News Petraeus: US Surge Goals Being Met

[turbo]

Oh, come now. You and I both know that we were not going to cut and run out of Iraq anyways. Everyone said wait for his report because by and large both sides like and trust Petraeus.

"Cut and run"? Why not "setting a surrender date"? You can quote the jingoistic propaganda of the neocons all you like. That does not make them true, or even relevant. It is wrong to kill people (ours or theirs) and it is decidedly wrong to kill people absent a immediate threat from them. The democrats could not bring themselves to force Bushco to set a withdrawal deadline, so they sat back passively and let Bush put up a seemingly inoffensive and charming general and push back any confrontation until after the general had made his assessment - until more months had wasted away and thousands more had been killed.

I don't know where you got this from. He clearly contradicted you in his interview I posted.

There is NO military solution and NO military role for the US in Iraq, aside from short-term peacekeeping while some responsible people in our government forge a region-wide diplomatic initiative involving all the countries bordering Iraq, and encourage Iraq's neighbors to take on the responsibility of suppressing militias and fostering peaceful re-integration.

Careful...

With the new oil reserves they found in Iraq - making it one of the largest in the reigion, there is LOTS of reasons not to let it fail.

How many US soldiers do you want to kill for every 1000 barrels of oil? Stealing another country's natural resources is not a reason to attack them and waste the lives or our military forces.

No offense, but they signed up for their job. Dont join the miliatary if you don't want to be in a war. Its an all volunteer military.

Your post is full of one liners and venting, but has little actually to do with the general - if at all.

Some people are poor, and cannot afford fancy watches, fancy road bikes, and high-priced educations. Often, they see military service as a way to gain technical skills, advance their education, and position themselves for advancement in civilian life, like my cousin and his wife (lifers), my youngest sister's son and his wife (lifers), my cousin's daughter (military law enforcement and national guard) and my niece's husband (also national guard). These people signed up because they thought military service was a calling, and because (despite the low pay and poor benefits) they hoped to come out the other end someday with skills that would let them earn a modest living in civilian life when they retired. They did not sign up to be sitting ducks in a contrived "war" that is sacrificing our young soldiers to the neocon's wet-dream of conquest of the ME and control of their oil reserves. This "war" has nothing to do with the security of the US and its citizens and everything to do with enriching the defense contractors, the oil companies, and their friends. If you want to dismiss the deaths of patriotic American kids because "they signed up", your position is not only short-sighted and cruel, but is enabling of the criminal actions of Bushco. You say that you support Ron Paul, who wants to bring the troops home ASAP. Why? You seem to be really happy with the status-quo.

 

[Cyrus]

"Cut and run"? Why not "setting a surrender date"? You can quote the jingoistic propaganda of the neocons all you like. That does not make them true, or even relevant. It is wrong to kill people (ours or theirs) and it is decidedly wrong to kill people absent a immediate threat from them. The democrats could not bring themselves to force Bushco to set a withdrawal deadline, so they sat back passively and let Bush put up a seemingly inoffensive and charming general and push back any confrontation until after the general had made his assessment - until more months had wasted away and thousands more had been killed.

It was 3 months, and not thousands more killed. I believe it was around 300. Who is 'our' people killing? Its not like they are going around killing civilians.

There is NO military solution and NO military role for the US in Iraq, aside from short-term peacekeeping while some responsible people in our government forge a region-wide diplomatic initiative involving all the countries bordering Iraq, and encourage Iraq's neighbors to take on the responsibility of suppressing militias and fostering peaceful re-integration.

And our military is performing security and peacekeeping roles now. Do you seriously think all the neighboors of Iraq want to help the US and Iraq? This is daydreaming.

How many US soldiers do you want to kill for every 1000 barrels of oil? Stealing another country's natural resources is not a reason to attack them and waste the lives or our military forces.

We buy oil from them, so how is it stealing something we pay for? China would grab that oil first chance it got and put that money into the pockets of the insurgents of Iraq to fuel their civil war. And unlike the US, China wouldn't give a damm about it either.

