NationStates Jolt Archive

US Iraq chief warns of long war

The head of US forces in
Iraq, Lt Gen David Petraeus,
has told the BBC that fighting the insurgency is a
"long term endeavour" which could take decades.


Speaking to the BBC's John Simpson in Baquba, Gen Petraeus said there was evidence that the recent troops surge was producing gains on the ground.

But he warned that US forces were engaged in a "tough fight" which will get "harder before it gets easier".

His comments come as US calls for a rapid troop withdrawal gather strength.

Gen Petraeus was keen to emphasise that the ongoing unrest in Iraq is not something he expects to be resolved overnight.

"Northern Ireland, I think, taught you that very well. My counterparts in your forces really understand this kind of operation... It took a long time, decades," he said.

"I don't know whether this will be decades, but the average counter insurgency is somewhere around a nine or a 10 year endeavour."

He went on to say that more important than the length of time it would take to stabilise Iraq was the number of US troops which would be required to remain in the country.

"I think the question is at what level... and really, the question is how can we gradually reduce our forces so we reduce the strain on the army, on the nation and so forth," he said.

He said everyone wanted the US forces to be able to leave, both Americans and Iraqis alike, but he said it was vital to ensure that "the gains that have been hard fought in places like Baquba and Ramadi could be sustained, maintained and even built on by Iraqi forces and Iraqi political leaders".

In the last few weeks US forces have captured two big insurgent centres, Ramadi and Baquba, which was the main stronghold of al-Qaeda.

[B]'Surge taking hold'

Gen Petraeus attributes this success to the recent surge in combat troop numbers, under which some 30,000 extra US troops have been deployed in Iraq, saying that although much work still remains to be done "the surge is achieving progress on the ground".

"This comprehensive offensive that we have launched into al-Qaeda sanctuaries and locations where there are al-Qaeda affiliates is in fact showing effect," he said.

"In Baghdad for example, June was the lowest month for sectarian deaths in a year."

By contrast, April, May and June were the deadliest three months for US troops since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

About 3,600 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the conflict began.

Gen Petraeus insisted it was not yet possible to see the full effect the surge was having as it took until mid-June to get all of the additional troops and equipment on the ground.

"I think again we need to see where we are in September when we'll have had a couple of months of all of our forces. We are still in the first month of the surge of operations that is following now the surge of forces," he said.

Time running out

Gen Petraeus is due to return to Washington in September to report on the campaign's progress.

However, correspondents say the clock in Washington is running fast.

In recent days four Republican senators have withdrawn support for President George W Bush's Iraq strategy, adding their voice to a growing number calling for a new plan.

And this week will see a contentious debate in the US Senate over a major defence spending bill.

On Sunday the Pentagon announced that US Defence Secretary Robert Gates was cancelling a planned Latin American tour in order to focus on the upcoming clash.

According to BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, the debate is moving so fast in Washington that Gen Petraeus's efforts, which might have saved the day for the Bush administration if they had been introduced three, or even two, years ago, may well have come too late.


Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6285156.stm)


Well, there you have it. Eliminating the insurgency will take not only several years (obvious), but perhaps even decades. So much for this being a quick job, eh? :rolleyes:

I have to admit, I'd rather have commanders and administrators in Iraq who tell the truth about the situation than sycophants who prevaricate and disregard all available facts and logic in order to please their cronies in Congress and the White House. Honestly, anyone who seriously thought the occupation of Iraq would be a quick operation was either delusional or a bald-faced liar. Of course, I think we all know which one was the case.

lies! the British army will be handing over control of its last zone to the Iraqi government soon

never mind the fact that we will have troops on standby and the situation between southern and the rest of Iraq is entirely different, freedom is on the March dammit! :p

I have to admit, I'd rather have commanders and administrators in Iraq who tell the truth about the situation than sycophants who prevaricate and disregard all available facts and logic in order to please their cronies in Congress and the White House.

Ditto.

Honestly, anyone who seriously thought the occupation of Iraq would be a quick operation was either delusional or a bald-faced liar. Of course, I think we all know which one was the case.

Or both. ;)

I have to admit, I'd rather have commanders and administrators in Iraq who tell the truth about the situation than sycophants who prevaricate and disregard all available facts and logic in order to please their cronies in Congress and the White House. Honestly, anyone who seriously thought the occupation of Iraq would be a quick operation was either delusional or a bald-faced liar. Of course, I think we all know which one was the case.
You've got a point. At least he's being honest.

never mind the fact that we will have troops on standby and the situation between southern and the rest of Iraq is entirely different, freedom is on the March dammit! :p

Oh, right. I forgot. :p

]Or both. ;)

Nah, saying they were delusional exculpates them from the outright, premeditated deception they used to sell the war. They don't even deserve to be called crazy.

Although the more I think about it, the less I blame Bush and the more I blame the people around him...

And Petraeus seems like a smart guy too. He was in charge of an officer academy (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455165,00.html) that focussed on training interaction with people and cultural sensibilities rather than just tactics. Here's (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455199,00.html) an interview with him from before he became boss in Iraq.

Nonetheless, I'm thinking he's ultimately failing to address political realities. Most Iraqi MPs don't turn up to work these days, the few that do fight over who should be speaker. US politicians can't afford to stay in Iraq and the US Military is severely limited due to its commitment there. Decades more of this are not a realistic option.

Unfortunately I can't think of a good way to get out of there either.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6285156.stm)


Well, there you have it. Eliminating the insurgency will take not only several years (obvious), but perhaps even decades. So much for this being a quick job, eh? :rolleyes:
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

Yup......perhaps he meant 6 years, or more likely, 6 decades?

Donald Rumsfeld in 2003: Iraq war will last "6 days" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8)

Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm)

Any war with Iraq would be swift and not require a full US mobilisation, says US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

A Catalog of Failure (http://www.slate.com/id/2153319)

Exit stage left........

Although the more I think about it, the less I blame Bush and the more I blame the people around him...
Bush wanted this war more than any of them......he turned to Number One and said "make it so". Or did you forget that?

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Bush wanted this war more than any of them......he turned to Number One and said "make it so". Or did you forget that?

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761)

Is there proof of that beyond this article? I don't doubt that Bush would want to do this...being the simple man he is, he figured that starting a war makes a good President. Hell for all we know he took advice from Canadian Bacon.

Is there proof of that beyond this article? I don't doubt that Bush would want to do this...being the simple man he is, he figured that starting a war makes a good President. Hell for all we know he took advice from Canadian Bacon.
There is plenty more....

Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

Watch the video.

Clarke's Take On Terror (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml)

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.
Again, watch the video.

Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html)

That's good enough for me. Thank you.

Of course, knowing this won't change anything...unless one of us has a time machine and time travel works in a way that stopping the Iraq war from starting won't cause a paradox (Why would we go back if there was no war is the obvious question here) it's essentially useless.

You know what I really hope to see? As soon as Bush leaves office, he, Cheney, and whoever else in his administration has been party to his felonies are arrested and tried for those crimes. We might not get him impeached, but by humanity we will still try him!

*snip*

How long did Bush estimate the war would last?

Can't you just shoot him and have done with it? He'll be less guarded once he leaves office anyways.

Oh, he'll have the token Ex-Presidential Secret Service details, but we all know that duty's gonna be assigned as punishment.

How long did Bush estimate the war would last?
According to Bush, the war is already over (May 1, 2003).....

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html)

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

According to Bush, the war is already over (May 1, 2003).....

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html)

Oh, God. The "Mission Accomplished" speech? :headbang:

That's good enough for me. Thank you.
You are welcome.

You know what I really hope to see? As soon as Bush leaves office, he, Cheney, and whoever else in his administration has been party to his felonies are arrested and tried for those crimes. We might not get him impeached, but by humanity we will still try him!
I would love to see that.

Oh, God. The "Mission Accomplished" speech? :headbang:
Yup, the one and only. Such a hero. :p

Yup, the one and only. Such a hero. :p

lol

Yup......perhaps he meant 6 years, or more likely, 6 decades?
Maybe it's a bit like Genesis and it's all very much about 6 stages... yes...

I prefered it when they refered to Iraq as one big game of whack-a-mole

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/06/20/the-daily-show-us-troops-play-whack-a-mole/
(skip to about half way through the first half).

They might as well have Tony Snow giving these reports to the press, at least we know he is a lying asshat. These addresses are just a "Nothing is wrong here, nothing to see, all is going well... pay no attention to the insurgency behind me" Baghdad Bob-style speech they have to give to make everyone feel good about the war.

So, are they only realising this now, or have they only decided to be honest about it now?

So, are they only realising this now, or have they only decided to be honest about it now?

Your guess is as good as mine, though I'm leaning toward the latter.

Yup......perhaps he meant 6 years, or more likely, 6 decades?

Donald Rumsfeld in 2003: Iraq war will last "6 days" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8)

You do realize there is a difference between fighting a war (lasted less than one month) and an Occupation (which can last a long time)!

Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm)

How dare Rumsfeld say that the war will be swift. The war was very swift. The occupation (an entirely different aspect) is not swift at all.

How long did Bush estimate the war would last?

The war would not last long but that rebuilding the country along with the security forces would take quite sometime.

The war would not last long but that rebuilding the country along with the security forces would take quite sometime.

But they binned the contingency plan for after the invasion. They hadn't a fucking clue what to do when the country didn't give them a big cheer and line up to kiss their asses. They fucked up the reconstruction while simultaneously crippling Iraqi capability to rebuild.

Ah.... Bremer and the CPA. Good times, good times *pats the vault of cash next to self*.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6285156.stm)


Well, there you have it. Eliminating the insurgency will take not only several years (obvious), but perhaps even decades. So much for this being a quick job, eh? :rolleyes:

Then why does Bush say that a mere push and it will be over?

And better yet, why do Democrats think that it should have been completely resolved already?

If this topic is alive when I get home, I'm photoshopping "Iraq War Cat is Long"

But they binned the contingency plan for after the invasion. They hadn't a fucking clue what to do when the country didn't give them a big cheer and line up to kiss their asses. They fucked up the reconstruction while simultaneously crippling Iraqi capability to rebuild.

Indeed they did botch the aftermath of the invasion. Something which I cannot forgive them for totally.

Gen Petraeus =/= Captain Obvious.

In more ways than one, really (rank and name being one of those :p).

He's an extremely intelligent man, and seemingly realises that bullets aren't always the way out of problems, but at other times, it's for the best.

His graduate-only officer idea is also a pretty nifty one, so, yeah. I hope he can do something decent with this damned war, although I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Bit of a shame that he's probably going to be hammered in the history books for his efforts in this war when it's all over, seeing as he's quite Jim Channon-esque.

I guess the OP wanted the man to lie through his teeth and say, "oh, we'll have this cleaned up before nightfall..."

I guess the OP wanted the man to lie through his teeth and say, "oh, we'll have this cleaned up before nightfall..."
This whole war has been one big lie from the beginning. We should all of a sudden expect some truth??

The war isn't long-term. It will end by 2010, because anyone elected president will end it by then if s/he wants a second term.

The war isn't long-term. It will end by 2010, because anyone elected president will end it by then if s/he wants a second term.
US troops will be in Iraq way past 2010.

US troops will be in Iraq way past 2010.

Anyone who says different is selling something.

US will only win this war when they start shiping teachers to Iraq instead of marines.

US will only win this war when they start shiping teachers to Iraq instead of marines.

Kill two birds with one stone eh? I like the cut of your jib.

US will only win this war when they start shiping teachers to Iraq instead of marines.

riiiiiight.

There's no "winning". Even if we left right now, the people there would start killing each other wholesale, and draw in Turkey and Iran as well.

If we stay, we only delay the inevitable.

If we send teachers, they'll get their heads cut off on al-Jazeera.

Gen Petraeus =/= Captain Obvious.

In more ways than one, really (rank and name being one of those :p).

He's an extremely intelligent man, and seemingly realises that bullets aren't always the way out of problems, but at other times, it's for the best.

His graduate-only officer idea is also a pretty nifty one, so, yeah. I hope he can do something decent with this damned war, although I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Bit of a shame that he's probably going to be hammered in the history books for his efforts in this war when it's all over, seeing as he's quite Jim Channon-esque.

He was handed a poison chalice, in that he was given the command and told to implement the "surge", yet was left without the manpower to do so.

(From what I understand of the airbornes application of his tactics on a smaller scale they worked quite well. They were yanked and replaced with some stupidly named small Rumsfeldian task force with lots of shiny equipment, who proceded to alienate the population back into insurgent hands....think it was an article in "Time" but it was the printed version....no link etc).

He was handed a poison chalice, in that he was given the command and told to implement the "surge", yet was left without the manpower to do so.

(From what I understand of the airbornes application of his tactics on a smaller scale they worked quite well. They were yanked and replaced with some stupidly named small Rumsfeldian task force with lots of shiny equipment, who proceded to alienate the population back into insurgent hands....think it was an article in "Time" but it was the printed version....no link etc).

Nodinia, I happen to know the man who first did the tactics that worked in Anbar in Iraq. I even have his Powerpoint presentation on the matter.

Also, Petraeus gets it: http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume4/april_2006/4_06_2.html

CPT Patriquin was my friend.
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JanFeb07/Patriquin.pdf

He definitely understood the problem and the potential solutions. He is also far more well read and educated than any of you could hope to be about the Middle East.

That, and he was killed in an IED attack.

He definitely understood the problem and the potential solutions. He is also far more well read and educated than any of you could hope to be about the Middle East.

That, and he was killed in an IED attack.

Yes, you'd obviously be the best judge of who is and is not "well read" on the middle east.

Your point?

Yes, you'd obviously be the best judge of who is and is not "well read" on the middle east.

Your point?

The Army knew what had to be done, and was prevented from doing it for a long time.

Now that they were given the go ahead to do it, everyone wants to stop.

Why don't you read his paper - or do you love being ignorant on purpose?

The Army knew what had to be done, and was prevented from doing it for a long time.

Now that they were given the go ahead to do it, everyone wants to stop.

Why don't you read his paper - or do you love being ignorant on purpose?


I read it before. Much of it the Brits had in their heads, out of years of dealing with "natives" across the world. However the fact remains that the US should not be there, and that a great deal of what he says, particularily about creating Iraqi 'investment' in their own state was rendered impossible
due to the actions of Bremmer and co in the CPA. That was more or less a year that consigned the whole thing to the basket marked "clusterfuck".

The current admin can't undo what was done by Bremmer, without bypassing/strong arming (and therby further undermining the now installed Iraqi administration), nor is it neseccarily feasible given the amount of time thats passed. To create the conditions whereby it could happen would require far more troops on the ground and not just confined to Baghdad. Thats not going to happen, nor is it feasible without the D word. Thats not likely to happen regardless of who wins the next US election.