NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R1K5S80&show_article=1

Apparently, there have been some gains on the ground, and the US will have a "much smaller footprint" on the ground in Iraq by next summer.

I'm wondering if by the next summer, it comes true that US troops will have been reduced in presence by that time, will it be as much of an issue as it is now?

A lot of candidates, even Democrats, don't seem to be in favor of a "jerk them out of the country now" strategy (well, Ron Paul). Even the government bureaucracy appears to realize that even if we wanted to get out, it would take about 2 years to get all of the people and equipment out (unless we want to leave the vehicles and weapons and supplies there).

So, do you welcome this news from Petraeus? Or do you think he's a lying Bushevik?

So, do you welcome this news from Petraeus? Or do you think he's a lying Bushevik?

Can't it be both? :p

Can't it be both? :p

No, because you can't welcome a lie.

No, because you can't welcome a lie.

Sometimes liars throw a truth in here or there to keep you guessing. The Catholic Church for instance. :)

If I read the story right, he's not askiing for troop cuts, he's asking that troops from places that have had security improvements be sent to other areas.

If I read the story right, he's not askiing for troop cuts, he's asking that troops from places that have had security improvements be sent to other areas.

How did you get that out of the article?

Show me.

I got this:

BAGHDAD (AP) - The top American commander in Iraq said Wednesday he was preparing recommendations on troop cuts before he returns to Washington next month for a report to Congress, and believes the U.S. footprint in Iraq will have to be "a good bit smaller" by next summer.

Isn't Petraeus of the mindset that the real solution for Iraq is political rather than military?

Anyway, I'm sure that there are some good things happening in Iraq along with the bad. I've not seen anyone with any common sense say otherwise. If you don't think the adminisitration isn't going to minimize the bad while playing up the good in their reports you are a fool. We US Americans will gladly accept any good news that means bringing our friends and family home, even if it is largely a smokescreen and means overlooking the negatives. A smaller force concentrating on helpign to make the Iraqi govt., military and police self-sufficient is ideal to me. Make the Iraqis fight for their countries stability. They will either find a way or go down in flames.

The best way to do things, I personally think, is to follow the Iranians example of secret support for the outcome you are rooting for. Let people have their conspiracy theories (even if they are true). They are goign to be floating around anyway.

How did you get that out of the article?

Show me.

I got this:

I didn't read your article. I read an article about it that I thought was on CNN. Now I can't find it.

Isn't Petraeus of the mindset that the real solution for Iraq is political rather than military?

Yes, and that's why he's engaged local community leaders directly instead of solely dealing with the upper part of the Iraqi government (which pisses off Maliki).

Not all of the surge has involved combat. A lot of it has been a sea change in community relations and making friends.

I didn't read your article. I read an article about it that I thought was on CNN. Now I can't find it.

"I imagined there was a link" never works for me... ;)

How did you get that out of the article?

Show me.

I got this:

Sorry, USA Today.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/report-petraeus.html

"I imagined there was a link" never works for me... ;)

Call me what you want. I don't lie.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?track=mostviewed-splashpage

Yes, and that's why he's engaged local community leaders directly instead of solely dealing with the upper part of the Iraqi government (which pisses off Maliki).

Not all of the surge has involved combat. A lot of it has been a sea change in community relations and making friends.

I know. A strategy I wholeheartedly approve of.

I doubt there will be any significant changes in 2008; maybe a return to pre-surge levels, but nothing particularly dramatic. Personally, I think it's more likely that troop reductions will begin in 2009, mainly because the after-effects of the renewed campaigns against insurgents will take a while to play out. If they draw down forces too soon, it might undo a lot of the progress made in recent months.

There will also need to be a serious cleanup of the government if we want to have any chance of really delegating security work to the Iraqi government. It's pretty corrupt and dysfunctional...Petraeus' focus on political solutions is definitely a step in the right direction, and it may significantly improve the situation if it plays out.

Also, they seriously need to remove clowns like Maliki from office...that guy's nothing more than a Shia militia good-old-boy that'll use his power to keep them fighting.

Sorry, USA Today.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/report-petraeus.html

That's a stretch.

The opinion of the paper (not Petraeus)

"The expected recommendation would authorize U.S. commanders to withdraw troops from places that have become less violent and turn over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces," the paper says. "But it does not necessarily follow that Petraeus would call for reducing the overall number of troops in the country. Instead, he could move them to another hot spot, or use them to create a reserve force to counter any rise in violence."

That's what a newspaper thinks - not what Petraeus said.

Petraeus uses toilet paper. I bet if you asked him, he would say, "I use toilet paper". And the paper could write, "But it does not necessarily follow that Petraeus will use toilet paper..."

I doubt there will be any significant changes in 2008; maybe a return to pre-surge levels, but nothing particularly dramatic. Personally, I think it's more likely that troop reductions will begin in 2009, mainly because the after-effects of the renewed campaigns against insurgents will take a while to play out. If they draw down forces too soon, it might undo a lot of the progress made in recent months.

