Petraeus: Partial Iraq troop exit possible in ’08

[H]

Not really. You can try to say it as cute and pretty as you want to, but you either think Petraeus is telling the truth or you don't. I asked you if you felt Petraeus' report was part of the "Administration spun fantasies" and you said it was. Just what is the fantasy of his report? If its true, its not fantasy. If its fantasy, its not true. If its not true, he was lying in his report and hence, he is a liar.

 

And it wasn't just Bush who put him "out there". You seem, in your rush to criticize Bush, to forget that it was the Democrats in Congress that demanded the September report (he testified to Congress, did he not?). Well, they got it. But because some people don't like what he's saying, now he's "betray us" or in your words, he's a part of an "Adminstration spun fantasy". I'm sorry, but I won't use cute or pretty words, but that's sickening.

 

Look, I get it. You don't like Bush and probably never have. You are probably part of that element that felt he stole the election and have never given him a fair chance from the get go. And you won't give him or any of his initiatives.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for not sending troops into Darfur to stop the civil war going on there and the senseless slaughter of innocent people. Yet you think Bush is wrong for keeping troops in Iraq to avoid that exact same thing from happening there.

 

You probably think Bush is at fault when gas prices go up above $3 a gallon, yet criticize him for justifying our need to take actions in the middle east to protect our interests in oil there.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for advocating logging in our national forests, but blame Bush for not being tough enough on global warming, when the lack of logging has contributed to the global warming.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for supporting fair trade agreements because of the loss of jobs overseas and the trade imbalance, yet every day financially benefit by being able to buy products made much more affordable because of those fair trade agreements.

 

Yeah, I get it. Some one is spinning a fantasy all right, but its not the Administration in its justification of the war. Rather, its his critics who will spin every positive result, every positive development to attack the man. Just admit it, you didn't want Petraeus to say positive things in his report; you were hoping deep in your heart that the surge wouldn't work. And that's why when his report didn't come out as you hoped, you've now labelled it a fantasy.

 

I'll respond to this diatribe later...

[Run To State]

I'll respond to this diatribe later...

He had many a good point, H. Maybe you're taking time to digest it, doubtful though since he's not siding with you.

He's right, you hate all that is GW and you will NEVER admit to anything good or right that he's done.

[Fastbreak]

I had the very good fortune of spending the past three days in the company of some colonels and generals, a number of which had recently returned from active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were treated to a variety of videos, slideshows and powerpoints showing what they and their troops had been up to over there. We were blown away with the amazing work these fine Americans had done. We were even more dismayed that none of their accomplishments had been covered or broadcast by anyone. We’re not talking about deep secrets or incredibly dangerous assignments no news crew would want to be a part of… just great stories of great Americans doing what great Americans do best, bringing hope and liberty to desperate and needy people in a dark place in the world.

 

Those of you who want to rail about what a waste our effort has been go right ahead… you couldn’t be more wrong… but now that I’ve had my eyes opened, it’s enough for me to know it. I don’t have to try to prove it to you. Your mind is already made up. I honestly don’t believe you would believe it if you saw it with your own eyes anyway.

[outlawcoach]

I had the very good fortune of spending the past three days in the company of some colonels and generals, a number of which had recently returned from active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were treated to a variety of videos, slideshows and powerpoints showing what they and their troops had been up to over there. We were blown away with the amazing work these fine Americans had done. We were even more dismayed that none of their accomplishments had been covered or broadcast by anyone. We’re not talking about deep secrets or incredibly dangerous assignments no news crew would want to be a part of… just great stories of great Americans doing what great Americans do best, bringing hope and liberty to desperate and needy people in a dark place in the world.

 

Those of you who want to rail about what a waste our effort has been go right ahead… you couldn’t be more wrong… but now that I’ve had my eyes opened, it’s enough for me to know it. I don’t have to try to prove it to you. Your mind is already made up. I honestly don’t believe you would believe it if you saw it with your own eyes anyway.

Every American should see those videos that you saw. I believe what our soldiers tell us about the situation in Iraq, not our politicians, Dem or GOP. There was a time in this country that party politics went out the window when talking about our men and women that were still in harms ways. Lets be Americans for once, not republican Americans or Democrat Americans!

