From a 'War We Just Might Win' to a War We ARE WINNING: The Petreaus report

B

Bruxley

New member
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker finished their testimony yesterday and confirmed what may others had reported. We are making real progress in Iraq.

The Strategy being employed is 'localism'. Starting from local towns and build toward National Reconciliation rather than a National Government asserting it's will on localities. Local Mayors have been ELECTED and the Federalism form of Democracy is manifesting even without the ability of the National Government to get it together. Local will shaping Nation government.....what a concept!

Undeniable reduction in sectarian violence and Iraqi Sunni's that were once shooting at us are now Allies with us against Al Q.

The list of successes continues but some time ago we had a thread discussing the Iraqi successes and what the Democrats would do now that their bet on Americas failure is looking like a loser.

Today Democrats are scrambling to find a stance. And some are doing NOTHING. Standing their ground for an immediate withdraw. The 'Move On' ad crippled them being able to use their typical tactic of personal destruction rather then dealing with the facts being presented away. A consensus was reached before any statements or testimony was made that the Ad was grotesque and members would be encouraged to distance themselves from such character assassinations. The Ad did far more damage to the Democrat leadership then to the General and further divided the Democrat party.

So now that we are officially winning (not WON.....winning) in Iraq, why in the world would clutching defeat out of the jaws of victory even be considered? Is the Democrat leadership SO convinced that we are stupid that they think they can just 'say it isn't so' and we'll forget about all the empirical data and testimony the 2 foremost experts on the situation in Iraq have presented?

Let's finally present Unity in the momentum of victory to our enemy. That will do more to assure success then any other single thing.
 
Last edited:
Oh, the Dems are doing something.

Koo-koonich is in Syria meeting with despots and denouncing America on Syrian state television.
 
Not to mention the Senate Majority Leader calling the commander in the field a liar - before the Gen. even testified. In better times, Gen. Petraeus could demand satisfaction on the field of honor.
 
Last edited:
You have it all wrong Bruxley.

The smartest woman in the world yesterday told Petraeus "the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."

So, you see, the report isn't really factual. It's just bits of good news tenuously tied together with wishful thinking. After all, whom should you believe? The smartest woman in the world or a some Army General with first-hand knowledge?

See? I knew you'd see the light. :rolleyes:
 
I must have listened to a different report. Neither offered any quick fix cures nor magic bullets. What they did give is realistic assessment of the situation. That some progress was made but there were still problems. That leaving Iraq to stand on its own and deserting it was not what we should do. I don't think his report was a big feather in the cap for either party.

In fact it was a warning to both parties that we still have some work to do.

I Think the General is on the right track and is frank about the weak spots in Iraq. I think him and General Matti's of the USMC wrote the new doctrine on strategy strategy and he is willing to go outside the box for answers.
 
I agree with you Eghad on all your points. The reason i directed some rebuke toward the Democrat leadership is that the Democrats have only their opposition of Iraq and their hatred of George Bush as a platform. They have cast their political lot on failure in Iraq back in November of '06 and felt at the time it was a safe bet I'm sure. now that the course has turned where do they go? What do they stand for other then INSISTENCE that we fail via quitting. The next strong pill to swallow MAY come in facing that Bush was RIGHT in standing his ground on Iraq. :eek: :eek:

Of course alot more progress would have to be made before that could be evaluated. Bush will be out of office long before any of that could even be discussed seriously but we're not talking about decades either.

I think MAYBE the Democrat leadership is afraid of Move On. I think MAYBE they saw what happened to Joe Lieberman and don't want to face that should the Democrat leadership see them as turncoats.

I really like your view of a 'Petraeus Doctrine' being a studied method of how to deal with insurgencies and terrorist tactics. This has been elusive and those Generals may have made history. NICE thought.

The feather you mentioned belongs in the hat of the military not either political party. But if it were not for the steadfast support from the Republicans they would not have the opportunity.
 
The Dem's refusal to disassociate themselves from the 'Move On' ad, except for a few tepid comments that critcized the language tells a lot about their willingness to give Petraeus a chance to deliver HIS opinion.

Reid can't get enough press and television time to slam the report and neither can Pelosi. They're more interested in political posturing and Bush bashing than even trying to see any positive points in the generals report.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made up"
 
Bruxley,
I say this being an ordinary citizen that doesn't hold a candle to the opinion of a 4-star general...

I think the Rules of Engagement should be drastically changed before any other thoughts or techniques should be applied to deal with terrorists. That's my observation.

Are we winning? I don't think yet. I think we're at the bottom of the hill and just about to embark uphill. I trust the General's assessment even though I might not completely agree with how to handle the situation. I don't think those decorations on his uniform was exactly put on there for show...
 
