In this video, taken on Saturday, September 26th, '09, Senator Chris Dodd makes sense on the situation in Afghanistan. It starts with Nutmegger John Kantrowitz, from My Left Nutmeg and the Conn-Post Blogs, discussing the shades of Vietnam parallels. But there is an 800 pound guerrilla that too many ignore that I try to point out at the end of the video:
The first chapter of Petraeus's manual calls for a "force ratio" of 25 counterinsurgents (here meaning US, allied, and Iraqi soldiers and police) per 1,000 residents. In Baghdad that would require a total force of 120,000. But even with the additional 17,500 US troops President Bush has called for, and a reallocation of Iraqi troops from the North to Baghdad, the total force will be approximately 80,000, a full third less than what the manual prescribes.
I was shooting from the hip and based on my faulty memory, but the numbers I was talking about were sufficiently close to make the point. Thinking in terms of the situation in Afghanistan a quick look at the math tells you what you need to know.
By Genral Petraeus' own standard that is how many soldiers would be needed to effectively stabelize Afghanistan. Accounting for US, UN and even the Afghanistan soldiers that have been trained up to provide security there are nowhere near enough. And there will never be anywhere near enough without a draft. That is an 800 pound guerilla that nobody will address.
Once in office, Obama compounded the damage by doubling down his bet on the war. In March, he introduced a “comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” in his first significant public statement on the subject, which had expansion written all over it. He also agreed to send in 21,000 more troops (which, by the way, Petraeus reportedly convinced him to do). In August, in another sign of weakness masquerading as strength, before an unenthusiastic audience at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, he unnecessarily declared: “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.” All of this he will now pay for at the hands of Petraeus, or if not him, then a coterie of military men behind the latest push for a new kind of Afghan War.
As it happens, this was never Obama’s “war of necessity.” It was always Petraeus’s. And the new report from McChrystal and the Surgettes is undoubtedly Petraeus’s progeny as well. It seems, in fact, cleverly put together to catch a cautious president, who wasn’t cautious enough about his war of choice, in a potentially devastating trap. The military insistence on quick action on a troop decision sets up a devastating choice for the president: “Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.” Go against your chosen general and the failure that follows is yours alone. (Unnamed figures supposedly close to McChrystal are already launching test balloons, passed on by others, suggesting that the general might resign in protest if the president doesn’t deliver — a possibility he has denied even considering.) On the other hand, offer him somewhere between 15,000 and 45,000 more American troops as well as other resources, and the failure that follows will still be yours.
It’s a basic lose-lose proposition and, as journalist Eric Schmitt wrote in a New York Times assessment of the situation, “it will be very hard to say no to General McChrystal.” No wonder the president and some of his men are dragging their feet and looking elsewhere. As one typically anonymous “defense analyst” quoted in the Los Angeles Times said, the administration is suffering “buyer’s remorse for this war… They never really thought about what was required, and now they have sticker shock.”
At this moment in time the Generals are asking for more troops and, even by Petraus' own standards, they aren't asking for enough to deal with the issue. And that is assuming the strategy of more boots on the ground is even an effective one. It isn't because the whole strategy is based on loonytunes logic [emph. mine], according to Pen and Sword's Jeff Huber:
Obama said that he would only approve another escalation if he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be." McChrystal’s report is incoherent on the subject of strategy.
It says, “We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations” and states that success depends not on “seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces” but on “gaining the support of the people.” That’s laughable in light of the fact that classic clear-hold-build counterinsurgency operations involve seizing terrain and destroying the insurgent forces that occupy it.
The notion that we can separate the Afghan people from the insurgents is as ludicrous as the idea of invading Mexico to separate the Hispanics from the Latinos. Nor can we pretend to be the good guys when the Karzai government we prop up is as bad or worse than the insurgents. McChrystal admits that Afghans have “little reason to support their government.”
McChrystal says he sees no sign of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. So, his argument goes, in order to disrupt al-Qaeda terror network, we need 45,000 more troops to occupy a country al Qaeda is not in to make sure it doesn’t come back. And what exactly is this al-Qaeda juggernaut we’ve come to quake in fear of? As former CIA officer Philip Giraldi recently noted, “An assessment by France’s highly regarded Paris Institute of Political Studies [suggests that] Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda has likely been reduced to a core group of eight to ten terrorists who are on the run more often than not.”
If McChrystal and his allies get their way, we’ll have deployed over 135,000 troops to Afghanistan—on top of the roughly 130,000 troops still in Iraq—for the purpose of rounding up fewer than a dozen bad guys. Daffy Duck and Wiley Coyote could come up with a better strategy than that. Our military leadership and its supporters are a thundering herd of buffoons whose only real objective is to keep the cash caissons rolling and the gravy ships afloat and the wild blue budget sky high.
While interviewing Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) on his CNN Headline News show last night, right-wing talker Glenn Beck declared that there’s “nobody in Washington that anybody trusts anymore.” Saying that he’d “like oversight” of the money Congress is allocating for the bailout of the financial system, Beck suggested Gen. David Petraeus would be the perfect person to provide the oversight:
BECK: thought of it, Senator. I`d like oversight, but here`s who I would like to provide the oversight for the people who are overseeing this mess, and that`s General Petraeus. I would like to see somebody bring General Petraeus in and have him sit there with all the stars on his shoulders and say, “Ok now, explain again how you didn`t create this mess?”