[Fastbreak]

I'm amazed that some continue to endorse Bush's incompetence.

The fact that you can't name ten good news reports you've watched, heard or read in national mainstream media over the past five years in regard to U.S. troops in Iraq or Afghanistan without doing some research on the internet verifies the incredible incompetence of our media constantly seeking some way to forward their agenda.

 

"Hold on there" you say, "that's not fair."

 

I agree... it's entirely not fair.

 

There's enough good news to feature ten new good news reports daily and not cover even 5% of the good things our soldiers are doing, and yet we are bombarded daily with the latest homocide bomber or IED attack or troops killed in action reports

 

Out of nearly 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan we get front page worldwide coverage for weeks when a relative handful of miscreants behave badly in Haditha or Abu Ghraib. What about the other 199,985 good soldiers?

 

What's wrong with this picture?

[H]

He had many a good point, H. Maybe you're taking time to digest it, doubtful though since he's not siding with you.

He's right, you hate all that is GW and you will NEVER admit to anything good or right that he's done.

 

:sleep:

 

I'm pretty sure Leatherneck can fight his own battles.

[H]

Not really. You can try to say it as cute and pretty as you want to, but you either think Petraeus is telling the truth or you don't. I asked you if you felt Petraeus' report was part of the "Administration spun fantasies" and you said it was. Just what is the fantasy of his report? If its true, its not fantasy. If its fantasy, its not true. If its not true, he was lying in his report and hence, he is a liar.

 

To quote Ronald Reagan, "well, there you go again." Please find one of my statements where I directly said General Petreaus was not telling the truth or distorted the truth. You can't because I never said or implied that. What I did say was that the General's testimony was being used as part of the Administration's spin on its failed Iraq policy. General Petreaus reported that there has been some improvement in the security status within Iraq since the surge took effect. He supported his assertions with charts and data. Fine. I have no problem acknowledging that if you add 30,000 U.S. combat troops to a highly unstable conflict and give them direction to quell that conflict, they will have some effect. What I have a big problem with is the Administration's overselling of these military results as some kind of proof that a favorable solution to the political problems within Iraq will come if we just stay the course. Bush and his functionaries have been wrong so many times regarding the future course of events in Iraq that they simply have no credibility left. That's not Bush-hate, that's just cold hard fact. Here are some quotes for you to consider:

 

• "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." George W. Bush, October 2000
  
• “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost (of the Iraq war)"., Donald Rumsfeld, January 2003
  
• "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.", Donald Rumsfeld, February 2003
  
• ""My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months.", Dick Cheney, March 2003
  
• "I think (comparing Iraq to Vietnam) sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.", George W. Bush, April 2004
  
• "Tomorrow the world will witness a turning point in the history of Iraq.", George W. Bush, January 2005
  
• "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.", Dick Cheney, June 2005
  
• ""We're optimistic that more and more Iraqi troops are becoming better trained to fight the terrorists. We're optimistic about the constitutional process. There is a political track that's moving forward in parallel with the security track." George W. Bush, June 2005
  
• "2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq ... and the history of freedom.", George W. Bush, December 2005
  
• "Gradually, Iraqi forces are taking control of more and more territory, and as they undertake further missions on their own, confidence is growing within the country, and more intelligence tips are coming in from the Iraqi people themselves.", Dick Cheney, January, 2006
  
• "This is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens.", George W. Bush, August 2006
  
• But it would be really erroneous to say that the Iraqis are somehow making a choice for civil war, or I think even sliding into civil war.", Condoleeza Rice, August 2006
  
• "One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control.", George W. Bush, September 2007
  

If you refuse to acknowledge this, then we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that, but the facts overwhelmingly justify my position.

 

 

And it wasn't just Bush who put him "out there". You seem, in your rush to criticize Bush, to forget that it was the Democrats in Congress that demanded the September report (he testified to Congress, did he not?). Well, they got it. But because some people don't like what he's saying, now he's "betray us" or in your words, he's a part of an "Adminstration spun fantasy". I'm sorry, but I won't use cute or pretty words, but that's sickening.

