SOVEREIGNTY? For god's sake, quit thinking about AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA all the time, learn to think about OTHERS!

reason of edit: fear of being banned.

 

[pattylou]

Lemme help you figure out the problem with that. Sometimes it is impossible to separate terrorists from their kids.

But Russ, there weren't any terrorists in Fallujah. There were insurgents, and their sympathizers - according to the military.

Why are you bringing terrorists into this?

 

[pattylou]

Seems to me the military is saying that they are comfortable targeting whoever was in fallujah, even if it meant children being subjected to WP.

Lemme help you figure out the problem with that. Sometimes it is impossible to separate terrorists from their kids.

Additionally, it sounds like you are disturbingly comfortable with the idea of using WP in an area where children could be hit.

It's their parents' fault after all, that the kids are there, so no point in trying to do the decent thing for the sake of the kids. Is that about right? And, if I understand, the justification for allowing the kids to be hit, is because those parents are such sickos for having the kids there in the first place.

Would our soldiers bring their kids along to Iraq? No. Do our soldiers have their kids on bases in the US? Of course! So why don't you 'turn it around?'

If Iraq invaded us, and was attacking our freedom fighters (insurgents, soldiers), would some American kids be present at those attacks? Yes. Some kids would remain on some bases, under some scenarios. You can't call the people in Fallujah heartless for having their kids present.Furthermore, using labels to de-humanize these fellow people is wrong.

 

[kat]

Being a cruel, stupid liar is one thing, but being a cruel, stupid and thick-skinned liar?

Just...Wow.

 

[Art]

No, you completely misunderstand the mentality from which he is arguing. It's common for people who have never been in the military, though. It's the same as why Clinton completely lost the respect of the military when the US pulled out of Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" thing. People just don't understand that those in the military really do value their mission and quitting without finishing is failure - even if it means more soldiers will die if they stay. For those in the military, keeping the casualty count down is secondary to completing the mission.

I think what you actually mean is they want revenge.

Soldiers sometimes die, guys. They know it when they sign up for the job. They accept it and people should respect that they are willing to make that sacrifice to complete a mission. Lemme help you figure out the problem with that. Sometimes it is impossible to separate terrorists from their kids. Sometimes those terrorists even strap bombs on pre-teen kids and send them into restaraunts. The point is, it is the terrorist parents who are putting the kids in that situation, not the military fighting the terrorists.
If you don't understand it when explained like that, flip it over and see how absurd it would sound: What if the American soldiers brought their kids with them? Who would you blame for the kids deaths if they did?
And yes, I know many of them lived in Fallujah. But that does not excuse the parents from putting their kids in that situation. The US military would not have gone there if there weren't fighters there.

So is it the parents fault for living in Fallujah and raising their kids there? Or are you saying it is their fault for not overpowering the insurgents (notwithstanding the most powerful military in the world can't)? Or is it simply that because they don't like having their country occupied by foreign armies they and their children deserve to die?

It will be interesting to see if you maintain this point of view (that being in the presence of ECs makes you a legitimate target) if terrorists detonate a bomb in a local restaurant in your town because a US soldier is having his dinner there.

As Patty pointed out the war against terror spread to the war against insurgents and now it seems to the war against people who sympathise with the insurgents so from trying to kill one man (OBL) and his few hundred supporters it appears you now have several million to kill in Iraq alone and as the US's actions in Iraq are creating sympathy for the insurgents worldwide you'll be able to take your war global soon.

 

[Astronuc]

Army General in Iraq rebuffs calls for pull-out

To say otherwise would contradict his commander-in-chief.

The lives lost since 2003 have been lost in vain - many because the US military was ill equipped despite Bush's claim that his administration was doing all it could to support the troops. It certainly wasn't.

There was no occupation plan. The troops lacked proper armor. The intelligence was poor. And the CPA was relatively inept and incompetent.

And the troops are not fighting for our freedoms - that is tired, old and false rhetoric from the Bush administration.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No officer gets to be a general without "friends" in congress. It is the law that all promotions above Brigadier General have to be okayed by congress and an individual has to have someone to carry water for him if he is to beat out the competition.

So while generals and other soldiers affect to be nonpartisan, for that is the US military tradition, in fact they are just as political as they can be.

And to characterize a general's pronouncements as "our troops fighting in Iraq" or however Penguino put it, is the worst kind of slanting. It makes the poll worthless as an information gathering tool.

 

[pattylou]

...the worst kind of slanting. It makes the poll worthless as an information gathering tool.

Another thing that makes it difficult to know what "our troops" are saying, is the scripting, and embedding, that is going on. I have no good idea what the consensus opinion is, among people in the armed services. I don't trust reports like the recent casual talk Bush had with the troops, for obvious reasons (scripting.)

For another example, there are troops that are killing themselves when they return home: http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20040316-040640-6755r due to emotional stress. Others kill themselves rather than return to battle: http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/202803.shtml

"Over my dead body are they going to make me go back."

Which soldiers exactly should we be listening to, to get an accurate assessment of how the war is going?

Yes, I am cherry picking. So are the people who want to use military statements to bolster what a great thing this war is.

I'm happy to listen to the military when deciding what we should do. I'd like to know that what I am hearing, is a fair assessment.

 

[kat]

Which soldiers exactly should we be listening to, to get an accurate assessment of how the war is going?

Actions speak louder then words..perhaps instead of listening to soldiers you should check out what the majority of them are doing...it appears that what they are doing..is overwhelmingly re-upping for service instead of leaving when they have the opportunity.

 

[BobG]

I agree. The politicians should have been listening to the military all along. Unfortunately, that's not always the case - especially Rumsfeld.