Occupying armies are generally defeated if the locals persist. Rome and Great Britain should have proven that to us.

I don't know how much (if any) of the Petraeus report was influenced by politics. Eisenhower warned us to beware of the encroaching military-industrial complex. So I think some degree of skepticism is appropriate when both the military and a party well connected to business and industry seem to be encouraging us to continue a protracted war. I hope the recommendation for decreasing troops is not just politically motivated to affect the 2008 elections. I suspect that when we start to decrease troop strength, we will see increased acts of terrorism in Iraq. To me, it looks like we should either get out of Iraq completely, or increase our presence out there and accept nothing less than complete destruction of any muslims that won't submit to a pro-western lifestyle.
 
The big difference is that those armies were there to enforce rule over the occupied nation. Ours is the opposite, we are trying to peacefull turn power back over to them like in Japan and Germany.

The General stated that NONE of his testimony was political. Unless he is lying then none of it was. The noticeable lack of hyperbole reinforces that. He definitely didn't paint a peacefully rosy picture. Not even willing to speculate past a year out.

The locals are the key. As they feel we won't abandon them then THEY will take over killing Al Q and Al Q knows it. Their next move isn't known.

Their last move was to pit the Iraqis against each other by attacking the places they held dear and trying to stir up a civil war. That is being quelled by the locals being tired of it and fighting them instead of us and our having their backs is what makes them feel confident in doing so.

You notice that the Generals main tactic is to let the locals govern themselves under their own terms as long as they aren't violent terms? Different approaches based on different areas. This with the assurance we will come if they need us and stay till they don't. He repeated this over and over.

The Ambassador tried to articulate what was working politically, Federalism. Local reconciliation, then Provincial, then National. He equated it to our own challenges with States rights and Civil Rights.

These two showed what changes were taking place, why they were taking place, and how they could continue to show success. What was so confounding and nuanced to this? Not hard to confirm and no hyperbole or wistfully dreamscaping.

Lets start pointing out what part of the testimony is spin or political.

If your familiar with the Mythbusters show then you'll be familiar with a saying that I think is a good summary of the Democrat leaderships position of the Petraeus report: "I reject the reality and substitute it with my own."
 
Rome and Great Britain should have proven that to us.
Click to expand...

Takes a bit of time though doesnt it?

The good generals report is nothing unexpected to those of us who have a realist view of international politics and do more than read mass media screeches or agenda blog yowlings.

Duh. In point of fact, given enough time, we can make this jerkwater country a Garden of Eden security wise. We are stronger, better trained, have better technology and as I understand it, we are killing the baddies 100 to one. Further, despite all attempts by the media to toss gas on the civilian fires by making our troops out to be terrs, in many areas, the Iraqi people themselves are turning on the baddies, knowing damn well that their chances of living are better than us than with them. The only thing we lack is unity, unfortunately, the agenda ridden anti war forces (and to the majority of these forces the war itself is just an excuse) and their congressional allies signal to the baddies that this might be another "Vietnam" for us.

Politically, however, we cant force feed them modernity.

So golly, security is getting better but their government sucks, wow...

Its a side show anyway. The real enemy is over their border.

WildtheenemyofmyenemyAlaska TM
 
If things are a little better, but not greatly improved (which is what Petreaus seems to be saying), then why would he recommend a troop reduction at this point.

Why would you decrease troops at the first sign of improvement?
 
Obviously because things are more then a little better.

Ambar Provence has had an 80% reduction in sectarian violence. Sunnis are allies now instead of adversaries.

There are no longer any coalition forces in Iraq's southern Provence and they are completely handling their own security on a daily basis with the understanding that will will come if they need it.

Not a 'mission accomplished' but success is being enjoyed and troop reductions are apparently a reflection of that success. Generals always want more troops and more funding. For a General to start troop reductions speaks volumes.
 
For a General to start troop reductions speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

I hope it means real success is occuring, and he hasn't been manipulated.

Anyone want to bet that if violence increases after troop strength is decreased, the Democrats will claim its because of the pull out ?
 
Good luck manipulating that man. The implication it is even possible is a lack of awareness of what this General does every day.

The Democrats will attack regardless. It's all they do. No leadership, no ideas, no alternatives, just new attacks. Am I wrong in that assessment? Please tell me if I am.

It just occurred to me that the Democrat leadership (Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Biden,etc.) not only have the same political goals as OBL and Islamic Fascism, but use the same tactic. Instead of dealing with their political grievances in a civilized way they attack, attack, attack. Granted the Democrat leadership uses character assassination instead of physical killing but neither is getting them what they want.