 

Look, as I made clear with examples in my earlier post, this president publicly elevates the opinions of his military commanders when they suit his agenda and quietly disregards them when they do not. That is what is happening here and that is what I mean when I say he is part of the Administration-spun fantasies about Iraq. The Administration is clearly grasping at straws by claming that the modest security gains reported by General Petreaus are proof that the President's surge strategy is working and that necessary political reconciliation will result. You are putting words in my mouth by claiming I implied dishonesty or dishonorable intention in the General's testimony. I did nothing of the sort.

 

Look, I get it. You don't like Bush and probably never have. You are probably part of that element that felt he stole the election and have never given him a fair chance from the get go. And you won't give him or any of his initiatives.

 

I voted for Bush in 2000, so no, I don't think he stole the election. He had my support until his administration began using 9/11 and his unnecessary invasion of Iraq as instruments to bludgeon political opponents and question the patriotism of honest Americans. That behavior has been divisive, destructive, and despicable.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for not sending troops into Darfur to stop the civil war going on there and the senseless slaughter of innocent people. Yet you think Bush is wrong for keeping troops in Iraq to avoid that exact same thing from happening there.

 

Nope, not at all. My opinion of Bush has absolutely NOTHING to do whatsoever with the question of military intervention in Darfur.

 

You probably think Bush is at fault when gas prices go up above $3 a gallon, yet criticize him for justifying our need to take actions in the middle east to protect our interests in oil there.

 

Nope. I recognize that the only influence a president has over such things are long-range policy decisions. I do think Bush has failed to recognize that the scale of our oil con$umption greatly helps to fund the forces of terrorism. His failure to consider (until the twilight of his presidency) any measures to reduce consumption represents, IMHO, a significant disconnect in his overall strategy to counter terrorism.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for advocating logging in our national forests, but blame Bush for not being tough enough on global warming, when the lack of logging has contributed to the global warming.

 

You'll have to explain that one to me. In my grade school science classes, I was taught that trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen. I don't follow your logic that the lack of cutting down trees has contributed to global warming. And as for "Bush not being tough enough on global warming"-- :lol: are you kidding me? tough enough? Show me where Bush has taken anything remotely resembling tough actions to deal with global warming. Heck, show me where Bush as taken any action on global warming. To use a metaphor, throughout his presidency, Bush has sat like a bump on a log where global warming is concerned.

 

You probably think Bush is wrong for supporting fair trade agreements because of the loss of jobs overseas and the trade imbalance, yet every day financially benefit by being able to buy products made much more affordable because of those fair trade agreements.

 

Wrong again. I am a believer in unfettered international trade and free-floating exchange rates. By the way, what did you think of Bush's abandonment of his supposed free-trade beliefs to enact protectionist tariffs on imported steel in 2002? Strange detour from free-trade conservatism, indeed.

 

Yeah, I get it. Some one is spinning a fantasy all right, but its not the Administration in its justification of the war. Rather, its his critics who will spin every positive result, every positive development to attack the man. Just admit it, you didn't want Petraeus to say positive things in his report; you were hoping deep in your heart that the surge wouldn't work. And that's why when his report didn't come out as you hoped, you've now labelled it a fantasy.

 

Clearly, the surge hasn't worked. Sure, a modest reduction in violence has been achieved (although it is not clear if that was due to the de facto partitioning of Iraq that has takien place as Sunni and Shia have moved away from each other). But was the surge's ultimate objective to suppress sectarian violence or to achieve political stability? Can we leave Iraq without the presence of political stability? Hint: no. The president agreed to measure progress based on 18 benchmarks, most of which pertain to political progress and few of which have been met. As I have shown above, the Administration has been wrong so many times on Iraq they have no credibility left on forecasting which direction it is heading or what steps need to be taken. It is time for a clear assessment and some accountability. No more fantasy.

[Run To State]

:sleep:

 

I'm pretty sure Leatherneck can fight his own battles.

 

You let me know when I can respond to you chief, I didn't know you had your own rules in place.

[leatherneck]

 

You let me know when I can respond to you chief, I didn't know you had your own rules in place.