From a 2003 New Yorker article:

"Rumsfeld’s personal contempt for many of the senior generals and admirals who were promoted to top jobs during the Clinton Administration is widely known. He was especially critical of the Army, with its insistence on maintaining costly mechanized divisions. In his off-the-cuff memoranda, or “snowflakes,” as they’re called in the Pentagon, he chafed about generals having “the slows”—a reference to Lincoln’s characterization of General George McClellan. “In those conditions—an atmosphere of derision and challenge—the senior officers do not offer their best advice,” a high-ranking general who served for more than a year under Rumsfeld said. One witness to a meeting recalled Rumsfeld confronting General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, in front of many junior officers. “He was looking at the Chief and waving his hand,” the witness said, “saying, ‘Are you getting this yet? Are you getting this yet?’ ”

Gradually, Rumsfeld succeeded in replacing those officers in senior Joint Staff positions who challenged his view. “All the Joint Staff people now are handpicked, and churn out products to make the Secretary of Defense happy,” the planner said. “They don’t make military judgments—they just respond to his snowflakes.”

Prior to the war, Gen Franks said it would take at least 200,000 troops. After the war's start, Franks has stood by the administration in spite of the fact that Rumsfeld decided 100,000 was adequate to do the job.

General Schwarzkopf, of the first Gulf War is retired and doesn't have to support the administration anymore. His comments about Rumsfeld's response to a question posed by one of the troops about the lack of armored humvees:

“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,”

Schwarzkopf, who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.

Retired General Wesley Clark, of the Kosovo operation, still http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html . The mistake of the Bush administration, according to Clark is:

"This dream of engineering events in the Middle East to follow those of the Soviet Union has led to an almost unprecedented geostrategic blunder. One crucial reason things went wrong, I believe, is that the neoconservatives misunderstood how and why the Soviet Union fell and what the West did to contribute to that fall. They radically overestimated the role of military assertiveness while underestimating the value of other, subtler measures. They then applied those theories to the Middle East, a region with very different political and cultural conditions. The truth is this: It took four decades of patient engagement to bring down the Iron Curtain, and 10 years of deft diplomacy to turn chaotic, post-Soviet states into stable, pro-Western democracies. To achieve the same in the Middle East will require similar engagement, patience, and luck. "

 

[Smurf]

No, you completely misunderstand the mentality from which he is arguing.
...
For those in the military, keeping the casualty count down is secondary to completing the mission.

Yes I gathered that. Hense the second part of my post. When will you accomplish something?

 

[SOS2008]

No officer gets to be a general without "friends" in congress. It is the law that all promotions above Brigadier General have to be okayed by congress and an individual has to have someone to carry water for him if he is to beat out the competition.
So while generals and other soldiers affect to be nonpartisan, for that is the US military tradition, in fact they are just as political as they can be.
And to characterize a general's pronouncements as "our troops fighting in Iraq" or however Penguino put it, is the worst kind of slanting. It makes the poll worthless as an information gathering tool.

It wasn't meant to gather information, only to slant (so no vote at all from me).

I agree--and that is why I question authority regardless of position. I do the research and draw my own conclusions. I wish more people would try it.

 

[ComputerGeek]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601427.html
Looks like one again, the democrats are trying to fight our military and demanding a surrender.
Do we listen to politicians or our men and women fighting for freedoms you take for granted?

So, Now that his Boss has submitted a withdrawal plan, I guess you have changed your mind? I mean, when you say that the Military brass should be listened to, I guess that means that when the top general says "lets get out" then you must agree with him... or is his plan to withdraw, over a period of a year, which is only 6 months longer than Murtha's proposal, mean that he is a coward as well?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Actions speak louder then words..perhaps instead of listening to soldiers you should check out what the majority of them are doing...it appears that what they are doing..is overwhelmingly re-upping for service instead of leaving when they have the opportunity.

uhh, actually, the Army and the Marines are having retention problems and with their recruitment problems, the staffing is just getting more and more problematic.

Why do you think they have had half their NCO's on stop loss?

Where there is little trouble is in the Navy and Air Force, but those branches are not on the ground fighting day in and day out.

My brother did 4 years in the Marines. He came out a Staff Sergeant and did 2 tours in Iraq.. the second was as a volunteer so his buddy could be with his new baby. He was at Fallugah and I saw him on TV during that operation shooting a 50 cal.

He was happy to get out, even though they offered him a huge bonus if he reupped. Now he is pissed about how he is getting shafted for veteran's benefits.

 

[Anttech]

Who do we listen to?
Politicians
Our armed forces who are fighting in Iraq

Neither, just listen to the rest of the world.. You have made no friends (and far more enemies), nobody wants this, it was wrong, the ends are almost worse than the means now, History will tell...

American Party politics costs too many lifes, Sad sad sad.. Even the most rightous can meander from the path of what's good

 

[Cybersteve]

Ever since the first Gulf War we (US, UK and others) have asked the Iraqi people to stand up against Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime. Many of them have, and are still doing so.
To leave now would be an act of betrayl against those Iraqis who have helped us.
A new regime would fill the void and those who have supported us, and their families would be found and killed.
We cannot leave until we have done as much as we can to stop this happening.

Of course we should have realized this before we went to war. In my opinion we never had a long term plan that was likely to succeed. Which is why I have always been opposed to the war.

The only way forward I can see is to continue along the path that has been chosen for us and to try and gain support from as many members of the UN as we can and persuade them to commit their troops to replace our own as soon as possible.

 

[Skyhunter]

It wasn't meant to gather information, only to slant (so no vote at all from me).
I agree--and that is why I question authority regardless of position. I do the research and draw my own conclusions. I wish more people would try it.

I didn't vote either. But give him some credit, his choices were better than the options offered up by the Republicans in the house last night.