Hate is a devourer. Democrats as constituents have got to be fed up with it by now. The Move On hijacking will only lose it's power when those they manipulate aren't elected anymore.

Politics is a battle of ideas and leadership is a matter of influence. What are the ideas and influences in play?

Let PRESS for Unity. If we are perceived by our enemies as UNITED against them they will whither. Their only hope would be gone and the flow of willing 'martyrs' will dry up leaving them to have to deal with their grievances in a CIVILIZED way.
 
Let PRESS for Unity. If we are perceived by our enemies as UNITED against them they will whither. Their only hope would be gone and the flow of willing 'martyrs' will dry up leaving them to have to deal with their grievances in a CIVILIZED way.
Click to expand...

As long as the opposition to the war is agenda driven, aint gonna happen. When the NYT gives breaks on ad rates to MoveOn, you know thats true...

Here is my favorite commentators take on it (Mark Steyn, www.steynonline.com):



Oh, it's a long, long while from September to September. This year, the anniversary falls, for the first time, on a Tuesday morning, and perhaps some or other cable network will re-present the events in real time — the first vague breaking news in an otherwise routine morning show, the follow-up item on the second plane, and the realization that something bigger was underway. If you make it vivid enough, the JFK/Princess Di factor will kick in: you'll remember "where you were" when you "heard the news." But it's harder to recreate the peculiar mood at the end of the day, when the citizens of the superpower went to bed not knowing what they'd wake up to the following morning.

Six years on, most Americans are now pretty certain what they'll wake up to in the morning: There'll be a thwarted terrorist plot somewhere or other — last week, it was Germany. Occasionally, one will succeed somewhere or other, on the far horizon — in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, London. But not many folks expect to switch on the TV this Tuesday morning, as they did that Tuesday morning, and see smoke billowing from Atlanta or Phoenix or Seattle. During the IRA's 30-year campaign, the British grew accustomed (perhaps too easily accustomed) to waking up to the news either of some prominent person's assassination or that a couple of gran'mas and some schoolkids had been blown apart in a shopping centre. It was a terrorist war in which terrorism was almost routine. But, in the six years since President Bush declared that America was in a "war on terror," there has been in America no terrorism.

In theory, the Administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The President has "kept America safe." But, in practice, the placidity of the domestic front diminishes the chosen rationale of the conflict: if a "war on terror" has no terror, who says there's a war at all? That's the argument of the left — that it's all a racket cooked up by the Bu****lerburton (EDIT...The software deleted the name , which was all combined, Bush-hitler-Haliburton)fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long. Judging from the blithe expressions of commuters doing the shoeless shuffle through the security line at LAX and O'Hare, most Americans seem relatively content with a permanent national-security state. It's a curious paradox: airports on permanent Orange Alert, and a citizenry on permanent … well, I'm not sure there's a Homeland Security color code for "Gaily Insouciant," but, if there is, it's probably a bland limpid pastel of some kind. Of course, if tomorrow there's a big smoking hole where the Empire State Building used to be, we'll be back to: "The President should have known! This proves the failure of his policies over the last six years! We need another all-star Commission filled with retired grandees!"

And that would be the relatively sane reaction. Have you seen that bumper sticker "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB"? If you haven't, go to a college town and cruise Main Street for a couple of minutes. It seems odd that a fascist regime which thinks nothing of killing thousands of people in a big landmark building in the center of the city hasn't quietly offed some of these dissident professors — or at least the guy with the sticker-printing contract. Fearlessly, Robert Fisk of Britain's Independent, the alleged dean of Middle East correspondents, has now crossed over to the truther side and written a piece headlined, "Even I Question The ‘Truth' About 9/11." According to a poll in May, 35% of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That's why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That's how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.

Apparently, 39% of Democrats still believe Bush didn't know in advance — or, at any rate, so they said in May. But I'm confident half of them will have joined Rosie O'Donnell on the melted steely knoll before the Iowa caucuses. If Iraq is another Vietnam, 9/11 is another Kennedy assassination. Were Bali, Madrid and London also inside jobs by the Bush Gang? If so, it's no wonder federal spending's out of control.

And what of those for whom the events of six years ago were more than just conspiracy fodder? Last week The New York Times carried a story about the current state of the 9/11 law suits. Relatives of 42 of the dead are suing various parties for compensation, on the grounds that what happened that Tuesday morning should have been anticipated. The law firm Motley Rice, diversifying from its traditional lucrative class-action hunting grounds of tobacco, asbestos and lead paint, is promising to put on the witness stand everybody who "allowed the events of 9/11 to happen." And they mean everybody — American Airlines, United, Boeing, the airport authorities, the security firms — everybody, that is, except the guys who did it.

