Petraeus: Partial Iraq troop exit possible in ’08

[Habib]

It is true we have not been hit since 9/11, but I'm not so sure what factor Iraq is playing in that. Bin Laden played financier and leader in the first attack. He was everywhere from Saudi Arabia to the Sudan. The attackers were recruited and organized in Germany with the final completion of their training taking place here. I don't believe someone like Muhammad Atta would be found wielding a rifle in Iraq. Al-Qaida is still a threat and they aren't limited to a state or a region. We are killing terrorists in Iraq, but the masterminding leadership of Al-Qaida is most probably staying safely away. In my opinion, investment and restructuring in our intelligence is our best play.

 

Looking back, I disagree with the invasion, but I agree with Petraeus today. If we exit as clumsily as we entered I don't doubt we'll be back again. But much of the success lies with the Iraqi government and people. How long do we give them to get on board and hold up their end? How long do keep soldiers their if they don't? Being tied up in Iraq indeterminately is to our disadvantage in the long run.

[mcpapa]

It is true we have not been hit since 9/11, but I'm not so sure what factor Iraq is playing in that. Bin Laden played financier and leader in the first attack. He was everywhere from Saudi Arabia to the Sudan. The attackers were recruited and organized in Germany with the final completion of their training taking place here. I don't believe someone like Muhammad Atta would be found wielding a rifle in Iraq. Al-Qaida is still a threat and they aren't limited to a state or a region. We are killing terrorists in Iraq, but the masterminding leadership of Al-Qaida is most probably staying safely away. In my opinion, investment and restructuring in our intelligence is our best play.

 

Looking back, I disagree with the invasion, but I agree with Petraeus today. If we exit as clumsily as we entered I don't doubt we'll be back again. But much of the success lies with the Iraqi government and people. How long do we give them to get on board and hold up their end? How long do keep soldiers their if they don't? Being tied up in Iraq indeterminately is to our disadvantage in the long run.

 

One of the more well thought-out comments we've had re. the war. To simply assume that we haven't been attacked on our soil since 09/11/01 because we've expended thousands of lives and billions of dollars in Iraq is a stretch at best.

 

One could counter the argument that our strategy of keeping al-qaeda "on the run" is monumentally successful could possibly be countered by the argument that the enemy's strategy of forcing us to divert so much manpower and so many dollars to the "war on terror" is a brilliant long-term plan.

[Hatz]

In six years, I've yet to hear anyone offer a better solution. Al Qaida attacked us... not the other way around. We had to do something following 9/11. Those who say we should have not responded don't understand the enemy we're up against.

 

I agree that anyone that suggested that this would be short work was way off base, but we really had no choice but to fight back. The use of Iraq as a magnet to draw in terrorists and insurgents where we can fight them on manageable terrain was sheer brilliance IMO. The Afghans fought the mighty Soviet Army to a standstill for over a decade in the mountains of that country. Iraq was the better choice.

 

It is nothing more than political gamesmanship for politicians to attempt to upstage Petraeus. 9 times out of 10 they come off looking like the boobs they are.

 

 

I've said it until my fingers are hoarse.

 

I had NO problem with our fighting back against the Taliban. Too many try to lump both operations together and I have not ever been convinced of that.

 

When we attacked Iraq we took all the sympathy, support and moral high ground that we received even from much of the middle east after 9/11 and threw it all away. The reason the Mouja Hadim fought the Soviet's to a standstill was part terrain but a big part US backing with arms and training.

 

If we had kept the fight there and even been willing to risk relations with Pakistan in order to chase Bin Laden then we would have kept the support of the world community. As far as a magnet goes, we did attract a ton of terrorists to Iraq, but no our #1 target and our reason for going to war. I honestly believe it was a way to "get a victory" in front of us that was easier to manage and fight (Iraqi military) than it was to do the hard part of cutting off Bin Laden and trapping him. After Tora Bora we seemed to be unwilling to work the scenario to another operation that may have worked this time.

 

It's obvious we will never agree (not sure your really trying to convince me or Vice versa) we just both like the last word.

[Hatz]

 

We need to quit trying to manage it as if it were Vietnam.

 

 

Believe it or not, on that we actually agree. :thumb:

[H]

Both. I agree that we had to hit Afghanistan, but to stay there as a place to draw in other terrorists and extremist insurgents would have been disasterous in terms of tactics and terrain. Iraq was a far better option for this reason, which is why we're there IMO.

 

That would be Iraq invasion rationale number 2,638. I'm not sure that would have been such a great idea either. Now we face an enemy that can bury itself among a population that is a tinderbox of underlying sectarian tensions and conduct ambush attacks against our soldiers and Marines within an urban landscape. I'm amazed that some continue to endorse Bush's incompetence.

 

I wonder how successful we would have been in exterminating al Qaeda had we had left Iraq alone and invaded Afghanistan with 300,000 troops instead of 20,000...

[Fastbreak]

You've spent an evening pointing out how nobody has it right.

 

What's your solution H?

[H]

I watched Petraeus' testimony today on Fox and was awed by the line of questioning from the Dems. The Dems are obviously relying on the public's perceived failures in the Iraqi War to guarantee successes in the 08 elections. The Dems cower from positive Iraqi War news like a vampire cowers from sunlight.

 

What about the line of questioning by Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), and Dick Lugar (R-Indiana), and John Warner (R-Virginia)? Two of those three (Hagel and Warner) have announced they will leave public office following their current terms in the Senate. Are they trying to "guarantee successes in the 08 elections" too?