Some people are poor, and cannot afford fancy watches, fancy road bikes, and high-priced educations.

So is every person in the military poor? No one told your relatives, or anyone else in the military to join. They do it by choice. I happen to think its a good line of work. But please, don't ***** and moan about it after you signed up. You *knew* what you signed up for - give me a break.

You say that you support Ron Paul, who wants to bring the troops home ASAP. Why? You seem to be really happy with the status-quo.

I agree with brining the troops home. I don't agree with going into Iraq, causing a civil war, and saying **** you and walking out. Face it, we owe it to Iraq to rebuild their society. You simply can't afford to have Iraq turn into a hot spot of violence where every country in the region is helping certain sides to win. You have to draw them down such that Iraqi police and army can take their place. Anything short of that is nonsense, and you must be born yesterday to think otherwise.

 

[turbo]

It was 3 months, and not thousands more killed. I believe it was around 300. Who is 'our' people killing? Its not like they are going around killing civilians.

Thousands more were killed. If you don't want to count Iraqi deaths, that's fine, but they're people, too believe it or not, and their lives are just as important as those of our troops.

And our military is performing security and peacekeeping roles now. Do you seriously think all the neighboors of Iraq want to help the US and Iraq? This is daydreaming.

The neighbors of Iraq have a vested interest in seeing Iraq stabilized - unfortunately this US administration has been using the go-it-alone military route instead of engaging in diplomacy. Iran and Syria would gladly sit at the table with the US, but Bush/Cheney do not want to confer any air of legitimacy or partnership on them. Saudi Arabia also would jump into represent their own interests, since they don't want the Shi'ites to gain the upper hand, and Turkey has an interest in keeping the Kurds in check, so they would gladly join any regional negotiations. None of this is daydreaming - it is realistic, and a reasonable person would recognize that.

We buy oil from them, so how is it stealing something we pay for? China would grab that oil first chance it got and put that money into the pockets of the insurgents of Iraq to fuel their civil war. And unlike the US, China wouldn't give a damm about it either.

It's easy to demonize others, isn't it?

So is every person in the military poor? No one told your relatives, or anyone else in the military to join. They do it by choice. I happen to think its a good line of work. But please, don't ***** and moan about it after you signed up. You *knew* what you signed up for - give me a break.

Not everyone, but overwhelmingly the military are recruited from the poor and the lower middle-class. These people didn't sign up to kill people and get killed for no reason. They signed up to defend our country, and their lives are being wasted on a neocon war that was based on lies and deceit. This war is not about defending our country. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, despite the constant conflation by the neocons and their mouthpieces at FOX.

I agree with brining the troops home. I don't agree with going into Iraq, causing a civil war, and saying **** you and walking out. Face it, we owe it to Iraq to rebuild their society. You simply can't afford to have Iraq turn into a hot spot of violence where every country in the region is helping certain sides to win. You have to draw them down such that Iraqi police and army can take their place. Anything short of that is nonsense, and you must be born yesterday to think otherwise.

I have stated several times that we need to build a regional coalition that will help us stabilize Iraq, so we can withdraw. I never said we should just pull the troops out and leave the place to collapse, so don't put words in my mouth. The problem is that Bush/Cheney will not negotiate with regional players (except perhaps Saudi Arabia), which is the only practical means to cool down the situation. Petraeus could have told Congress that things were going badly, and that the administration must launch a massive diplomatic effort to stabilize the entire region so that we can withdraw. He did not do so, though he knows this is the only way to avoid a wider conflict. If we were to leave Iraq immediately, the Iranians would jump into help the Shi'ites, the Saudi's would jump into help the Sunnis, and it's very likely that Turkey would take advantage of the opportunity to wipe out lots of Kurds. The possibility of a regional war is very real, and European nations whose oil supplies would be threatened might be temped to pick sides, too.