According to the Times, many of the bereaved are angry and determined that their loved one's death should have meaning. Yet the meaning they're after surely strikes our enemies not just as extremely odd but as one more reason why they'll win. You launch an act of war, and the victims respond with a lawsuit against their own countrymen. But that's the American way: Almost every news story boils down to somebody standing in front of a microphone and announcing that he's retained counsel. Last week, it was Larry Craig. Next week, it'll be the survivors of Ahmadinejad's nuclear test in Westchester County. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out, a legalistic culture invariably misses the forest for the trees. Senator Craig should know that what matters is not whether an artful lawyer can get him off on a technicality but whether the public thinks he trawls for anonymous sex in public bathrooms. Likewise, those 9/11 families should know that, if you want your child's death that morning to have meaning, what matters is not whether you hound Boeing into admitting liability but whether you insist that the movement that murdered your daughter is hunted down and the sustaining ideological virus that led thousands of others to dance up and down in the streets cheering her death is expunged from the earth.

In his pugnacious new book, Norman Podhoretz calls for redesignating this conflict as World War IV. Certainly, it would have been easier politically to frame the Iraq campaign as being a front in a fourth world war than as a necessary measure in an anti-terrorist campaign. Yet who knows? Perhaps we would still have mired ourselves in legalisms and conspiracies and the dismal curdled relativism of the Flight 93 memorial's "crescent of embrace." In the end, as Podhoretz says, if the war is to be fought at all, it will "have to be fought by the kind of people Americans now are." On this sixth anniversary, as 9/11 retreats into history, many Americans see no war at all.


Wildgetanideaofwhereistand?Alaska TM
 
The implication it is even possible is a lack of awareness of what this General does every day.
Click to expand...

I had never heard of Petraeus until just a couple months ago, and I did not mean my comments to disrespect a man I don't know. But what is it about him, or about what he does every day, that makes him immune to manipulation by his superiors?
 
General Petraeus was confirmed in January. You may not have heard of him before a couple of months ago but he stated this to be his strategy then and was confirmed unanimously to replace General Abazaid. General Abizaid was willing to say something he couldn't substantiate. He is in civilian clothes now.

General Peterus has stated that this is HIS testimony. Unless he is lying it is just that, his. He SUBSTANTIATED his testimony with empirical data, not promises of future success. He actively sees what is going on in Iraq FROM Iraq every day. He answers to Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM) not to the President. These are life long, career officers.

Do you REALLY think these honorable men are willing to loss their credibility and careers for a President that will only be in office for 15 more months.

BEFORE his testimony every single Democrat smearing him stated he was honorable, honest, qualified, THE man for the job, and on and on during his confirmation - UNANIMOUS confirmation.

What 'manipulation' are you referring to BTW. What part of his testimony appeared manipulated?
 
The withdrawal of the "Surge" troops basically just takes us back down to where we were at the end of last year. And this adjustment to troop strength would have been necessary anyway, without again adjusting deployments to last longer.

Petraeus gave a sober assesment that recognizes some very limited progress in the security situation. But without political progress between the three major Iraqi groups, it is just buying time. Buying time until they get their political act together, which Amb. Crocker says is doubtful, or buying time until the American people say ENOUGH - enough American lives, enough American money, for a futile mission (and it's not just Democrats - the partisan bile in this thread reeks).

The "bottom-up" tactic might work, but as some REPUBLICAN congressman said, the margins for success are pretty slim. It has only worked with Sunni groups so far, who recognize that although they hate us with a passion, as soon as we leave they will be slaughtered by the Shiite militias. So we give them weapons and money, these same Sunni insurgents who were killing Americans in the past, and encourage them to fight a common enemy... no chance that could come back to bite us, is there?

Instead of preemptively claiming victory, some skeptical thinking is in order. At this point, we're trying to make the least-bad of the available options work.
 
The good General did not earn all those ribbons, medals and stars by being a BSer. I have to believe this is a man whose principles of honor and truth are above question. How dare Move On, New York Times, and the wicked witch of the East (Hillary) and some of her co-horts even insinuate otherwise.
Who the hell does Hillary think she is? With some of the crooked dealings she has been associated with, she shouldn't even be allowed in the same room with such an honorable man. Would he fabricate anything that might possibly end up putting his men in more danger. I think not. A man of this caliber could not live with that. Period! IMHO if a General in any branch of the United States Military makes a statement, you can take it to the bank. NO question! No doubt! Up your's Hillary!

Sorry, but what she said to him really makes my blood boil. I feel better now.
Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top