 

 

RTS, you have my proxy to respond to any question any one ever poses to me on here.

 

H, you stated that you felt that Petraeus' report was part of the Administration's fantasy. I don't think that takes a big leap of logic to conclude that you were implying Petraeus' report was fantasy itself. If you are now stating that you think Petraeus' report was truthful and that the surge is now working, but Bush is using it to support Bush's statement that he felt the surge would work, I'm fine with that. Because its true.

And keep in mind that it was Congress calling for Petraeus to make his report to them. They asked for it, they got it, and now you are saying its Bush using Petraeus to further Bush's fantasy. I don't follow your logic there my friend.

 

I'm not happy that the Iraqi govt isn't making more progress. Then again, I think we need to be realistic about the amount of time its going to take for them to make progress. I don't think our founding fathers had their act together right after this country was formed either. And frankly, the situation was a lot better here than it is in Iraq as that govt tries to get started. Getting two religious groups that hate one another to cooperate isn't going to happen overnight. Add in the Kurds who want the idea of a central strong govt to fail and it gets even harder.

 

If your point is that Bush should have recognized such and not made such rosy forcasts to the American people, I understand that criticism. Then again, I'm not sure Bush could have made public statements to the effect that "we know its going to take a long time", while at the same time, we were pressing the Iraqis to make better, faster progress. We, as Americans, have to be a little smarter and understand that things get said by the Administration here in the States knowing that those statements are going to be reported in Iraq. As a result, they are spun a certain way. Yes, I acknowledge that Bush has spun certain things. Then again, every President, every political leader in the World, puts a spin on their public statements. Its kind of naive to think that won't happen or doesn't need to happen.

 

As for Bush ignoring the military advise he doesn't like, I have a question for you. Have you ever served in the military? When it comes to planning and strategy, there has never been unanimity in military advise. The Marines landing at Inchon was considered by a lot of senior military leaders (including some top Marines) to be doomed to fail. Fortunately, the decision makers didn't listen to them. There will always be those that say we need more or less than what is actually needed. War planning is not a science; at best its an art and even then if developments don't go as planned, even the best planning can go wrong. Surely you understand that regardless of whether you were in the military. If you were in the military, it should be a no brainer. Yes Bush did not follow some military advisors that felt we needed more troops for the invasion part. They were wrong; we didn't need that many troops for the invasion part. Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the invasion, was fine with the number of troops I recall reading.

 

Again, I think we need to be smarter than what we read. We have to understand that we needed to be really concerned that the Arab world was concerned about the perception being created that we were going to "occupy" Iraq after we invaded it and take over Iraq's oil resources as our own. In order to avoid that backlash, I'm speculating that the Administration went with a de minimus U.S. presence in the post invasion phase with the hope that the Iraqi people would welcome liberation and cooperate to run the country. Perhaps our intel to that point was wrong; perhaps we were naive. But I think we had to give the Iraqis the first opportunity to do the right thing. They did not step up however and as a result, we've needed to increase our presence to bring some measure of security to Iraq.

 

And unless Petraeus is lying, it is working. Can we keep the surge levels forever? Of course not. Our military is not big enough for that to happen. But we have to keep as many troops over there as long as we can to give the Iraqis as much time as possible to build a meaningful central govt coalition. Will it definitely be successful? I don't know if there can ever be a strong central Iraqi govt; but I can say that on here because no one cares what I say. But Bush can't publicly state that. He HAS to state that it will be successful if the Iraqis working on that coalition have a hope in Hades of making that happen. He can't cut out the legs of the Iraqis working on that coalition by stating that he has serious reservations about their ability to pull it off, if he believes that a strong central govt in Iraq provides the best hope for stablity and security in that country.

 

Finally as for the logging of trees helping eliminate global warming issue: I've read several reports and studies that the ban against logging on federal lands has resulted in more intense forest fires. Fires as you know dump a lot of pollutants into the air which contribute to global warming. Thus, while trees do turn CO2 into O2, if trees are not harvested properly, too many trees become counter productive. Thus the need for a sound harvesting logging program. When I was out in Idaho a few years back Elk hunting, the amount of dead trees laying on the ground was staggering. Almost every step I took involved stepping over a dead tree lying on the ground. All those dead trees provides a lot of fuel that creates larger, more intense forest fires which contribute to global warming.