Petraeus testified to Congress that the surge is working. That's inane! The surge makes about as much sense as painting a burning house. First, you put out the fire, and in Iraq, that means getting the Iraqi factions and their regional sponsors/supporters engaged in a real dialog with guarantees of security in the interim so they will stand down their militias and stop killing each other and our troops. Then you work out a governmental model that does not allow one ethnic group to steamroller the others, and guarantees the civil rights and personal freedom of all citizens. It's not going to be easy, but it's got to be done, and Bush will not do it. He used Petraeus to stall Congress so that his successor will have to handle all the dirty work and get blamed for any failures to do this complex difficult job without more loss of life. Like MoveOn stated, Petraeus = Betray-us.

 

[Astronuc]

For the moment, I'll give Petraeus the benefit of doubt. He deserves a chance to prove himself given that he inherited the disaster that is Iraq. I don't think he is necessarily a parrot for the Bush administration. There are those like Thomas Ricks, author of 'Fiasco', who seem to offer a favorable impression of the general.

An often-repeated story [citation needed] of Petraeus's time with the 101st is his habit of asking embedded reporters to "Tell me where this ends," an anecdote many journalists [citation needed] have used to portray Petraeus as an early recognizer of the difficulties that would follow the fall of Baghdad. Indeed, it was during the year after the invasion that Petraeus and the 101st gained fame for their performance in Iraq, not for the combat operations in Karbala and Najaf but for the rebuilding and administration of Mosul and Nineveh Province. . . . . Petraeus oversaw a program of public works projects and political reinvigoration [citation needed] in Mosul, which was one of the most peaceful cities in Iraq during the first year of the war. (One of Petraeus' catch phrases during this period was, "Money is ammunition," supporting the use of commanders' discretionary funds for public works.)[9] One of his major public works was the restoration and re-opening of the University of Mosul. During 2004, after the 101st replacement by I Corps's Task Force Olympia, Mosul became a major battleground in the fight against the Sunni insurgency that erupted that spring. Petraeus and his supporters point to the assassination of the governor of Nineveh the following July, five months after the 101st departed, as the catalyst for the 2004 violence, not the unit's redeployment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus#2003.E2.80.932004

Of course the neutrality of the wiki article is suspect, but I believe other sources, e.g. Ricks, would confirm Petraeus's performance.

 

[BobG]

There should be a diplomatic full-court press going on right now in the Middle East, because we need a regional political effort to stabilize the region. That is not happening. If you think that sending Condi for a photo-op with some Saudis and a couple of Iranians is diplomacy, then Bushco has snowed you, big time. We are embroiled in a civil war touched off by our president and his handlers, and we need ALL the players in the region at the table, and we should not expect to resolve even the simplest problems in weeks or months. Condi is not the War Fairy. She cannot wave her magic wand on a 2-3 day trip and make everything better. She is a neocon political appointee and she does not have credentials as a diplomat.

This is the real key ... and the most frustrating thing about listening to candidates on both sides of the aisle. Iraq is probably going to be fighting a civil war for at least another decade and a plan to handle that scenario just isn't coming from either side. Republicans claim reducing the violence will give the Iraqi government time and space to work things out. Democrats claim removing troops will create the pressure necessary to get the Iraqi government to move. Both ignore the reasons the Iraqi government is unlikely to succeed. None of the groups involved can afford to take the risks necessary to reach a common agreement. That's par for the course. It would take a great Iraqi leader to step up in order to even have a chance, which means even the remote chances are beyond US control.

A plan dealing with how to maintain MidEast stability in spite of civil war in Iraq would be a lot more credible, even if it involves keeping troops in the Middle East. At least they'd be working towards a plan with a chance of success.

My dream debate question would be to pose this 'question' to one of the Republican candidates: "Give an example where a civil war was resolved by the opposing sides sharing power peacefully through a democratic government and explain what lessons from that example can be applied to Iraq."

That would bring a 'deer in the headlights' moment that wouldn't be forgotten for a long time because I'd be shocked if any candidate even knows which two civil wars were resolved successfully by a sharing of power.

 

[BobG]

No offense, but they signed up for their job. Dont join the miliatary if you don't want to be in a war. Its an all volunteer military.