 

Face it, it has nothing to do with ignoring "positive Iraqi war news". We have been hearing Administration-spun fantasies about how well things are going over there for nearly five years now. The American people have had enough of this nonsense and are increasingly frustrated that someone hasn't wrestled the keys away from this inept president.

[H]

You've spent an evening point out how nobody has it right.

 

What's your solution H?

 

 

Iraq Study Group Report

 

I wonder how many American lives have been wasted in Iraq since the president ignored foreign policy expertise that dwarfs his own and chose to go his own way?

[Fastbreak]

The American people have had enough of this nonsense and are increasingly frustrated that someone hasn't wrestled the keys away from this inept president.

You could have simply stated, "Bush is an Idiot" about two hours ago and saved yourself a lot of trouble.

[Habib]

You could have simply stated, "Bush is an Idiot" about two hours ago and saved yourself a lot of trouble.

 

I disagree, I think H has put together a very cogent argument here.

[Fastbreak]

I disagree, I think H has put together a very cogent argument here.

Look, I'm not pro war. I hate war. I would love to live in a truly peaceful world. We don't. On 9-12-2001 95% of the country was enraged to action. Watching people whose greatest crime was getting out of bed and getting to work on time, leap from 100 floors to avoid being incinerated had a way of focusing us.

 

Problem was, we weren't attacked by a nation we could bomb the crap out of and win a clear cut victory. Fact is, no nation had ever fought such a decentralized enemy. There was no way we were going to get this done perfectly, and no way we could remain idle.

 

Listening to a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks pontificate, second guess and point out the obvious so they can sound like the smartest guy in the room serves no useful purpose.

 

A bunch of liberal politicians, spewing party talking points in an attempt to disrespect a four star general borders on treason IMO.

[Fastbreak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSe1OvIrX4c

[Sting]

 

I agree that anyone that suggested that this would be short work was way off base, but we really had no choice but to fight back. The use of Iraq as a magnet to draw in terrorists and insurgents where we can fight them on manageable terrain was sheer brilliance IMO. The Afghans fought the mighty Soviet Army to a standstill for over a decade in the mountains of that country. Iraq was the better choice.

 

I totally agree with this and have been saying this for a few years. Why is the administration not out making this point. Everybody declaring jihad is jumping the fence and heading to Iraq. This is either sheer brilliance by the US, or complete ignorance by the enemy. How many foreign fighters are they finding in Iraq? Plenty. The enemy is taking on the military in Iraq and not the citizens in New York, DC, London, or Paris. I think (and hope) that history is more kind to the actions of our country than the modern media is...

[Habib]

Look, I'm not pro war. I hate war. I would love to live in a truly peaceful world. We don't. On 9-12-2001 95% of the country was enraged to action. Watching people whose greatest crime was getting out of bed and getting to work on time, leap from 100 floors to avoid being incinerated had a way of focusing us.

 

Problem was, we weren't attacked by a nation we could bomb the crap out of and win a clear cut victory. Fact is, no nation had ever fought such a decentralized enemy. There was no way we were going to get this done perfectly, and no way we could remain idle.

 

And I agree, but where has Iraq played into this? What were the reasons for the invasion? UN sanctions violations, a meeting with Al-Qaida, possession of WMDs with the intent to create a nuclear weapon. I was all for it. I’ve been all for it. But what have we found? Our intelligence was weak. Logical missteps took place. We rushed to invade a country that posed no immediate threat. We tried to “bomb the crap out of and win a clear cut victory” against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. I realize it is easier to look back at our errors, but our intelligence and our plans absolutely should have been scrutinized more carefully. Or dissent should have been given more credence. Why should we accept such errors and justify them? The guys who are capable of breaching our security, getting a bomb over here or otherwise pulling off a 9/11 style attack aren’t in Iraq. They’re building networks in London, Hamburg, Jakarta, all over. I don’t think we should cut the ropes and pull out now. We have to try and get Iraq back on a stable path, because if we do a bang up job it is unknown what will happen afterwards. But at the same time we can’t stay indefinitely.

 

Listening to a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks pontificate, second guess and point out the obvious so they can sound like the smartest guy in the room serves no useful purpose.

 

So there should be no dissent? I’ve been a supporter of the war and the President for a long time, but what have we gained? It is a bleak picture. How long are we going to stay? What can we do differently to get things under control so we can remove ourselves? Why is it wrong to ask these questions?

 

A bunch of liberal politicians, spewing party talking points in an attempt to disrespect a four star general borders on treason IMO.

 

They’ve obviously been playing politics, and I find it reprehensible. They gave the vote to let General Petraeus make his report, and then condemned it before it was made.

[Habib]

I totally agree with this and have been saying this for a few years. Why is the administration not out making this point.

 

Probably because they didn't want that to happen.

 

Everybody declaring jihad is jumping the fence and heading to Iraq. This is either sheer brilliance by the US, or complete ignorance by the enemy. How many foreign fighters are they finding in Iraq? Plenty. The enemy is taking on the military in Iraq and not the citizens in New York, DC, London, or Paris. I think (and hope) that history is more kind to the actions of our country than the modern media is...

 

These mujahideen your talking about here are brainwashed illiterates coming over to kill our troops. They are literally improvising bombs to kill our troops. They aren't capable of marching over here. The real people we should be worried about, the people capable of pulling off a real attack, the Muhammad Atta's of radical Islam, are not in Iraq.