The attacks were no mystery. What puzzled Turkish police was the weapons' origin. Glocks are high-quality sidearms, but by last year they had practically become common street weapons in Turkey. More than 1,000 had been taken from criminals, guerrillas, terrorists and assassins all over the country, and authorities believed tens of thousands more had found their way onto the black market
There are many more where those came from. At least three U.S. government agencies are now investigating the massive "disappearance" and diversion of weapons Washington intended for Iraqi government forces that instead have spread to militants and organized gangs across the region. The potential size of the traffic is stunning. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office last month showed that since 2004, some 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols, bought with U.S. money for Iraqi security forces, have gone missing.
snip
Major U.S. arms transfers began when Gen. David Petraeus was commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command—Iraq (MNSTC-I), better known as Minsticky. Its mission was to train, arm and organize Iraq's military and police forces, but the Iraqis' weapons came via the State Department, and the supply line was actually run by private contractors.
U.S. army study says Iraq occupation was understaffed DENVER - A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.
While bush was claiming that major combat operations had ended:
Planners in the Iraq headquarters said 300,000 troops would be needed for the occupation. Even before the invasion, some planners had called for 300,000 troops to be sent for the invasion and occupation.
...snip...
Some commanders told the authors they asked about plans for making the country stable and got no answers.
...snip...
Its writers said it was clear in January 2005 that the Army would remain in Iraq for some time, the writers concluded.
That was only about 7 Friedman units ago. Take heart, dear reader, that our fearless leader took his military commanders advice on troop levels and... Oh wait! he ignored the military, never sent in the 300,000 troops they wanted and lied about the Friedmans too.
I would feel used if I didn't know this since the day they sacked General Shinseki for telling them, and us, the truth about needed troop levels.
Retired generals speak out to oppose Rumsfeld: "In this, Powell echoed former Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who told Congress just weeks before the 2003 invasion that several hundred thousand US troops would be necessary to secure Iraq after the invasion. For this he was publicly contradicted by then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld named General Shinseki's replacement a year before he was to retire and broke custom by not attending his retirement ceremony." --- csmonitor.com
McCain makes a good point with his "whackamole" comment, but clearly the only other thing that McCain is correct in when he talks about sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq is at the end of the video where he says, "I don't know where the troops are going to come from."
He hasn't a clue that it would take a draft to get enough troops. Firstly, because we already don't have the troops to spare. And, secondly, because you need to be looking at the several hundred thousand pairs of boots on the ground deemed neccessary by General Shinseki, before he was chased out of the military by the neocons for being honest, if you really want to secure Iraq and you get the idea of how wrong McCain is.
“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.” [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]
Now, of course, several years later we have a bush flack in charge named Petraeus. Nothing more than a yes man for the neocons and eternal war. He took over from a reasonable Admiral that stood in the neocons way when it came to attacking Iran.
All they need is to get their warmongering McCain in to the White House and we can be sure to be playing whackamole in Iran for a hundred years too!
In cased you missed it, Chris Shays was named the Eschaton Wanker of the Day™ on Monday for his asinine comments blaming predatory lending victims for their own predicament in the subprime crisis that is hitting towns in his district to the tune of a 500% increase in foreclosures from last year.
"As an affordable housing professional, I know that many first-time homeowners, guilty of nothing but reaching for the American dream, found themselves besieged by unregulated mortgage brokers selling highly complex mortgages with low initial rates and other bells and whistles that made them seem irresistible. These brokers rarely bothered to make the disclosures that would have raised concerns and caution among their customers. Some brokers were openly deceptive and predatory.
"That's why I was astounded by Chris Shays' statement early this week regarding the looming housing foreclosure crisis. He told the Connecticut Post, 'I can't imagine helping people who should not have gotten a loan in the first place.'
"Maybe Chris Shays can't imagine it, but all Americans have an interest in assisting those whose best shot at the American dream was ruined by deception. And we have a common interest in avoiding the contagious decay that can plague foreclosure-prone neighborhoods.
"There is much we can do, working with banks, municipalities, and community organizations, to encourage stressed homeowners to talk to their lenders, encourage loan restructuring, and provide temporary relief. In addition, Congress must act now to address this crisis by enacting legislation to stop predatory lending practices, require more clear disclosures on loans, and increase funding for community-based housing advocates to educate consumers about the mortgage market. Doing nothing makes no sense.
"Chris Shays' statement shows that he is far more interested in protecting the financial industry which amply funds his campaigns than he is in stabilizing threatened communities and supporting hardworking homeowners who thought they had a shot at the middle class. As a matter of ethics and plain good business sense, Chris Shays is far, far from home."
Himes' background in this area - and his diligence on the issue - will serve him and his constituents very well come January 2009.
All the politicians say they want to give people a hand up, not a hand out.
"...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country." (The Worst President in the History of America, george bush)
Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.
Unfortunately for the average American, when a Republican talks about a "Hand up" what they really mean is single-fingered-salute followed by a generous amount of babbling:
On the Republican side, I am not sure there is any candidate that will ever rise to the top. The election is not a shoo-in for the democrats. Even so the Republicans have one candidate that could out-worsen G. W. Bush. Giulani's rhetoric is beyond comprehention. His speeches only succeed in making Bush's orations sound fresh.
Guiliani's concepts on foreign policy are founded deep in nothing. His platitudes are often well used and tend to bore me:
We are at the dawn of a new era in global affairs, when old ideas have to be rethought and new ideas have to be devised to meet new challenges ...
The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda network is destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed or captured ...
We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with [China and Russia] ...