 

Not only are burning trees that could have been harvested ( thus creating jobs in the logging industry for the average American and the wood products to be shipped overseas to help combat our global trade imbalance) with a sound logging program, wasted resources, the more intense fires bring great risk to the men and women we call upon to fight the fires. And again, if the reports I've read are true, these big forest fires contribute to global warming. I love trees with the best of them, but we have to have a balanced approach to our national forests and we can't go around hugging every tree.

 

Finally, as to Bush's failure to have a long term energy policy to reduce our dependence on oil (which greatly helps fund terrorism), I can only hope that you were just as critical of every president before Bush that failed to do the same thing. And unless we get every country that consumes a lot of oil to also move away from oil (highly unlikely given the dependence of rapidly developing third world countries like China and India), the terrorists will continue to get the oil money for their wicked plans to harm us, regardless of whether we had a long term plan in place or not. The terrorists hate us and will always hate us until we abandon Israel and give the terrorists what they want. They will get their money to harm us from some source, whether that source is oil revenues or drug revenues or kidnappings. These are not rational people H and I think you have to acknowledge that. Leaving them alone and appeasing them is not going to make them go away (and I am not stating that you have said such). Hopefully providing democracy, better education and a solid economy will give the middle eastern people a reason to not blindly accept the hate messages the terrorist leaders are spewing. I believe our invasion of Iraq was for that purpose and the purpose of removing a nut case who was going to harm us, some day, some how. To have done nothing to remove Hussein until after Hussein harmed us would have been a failure of Bush to fulfill his sworn duties to protect America.

[Fastbreak]

When I was out in Idaho a few years back Elk hunting, the amount of dead trees laying on the ground was staggering. Almost every step I took involved stepping over a dead tree lying on the ground. All those dead trees provides a lot of fuel that creates larger, more intense forest fires which contribute to global warming.

Not to mention the fact that termites generate far more methane gas than cattle worldwide.

 

It's a fact, check it out... :thumb:

[HHSDad]

:sleep:

 

I'm pretty sure Leatherneck can fight his own battles.

 

You let me know when I can respond to you chief, I didn't know you had your own rules in place.

Easy fellers. Lets not make this personal.

[H]

RTS, you have my proxy to respond to any question any one ever poses to me on here.

 

H, you stated that you felt that Petraeus' report was part of the Administration's fantasy. I don't think that takes a big leap of logic to conclude that you were implying Petraeus' report was fantasy itself. If you are now stating that you think Petraeus' report was truthful and that the surge is now working, but Bush is using it to support Bush's statement that he felt the surge would work, I'm fine with that. Because its true.

And keep in mind that it was Congress calling for Petraeus to make his report to them. They asked for it, they got it, and now you are saying its Bush using Petraeus to further Bush's fantasy. I don't follow your logic there my friend.

 

No. I said, in post #22, that we have been hearing Administration-spun fantasies about how well things are going for nearly five years. That is absolutely true. I noticed you didn't comment about the string of quotes I posted showing just how wrong the Bush Administration has been in their assessments and predictions on Iraq. How can you have faith in leadership with such a demonstrated history of being wrong? The president is clearly using the Petreaus report on the surge's limited tactical success to argue that strategically it is a success. Big difference. Bush is (once again) making a leap of faith that things will work out because he wants them to work out. What's his plan? When will this miracle come to pass? He has no plan other than to blindly hope the Iraqis get their act together. And on this bet, he has layed down the lives of hundreds more soldiers and Marines. I honestly believe he just wants to hand the mess he has made off to the next president so he can claim they lost the war. Then he can go back to Texas and focus on "replenishing the ol' coffers".

 

 

I'm not happy that the Iraqi govt isn't making more progress. Then again, I think we need to be realistic about the amount of time its going to take for them to make progress. I don't think our founding fathers had their act together right after this country was formed either. And frankly, the situation was a lot better here than it is in Iraq as that govt tries to get started. Getting two religious groups that hate one another to cooperate isn't going to happen overnight. Add in the Kurds who want the idea of a central strong govt to fail and it gets even harder.

