Who knew . . .

[YankeeRebel]

"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops is imperative."


I wonder if the conservative Dittoheads will start smearing these generals as "unpatriotic terrorist-loving left-wing commies."

[Maeve_Mari]

"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops is imperative."


I wonder if the conservative Dittoheads will start smearing these generals as "unpatriotic terrorist-loving left-wing commies."

Right On!

Yes, the rest is up to them. Let's start the pull out and let the Iraqi people come to terms with how they want their freedom served!!!

Great post.

[L.O.A.S.]

"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops is imperative."


I wonder if the conservative Dittoheads will start smearing these generals as "unpatriotic terrorist-loving left-wing commies."

Where did you get this from?

[noodle]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20...presenceiniraq

[pigeonmeister]

The US army and government is obviously preparing the public for the process of selling out the Iraqi people. Comments like:

"If [the insurgency] does go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever … it is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq," Rumsfeld said in June.

"They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time. They are ultimately going to be the ones who win over that insurgency."

And then Casey says Iraqi troops actually could benefit from a reduction in US and coalition forces.

The continued US troop presence "contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition," he said. "It extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant, and it exposes more coalition forces to attacks at a time when Iraqi security forces are increasingly available and increasingly capable."

Just as the US shifted it's wars aims to suit the changing analysis and evidence (i.e from WMD to Humanitarian, Saddam and 9/11 to Regime Change, nation building). Now they are chaging the criteria for what defines a 'succesful' outcome. The bottom line is that the US public have now largely identified the 'mission' as a disaster (there can be little more political damage to public confidence than there is now). So the Bush administration can write off the mission without caring about the damage done (who cared about the other wars America contributed to?) and without electoral accountabilty (Rove doesn't care now he has had his 2 terms). To be honest I think Bush and Rumsfield believe they acted in the best interest of America, they got it wrong but ultimately the region was in a mess anyway- at least they can say they got rid of Saddam. This justification could transcend up to 20 years of civil war, and Rumsfield will probably blame the Sunni, the Syrians, Iranians, Iraqi polcie force and the anti-war lobby. Just as America blamed China, the South Vietnamese govt, the anti-war lobby and Democratic senators for defeat in Vietnam.

Again, America will, in 20 years, probably recognise the concept behind Iraq was flawed. Countless movies will be made, popular culture integrated, and Rumslfield might even make a confessional documentary a la McNamara's 'Fog or War'. A big monument will be built and commentators will talk about the 'Iraq syndrome' as influencing the next generation of policy makers, there will then be a reactionary shift against this non-interventionism and a new breed of revisionist neo-cons will emerge. America will be again draw up the same polarised battle lines of right against left. By then America will not be the only superpower.

But will anyone care about the 100,000's of Iraqis killed?

Anyway I digress.......

The fact that American troops, by their actions as well as their sheer presense, are fueling the insuregncy is a no-brainer. Of course they are, but I don't buy the idea that withdrawal would offer anything more positive. To say that there would be a power-vacuum is a serious understatement. To say that the Iraqi security forces are capable of filling this is lunacy, even in 5 years time. Serious problems in recuitment from day 1 are a tumour that will get worse and worse. Only 1 battalian is non-reliant on American forces (down from 3). Plus the police force in Basra will probably need to be disbanded. The police chief there said that, the police had been so extensively infiltrated by the Mahdi army that he only trusted 25% of his policemen. Are ther any Sunni policemen or soldiers?

US stays in Iraq= Chaos and probable civil war, but save money and US lives.
US withdraws= a stateless vacuum full of the best trained terrorists, large support for an Islamist state with access to the worlds second largest oil fields plus civil war and anarchy and generla misrery for the next decade at least. I thought that this war was to stop rogue states with terrorist activity and with access to resources that can pay for WMD? Who will gain from this....... the arch enemy Iran. Bottom line is that without US suport the state will not survive. A country without an airforce, tanks and a navy is called a protectorate.

The US presense does provoke and recruit insurgents, but their withdrawal would allow the hard core to act with a degree of impunity that would mean more deaths, even if the overall numbers of insurgents falls. Nobody has the military capabilties of the US, who are in fact quite good at counter-insurgency tactics.

You cannot say that the US can hand over areas that are relatively peacefull but stay in say the Sunni triangle. The characteristsic of this insurgency is that it pops up where the coalition is overstretched, having drawn troops into a differnent area. Most, in the military, now accept that too few troops were put on the ground in the first place- now they want to reduce them, when the security situation is getting worse and worse. There is no meaningfull political process to offer any hope of establishing the rule of law, it is very likely that the Sunni will block the constitution and we will be back to square one. The main aim was to instal a government strong enough to implement a pro-American policy, other wise what was the point of substituting one anti-American leadership with another? Remeber that the original idea was to have a govenrment filled with Iraqi exiles (who lived in America) headed by Chalabi, Nobody thought about the prospect of an autonomous oil rich federal Islamic shia state at the beck and call of an Iranian Ayalotolla. I don't even think that Bush knew the difference between Shia and Sunni till a year or two ago.