It is clear that we need to do a better job of explaining America's message and mission to the rest of the world, not by imposing our ideas on others but by appealing to their enlightened self-interest ...
America will win the war of ideas ...
We must learn from our past if we want to win the peace as well as the war ...
It is better to give people a hand up than a handout.
Most of his sayings on international affairs are fresh from a Henry Kissinger "op-ed".
Reading Giuliani and imagining that he might somehow become president chills me with a profound sense of dispair. Fortunately, there is comic relief. At one of many points where he attempts to display his erudition and expertise, he notes the "cultural exchanges" that allegedly brought about the end of the Soviet empire. The example he cites is pianist Van Cliburn's concerts in Moscow, which "hastened change."
Van Cliburn played Moscow in 1958. The Soviet Union fell in 1989. If change were any hastier, the Berlin Wall would still be intact.
As a side note: 1958 to 1989? These idiot republicans are, only now, rejoicing in the glorious efforts of their republican talking-point General Petraeus,if you need an idea on how quickly their dear-leader-wannabes expect things to change in Iraq... I say their typical expectations would be rosy-colored-glasses optimistic, something no republican would ever be accused of, but you can do the math on the dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in that time if you are that optimistic too. Just to give you an idea that is closer to reality:
"Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," Abizaid said Wednesday at Carnegie Mellon University.
Got that? 50 years in Iraq... A Half a century of Americans getting killed there. It is long past time to stop giving huge fistfuls of $$$ in handouts to Military Complex, and start giving a hand up to the American soldiers by bringing them home.
I am not one for framing debates. Much like BooMan, I think that there is an inherent dishonesty in playing with people's emotions and minds in order to score a political point. But that still does not change the fact that I see things that "they" are doing and could not disagree with "them" more. And my gut tells me that we have to hit meet them head on with a loud and resounding "HELL NO!" And, IMHO, that has nothing to do with framing... It has to do with reality.
I've been trying to find the right words to describe the MoveOn.org advertising fiasco on General Betraeus. I think The Rude One found the right balance.
Obviously, the Rude Pundit doesn't believe in the Bob Shrum/DLC school of cautious political rhetoric, where you try real hard not to piss off the other side 'cause they might hit back. The language of inclusion, though, need not be the language of capitulation. Let's put this in historical perspective: You're Tom Hayden. Let the Rude Pundit and others be Abbie Hoffman. Out here in the blogworld, we can say shit like "Petraeus/Betray Us" because, well, shit, that's what we do. Let us be the dirty fuckin' hippies.
We need you to be mainstream, MoveOn. We need you to be the grown-up. The mainstream media is distracted by shiny objects. Don't actually try to dangle a sparkly charm in front of them.
Yeah...basically.
Sorry dudes... I heartily disagree with both the idea and the reasoning. Here, Lakoff gives his position on this and for a change it has less to do with framing an issue, and is more about the cold hard reality:
"The issue is this: Who has been betraying the trust of the American people -- including our troops -- in bringing about the American invasion of Iraq and in continuing the occupation? What were the acts of betrayal and with what consequences? And is a betrayal of trust still going on, and if so where, how, and by whom?
I have developed a deeper look at these issues. You can read that in my new article Iraq and the Betrayal of Trust. But meanwhile, let's talk about one of the traps we should stay out of: The Politeness Trap.
Bush took advantage of certain conventions of etiquette and politeness when he sent Petraeus to testify before Congress. Those conventions hold that one does not criticize the symbolic stand-in for the military, even when the uniform-wearing stand-in is on an overt political mission that is at the heart of the Administration's continuing betrayal of trust. Decorum can be put to political use, and Bush did just that.
Bush was using a familiar right-wing tactic: identifying himself with a military uniform and the stature of the military in general, when he had no military stature himself. Rudy Guiliani used the same tactic in his ad in Friday's New York Times: by associating himself with Petraeus' rank and role, hoping some of the stature of the military would rub off on him. The implicit message is an attack on MoveOn: in pointing out Petraeus' deception, MoveOn, so Giuliani implies, was being disrespectful of the military itself. This is a typical right-wing attack on progressives, and progressives shouldn't stand for it. They should not be allowed to hide behind the troops. The troops themselves have been betrayed."
Here is the political reality as I see it today:
MoveOn was right. They didn't write any facts that most reasonable Americans would dispute. Did they use harsh words in a flaming sound byte? Yep... And rightfully so. These harsh GOP tactics deserve nothing less than to be hammered with facts.
It is an outrage that these neocon wannabes would get their panties all twisted in a knot over MoveOn pointing out the obvious and, even worse IMHO, is having some Dems run from the facts.
This "polite" political tactic may cut it with the hardcore vote-Dem-until-they-die crowd, but the rest of the political nation is going to point out the absurdities of the Dems playing this game of footsie under the table, and playing it by the GOP rules. I am very disappointed, to say the least, with the repeated wishy-washy mixed signals sent by Dems. Someone has to stand up to the bullies in the GOP, and the Dems aren't doing it.
Forget about "Mommy" Democrats and "Daddy" Republicans and fuck thinking about the god-damned elephant and to hell with being polite about it all... The lefty-Bloggers are the ONLY adults and the Dems are the little kids that can't/won't fend for themselves. And, for a change, MoveOn got something right.
Connecticut's very own JR. Senator, Joe neocon Lieberman, bloviates in another WSJ propaganda hit piece claiming that "advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake" (Which mistake Joe? Of being completely and totally correct and making you and your warmongering republican brethren look like total failures and lunatics AGAIN?) and, meanwhile, support for the continued occupation of Iraq is slipping even further both in Iraq and the USA to the dismay of Republican operatives currently hitting the airwaves to share their rosy propaganda pictures.
