'A War We Just Might Win.'

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:

Kaaleppi, how about a shot at the same questions I just posted to Lixy?[/quote]

I have been of the opinion, that the only way to make something good out of the whole operation is that the US troops stay there. Wrong reasons can sometimes give the right results.

But I’m not so sure anymore. Maybe it is necessary to let things, that can’t be avoided, to unravel. Like in former Yugoslavia that broke into pieces after Tito was gone.

For a US citizen the best thing would be to have every relative back home pronto, from a strategic point of view it is important for the US to have a presence in ME, in one form or another. In which form, I don’t know, possibly something cheaper than what you are paying for now.

It can be that Iraq just have to go through the civil war, to it’s bitter end. Finland have had one, the US have had one, it’s ugly and leaves scars and if things go from bad to worse it can go on and on, especially when there are so many outsiders with their special interests. Can continued US presence stop this from happening?

‘A War We Just Might Win.’

or not

US Can Forget About Winning in Iraq: Top Retired General
By Sig Christenson
Agence France-Presse

Sunday 03 June 2007

The man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war.

"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will - not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.

Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration has fallen short in Iraq.

"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez told AFP after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.

"We've got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done," adding that he was "referring to our national political leadership in its entirety" - not just President George W. Bush.

Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak, which he blamed on "the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty."

He included himself among those who erred in Iraq's crucial first year after the toppling of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Sanchez took command in the summer of 2003 and oversaw the occupation force amid an insurgency that has sparked a low-grade civil war in Iraq.

He was in the middle of some of the most momentous events of the war, among them the dissolution of the Iraqi army and barring millions of Baath Party members from government jobs: two actions seen as triggering the rebellion among Sunni Muslims, who fell from power with Saddam.

Sanchez is also most closely identified with the Abu Ghraib scandal, which occurred on his watch.

Though he was cleared of wrongdoing by an Army probe, Abu Ghraib's images of naked prisoners humiliated by a rogue torture squad cost Sanchez an almost certain fourth star in the Senate, which approves general officer promotions.

Sanchez, 56, declined to talk about Abu Ghraib or other key events of the war, or say who was to blame for what went wrong.

"That's something I am still struggling with and it's not about blame because there's nobody out there that is intentionally trying to screw things up for our country," he said. "They were all working to do the best damn job they can to get things right."

Despite those good intentions, Americans will be forced to "answer the question what is victory, and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is," said Sanchez, who is thinking of writing a tell-all book about his year in Baghdad.

The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, reacted on Sunday to Sanchez's comments by insisting: "It's just way premature to be talking in terms of victory or defeat."

"What we're trying to do here is stabilize the security situation, particularly in Baghdad, to allow a political process some time and space to work," he said on Fox News.

He said time was needed for Bush's "surge" strategy, launched in January, of ploughing thousands more troops into Iraq "to make a difference on the streets and then time for this political process to unfold."

Sanchez said a large troop commitment would be needed for years to come but conceded it is "very questionable" whether Americans would support it.

Still, he said, "the coalition cannot afford to precipitously withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices."

Andrew Krepinevich, a former aide to three defense secretaries who heads the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, shared that assessment.

"What you are looking at are three factions who are profoundly mistrustful of one another," he said. "Iraq is a country where those on top have brutally repressed those on the bottom, and that is the way they look at seizing power and maintaining power."

Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, a ground commander in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, said he's trying to remain optimistic but thinks domestic support for the war will evaporate within 36 months.

"I personally don't think it's over yet," said McCaffrey, who recently toured Iraq. He said he thinks General David Petraeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, and Crocker can stave off a wider civil war.

"The question is, can the ambassador and Petraeus open reconciliation talks among Iraqis, and (Secretary of State) Condi Rice - keep the regional powers from meddling any more in Iraq? The jury's out," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070603/pl_afp/usiraqunrestpolitics_070603202854;_ylt=AjPxGKaJZz9Fk19VYJMfcWusOrgF

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
from a strategic point of view it is important for the US to have a presence in ME, in one form or another. In which form, I don’t know, possibly something cheaper than what you are paying for now. [/quote]

Israel. They’re paying for it either way.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Do you think we should leave Iraq? [/quote]

There’s a French expression that goes: “Fous-moi la paix!” It translate to “Stick peace up my ass!” and literally means “leave me alone”.

In this case, I think the Iraqi land would say the same if it was given a mic.

Let’s see…3600 Americans dead (and counting), 500 billion dollars dilapidated (and counting), a perceivable hatred around the world of all things American, possibility of clashing with Iran if you stay in Iraq, radicals using your presence there to recruit…

I’ll say that from a US citizen’s perspective, it would be an excellent thing to get out of the quagmire.

Yes. Saddam is gone and the ideal balance of power is being restored.

Remind me again how many countries in the ME supported your move in Iraq?

Would that be the same world that heavily opposed your intervention? Between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq War.

Today, the opposition is even stronger. Even the US and British public (initially pro-war) has now shifted to an anti-war majority.

Bush’s inconsistency at its finest.


David “Young Mao” Petraeus and Master Goof Bush.

Each committed to defeating the counterinsurgents, the American people.

Note how both essentially deny the other’s role.

Ladies, Gentlemen, and bradley/lumpy/100meters:

Here is a letter from a hero to the troops and our nation.

It speaks for itself.

George Bush deserves credit for this change in strategy under adverse political conditions.

JeffR

[quote]limbic wrote:
David “Young Mao” Petraeus and Master Goof Bush.

Each committed to defeating the counterinsurgents, the American people.

Note how both essentially deny the other’s role.[/quote]

I wish you ill.

You aren’t fit to lick the boots of Patraeus.

JeffR


Georgie “Master Goof” trying on David “Young Mao”'s uniform for fit …

hahaha

Your defeat is imminent, JeffR.

David “Young Mao” Petraeus … “will probably want to keep as many troops for as long as possible. After all, he was the author not only of this plan but also of the US army’s manual of counter-insurgency.”

“As used by the U.S. Army, counter-insurgency operations include psychological warfare and information warfare aspects of such operations, which include direct interference in a country’s politics and media or the spread of disinformation to maintain control of a population.”
“The majority of counter-insurgency efforts by major Western powers in the last century have been spectacularly unsuccessful.”
“So long as the insurgency maintains popular support, it will retain all of its strategic advantages of mobility, invisibility, and legitimacy in its own eyes and the eyes of the people.
Mao Zedong attempted to neutralize this advantage by simply taking away the civilian population that shielded the insurgents; however, this had the foreseeable effect of alienating the populace and further fueling support for the rebels.”

“… direct interference in a country’s politics and media or the spread of disinformation to maintain control of a population.” Will David “Young Mao” win this struggle?

“Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, told Congress this afternoon that the United States by next summer should be able to reduce its troop strength there to about 130,000, or what it was before the recent increase.”

A confession that the country is overextended and this war is unpopular.

[quote]Limbic wrote:
“Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, told Congress this afternoon that the United States by next summer should be able to reduce its troop strength there to about 130,000, or what it was before the recent increase.”

A confession that the country is overextended and this war is unpopular.[/quote]

Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?

The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…and you are sad.

Move to North Korea where your insanity will be thoroughly appreciated.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…[/quote]

For the last time, Iraq isn’t a trophy you “win” or “lose”. It’s a country with people in it, 60% of which - according to the latest polls - view attacks on Americans legitimate. Heck, for all my pacifism, if I see a foreign soldier down my street in a tank belonging to the army that’s been bombing my neighbors for the last 4 years, you can bet your ass that I’ll try to hurt him/her. You will do the same in a similar situation.

I said it many times and will say it again: As long as there’s one Iraqi standing, bullets will be fired at American troops in Iraq. I really don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?[/quote]

Shouldn’t you have to do something heroic before you get to be a hero? Applying the term to anyone who happens to be wearing a military uniform dilutes the term’s meaning and makes it worthless.

It’s great recruiting propaganda (ie, “Sign here and be a Hero!”) but it’s also complete bullshit.

What are you winning? What are the winning conditions?

It appears that politically, the country is falling apart. What little functioning government you had manage to prop up is in shambles, with various members and coalition leaving to form their own little self-governed groups.

That you’ve managed to make a few areas more secure is pointless, if the final outcome does not produce a working, strong central government for Iraq.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?

Shouldn’t you have to do something heroic before you get to be a hero? Applying the term to anyone who happens to be wearing a military uniform dilutes the term’s meaning and makes it worthless.

It’s great recruiting propaganda (ie, “Sign here and be a Hero!”) but it’s also complete bullshit.

The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…and you are sad.

What are you winning? What are the winning conditions?

It appears that politically, the country is falling apart. What little functioning government you had manage to prop up is in shambles, with various members and coalition leaving to form their own little self-governed groups.

That you’ve managed to make a few areas more secure is pointless, if the final outcome does not produce a working, strong central government for Iraq.[/quote]

Just in case there are any other yellow-bellies who feel like besmirching an American Hero, try this one on for size:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=16

JeffR

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Limbic wrote:
“Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, told Congress this afternoon that the United States by next summer should be able to reduce its troop strength there to about 130,000, or what it was before the recent increase.”

A confession that the country is overextended and this war is unpopular.

Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?

The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…and you are sad.

Move to North Korea where your insanity will be thoroughly appreciated.

[/quote]

David’s a war hero?

There’s a whole list in the book “Fiasco”. I could probably call on a good number of those. How about Westmoreland for size?

The man has the numbers to convince us he’s not permitted to tell the whole story. Remember the war in your head? “David” is fighting that war.

The Republican tin soldiers of T-Nation are as if from North Korea, or as if from Iran’s supporters of Ahmadinajad.

“David”'s world is much the same as Mao Zedong’s in his insurgent days. Did you get the concept that “David” is trying to convince you with disinformation if needed? This is why he is “Young Mao”, the insurgent. In America. Targeting the intellectually challenged like Headhunter.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?

Shouldn’t you have to do something heroic before you get to be a hero? Applying the term to anyone who happens to be wearing a military uniform dilutes the term’s meaning and makes it worthless.

It’s great recruiting propaganda (ie, “Sign here and be a Hero!”) but it’s also complete bullshit.

The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…and you are sad.

What are you winning? What are the winning conditions?

It appears that politically, the country is falling apart. What little functioning government you had manage to prop up is in shambles, with various members and coalition leaving to form their own little self-governed groups.

That you’ve managed to make a few areas more secure is pointless, if the final outcome does not produce a working, strong central government for Iraq.

Just in case there are any other yellow-bellies who feel like besmirching an American Hero, try this one on for size:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=16

JeffR

[/quote]

Another wingnut with daddy issues I see…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Limbic wrote:
“Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, told Congress this afternoon that the United States by next summer should be able to reduce its troop strength there to about 130,000, or what it was before the recent increase.”

A confession that the country is overextended and this war is unpopular.

Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?

The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…and you are sad.

Move to North Korea where your insanity will be thoroughly appreciated.

[/quote]

Could you change your synthol-avatar, as well?

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?

Shouldn’t you have to do something heroic before you get to be a hero? Applying the term to anyone who happens to be wearing a military uniform dilutes the term’s meaning and makes it worthless.

It’s great recruiting propaganda (ie, “Sign here and be a Hero!”) but it’s also complete bullshit.

The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…and you are sad.

What are you winning? What are the winning conditions?

It appears that politically, the country is falling apart. What little functioning government you had manage to prop up is in shambles, with various members and coalition leaving to form their own little self-governed groups.

That you’ve managed to make a few areas more secure is pointless, if the final outcome does not produce a working, strong central government for Iraq.

Just in case there are any other yellow-bellies who feel like besmirching an American Hero, try this one on for size:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=16

JeffR

[/quote]

Does he have any credibility outside of Army organization?

And JeffR, your presence is requested in your loon thread so wash thy belly of its yellow-ware and make haste.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Limbic wrote:
“Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander in Iraq, told Congress this afternoon that the United States by next summer should be able to reduce its troop strength there to about 130,000, or what it was before the recent increase.”

A confession that the country is overextended and this war is unpopular.

Any other war heroes you want to denounce or are you done?

The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…and you are sad.

Move to North Korea where your insanity will be thoroughly appreciated.

[/quote]

I’ll refer you to the first post in this thread.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1713197&pageNo=0

Headhunter, you’re not one of those monorail cats rainjack referred to the other day, are you? LOL