 

Hoping these three factions with their complicated animosities will eventually agree to form a functioning government is not the basis of sound foreign policy. How long should we send our kids off to be maimed and killed by roadside bombs? Five more years? Ten more years? Fifty? I guess as long as we're not drafting the children of the elite, that's ok...

 

 

If your point is that Bush should have recognized such and not made such rosy forcasts to the American people, I understand that criticism. Then again, I'm not sure Bush could have made public statements to the effect that "we know its going to take a long time", while at the same time, we were pressing the Iraqis to make better, faster progress. We, as Americans, have to be a little smarter and understand that things get said by the Administration here in the States knowing that those statements are going to be reported in Iraq. As a result, they are spun a certain way. Yes, I acknowledge that Bush has spun certain things. Then again, every President, every political leader in the World, puts a spin on their public statements. Its kind of naive to think that won't happen or doesn't need to happen.

 

Thank you, but I expect my President to talk straight to the people he works for, and not distort the truth. And to the notion that Bush has spun things to avoid upsetting things in Iraq, a lot of good that's done. Iraq is a bloody mess and these fools have shown no willingness to resolve their differences no matter what we do or say (or don't say).

 

 

As for Bush ignoring the military advise he doesn't like, I have a question for you. Have you ever served in the military? When it comes to planning and strategy, there has never been unanimity in military advise. The Marines landing at Inchon was considered by a lot of senior military leaders (including some top Marines) to be doomed to fail. Fortunately, the decision makers didn't listen to them. There will always be those that say we need more or less than what is actually needed. War planning is not a science; at best its an art and even then if developments don't go as planned, even the best planning can go wrong. Surely you understand that regardless of whether you were in the military. If you were in the military, it should be a no brainer. Yes Bush did not follow some military advisors that felt we needed more troops for the invasion part. They were wrong; we didn't need that many troops for the invasion part. Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the invasion, was fine with the number of troops I recall reading.

 

I have not served in the military. Do I need to have served to understand that there are frequently dissenting opinions in every major decision? I think you're overlooking some important facts here. First of all, Bush and Rumsfeld (neither of whom ever saw combat) didn't just ignore any military advisor, they ignored the advice of the president's own Army Chief of Staff. Since you were in the military, you probably know that the Army Chief of Staff is the chief military advisor to the President on Army matters. So Bush ignored the advice of his chief Army advisor, who said it would take a force of several hundred thousand men to stabilize postwar Iraq. And guess what? He was right. While it may have taken only a small fraction to knock off Saddam's brittle military and overrun the country, history has shown that we did not have enough forces to keep a lid on the chaos that ensued. I find it interesting you brought up Tommy Franks, the invasion commander. Franks reportedly agreed that a much smaller invasion force was adequate, and it was--for the invasion. Of course, Franks also retired from the Army on May 22, 2003, right after the (successful) invasion was complete and right around the time the wheels began to fall off.

 

If you say that there are always different opinions among military leaders, and you think Bush listens to his commanders, why does he invariably seem to ignore the commanders who are right and listen to the ones who are wrong?

 

 

Again, I think we need to be smarter than what we read. We have to understand that we needed to be really concerned that the Arab world was concerned about the perception being created that we were going to "occupy" Iraq after we invaded it and take over Iraq's oil resources as our own. In order to avoid that backlash, I'm speculating that the Administration went with a de minimus U.S. presence in the post invasion phase with the hope that the Iraqi people would welcome liberation and cooperate to run the country. Perhaps our intel to that point was wrong; perhaps we were naive. But I think we had to give the Iraqis the first opportunity to do the right thing. They did not step up however and as a result, we've needed to increase our presence to bring some measure of security to Iraq.

 

Then the Administration were a bunch of ignorant fools. Our intel to that point was not wrong. The 1999 Desert Crossing wargame simulation of a U.S. invasion of Iraq predicted most of the problems we encountered after the 2003 invasion: "rival forces bidding for power", societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines", problems with "aggressive neighbors", and "An exit strategy complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq". But this topic had been studied in excrutiating detail by the military's top subject matter experts just a few years before the invasion plan was hatched. There can be no excuse for the complete disregard of its prescient and accurate lessons.