There was no guarantee the military would always ensure troops would spend less than a year in combat with at least two years between deployments, so you have a point. If the military changes their policy to 18 month tours with some troops having only 9 months between tours, then a person in the military just has to deal with it until their commitment is up.

But, after they've served their commitment, they should get to leave then, right? The military shouldn't be able to force them to stay in past their enlistment via stop loss and those choosing to stay in the military should just deal with less troops reenlisting by increasing their own commitment?

There were 8.7 million active duty volunteer military during the Viet Nam war, plus another 1.7 million draftees. Today, there are 1.4 million active duty troops. We have a much more lethal fighting force because of technological advances, but most of those advantages apply to traditional combat, not in maintaining peace and stability against insurgents that disappear into the background (come to think of it, that was a problem in the Viet Nam war, as well - we lost the war in spite of winning every battle).

Whether they're an all-volunteer force or not, the military can't sustain its current deployment rate at its current size for 5 straight years without seriously damaging our capability to maintain a credible military force in the future. If this is a long term mission, the size of the force has to be increased one way or the other by bringing on new recruits.

That means:

Raising military pay a lot - at least in the ballpark of private security firms deploying personnel to Iraq. The downside is that the cost is continued even after the war eventually ends.

Outsourcing some of the job to private companies. The cost is higher than current military are getting paid, but the cost stops as soon as the need goes away. Another downside is that using mercenaries violates international law.

Institute a draft. This isn't a good idea, since most draftees will be single termers and the military never recoups training costs. Draftees won't have the same motivation as an all-volunteer force, either. It's an option filled with lots of downsides. However, a lot of the peacekeeping mission involves putting lots of boots on the ground on low tech missions. Draftees don't have to receive the same training as the career military and stop loss can keep draftees in as long as necessary.

Gut Check America: War's impact fall hard on relative few

 

[rewebster]

anyone here going to name their puppy 'Petraeus'?


(your pet will have a good nickname, won't he?)

(bush likes to give people nicknames, doesn't he?)

(I wonder if that helps bush remember their place in the pecking order?)

(like Rummy, or Condi, or Scooter, Dick, Brownie, etc.)

 

[Cyrus]

Thousands more were killed. If you don't want to count Iraqi deaths, that's fine, but they're people, too believe it or not, and their lives are just as important as those of our troops.

There lives are important, but not as important as our troops. Why? Because if some Iraqis die but in the process of attaining a stable government, that's fine. If Americans die in the process, people will question why we are wasting our time there. Its not a PC answer, but it is the truth. And I put the lives of the troops before the lives of foreign nationals (from any other nation).

The neighbors of Iraq have a vested interest in seeing Iraq stabilized - unfortunately this US administration has been using the go-it-alone military route instead of engaging in diplomacy. Iran and Syria would gladly sit at the table with the US, but Bush/Cheney do not want to confer any air of legitimacy or partnership on them. Saudi Arabia also would jump into represent their own interests, since they don't want the Shi'ites to gain the upper hand, and Turkey has an interest in keeping the Kurds in check, so they would gladly join any regional negotiations. None of this is daydreaming - it is realistic, and a reasonable person would recognize that.

There is a reason why its not being done right now - its not easy. Furthermore, Iran has had bad relations with the US for the last 30 years. The countries don't want to help the US because they want to have major influence over Iraq once the US leaves.

It's easy to demonize others, isn't it?

I never deominized anyone, but you did countless times.

Not everyone, but overwhelmingly the military are recruited from the poor and the lower middle-class. These people didn't sign up to kill people and get killed for no reason. They signed up to defend our country, and their lives are being wasted on a neocon war that was based on lies and deceit. This war is not about defending our country. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, despite the constant conflation by the neocons and their mouthpieces at FOX.

They signed up to fight when their country asked them to fight, and that's exactly what they are doing. Grated the Bush administration ****ed things up on a colossal scale, but that does not mean you give up and leave. What should be done is the general should fight to have things done the right way in Iraq.

I never said we should just pull the troops out and leave the place to collapse, so don't put words in my mouth.