The seeds are being sown for a 'cut and run' with no apology and no consideration of the consequences.

[Maeve_Mari]

The seeds are being sown for a 'cut and run' with no apology and no consideration of the consequences.

If all else fails, a man should know when to cut his losses, tuck tail, and run!
The U.S. should never have attacked Iraq under the false pretense this administration's been spewing. Getting out of there now is a better idea than continuing the farce we're imposing now. Get out and deal with the real, and more important, true felons of 9/11, the rise of business/election fraud, and the overwhelming crisis of poverty.

[pigeonmeister]

Getting out of there now is a better idea than continuing the farce we're imposing now. Get out and deal with the real, and more important, true felons of 9/11, the rise of business/election fraud, and the overwhelming crisis of poverty.

Better for who? The Iraqi people don't care about the rise of business/election fraud or the true felons of 9/11. It wont help them if America makes a reassement of their priorities. They want a political process that will improve their lives, I'm not atall sure that America can help establish such a process. Yet I am convinced that the Iraqi government, at present, stand absolutely no chance. As such American troops must stay in the absence of any other option (UN wont go in).

Unless you are arguing that Iraq is going to spiral into civil war and anarchy regardless of American troops being there or not and as such there is no point more Americans dieing. Understandable but selfish in my opinion, I think that more Iraqis will be killed if America leaves than if it stays. The decision to leave MUST NOT be a political one which considers American domestic politics more than Iraqi.

I just think it is horrendous that Rumsfield can invade a country for the supposed benefit of its people, cause chaos that is beyond their control and finaly say that handing this mess to a load of poorly recruited and equipped Iraqi troops will actually benefit them and that "They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time.' Yea......thanks.

[Slim]

If all else fails, a man should know when to cut his losses, tuck tail, and run!
The U.S. should never have attacked Iraq under the false pretense this administration's been spewing. Getting out of there now is a better idea than continuing the farce we're imposing now. Get out and deal with the real, and more important, true felons of 9/11, the rise of business/election fraud, and the overwhelming crisis of poverty.

You and your ilk will the first ones screaming about the mess that gets left behind if they did pull out with things the way they are at the moment.

What you propose here is ignorant and completely deviod of thought. What's done is done, and the current state of things has to be addressed and managed. It's a nasty situation, but your view is that of a dope smoking hippee from the 60's.

[Slim]

Better for who? The Iraqi people don't care about the rise of business/election fraud or the true felons of 9/11. It wont help them if America makes a reassement of their priorities. They want a political process that will improve their lives, I'm not atall sure that America can help establish such a process. Yet I am convinced that the Iraqi government, at present, stand absolutely no chance. As such American troops must stay in the absence of any other option (UN wont go in).

Unless you are arguing that Iraq is going to spiral into civil war and anarchy regardless of American troops being there or not and as such there is no point more Americans dieing. Understandable but selfish in my opinion, I think that more Iraqis will be killed if America leaves than if it stays. The decision to leave MUST NOT be a political one which considers American domestic politics more than Iraqi.

I just think it is horrendous that Rumsfield can invade a country for the supposed benefit of its people, cause chaos that is beyond their control and finaly say that handing this mess to a load of poorly recruited and equipped Iraqi troops will actually benefit them and that "They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time.' Yea......thanks.

As left as you tend to be, I agree with much of what you are saying here. Regardless of why it happend, it happend and it has to be delt with.

Unfortunately the only real solution at the moment is to stay and try to put down a potential civil war that is being fueled primarily by external interests. The current extreme anti-Bush movement is actually helping to prolong a withdrawal and kill more soldiers. It's a repeat of how the North Vietnamese used Jane Fonda and the clueless hippee subculture to demoralize popular support for finishing the job in Vietnam. The opposition is watching people like Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn and the AirAmerica crowd attempt to bring the current adminstration down, and erode any resolve to see this through. It's now a war of attrition, and we're notorious for "cutting and running" when the body count gets too high for the public to accept. They know this. There is a virtually endless supply of gullible young people willing to fight the infidels by strapping on a block of C4. The same "progressives" that scream about the US being there and that all US forces need to be pulled out there immediately are the same people that will be screaming "Bush is a war criminal" when/if they do get pulled out and things turn to crud, and more civilians are killed. Take your pick, more soldiers getting killed or many, many more civilians getting murdered? Sorry, the sad reality is that you cant have both right now.

You have extreme right wingers also screaming for the same thing (withdraw now), but their attitude is to turn the place into a parking lot and sell cheap gas. At least they are consistant with their views, twisted or not.

EDIT: The "you" I refer to is not PM, rather those with similar views as MM. The "cut and run"ers.

[YankeeRebel]

Again, these are generals who are saying that it is time to begin withdrawing American forces from Iraq. They aren't Jane Fonda. They aren't "hippies." They aren't Cindy Sheehan. I don't think anybody would criticize them as being "unsupportive" of the mission and even they are saying that it is time to leave.