Iraqis currently overwhelmingly oppose the presence of coalition forces to the point where the support of violence against the occupying coalition forces is rising.
Similarly, 80 percent of Iraqis disapprove of the way U.S. and other coalition forces have performed in Iraq; the only change has been an increase in negative ratings of the U.S. performance among Kurds. And 86 percent of Iraqis express little or no confidence in U.S. and U.K. forces, similar to last winter and again up among Kurds.
Accusations of mistreatment continue: Forty-one percent of Iraqis in this poll (vs. 44 percent in March) report unnecessary violence against Iraqi citizens by U.S. or coalition forces. That peaks at 63 percent among Sunni Arabs, and 66 percent in Sunni-dominated Anbar.
This disapproval rises to an endorsement of violence: Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis now call attacks on coalition forces “acceptable,” up six points from last winter and more than three times its level (17 percent) in February 2004. Since March, acceptability of such attacks has risen by 15 points among Shiites (from 35 percent to 50 percent), while remaining near-unanimous among Sunnis (93 percent).
Kurds, by contrast – protected by the United States when Saddam remained in power – continue almost unanimously to call these attacks unacceptable.
Acceptability of attacks on U.S. forces also varies by locale, peaking at 100 percent in Anbar, 69 percent in Kirkuk city and 60 percent in Baghdad, compared with 38 percent in Basra and just three percent in the northern Kurdish provinces.
Remember that one of those things that the lying Surge ESCALATION supporters are touting are the successes in Anbar. Anbar, where there is a 100% acceptability among locals of killing American and other coalition force occupiers.
Bush said he was encouraged by the update he received today from Petraeus and Crocker and touted recent progress especially in the Anbar province.
“I was pleased with what I heard,” the president said. “The strategy we put in place earlier this year was designed to help the Iraqis improve their security so that political and economic progress could follow. And that is exactly the effect it is having in places like Anbar.
Bush said continuing this progress is vital to meeting the strategic interests of our nation.
“We can’t take this progress for granted. Here in Anbar and across Iraq, al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will continue to try to kill the innocent in order to impose their dark ideology,” Bush said.
“I am going to reassure them that America does not abandon our friends. And America will not abandon the Iraqi people. That’s the message all three of us bring,” Bush said.
If Anbar is the success story, then it is obvious that bush is looking to replicate this 100% support for killing coalition forces across Iraq as a "key to a secure, stable Iraq." As you watch "All three" of them - Bush, Petraeus and Crocker - feed their propaganda and lies to Congress in the next week, remember these successes they had previously been touting in Anbar.
In fact, as near as we can tell, a lot of the numbers, the key metrics about what's actually happening on the ground remain classified.
And not just the numbers themselves.
A few days ago we flagged Karen DeYoung's piece in the Washington Post about critics questioning the alleged decline in violence in Iraq. And one key point she focused in on is the methodology that the folks in Baghdad are using to derive their numbers. Is it really true that it matters how a person is shot (in the front of the head or the back) for whether or not they get counted? Is it true that we're not counting Sunni-on-Sunni or Shia-on-Shia deaths? Or even killings by the folks we're now allied with in al Anbar province?
The best we can tell the methodology Petraeus's staff is using to tabulate the numbers also remains classified.
In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them.
The AP reveals that a “briefing chart prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency says what Gen. David Petraeus won’t. Insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians, their security forces and U.S. troops remain high.” Most of the insurgent attacks in Iraq continue to be focused on U.S. forces, as the chart shows:
Attacks are up, or have remained pretty much the same, even when you take into account the manipulation of data by the liars that are spewing them out as their idea of success. The only decline? Iraqis have figured out how to avoid killing Iraqis and shifted their focus, and sharpened their aim, on to coalition forces. The Iraqi puppet regime has figured out that the real numbers of casualties are hurting the failed bush administrations' quest for eternal war, so the neoconservative hands up the Iraqi governments asses are are playing the "hide the truth" game from the UN by denying the UN access to Iraq Health Ministry stats:
One of the most credible Iraq-casualties tabulations, crunched by the United Nations, was lost this year after the Iraqi government, embarrassed by the high reported death toll, refused the U.N. access to Health Ministry statistics.
And it's not hard to see why: here are the 2006 numbers from the U.N., month by month, versus an AP-reported month-to-month breakdown of figures compiled from the Iraqi ministries of defense, health and interior.
Jan 06: 1700 UN -- 549 Iraqi ministries
Feb 06: 2100 UN -- 545 Iraqi ministries
Mar 06: 2250 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Apr 06: 2200 UN -- 686 Iraqi ministries
May 06: 2669 UN -- 932 Iraqi ministries
Jun 06: 3149 UN -- 885 Iraqi ministries
Jul 06: 3590 UN -- 1062 Iraqi ministries
Aug 06: 3009 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Sep 06: 3250 UN -- 1099 Iraqi ministries
Oct 06: 3600 UN* -- 1288 Iraqi ministries
Nov 06: 3400 UN -- 1846 Iraqi ministries
Dec 06: 2800 UN -- 1927 Iraqi ministries
If I've made any mistakes in compiling this, I'll adjust as necessary. But here you can see the discrepancy in determining how many Iraqis died each month in 2006 alone.