 

 

And unless Petraeus is lying, it is working. Can we keep the surge levels forever? Of course not. Our military is not big enough for that to happen. But we have to keep as many troops over there as long as we can to give the Iraqis as much time as possible to build a meaningful central govt coalition. Will it definitely be successful? I don't know if there can ever be a strong central Iraqi govt; but I can say that on here because no one cares what I say. But Bush can't publicly state that. He HAS to state that it will be successful if the Iraqis working on that coalition have a hope in Hades of making that happen. He can't cut out the legs of the Iraqis working on that coalition by stating that he has serious reservations about their ability to pull it off, if he believes that a strong central govt in Iraq provides the best hope for stablity and security in that country.

 

So we should completely exhaust our military ground forces by staying, "as long as we can", to give the Iraqis "as much time as possible" to straighten out their thousand year old problems? Again, that's not a plan, that's hoping for an outcome without any evidence to support its probability. I wonder how many parents are willing to sacrifice their son to allow Bush to satisfy his hunch that Iraq is just about to turn the corner. Remember, he's been predicting that for the past four years now. Here's a question: What if we need our ground forces for something much more important right around the time we can no longer sustain the surge? It's no secret that U.S. military readiness has been severely impaired by our four year old occupation of Iraq. That's another example of Bush not listening to the military, by the way. The world is not a rosy, friendly place outside of Iraq, you know.

[leatherneck]

No. I said, in post #22, that we have been hearing Administration-spun fantasies about how well things are going for nearly five years. That is absolutely true. I noticed you didn't comment about the string of quotes I posted showing just how wrong the Bush Administration has been in their assessments and predictions on Iraq. How can you have faith in leadership with such a demonstrated history of being wrong? The president is clearly using the Petreaus report on the surge's limited tactical success to argue that strategically it is a success. Big difference. Bush is (once again) making a leap of faith that things will work out because he wants them to work out. What's his plan? When will this miracle come to pass? He has no plan other than to blindly hope the Iraqis get their act together. And on this bet, he has layed down the lives of hundreds more soldiers and Marines. I honestly believe he just wants to hand the mess he has made off to the next president so he can claim they lost the war. Then he can go back to Texas and focus on "replenishing the ol' coffers".

 

 

 

 

Hoping these three factions with their complicated animosities will eventually agree to form a functioning government is not the basis of sound foreign policy. How long should we send our kids off to be maimed and killed by roadside bombs? Five more years? Ten more years? Fifty? I guess as long as we're not drafting the children of the elite, that's ok...

 

 

 

 

Thank you, but I expect my President to talk straight to the people he works for, and not distort the truth. And to the notion that Bush has spun things to avoid upsetting things in Iraq, a lot of good that's done. Iraq is a bloody mess and these fools have shown no willingness to resolve their differences no matter what we do or say (or don't say).

 

 

 

 

I have not served in the military. Do I need to have served to understand that there are frequently dissenting opinions in every major decision? I think you're overlooking some important facts here. First of all, Bush and Rumsfeld (neither of whom ever saw combat) didn't just ignore any military advisor, they ignored the advice of the president's own Army Chief of Staff. Since you were in the military, you probably know that the Army Chief of Staff is the chief military advisor to the President on Army matters. So Bush ignored the advice of his chief Army advisor, who said it would take a force of several hundred thousand men to stabilize postwar Iraq. And guess what? He was right. While it may have taken only a small fraction to knock off Saddam's brittle military and overrun the country, history has shown that we did not have enough forces to keep a lid on the chaos that ensued. I find it interesting you brought up Tommy Franks, the invasion commander. Franks reportedly agreed that a much smaller invasion force was adequate, and it was--for the invasion. Of course, Franks also retired from the Army on May 22, 2003, right after the (successful) invasion was complete and right around the time the wheels began to fall off.

 

If you say that there are always different opinions among military leaders, and you think Bush listens to his commanders, why does he invariably seem to ignore the commanders who are right and listen to the ones who are wrong?

