Ex-General: Iraq a 'Nightmare' for US

[GoSlash27]

I actually find it kind of offensive that you call the officers currently commanding in "iraq" amatures.

There you go again. ^ Strawman.

Baloney. There are no more than 20 retired generals who have come out criticizing the war. I already gave you the numbers on how many active duty generals there are as well as how many retired.

Point in fact you did not.

I don't know how many retired generals there are, but I think its a safe bet to say that they number in the hundreds.

Your "safe bet" doesn't count as "numbers" in my book.
You then take your argument a further step into absurdia by assuming that everyone who does not publicly criticize the war therefore supports it.

Your entire argument is a heaping pile of fail. Please try again.

I will start for you. There have been to date x number of retired generals (those who have the knowledge base to justify an opinion and are actually free to comment). Of these, 20 have called the war a grabasstic clusterfark and ?? have called it a success. Please fill in the blanks.

 

[STAGE 2]

There you go again. ^ Strawman.

Balonye again. You called the officers that support the current policy and by implication the administration, amatures. I find that offensive.

Your "safe bet" doesn't count as "numbers" in my book.
You then take your argument a further step into absurdia by assuming that everyone who does not publicly criticize the war therefore supports it.

Your entire argument is a heaping pile of fail. Please try again.

I will start for you. There have been to date x number of retired generals (those who have the knowledge base to justify an opinion and are actually free to comment). Of these, 20 have called the war a grabasstic clusterfark and ?? have called it a success. Please fill in the blanks.

Currently, there are over 800 active duty admirals and generals serving. I can't find any data on the number of retired generals, but if there are 800 active duty, then there are well over 100 retired. My guess is that its much much more.

Then you have retired army and marine colonels who have been vocal in support of winning the war. Guys like David Hunt, Bill Cowan, and Chuck Nash have been out therein support of whats been going on yet you don't see any mainstream coverage of them.

So, at the end of the day, you hav 20 guys who disagree with the strategy in Iraq. Huge surprise. Give me any war in our history and I can find you 20 generals who disagreed with what was going on.

The issue isn't whether they agree or disagree. The issue is whether we should simply take their word as authoratitive. Personally, I value the opinion of the gun in charge more than I do those put out to pasture.

Feel free to disagree, but lets not pretend that 20 people make some kind of definitive consensus.

 

[BillCA]

This just in...

Breaking News Alert

ABC’s Charlie Gibson reported on ABC news on 10/17:

“One item from Baghdad today: The news is... that there is no news. The police told us that, to their knowledge, there were no major acts of violence. Attacks are down in Baghdad and today no bombings or roadside explosions were reported.”

In fact, when I checked the CNN website (and CNN reports any killings in Iraq, even if it's accidental) I see no reports of bombings or fighting since Wednesday the 17th.

Of course, you're not hearing about this at all from the blamestream media except in passing.

 

[GoSlash27]

Guys like David Hunt, Bill Cowan, and Chuck Nash have been out therein support of whats been going on...

Now that's a start. 3 for, 20 against.

The issue isn't whether they agree or disagree. The issue is whether we should simply take their word as authoratitive.

Or, conversely, whether we should dismiss them outright.

Personally, I value the opinion of the gun in charge more than I do those put out to pasture.

I wouldn't know why. He's not allowed to have an opinion.

 

[STAGE 2]

Or, conversely, whether we should dismiss them outright.

No one said dismiss them outright. The point is that 20 people out of hundreds does not a consensus make. Especially when most have a personal axe to grind.

 

[GoSlash27]

No one said dismiss them outright.

Then we are in agreement.

The point is that 20 people out of hundreds does not a consensus make.

20 out of 23 does. You insist on including those who are not free to express their opinions as if they are.

Especially when most have a personal axe to grind.

There's a thought; perhaps it's the 3 who support the war who have the axe to grind. After all, they weren't even allowed to make flag....

 

[BillCA]

3 Days without major violence

Okay, since 10/17, I have not been able to find any news reports of any major violence in Iraq. That's 3 days with no attacks on allied forces or any suicide bombings against civilian targets.

This could change at any time, of course, but it is a good sign. It could mean that the "insurgents" are being worn down or it could mean that they are coordinating for a burst of activity. I prefer to look at this as an improvement of conditions, however.

 

[JuanCarlos]

3 Days without major violence

Okay, since 10/17, I have not been able to find any news reports of any major violence in Iraq. That's 3 days with no attacks on allied forces or any suicide bombings against civilian targets.

This could change at any time, of course, but it is a good sign. It could mean that the "insurgents" are being worn down or it could mean that they are coordinating for a burst of activity. I prefer to look at this as an improvement of conditions, however.

What's your cutoff for "major?"

Here we have an attack on allied forces on Wednesday (the 17th).

Here would appear to be attacks on US forces on either Thursday or Friday.

Attacks on civilians on the 19th/20th or so here.

Here is a soldier dead from insurgent attacks on Thursday. I've not thoroughly cross-checked, this may be from one of the aforementioned incidents...but a cursory glance seems so suggest it isn't.

There seem to be more unique incidents, but again don't feel like cross-checking to ensure that I don't start double-posting pre-identification reports and post-identification reports, or different reports of the same attack. But either soldiers dying and civilians being found dead or blown up doesn't "count" to you, or you weren't looking very hard.

EDIT: Note that this was just what I found after spending about 90 seconds on news.google.com. Being able to search multiple news sites by keyword then sort by date makes such things pretty trivial to find.

 

[Musketeer]

Rumsfeld wanted a cheap war like Afghanistan was. The use of a proxy army (the Northern Alliance) was a brilliant and cost saving measure. We just couldn't do that with Iraq.

Worked great. Look at Tora Bora where our desire to use only local forces left a wide open back door for Bin Laden and his forces to slip across the border into Pakistan...

Then there was the continued desire to use less than what was needed as seen in operation Anaconda. Let's train for 40+ years like we intend to fight then go to battle with half of what we need and leave the artillery at home.

NOBODY in the USA had a problem with the use of overwhelming force in Afghanistan after 9/11. That is where the attacks came from! Yet for some reason we insist on doing the job with one arm and leg tied behind our back. Amazingly the SF guys did a great job with what they did have. When it came to meeting the final objective, getting Bin Laden and the leadership, the forces were not available because we refused to commit them. The Northern Alliance didn't care about Bin Laden or Alcada. If they wanted to go across into Pakistan and leave the NA alone they were more than happy to let it happen. Why should they risk their lives to pursue an American enemy that they had no need to loose lives fighting?

 

[Danzig]

We just got the word today...my brigade is going to Baghdad..and my battalion is going to the green zone specifically. I expect that it will be much different than our last to deployments; to Balad and Samarra.

And we were warned that we could end up in a conventional war with Iran....:barf:

 

[BillCA]

Juan,
Okay, my fault for not using news.google instead of just checking the major sources ... who seem to have stopped reporting "minor" incidents.

It does seem like the number of attacks is down considerably. Note that the original ABC News report specified only Bahgdad and not all of Iraq.

Here would appear to be attacks on US forces on either Thursday or Friday.

These were not attacks but fighting in response to allied raids on enemy locations. I'd consider it "violence" but not an "attack" by the enemy.

Attacks on civilians on the 19th/20th or so here.

Two US soldiers died in Iraq on Wednesday in non-combat related incidents which are now under investigation, the American military said.

This is not one that I would count in the sense of an attack. The bombings would count, however if they'd been reported by one of the networks or AP.

Here is a soldier dead from insurgent attacks on Thursday. I've not thoroughly cross-checked, this may be from one of the aforementioned incidents...but a cursory glance seems so suggest it isn't.

Not being clarivoyant, I can't include a story that wasn't reported until 4 hours after my post, now can I?

No, I didn't do time consuming research, just checking the major outlets for stories of bombings or fighting in Iraq. Heck, maybe all of the reporters were taking a vacation or something.

 

[JuanCarlos]

It does seem like the number of attacks is down considerably. Note that the original ABC News report specified only Bahgdad and not all of Iraq.

True, but I was responding to your post (the second one) and not the ABC report. You did not specify Baghdad, but used the more general "Iraq."

Attacks on civilians on the 19th/20th or so here.

Two US soldiers died in Iraq on Wednesday in non-combat related incidents which are now under investigation, the American military said.

This is not one that I would count in the sense of an attack. The bombings would count, however if they'd been reported by one of the networks or AP.

Yes, I was referring to the bombings of civilians, not the accidental deaths.

Here is a soldier dead from insurgent attacks on Thursday. I've not thoroughly cross-checked, this may be from one of the aforementioned incidents...but a cursory glance seems so suggest it isn't.

Not being clarivoyant, I can't include a story that wasn't reported until 4 hours after my post, now can I?

No, that news article is timestamped 12:57 AM (as in, in the morning) on the 20th. Your post (the second, the one I was replying to) was like 21 hours later.

No, I didn't do time consuming research, just checking the major outlets for stories of bombings or fighting in Iraq. Heck, maybe all of the reporters were taking a vacation or something.

Like I said, I didn't do time-consuming research either. Those links were found by searching google for two minutes and spending about two more skimming the articles. If I actually spent the time to "research" I'm sure I could found more and checked sources on them more thoroughly.

EDIT: And my point is that it's easier to say things are going well if we start ignoring the "minor" incidents. If the incidents I linked to (and any others I might have found had I looked harder) somehow don't "count," then things must still be pretty bad over there as far as I'm concerned.

 

[BillCA]

EDIT: And my point is that it's easier to say things are going well if we start ignoring the "minor" incidents. If the incidents I linked to (and any others I might have found had I looked harder) somehow don't "count," then things must still be pretty bad over there as far as I'm concerned.