Is there any doubt that the bush numbers for 2007 are even more dubious? The Iraqis that manage to survive this colossal failure can see the death count around them on a daily basis. There is little doubt why they want us to leave Iraq. But...
"How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"
The autumn 2007 poll reflects growing disillusionment with the occupying forces' presence in Iraq. There is a growing consensus among respondents that coalition troops should leave the country immediately.
Some 47% of respondents now back an immediate withdrawal, compared with 35% in February.
The poll also shows dwindling support for troops remaining in the country, even in support of the Iraqi government and security forces. Only 10% of those surveyed favour coalition forces remaining for that purpose.
Iraqis want us out... So much so they overwhelmingly support killing us in order to get that message across and they really don't care about the disaster that bush and the neocons failures will leave behind. In other words: Don't let the IED hit you on the ass on your way out!
As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?
Increase 6% Keep the same 32% Decrease 39% Remove all troops 17%
So, even if Petraeus says that the surge is improving things, a solid majority -- 56% -- will still favor removing some or all of the troops. Of course, this number could be related to the fact that in two polls now -- by The Washington Post, and by Gallup -- solid majorities say they don't expect Petraeus to honestly assess the success of his own performance. So no wonder majorities are saying his testimony won't affect what they want for Iraq.
Hey! Americans are starting to get used to the fact that anyone associated with the bush administration will lie to anyone that will listen to them when it comes to keep their endless war alive.
General Petraeus will go before Congress this afternoon to argue that the surge is working -- that sectarian killings and attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces are substantially down. The military's secret numbers will serve as support for those conclusions, even as numbers from within the government (e.g. those collected by the Defense Intelligence Agency) dispute them.
Let's just repeat that fact over and over. Because that's what Petraeus is planning on doing on Monday, as Karen DeYoung (in an article buried on page A16) explains clearly. Go read the whole article, closely, for a description of the many methods of the Administration's hocus pocus. But I'd like to focus on one particular tactic.
MoveOn has a hot new ad in today's NYT pointing out that Petraeus' statements differ from all the known metrics out there. And boy has it made Sanctimonious Joe pissed. Not surprisingly, Joe is trying to call in those chits he got for agreeing to caucus with the Democrats in January.
The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by Moveon.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn.
General Petraeus has served his country honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He has risked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. For this, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of every American -- not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org.
It has been widely reported that Moveon.org has worked closely over the past months with many members of the Democratic Party in coordinating their efforts to derail the strategy that General Petraeus has been leading in Iraq.
[snip]
As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus. General Petraeus deserves no less.
Mind you, Joe doesn't address the central allegation that MoveOn makes--that Petraeus is lying to Congress. Which he'd have to do to prove his own accusations about slander. Rather, Sanctimonious Joe says we've got to honor Generals, even if they lie to us.
But the difference this time is that he will knowingly be getting up in front of Congress to tell these lies, and we, the vast majority of Americans, all know it well ahead of time.
Although he has already betrayed the USA by spreading bush propaganda, much like the mistake Joe Lieberman has continually made, we will all be watching to see if Petraeus goes the distance in a typical bush fashion and perjures himself in his testimony to Congress over the next little while.
Just how much of this is dressed-up "Stay the Course!" BS? Take a look at this graph showing troop levels past, present and future (If the incompetent bush gets his way):
WHOA! Is this a familiar pattern? And someone out there representing CT supports this rinse and repeat policy? Sure enough, Bush can always count on Joe Neocon Lieberman:
And lo and behold... We are right back to "STAYING THE COURSE" so that bush can try to punt his failure off on to the next administration. Bush got what he wanted with the last re-escalation, and I guarantee you that as soon as the few soldiers that come back after this most recent surge have finished their minimum time in the USA they will get another flight back to Iraq to RE-ESCALATE this Iraq hole even deeper than it has already been dug.
Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... etc. ad infinitum
Today, General Petraeus attempted to put a positive spin on a failed policy. While the General highlighted some notable military successes, other credible reports underscore the lack of real progress we have made in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office’s report released last week shows the Iraqis have failed to achieve fifteen of eighteen benchmarks. General Jones’ report states that the Iraqis are far from being able to take over for their own security. And the daily news reports out of Iraq paint a grim picture. Our Armed Forces, stretched and deployed nearly to the breaking point, have done their duty bravely and courageously, but the ends to which they have been directed – the political stability of Iraq - are increasingly beyond their control.
This surge isn’t working and General Petreaus effectively admitted this today. This summer has been the bloodiest yet so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 264 soldiers killed. There is indisputable proof that this strategy has not accomplished the basic goal laid out by the President in January – giving the Iraqis breathing room to achieve political consensus. To grant this Administration an extension of this failed policy would not only put our soldiers at greater risk, it would put this country as a whole in a more perilous position.
I hope that today marks a new era in our national debate on Iraq. The President must face the facts - achieving military success will not lead to Iraqi political success.
Every best wish, Christopher S. Murphy
Ain't nobody holding their breath on a reasonable response like Murphy's coming from the Lieberman warmongers' camp for lying republican children...
But he certainly is the poster boy for having the right to voice your own opinions without being used as a presidential prop. Keep your head down soldier... The shit from farrr right wing-nuts will be flying fast and furious in your direction now.
Your first few promotions in the military (on the officer side of things) are all pretty much mandatory - related to time in service and time in rank - But once you get up to Major and above it is with each following promotion, and to a larger and larger degree , all politics. As a Captain once said to me: "Anyone with a heartbeat can make Captain." I bit back on my tongue while thinking to myself that he was a prime example of that. He was a good guy and incredibly book smart, but when it came to basic Infantry skills (little things like reading a map) he had no sense whatsoever.
Anyways... After Captain you start to get into the politics of the military. Promotion boards weigh in more on your promotion with each higher grade, and much of it comes down to your abilities to get noticed by the right people in the military and the civilians that provide some oversight to those promotions. Pure politics.
Those that make it past Colonel have all exhibited, to varying degrees, excellent political suckuptitude skills. But when other officers call you out on it you really must be among the worst case scenarios.
"Ass-kissing little chickenshit."
Too funny!
Rose is a Rose wonders if this is a knock on Petraeus' credibility.
Hell yeah! It goes directly to his credibility. Comments like that from your superiors can be career killers in the military.
If Fallon said this he has, very likely, sent General chickenshit a clear signal that there will be no more "stars upon thars"... No wonder the ass-kisser is thinking about a future career in politics. His career in the military is finished, IMHO.
It’s unlikely that Petraeus would be as warmly received by the American public. In anticipation of this week’s congressional testimony, 53 percent of the public believed Petraeus would “try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is.” According to a Rasmussen poll of major political figures, Petraeus has an approval rating of only 24 percent — a number lower than even Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
What a fucking joke! Is one of the many other "heckuva job, Brownie!" types going to run as his Vice Presidential running mate? Yeah! There is a real winning ticket. Right up there with "Joe Lieberman for President!"
Just received an email from our Washington reporter, Erin Kelly, who just got off the phone with Rep. Jim Walsh. She's writing a story for tomorrow's paper that reports the moderate Republican is switching gears and is now calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Not only that but Walsh, who visited Iraq during the weekend, says he will no longer support funding the war.
Going from supporting the Iraq occupation to being willing to cut off the funding in order to end the disaster all in one recent visit?
Jim Walsh is obviously turning into nothing more than another dirty-hippy-peacenik republican that wants to embolden the enemy. The freakin' defeatist communist!
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
The letter was written by these active duty, serving in Iraq soldiers:
Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
I encourage you to read the entire letter if you still don't get the point... Oh yeah, and our allies, the Brits, have had enough too:
The UK Indpendent reports that the British military command wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.
Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province – the last of the four held by the British – "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]."
Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August.
I have a bad feeling that the Brit's experience in the south of Iraq is a precursor for an even more dangerous and humiliating scenario for the American troops to their north.
Spc. Vassell, 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers:
I challenge anybody in Congress to do my rotation. They don't have to do anything, just come hang out with me and go home at the times I go home. And come stay here fifteen months with me.
Spc. Vassell, 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers:
We're supposed to be on the way home right now. We were supposed to be flying home in six days. Six days. But because we have people up there in Congress with the brain of a two-year old who don't know what they're doing. They don't experience it. I, I challenge the President or whoever has us here for fifteen months to ride along, alongside me. I'll do another fifteen months if he comes out here and rides along with me every day for fifteen months. I'll do fifteen more months. They don't even have to pay me extra. I just want him to come out here and ride with me another fifteen months.
The politicians all sit there in their cushy offices or their comfy little places on the floor of the House, The Senate, and in the White House. They do not have a fucking clue what they are doing to the soldiers. They do not have a fucking clue how stressed out the military is. How the policies they are all pushing for are breaking the military.
YOU all say YOU support the troops. What a fucking load of crap. If YOU aren't there in Iraq along side them in this endless war that YOU support...
Don't ever fucking tell me YOU support the troops.
That goes for all of you war cheerleaders, Republican and Democratic party alike, that continue to fund this endless disaster. The same thing goes for all of you keyboard and armchair warriors that cheer on the occupation of Iraq but are too hypocritical to spill your own blood in Iraq's desert sands.
sptmck at 1%More Conscious has 100% more well chosen words concerning the soldiers that are mad about the longer deployments and the others that no longer believe in the mission in Iraq.
And this ABC video aired later in response to the original report:
It is pretty plain and simple. You either support the troops by bringing them home... Or you don't support the troops at all. Cut and dry. There are no shades of gray in this.
When soldiers come right out and tell you shit like this it is a serious matter. They must have absolutely no confidence in their leadership or the mission they are being given if they are willing to risk the penalties of speaking out against their orders.
Beth Pyritz, an Army wife in Virginia, has joined an antiwar group.
Military Families Speak Out, one such group, which was started in the fall of 2002, now has about 3,500 member families. About 500 of them have joined since January.
Nancy Lessin, a founder of the group, said it was noteworthy that about a hundred military wives living on bases had joined in the last three months. Wives living on bases, she said, are more reluctant than parents of soldiers to speak out.
For Beth Pyritz, 27, who recently joined the group, the turning point came last month when her husband, an Army specialist, left for Iraq for his third deployment.
So it seems that it is going to be up to Congress to actually support the troops by ending the bushies' authorization to wage endless wars. bush won't do it. He never has supported the troops. It remains to be seen if Congress can finally do the right thing here.
Congress is on vacation now, and has yet to do the right thing when it comes to Iraq...
If you are in the minority party of warmongers and are about to try and spin the Iraq occupation with a fake Petraeus report in September, written by the White House, STOP... STOP THE FUCKING BULLSHIT NOW! We The Majority of The American People already don't fucking believe a word you say anymore. And neither do the soldiers. And if you are in the majority party in Congress, STOP PLAYING POLITICS AND START ENDING THE OCCUPATION NOW!
If you haven't got the leadership skills needed to end the occupation now, while you control both the Senate and the House in Congress, than why the hell would we ever give any of you the keys to the White House?
Walsh must be just as evil as all of those dirty-hippy-peaceniks in the military that think the occupation of Iraq is anything less than the path to bush martyrdom.
Connecticut's very own JR. Senator, Joe neocon Lieberman, bloviates in another WSJ propaganda hit piece claiming that "advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake" (Which mistake Joe? Of being completely and totally correct and making you and your warmongering republican brethren look like total failures and lunatics AGAIN?) and, meanwhile, support for the continued occupation of Iraq is slipping even further both in Iraq and the USA to the dismay of Republican operatives currently hitting the airwaves to share their rosy propaganda pictures.
Iraqis currently overwhelmingly oppose the presence of coalition forces to the point where the support of violence against the occupying coalition forces is rising.
Similarly, 80 percent of Iraqis disapprove of the way U.S. and other coalition forces have performed in Iraq; the only change has been an increase in negative ratings of the U.S. performance among Kurds. And 86 percent of Iraqis express little or no confidence in U.S. and U.K. forces, similar to last winter and again up among Kurds.
Accusations of mistreatment continue: Forty-one percent of Iraqis in this poll (vs. 44 percent in March) report unnecessary violence against Iraqi citizens by U.S. or coalition forces. That peaks at 63 percent among Sunni Arabs, and 66 percent in Sunni-dominated Anbar.
This disapproval rises to an endorsement of violence: Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis now call attacks on coalition forces “acceptable,” up six points from last winter and more than three times its level (17 percent) in February 2004. Since March, acceptability of such attacks has risen by 15 points among Shiites (from 35 percent to 50 percent), while remaining near-unanimous among Sunnis (93 percent).
Kurds, by contrast – protected by the United States when Saddam remained in power – continue almost unanimously to call these attacks unacceptable.
Acceptability of attacks on U.S. forces also varies by locale, peaking at 100 percent in Anbar, 69 percent in Kirkuk city and 60 percent in Baghdad, compared with 38 percent in Basra and just three percent in the northern Kurdish provinces.
Remember that one of those things that the lying Surge ESCALATION supporters are touting are the successes in Anbar. Anbar, where there is a 100% acceptability among locals of killing American and other coalition force occupiers.
Bush said he was encouraged by the update he received today from Petraeus and Crocker and touted recent progress especially in the Anbar province.
“I was pleased with what I heard,” the president said. “The strategy we put in place earlier this year was designed to help the Iraqis improve their security so that political and economic progress could follow. And that is exactly the effect it is having in places like Anbar.
Bush said continuing this progress is vital to meeting the strategic interests of our nation.
“We can’t take this progress for granted. Here in Anbar and across Iraq, al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will continue to try to kill the innocent in order to impose their dark ideology,” Bush said.
“I am going to reassure them that America does not abandon our friends. And America will not abandon the Iraqi people. That’s the message all three of us bring,” Bush said.
If Anbar is the success story, then it is obvious that bush is looking to replicate this 100% support for killing coalition forces across Iraq as a "key to a secure, stable Iraq." As you watch "All three" of them - Bush, Petraeus and Crocker - feed their propaganda and lies to Congress in the next week, remember these successes they had previously been touting in Anbar.
In fact, as near as we can tell, a lot of the numbers, the key metrics about what's actually happening on the ground remain classified.
And not just the numbers themselves.
A few days ago we flagged Karen DeYoung's piece in the Washington Post about critics questioning the alleged decline in violence in Iraq. And one key point she focused in on is the methodology that the folks in Baghdad are using to derive their numbers. Is it really true that it matters how a person is shot (in the front of the head or the back) for whether or not they get counted? Is it true that we're not counting Sunni-on-Sunni or Shia-on-Shia deaths? Or even killings by the folks we're now allied with in al Anbar province?
The best we can tell the methodology Petraeus's staff is using to tabulate the numbers also remains classified.
In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them.
The AP reveals that a “briefing chart prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency says what Gen. David Petraeus won’t. Insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians, their security forces and U.S. troops remain high.” Most of the insurgent attacks in Iraq continue to be focused on U.S. forces, as the chart shows:
Attacks are up, or have remained pretty much the same, even when you take into account the manipulation of data by the liars that are spewing them out as their idea of success. The only decline? Iraqis have figured out how to avoid killing Iraqis and shifted their focus, and sharpened their aim, on to coalition forces. The Iraqi puppet regime has figured out that the real numbers of casualties are hurting the failed bush administrations' quest for eternal war, so the neoconservative hands up the Iraqi governments asses are are playing the "hide the truth" game from the UN by denying the UN access to Iraq Health Ministry stats:
One of the most credible Iraq-casualties tabulations, crunched by the United Nations, was lost this year after the Iraqi government, embarrassed by the high reported death toll, refused the U.N. access to Health Ministry statistics.
And it's not hard to see why: here are the 2006 numbers from the U.N., month by month, versus an AP-reported month-to-month breakdown of figures compiled from the Iraqi ministries of defense, health and interior.
Jan 06: 1700 UN -- 549 Iraqi ministries
Feb 06: 2100 UN -- 545 Iraqi ministries
Mar 06: 2250 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Apr 06: 2200 UN -- 686 Iraqi ministries
May 06: 2669 UN -- 932 Iraqi ministries
Jun 06: 3149 UN -- 885 Iraqi ministries
Jul 06: 3590 UN -- 1062 Iraqi ministries
Aug 06: 3009 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries
Sep 06: 3250 UN -- 1099 Iraqi ministries
Oct 06: 3600 UN* -- 1288 Iraqi ministries
Nov 06: 3400 UN -- 1846 Iraqi ministries
Dec 06: 2800 UN -- 1927 Iraqi ministries
If I've made any mistakes in compiling this, I'll adjust as necessary. But here you can see the discrepancy in determining how many Iraqis died each month in 2006 alone.