 

 

 

 

Then the Administration were a bunch of ignorant fools. Our intel to that point was not wrong. The 1999 Desert Crossing wargame simulation of a U.S. invasion of Iraq predicted most of the problems we encountered after the 2003 invasion: "rival forces bidding for power", societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines", problems with "aggressive neighbors", and "An exit strategy complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq". But this topic had been studied in excrutiating detail by the military's top subject matter experts just a few years before the invasion plan was hatched. There can be no excuse for the complete disregard of its prescient and accurate lessons.

 

 

 

 

So we should completely exhaust our military ground forces by staying, "as long as we can", to give the Iraqis "as much time as possible" to straighten out their thousand year old problems? Again, that's not a plan, that's hoping for an outcome without any evidence to support its probability. I wonder how many parents are willing to sacrifice their son to allow Bush to satisfy his hunch that Iraq is just about to turn the corner. Remember, he's been predicting that for the past four years now. Here's a question: What if we need our ground forces for something much more important right around the time we can no longer sustain the surge? It's no secret that U.S. military readiness has been severely impaired by our four year old occupation of Iraq. That's another example of Bush not listening to the military, by the way. The world is not a rosy, friendly place outside of Iraq, you know.

 

 

I don't agree with everything, or maybe not even a lot of your views, but I'm man enough to admit you raised some valid arguments as to why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I've read the Desert Crossing papers. I can only hope that between 99 and 03 that there were enough changes in Iraq for the Administration to believed that things had changed enough to make the Desert Crossing's conclusions no longer valid. Furthermore, if you note, the report stated that its conclusions would be different if we felt that there were WMDs present. And there were intelligence reports from not just our agencies but other countries also that felt there were WMDs present (and admittedly others that did not). Some people would do nothing until there was incontrovertible proof of the WMDs. Other people would not want to wait until that was the case, because that may never happen. The need to make those types of decisions is what makes Presidents look much, much older when they leave office than when they came into office.

 

But the real issue today is not whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq, is it? You don't want to believe anything the Administration says about Iraq because you don't trust them. I'm okay with that thinking. I understand how you could feel that way.

 

But I'm focused on what happens in Iraq if we pull out suddenly or prior to there being some meaningful Iraqi govt presence in Iraq. And I don't need to be lectured about the loss of American lives in Iraq. I know plenty of people over there. I have a 18 and 16 year old son. Both of whom may someday join the military (which scares the heck out of me and Henry) and get sent over there.

 

What do you think happens in Iraq if we withdraw suddenly? Will it embolden Iran to invade Iraq? Will the terrorists develop a safe haven to conduct their operations? Will it enable the terrorists to use the Iraqi oil to fund their operations? Will there be civil war with even more civilian deaths than the likes of what we've seen?

 

I know what you feel about our decision to invade Iraq. But I'd like to know how you think things will develop if we leave now. I think it will be catastrophic and within 5 years we'll be back over there fighting an even bigger mess and we'll get even less cooperation from the Iraqi people than we are getting now since we will have pulled out on them in the past.

[HHSDad]

But I'm focused on what happens in Iraq if we pull out suddenly or prior to there being some meaningful Iraqi govt presence in Iraq. And I don't need to be lectured about the loss of American lives in Iraq. I know plenty of people over there. I have a 18 and 16 year old son. Both of whom may someday join the military (which scares the heck out of me and Henry) and get sent over there.

That's a real concern for me also. My heart wishes we would just pack up and leave, but my head says that would be a very bad decision.

What do you think happens in Iraq if we withdraw suddenly? Will it embolden Iran to invade Iraq? Will the terrorists develop a safe haven to conduct their operations? Will it enable the terrorists to use the Iraqi oil to fund their operations? Will there be civil war with even more civilian deaths than the likes of what we've seen?

If we pull out of Iraq, it will cease to exist within a year. This will either further destabilize the Mideast, give much more power to the Mullahs, create even more anti-Americanism, or all of the above.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Well, I though that LN had cornered the market on LONG posts. After reading through this thread, I see H is right there with him.:lol: :sssh: