Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
In other words we should run for our lives, the Iraqi's lives are their own problem as it should have been from the start in that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
I think we should have gone then promply left and told them if they have a government like Saddam's again we will promptly kick their collective asses, again!
Screw this occupation crap. A democracy can't do it because we are to worried about human rights of the defeated.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________ All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
An unarmed person is a subject. An armed person is a citizen.
Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:38 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Categories: 2008, Security
From NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and Libby Leist
Intelligence officials told Congress today that the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq has not yet controlled the violence enough to permit political reconciliation to work.
So far, it has been a bleak assessment on Iraq from the intelligence community about political prospects in the country.
Dr. Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told Congress that the surge has not yet had a sufficient effect on the violence in order to move the country to a place where the serious obstacles for political reconciliation can be overcome. Fingar added it would be difficult to bridge the political divides.
In prepared testimony, Fingar reports there have been "few appreciable gains" in the political situation following the surge. He adds that Al Qaeda's mass casualty attacks in Iraq are "effective accelerants" for sectarian violence. His judgement differs from frequent White House statements that Al Qaeda is more than an accelerant and is the main cause of violence in Iraq.
BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military's top general said Monday that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup.
Making no predictions, Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are obliged to consider various troop-level scenarios before September, when Bush will receive an assessment of the Iraq situation from his top commander there, Gen. David Petraeus.
"We're (doing) the kind of thinking that we need to do and be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," he said in an interview with two reporters traveling overnight with him from Washington aboard an Air Force C-17 cargo jet.
"That way, if we need to plus up or come down" in numbers of troops in Iraq, then the details will have been studied and the military services will be in position to carry out whatever policy Bush chooses, Pace said.
He mentioned no potential range of increases or decreases in force levels. Another possibility being considered, he said, is maintaining the current level of troops for some period beyond September.
In a separate interview later at the U.S. Embassy after conferring with Pace and Petraeus, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, said he did not foresee requesting more troops.
"Right now I can't find an assessment where I would say I need more troops," he said, adding that he is confident that by September he will be able to give Petraeus his advice on how the troop buildup is working.
"My assessment right now is, I need more time" to understand how the current offensive targeting al- Qaida in Iraq terrorists is working and how it could lead to political progress in the months ahead, Odierno said. "I'm seeing some progress now here in Iraq. We have really just started what the Iraqis term 'liberating' them from al Qaida. What I've got to determine is what do I need in order to continue that progress so that the political piece can then take hold and Iraqi security forces can hold this for the long term."
There are now about 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, reflecting a boost of approximately 30,000 to carry out the new strategy that Bush announced in January. The strategy is focused on providing better security for Iraqis in Baghdad, but the intended effect -- a political reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites -- has yet to be achieved, and many in Congress are clamoring to begin withdrawing troops soon.
Some on the Joint Chiefs had argued against the troop boost in January, in part out of concern that it could not be sustained long enough to have the desired effect and that it put too much strain on the military.
The chiefs for a number of weeks have been studying the timing of a possible U.S. military transition away from today's combat-oriented mission to one focused mainly on support functions like training the Iraqi security forces while also protecting Iraq's borders and continuing the fight against terrorists.
Pace said the chiefs intend to be ready with recommendations on that for Bush by September.
Without opining on any new course of action in Iraq, Pace stressed in the interview his concern that multiple combat tours for many in the Army and Marine Corps could tear at the fabric of the military. He said that is one reason he is visiting the troops now - to hear their concerns, assess their morale and to explain to them why he advocated extending Army tours from 12 months to 15 months.
He said he also would stop in Germany this week to meet with family members of military units that are affected by tour extensions. These visits are intended to give him a sense of how the military as a whole is holding up under the strain of the Iraq war, now more than four years old, and will be one important factor in what the Joint Chiefs collectively recommend to Bush in September, Pace said.
On this week's visit Pace planned meetings with Petraeus and other top commanders in Baghdad as well as with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Over the next several weeks the Joint Chiefs will do their own Iraq assessment, which at this stage is being developed separately from Petraeus' assessment in order to "stay out of 'groupthink,'" Pace said.
When he returns to Washington in September, Petraeus will brief the Joint Chiefs on his thinking, and the chiefs will take that into account when they make their own recommendations to Bush, Pace said.
In the interview, Pace was asked whether, as the president's top military adviser, he feels political pressure amid a heated and prolonged Iraq debate in Congress and the approach of the 2008 elections.
"I don't feel any pressure" of that sort, he said.
Pace unexpectedly was informed in June that he will be replaced as Joint Chiefs chairman on Oct. 1. In announcing the switch, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he decided that although he had wanted to keep Pace for a second two-year term, it appeared that his Senate confirmation hearing would turn into a battle over the past four years in Iraq. Bush instead nominated Adm. Michael Mullen for the job.
Pace has said publicly he chose to remain until the end of his current term on Oct. 1 rather than resign when Gates decided to replace him. In the interview, he said that although September is shaping up as a hectic month in Washington, he is determined to make yet another trip to Iraq before retiring.
So I presume, your plan of action would be an immediate reduction of armed forces throughout Iraq. A few questions: would that a complete immediate pull-out or would you see a phase-out over a period of a specific time? I'm also curious about the use of advisers and financial and weapon support.
I'd probably go a 6-month phased withdrawal. I'd enlist the help of Gen. Clark, Gen. Batiste and Gen. Shisenki as well as the help of political diplomats such as Bill Richardson and other world leaders - a true diplomatic and political coalition.
Iraq has always been a mistake and I sniffed that one out from the get-go. Like Obama said, you can't win a war when you're fighting on the wrong battlefield.
Re-focus on Afganistan and play some serious hardball with Pakistan. Lastly, obliterate Saudi Arabia once and for all - our only true enemy....
What would be the use of the diplomats? Perhaps the use of the former Generals would be to placate the current military command for their withdrawal, but why the political figures?
And by "obliterate" Saudi Arabia, you mean the use of the military?
The same reasons we were told we needed to invade Iraq. Iraq was never an imminent threat to us or our allies. Iraq never had those WMDs we went in for. Iraq didn't harbor and aid terrorists as we were told. Iraq was never a real threat to our interests. Iraq was not a financier of the greatest act of terrorism on US soil.
Saudi Arabia checks off on alost all those points. mIf the 3600+ soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq had instead gave thier lives on the sands of Saudi Arabia, they would not have died unjustly....
Ok, just so we have it down - leave Iraq and invade the Saudis for the same reasons that we had for invading Iraq. (imminent threat to US or our allies, WMDs, harboring and aiding terrorists and financing the greatest act of terrorism on US soil.)
Would you address the concerns first to the UN or just go in?
We would have been fully justified in invading SA along with Afghanistan. Also, with the newly released report that states 45%+ of the insurgent fighters in Iraq are of SA descent, that is even more proof upon all the previous proof who our true enemy is....
I don't know why you are trying to paint me into a corner. I have been saying this ALL ALONG for the past (almost) 6 years now.
I'm not painting you anywhere.... I'm interested in the surrender process and the policy intent post-Iraq. Since you mentioned SA, in your plans, I presumed that the military invasion was part of the policy that you had in mind.
Having said that, would you send the troops, that have been withdrawn from Iraq, to SA for the invasion and what would you do with the country once the government is taken?
I would say now that SA is still our mortal enemy, however, with the disaster that has been Iraq, we are militarily in no position to invade anyone else. We need to regroup as a military and as a country. Instead of going from A to B, we went from A to Sigma - it made no sense and it wasn't even teh same alphabet.
Personally, I salivate at the prospect of viewing SA as a glass parking lot (quote that, put it in your sig, whatever you want). I am far from anti-war, however I am more than firmly anti-Iraq War.
So, no we cannot invade SA at this time, IMO. The time for that was in 2001. SA cannot be handled by us militarily at this time partly because of the sad state of our military and also because of the sad state of our global opinion and our current status....
how long has the surge been in place with all the troops identified for the surge? Seems to me that progress would follow once you get to full strength.
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
Please. That's just the latest distraction talking point. Even Condi said back in January when the surge was announced that she was gonna give it 6 months. This was presented as a quick-fix. That's the way it was framed by the President. That's why this administration bucked so hard against it being called an escalation. We were told that we would see results by summertime and that we'd have a good idea on how well the "surge" was working. WEll, now we all know fully how much of a difference our presence is making in someone else's fight....
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