I'll agree that it's no picnic over there either. It certainly wouldn't rank anywhere on my choices of a vacation spot. But I think we make the distinction between attacks initiated and carried out by their forces and combat when we attack one of their hideouts.

There are several news stories about the large drop in activity by the "insurgents" in the last few months.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

In Baghdad, considered the epicenter of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.

In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.

To be sure, it's not all a bed of roses;

While the figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance.

 

[GoSlash27]

All this back-and-forth about the overall level of violence in Iraq is a side issue. The lulls and spikes in insurgent activity have no bearing on the fact that the criteria for victory (as re-defined over the years) are unobtainable.
We went in there in the hopes of creating a friendly stable government that would grant us basing rights and deny our enemy (remember them?) a haven.
Now we're just hoping for any stable government, but Turkey is threatening cross-border raids to deal with terrorists that we don't seem to want to confront, the Basra area is threatening to come unhinged faster than you can say "Iran", and our enemy is now stronger than it's ever been.
I think "nightmare" is an accurate description.

 

[Fremmer]

our enemy is now stronger than it's ever been

Not according to Gen Patraeus.

Not everyone is ready to cut and run (I mean, to "redeploy", I mean, to surrender) from Iraq and to allow a slaughter to occur after terrorists assume control there.

 

[Musketeer]

Not everyone is ready to cut and run (I mean, to "redeploy", I mean, to surrender) from Iraq and to allow a slaughter to occur after terrorists assume control there.

We are told over and over that the insurgents are primarily foreigners and a small minority. If they are so small and the Iraqi people are really dedicated to a free governemnt then there is NO WAY they can take over. On the other hand if the Iraqis by and large are content to sit on their duffs and do nothing the motivated minority will take over.

My question is... Why don't we let the Iraqi's handle their own problems? They outnumber their "foes." If they do not have the stomach to handle matters on their own then why should we sacrafice American lives for Iraqis unwilling to defend their own nation?

 

[tube_ee]

Not everyone is ready to cut and run (I mean, to "redeploy", I mean, to surrender) from Iraq and to allow a slaughter to occur after terrorists assume control there.

You are, of course assuming, that there is anything we can do to prevent that, either now, or later. You're also assuming that the primary agents of violence in Iraq are "terrorists', rather than native groups contending for control of the country.

I doubt very much that either of these premises ore correct. The second is provably false, and the first is unlikely at best.

The real question is, what can we reasonably expect to achieve in Iraq, that will justify the cost in blood and treasure? From where I sit, nothing. I would not spend a single US Dollar, or the life of a single Marine, to create a pro-Iranian Shi'a theocracy in Iraq. If that's what we end up with, and I think it likely will be, all of our sacrifice will have been for nothing.

Yours in despair,
--Shannon

PS: Yes, we have a vital strategic interest in Iraq, and in the region. In fact, we have precisely one. Access to oil. Nothing else in that part of the world matters to us. That's reality. So, whatever serves that end is in our interest, and whatever does not, is not. But we can do business with whoever wins control of Iraq, if there even is an Iraq after it's all over. Which I doubt there will be. Cash and carry. We need oil. If you've got it, we'll do business. If you don't, under the bus you go. No more hopes. No more dreams.

 

[Bruxley]

BillCA,

Until Iraq has less violence then the US and has better political relations then the US the Dems that have their stake on Iraq being a failure will never admit what is becoming more and more evident, we ARE winning there. Petraeus IS achieving the objectives he laid out before Congress.

It kicks em in the gut that things are improving so much. If it continues at this rate for another year they will be facing the god awful prospect of having to admit that Bush was RIGHT not caving in.

I think the same types were calling Reagan an imbecile the way he was handling the former Soviet Union. They are just NOW getting some footing back after that one. Now they are facing it again. It has already split their party and caused the Dem candidates to go from debating who would pull troops faster to who would still have them their at the END of their 1st term.

2 biggest issues, immigration and Iraq - 2 Dem answers, Dream Act and pissing off Turkey. Yeah, they are the 'enlightened'. My grandparents called it 'touched'.

 

[GoSlash27]

Shannon,

The real question is, what can we reasonably expect to achieve in Iraq, that will justify the cost in blood and treasure? From where I sit, nothing. I would not spend a single US Dollar, or the life of a single Marine, to create a pro-Iranian Shi'a theocracy in Iraq. If that's what we end up with, and I think it likely will be, all of our sacrifice will have been for nothing.

Knocked that one out of the park. It infuriates me that we're sending our people over there to come back in body bags or wheelchairs for the "greater good" of creating an Iranian puppet state.
Our brave defenders are sacraficing over there because our elected representatives over here (on both sides of the aisle) are cowards. The Dems lack the stones to end it for fear they'll be labeled as defeatists and the Republicans are too scared to admit they were wrong.