There will also need to be a serious cleanup of the government if we want to have any chance of really delegating security work to the Iraqi government. It's pretty corrupt and dysfunctional...Petraeus' focus on political solutions is definitely a step in the right direction, and it may significantly improve the situation if it plays out.

I've said in other threads that I hope this surge works and I do believe that progress has been made as far as the security situation in parts of Iraq including Baghdad, but I still don't see any political progress, though, and without that it's hopeless. Hopefully a more secure Iraq will alllow for the political progress that has been so elusive.

That's a stretch.

The opinion of the paper (not Petraeus)



That's what a newspaper thinks - not what Petraeus said.

Petraeus uses toilet paper. I bet if you asked him, he would say, "I use toilet paper". And the paper could write, "But it does not necessarily follow that Petraeus will use toilet paper..."

Whatever, dude. I was just telling you what I read and that if I said I read it then I did. I don't make shit up.

Sometimes liars throw a truth in here or there to keep you guessing. The Catholic Church for instance. :)

http://www.viscerotica.net/pictures/commentary/excellent.jpg

The US needs to get the hell out of there - every public opinion poll in Iraq overwhelmingly wants the troops out. There have been peaceful marches of hundreds of thousands, and militant groups have promised a ceasefire upon our exit. The US created Al Qaeda in Iraq and only the US's departure can rid Iraq of these maniacs. Nationbuilding is what the UN was designed to accomodate, not the US. The survival of Iraq doesn't matter, but people need to stop dying and the fastest way to accomplish that is to treat Bush's and Petraeus' opinions like the violent murderous dictates they are.

Not a cent of Iraqi oil money!

I've said in other threads that I hope this surge works and I do believe that progress has been made as far as the security situation in parts of Iraq including Baghdad, but I still don't see any political progress, though, and without that it's hopeless. Hopefully a more secure Iraq will alllow for the political progress that has been so elusive.

I've always figured it would be the other way around; without a government that commands the respect and support of the people, all the security personnel in the world won't be able to establish a stable country. That was the way it was in Vietnam; it wasn't that the people were particularly supportive or sympathetic towards Communism, it was that the government we kept in power was a corrupt and oppressive regime that was nothing more than a farce, and people acted accordingly towards it.

To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises, you can't build a lasting order with bayonets.

I've said in other threads that I hope this surge works and I do believe that progress has been made as far as the security situation in parts of Iraq including Baghdad, but I still don't see any political progress, though, and without that it's hopeless. Hopefully a more secure Iraq will alllow for the political progress that has been so elusive.

The problem with political progress is that political progress relies on Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament doing their job.

The problem with political progress is that political progress relies on Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament doing their job.

Which they won't, because Maliki is so blatantly corrupt and partisan towards the Shia militias it's not even funny.

I've always figured it would be the other way around; without a government that commands the respect and support of the people, all the security personnel in the world won't be able to establish a stable country. That was the way it was in Vietnam; it wasn't that the people were particularly supportive or sympathetic towards Communism, it was that the government we kept in power was a corrupt and oppressive regime that was nothing more than a farce, and people acted accordingly towards it.

To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises, you can't build a lasting order with bayonets.

That's true, but the security situation is so bad that infrasrtucture is worse now than after the invasion. When people sit in their apartments in 120 degree heat with no running water and no air conditioning and no gas to get in their car and go anywhere you get a restless population. If security gets good enough for people to have electricty again maybe they can calm down enough to stop blowing each other up. I know that sounds simplistic, but when resources are scarce as they are in Iraq and people live with sewage in their streets their bound to be more violent and angry - particularily if they're 22 years old and male.

Which they won't, because Maliki is so blatantly corrupt and partisan towards the Shia militias it's not even funny.

When's his term up? Was he elected to two, three or four years? Hopefully not six...

I shoudl also mention that if this troop surge works and the situation can become more secure, all it means is that this disaster isn't as much of a disaster as it could have been.

A lot of candidates, even Democrats, don't seem to be in favor of a "jerk them out of the country now" strategy (well, Ron Paul). Even the government bureaucracy appears to realize that even if we wanted to get out, it would take about 2 years to get all of the people and equipment out (unless we want to leave the vehicles and weapons and supplies there).

You'd be amazed how many people on the street don't realize this. It took the Soviets two years to exit from Afghanistan, and they had a friggen land border with it, and yet people think we could get everything home in a month.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that, absent something that dramatically increases the service size, Petraeus may not have a choice about drawdown. Americans are unaccustomed to thinking in these terms, but beyond April 2008, we may have to draw down forces not because we're retreating, but because we don't have enough units that are still combat effective. Our equipment is worn out, our men are combat exhausted, and our reserves are tapped out. In such a circumstance, you cannot keep fighting without permanently breaking your army.

When's his term up? Was he elected to two, three or four years? Hopefully not six...

Four years. Provided he's not "retired", he'll be in office until 2010.