The don't complain when the general tells you he needs more time to stabilize the country! You want your cake and you want to eat it too.


Look, believe me I am on you're side. But your posts make too much blame on a good general in a tough situation. Everyone seems to like the guy in washington. When you post things like "He deserves no respect", you make your post lose credibility and seem silly. You want a straight answer? You enstate a draft and triple the number of troops in Iraq, drag every insurgent you find in the street and shoot him in the head, and close down every boarder into the country until things stabilize.

 

[kach22i]

There lives are important, but not as important as our troops. Why? Because if some Iraqis die but in the process of attaining a stable government, that's fine. If Americans die in the process, people will question why we are wasting our time there. Its not a PC answer, but it is the truth. And I put the lives of the troops before the lives of foreign nationals (from any other nation).

You say a lot of "spot-on" things.

Please remember that the American people have lost their patience after being lied to so many times. We are angry and want change NOW.

 

[Cyrus]

You speak as if I am from another country.

 

[rewebster]

You say a lot of "spot-on" things.

Please remember that the American people have lost their patience after being lied to so many times. We are angry and want change NOW.

I was thinking it sounded more like Ann Coulter more than anything else.

 

[kach22i]

You speak as if I am from another country.

Nawwwwwwwwww...Scarborough country maybe (smile).

 

[turbo]

There lives are important, but not as important as our troops. Why? Because if some Iraqis die but in the process of attaining a stable government, that's fine. If Americans die in the process, people will question why we are wasting our time there. Its not a PC answer, but it is the truth. And I put the lives of the troops before the lives of foreign nationals (from any other nation).

Cyrus, all human lives are precious. These people have parents, spouses, children, and they deserve to live in some modicum of peace and security. When you said 300 people had been killed since the beginning of the surge, it was evident that you hold Iraqi lives in no regard. They are the victims of this war, and their lives are on the heads of out government officials that will not pursue all means to ramp down the violence, including talking to and negotiating with people our administration has demonized.

There is a reason why its not being done right now - its not easy. Furthermore, Iran has had bad relations with the US for the last 30 years. The countries don't want to help the US because they want to have major influence over Iraq once the US leaves.

Iran has had bad elations with the US because just like now in Iraq, the US imposed regime change on them and set the stage for radical Islamic groups to take over after the Shah was deposed. The US under Eisenhower started Iran's nuclear industry. Moderate groups in Iran have been trying to foster better relations with the US for years, but ultra-conservatives and the Israeli bloc in our government have shot that down.

I never deominized anyone, but you did countless times.

I have stated the obvious. You made the claim that China would grab Iraq's oil and fuel their insurgency with no regard for the consequences. I assume you have some references.

They signed up to fight when their country asked them to fight, and that's exactly what they are doing. Grated the Bush administration ****ed things up on a colossal scale, but that does not mean you give up and leave. What should be done is the general should fight to have things done the right way in Iraq.

The signed up to defend this country. Some of them signed up after 9/11 after Bushco conflated 9/11 and Iraq (the most favorite lie of this administration) and some were hauled back into service because they were members of the National Guard or their reserve time was not up. Since then, even if their reservist obligations have been met, they are prevented from leaving by "stop-loss" regulations. Many of these guys had started small businesses, and have lost their businesses during the repeated deployments, plunging their families into poverty and making them dependent on charity. Nice, huh?

The don't complain when the general tells you he needs more time to stabilize the country! You want your cake and you want to eat it too.

You miss the point entirely. The country cannot be stabilized by military occupation and policing patrols. It needs to stabilized by diplomatic initiatives and Bushco refuses to engage in regional diplomacy. Petraeus has said "give us more time", but more time without effective regional diplomacy is simply more killing, and more loss of Iraqi life and US lives. The status quo is not acceptable, since it is simply an extension of the violence, suffering, wounding, and killing. Petraeus gave Bush the cover he needed in Congress to keep killing more Iraqis and more US men and women.

Look, believe me I am on you're side. But your posts make too much blame on a good general in a tough situation. Everyone seems to like the guy in washington. When you post things like "He deserves no respect", you make your post lose credibility and seem silly. You want a straight answer? You enstate a draft and triple the number of troops in Iraq, drag every insurgent you find in the street and shoot him in the head, and close down every boarder into the country until things stabilize.

Petraeus had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do real good and save lives by pointing out that diplomacy is key, and is largely absent. He squandered that by trading those lives for the chance to save Bush's "policy", which is just keep sacrificing more people until someone sane inhabits the White House. There should be a team of diplomats in a friendly bordering country like Saudi Arabia negotiating around the clock with representatives of the other countries in the region. Why is that not happening?

 

[Cyrus]

I have stated the obvious. You made the claim that China would grab Iraq's oil and fuel their insurgency with no regard for the consequences. I assume you have some references.

Forgive me, I assumed you follow the news:

Selling arms to African countries helps China cement relationships with African leaders and helps offset the costs of buying oil from them. China doesn't have the same human rights concerns as the United States and European countries, experts say, so it will sell military hardware and weapons to nearly anyone. Indeed, Beijing sees Africa as a growth market for its military hardware. China's active exploration of oil sources in Africa also leads to a need to ensure security around them, experts say, which has led Beijing to send Chinese military trainers to help their African counterparts. In return, China gains important African allies in the United Nations--including Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria--for its political goals, including preventing Taiwanese independence and diverting attention from its own human rights record. A report, "China's Arms Sales: Motivations and Implications" by Daniel Byman and Roger Cliff for the RAND Corporation, says China's government exerts strong central control over its arms exports and uses them as a foreign policy tool.

Sudan. China has sold the Islamic government in Khartoum weapons and $100 million worth of Shenyang fighter planes, including twelve supersonic F-7 jets, according to the aerospace industry journal Aviation Week and Space Technology. Experts say any military air presence exercised by the government--including the helicopter gunships reportedly used to terrorize civilians in Darfur--comes from China.
Equatorial Guinea. China has provided military training and Chinese specialists in heavy military equipment to the leaders of the tiny East African nation, whose oil reserves per capita approach and may exceed those of Saudi Arabia.
Ethiopia and Eritrea. China sold Ethiopia and its neighbor, Eritrea, an estimated $1 billion worth of weapons before and during their border war from 1998 and 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot2_011806.html

 

[kach22i]

I know someone that works in Africa in the oil industry. There is a war of sorts between China and Europe/USA for African oil access. It's bigger than the war in Iraq by many measures, you just don't hear about it. It's the next big global battle ground.
................


General Betraeus...is not a name "Moveon" made up it now looks like.

From The Sunday Times
August 19, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2284289.ece?Submitted=true

AFTER being hailed as King David, the potential saviour of Iraq, the US commander General David Petraeus is facing a backlash in advance of his report to Congress in September on the progress of America’s troop surge.

Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him “General Betraeus” on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/generals_of_yes.html

Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen | November 18, 2005 at 07:23 PM

I don't know GEN Petraeus personally...but when I was in the "Devil Brigade" folks called him "Colonel Betrayus". He came up with things like the "Devil button" (button your BDU collar up to the top when on jumps) and the "Devil grip" (special name for keeping your trigger finger out of the trigger well) which sounded hokey to most of the troops at the time.

Can any other All American paratroopers out there expand on my comment?

The MoveOn ad in question - for reference:
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

 

[Supercritical]

Update:

Press Briefing, Nov. 18

Security trends continue to improve here in Iraq. Overall, terrorist attacks are at their lowest levels since January 2006, are 55% lower now than at the beginning of the surge when the surge began in June, with some areas experiencing attacks levels not observed this low since the spring and summer of 2005. Civilian fatalities have decreased 60% in Iraq during that same period, and in Baghdad, civilian deaths have decreased by 75%, which certainly accounts for some of the increased optimism we’re seeing by local civilians and local officials here in Baghdad... (briefing continues)

Slides

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7427/slidesj6.png is of particular interest