[YankeeRebel]

If the "real" problem in Iraq is a lack of "cheerleading" by the American public, please tell me how the generals themselves can be so wrong about current situation and the future.

[esskreemr]

As left as you tend to be, I agree with much of what you are saying here. Regardless of why it happend, it happend and it has to be delt with.

Unfortunately the only real solution at the moment is to stay and try to put down a potential civil war that is being fueled primarily by external interests. The current extreme anti-Bush movement is actually helping to prolong a withdrawal and kill more soldiers. It's a repeat of how the North Vietnamese used Jane Fonda and the clueless hippee subculture to demoralize popular support for finishing the job in Vietnam. The opposition is watching people like Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn and the AirAmerica crowd attempt to bring the current adminstration down, and erode any resolve to see this through. It's now a war of attrition, and we're notorious for "cutting and running" when the body count gets too high for the public to accept. They know this. There is a virtually endless supply of gullible young people willing to fight the infidels by strapping on a block of C4. The same "progressives" that scream about the US being there and that all US forces need to be pulled out there immediately are the same people that will be screaming "Bush is a war criminal" when/if they do get pulled out and things turn to crud, and more civilians are killed. Take your pick, more soldiers getting killed or many, many more civilians getting murdered? Sorry, the sad reality is that you cant have both right now.

You have extreme right wingers also screaming for the same thing (withdraw now), but their attitude is to turn the place into a parking lot and sell cheap gas. At least they are consistant with their views, twisted or not.

EDIT: The "you" I refer to is not PM, rather those with similar views as MM. The "cut and run"ers.

Rush... is that you? I'm sorry Mr. Limbaugh, this isn't your radio show or one of President Bush's 'town hall' meetings, people can actually express dissenting opinions.

[Slim]

Again, these are generals who are saying that it is time to begin withdrawing American forces from Iraq. They aren't Jane Fonda. They aren't "hippies." They aren't Cindy Sheehan. I don't think anybody would criticize them as being "unsupportive" of the mission and even they are saying that it is time to leave.

They are calling for a gradual reduction. Nothing wrong with that. If they said all of them out by year's end for example, then that's a different story. And a bad one at that. Gradual is ambiguous, and could mean over the next 5 years. Did they give a timetable?

[Slim]

Rush... is that you? I'm sorry Mr. Limbaugh, this isn't your radio show or one of President Bush's 'town hall' meetings, people can actually express dissenting opinions.

As can I. And thanks once again for your blather.

[Slim]

If the "real" problem in Iraq is a lack of "cheerleading" by the American public, please tell me how the generals themselves can be so wrong about current situation and the future.

Who said they were wrong?

[esskreemr]

As can I. And thanks once again for your blather.

As opposed to such intellectually stimulating posts as this?:

You and your ilk will the first ones screaming about the mess that gets left behind if they did pull out with things the way they are at the moment.

What you propose here is ignorant and completely deviod of thought. What's done is done, and the current state of things has to be addressed and managed. It's a nasty situation, but your view is that of a dope smoking hippee from the 60's.

I'm not sure you understand what the word blather means.

[YankeeRebel]

Who said they were wrong?

Well, the generals said that "the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East." But here was your statement regarding the matter:

The current extreme anti-Bush movement is actually helping to prolong a withdrawal and kill more soldiers.

The generals say the US presence is what's fueling the insurgency, but you state that it's the American protestors who are fueling the insurgency.

You don't actually come out and say the generals are "wrong," but it is clear that your understanding of who is "fueling the insurgency" is much different than the assessment of the military brass.

[Slim]

Well, the generals said that "the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East." But here was your statement regarding the matter:



The generals say the US presence is what's fueling the insurgency, but you state that it's the American protestors who are fueling the insurgency.

You don't actually come out and say the generals are "wrong," but it is clear that your understanding of who is "fueling the insurgency" is much different than the assessment of the military brass.

Wrong again. If you want to try and nail me on something I've said, use my words, not your own. It's quite clear. I said "helping". I didn't say it was the only cause. I have no disagreement with the statement by the generals. The "fuel" from external interests I mentioned are groups based Iran, Syria, etc that are sending people in to purposly create chaos and disorder. The majority of the so call "insurgents" are now non-Iraqis being subsidised by bordering countries.

[esskreemr]

The "fuel" from external interests I mentioned are groups based Iran, Syria, etc that are sending people in to purposly create chaos and disorder.

You left Saudi Arabia out of that list.

The majority of the so call "insurgents" are now non-Iraqis being subsidised by bordering countries.

Wrong. Most reports by US field commanders in Iraq indicate that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi. You really should check Rush's statements before you reiterate them...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...tm?POE=NEWISVA

[Slim]

You left Saudi Arabia out of that list.



Wrong. Most reports by US field commanders in Iraq indicate that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi. You really should check Rush's statements before you reiterate them...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...tm?POE=NEWISVA

Pretty good link. Keep reading the article though. You seemed to miss this :"I regret to say that instead of sending medicines to us, our Arab brothers are sending terrorists," al-Dulaimi said.