Is there any doubt that the bush numbers for 2007 are even more dubious? The Iraqis that manage to survive this colossal failure can see the death count around them on a daily basis. There is little doubt why they want us to leave Iraq. But...
"How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"
The autumn 2007 poll reflects growing disillusionment with the occupying forces' presence in Iraq. There is a growing consensus among respondents that coalition troops should leave the country immediately.
Some 47% of respondents now back an immediate withdrawal, compared with 35% in February.
The poll also shows dwindling support for troops remaining in the country, even in support of the Iraqi government and security forces. Only 10% of those surveyed favour coalition forces remaining for that purpose.
Iraqis want us out... So much so they overwhelmingly support killing us in order to get that message across and they really don't care about the disaster that bush and the neocons failures will leave behind. In other words: Don't let the IED hit you on the ass on your way out!
As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?
Increase 6% Keep the same 32% Decrease 39% Remove all troops 17%
So, even if Petraeus says that the surge is improving things, a solid majority -- 56% -- will still favor removing some or all of the troops. Of course, this number could be related to the fact that in two polls now -- by The Washington Post, and by Gallup -- solid majorities say they don't expect Petraeus to honestly assess the success of his own performance. So no wonder majorities are saying his testimony won't affect what they want for Iraq.
Hey! Americans are starting to get used to the fact that anyone associated with the bush administration will lie to anyone that will listen to them when it comes to keep their endless war alive.
General Petraeus will go before Congress this afternoon to argue that the surge is working -- that sectarian killings and attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces are substantially down. The military's secret numbers will serve as support for those conclusions, even as numbers from within the government (e.g. those collected by the Defense Intelligence Agency) dispute them.
Let's just repeat that fact over and over. Because that's what Petraeus is planning on doing on Monday, as Karen DeYoung (in an article buried on page A16) explains clearly. Go read the whole article, closely, for a description of the many methods of the Administration's hocus pocus. But I'd like to focus on one particular tactic.
MoveOn has a hot new ad in today's NYT pointing out that Petraeus' statements differ from all the known metrics out there. And boy has it made Sanctimonious Joe pissed. Not surprisingly, Joe is trying to call in those chits he got for agreeing to caucus with the Democrats in January.
The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by Moveon.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn.
General Petraeus has served his country honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He has risked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. For this, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of every American -- not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org.
It has been widely reported that Moveon.org has worked closely over the past months with many members of the Democratic Party in coordinating their efforts to derail the strategy that General Petraeus has been leading in Iraq.
[snip]
As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus. General Petraeus deserves no less.
Mind you, Joe doesn't address the central allegation that MoveOn makes--that Petraeus is lying to Congress. Which he'd have to do to prove his own accusations about slander. Rather, Sanctimonious Joe says we've got to honor Generals, even if they lie to us.
But the difference this time is that he will knowingly be getting up in front of Congress to tell these lies, and we, the vast majority of Americans, all know it well ahead of time.
Although he has already betrayed the USA by spreading bush propaganda, much like the mistake Joe Lieberman has continually made, we will all be watching to see if Petraeus goes the distance in a typical bush fashion and perjures himself in his testimony to Congress over the next little while.
Just how much of this is dressed-up "Stay the Course!" BS? Take a look at this graph showing troop levels past, present and future (If the incompetent bush gets his way):
WHOA! Is this a familiar pattern? And someone out there representing CT supports this rinse and repeat policy? Sure enough, Bush can always count on Joe Neocon Lieberman:
And lo and behold... We are right back to "STAYING THE COURSE" so that bush can try to punt his failure off on to the next administration. Bush got what he wanted with the last re-escalation, and I guarantee you that as soon as the few soldiers that come back after this most recent surge have finished their minimum time in the USA they will get another flight back to Iraq to RE-ESCALATE this Iraq hole even deeper than it has already been dug.
Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... etc. ad infinitum
Today, General Petraeus attempted to put a positive spin on a failed policy. While the General highlighted some notable military successes, other credible reports underscore the lack of real progress we have made in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office’s report released last week shows the Iraqis have failed to achieve fifteen of eighteen benchmarks. General Jones’ report states that the Iraqis are far from being able to take over for their own security. And the daily news reports out of Iraq paint a grim picture. Our Armed Forces, stretched and deployed nearly to the breaking point, have done their duty bravely and courageously, but the ends to which they have been directed – the political stability of Iraq - are increasingly beyond their control.
This surge isn’t working and General Petreaus effectively admitted this today. This summer has been the bloodiest yet so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 264 soldiers killed. There is indisputable proof that this strategy has not accomplished the basic goal laid out by the President in January – giving the Iraqis breathing room to achieve political consensus. To grant this Administration an extension of this failed policy would not only put our soldiers at greater risk, it would put this country as a whole in a more perilous position.
I hope that today marks a new era in our national debate on Iraq. The President must face the facts - achieving military success will not lead to Iraqi political success.
Every best wish, Christopher S. Murphy
Ain't nobody holding their breath on a reasonable response like Murphy's coming from the Lieberman warmongers' camp for lying republican children...
