Petraeus Presser

Article here. Video below. The General says stay. The idiot Dems say go ... by ... Summer 2008?? ha ha How stupid, how weak. We should have a decision point before then and I support the effort. My dear liberal commenters, you have no representation in DC at all. Lame, very lame.

WASHINGTON, March 8, 2007 – A new strategy that puts U.S. and Iraqi forces inside Baghdad neighborhoods to safeguard residents against insurgent and sectarian violence can work, but it’ll take time to be fully implemented, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said in Baghdad during his first news conference today.

Comments

[Andrew]

We will succeed blah blah blah. We need more time blah blah blah. Isn't 4 years enough?

[yyy]

It's too bad this kind of strategy wasn't implemented in the beginning, or three years ago, or two years ago or a year ago.

The genie is out of the bottle, the sunnis in Iraq are going to get slaughtered one way or the other. Right now, we're doing it for the Iraqis. When we leave or stand down, whenever that is, if indeed we ever get out of Iraq, the Shia will go back to doing it themselves.

[Zifnab]

What were Petraeus's odds for success? One in four?
Fortunately, Petraeus hasn't had to answer the tough questions, like, "Who is paying for this war? How many soldiers are we prepared to lose before we admit defeat? What will maintaining the peace at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of American casaulties accomplish for our country? How do we handle a new military crisis or a homeland terror attack given the current deployment of our forces? What happens when we run out of money? What happens when we run out of troops?"

But the keyboard commandos aren't afraid. They'll take any tax cut, defund any public service, privatize any health system, bury any soldier, and fatten any contractor's checkbook until the job is done. Type on brave keyboardists.

[Jeff]

At the dems are putting their money where their mouth is, and actually doing it... it's all politics, right before the election... I guess losing in Iraq is a small price to pay for the dems political gains.

[charles]

How many soldiers are we prepared to lose before we admit defeat?

interesting and revealing choice of words

care to put a number on that yourself?

wishing for defeat by a section of the us populaion is not going to cause the us military to fail their mission no matter how much you may want them to

history proves the odds are against you

[Jeff]

Surge on! 80% decrease in attacks, what will the MSM report on now? Obvious Petraeus is doing something right... as is the Commander in Chief.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454168.054861111.html

[Zifnab]

"care to put a number on that yourself?"

I like the number "0", but that requires either A) a well-planned and articulate strategy before the war begins or B) no war.

Republicans are, apparently, favoring a number closer to "exceeding 3200". Surge on brave keyboard commandos.

" The statistics were released as Sunni insurgents escalated attacks on Shi'ite pilgrims in Iraq. Nearly 200 people have been killed since March 6 amid Sunni suicide strikes on Shi'ite processions through Sunni neighborhoods. Officials have attributed the bombings to Al Qaida.

"Car bombs have targeted hundreds of Iraqis," Petraeus told a news conference on Thursday."

Surge on indeed.

[yyy]

And another corner turned. So it goes.

[wf]

zifnab - "What were Petraeus odds for success?" Were? How nice of you to give him a week or two before you declare defeat. I have always said that at least 5 to 10 years of occupation were necessary - and I did not count on us being so pc and passive and naive in dealing with Iraqi reconstruction. I was wrong there, but I have no time for people who, for lack of perspective, get hysterical because they cannot stand the strain of watching the news on TV.

Whatever happens, I don´t think the war will be over by 2008. And those who think that we can start and stop this according to domestic political considerations may end up doing more damage than 5 more years in Iraq.

And btw those cries of "chickenhawk" are getting old. We sure have heard that one before.

[Zifnab]

"How nice of you to give him a week or two before you declare defeat."

His declaration, not mine.

"Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge has only a one in four chance of succeeding."
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1172906738122510.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

But we've given this war 4 years. Churchill, FDR, and Stalin were discussing how to divy up Europe by now. Condi Rice is still trying to figure out how to get in and out of the Green Zone without being bombed or shot.

And we'll stop shouting chickenhawk right after you stop goading our soldiers on to their deaths.

[Tom]

I have always said that at least 5 to 10 years of occupation were necessary - and I did not count on us being so pc and passive and naive in dealing with Iraqi reconstruction.

comment by wf

You're an idiot. The US should not even BE IN IRAQ! You are talking about wasting the lives and wealth of our country for 5-10 years? You folks just don't know when you have screwed things up so badly. Your beloved criminal enterprise known as the bush administration is going down in history as the worst, most corrupt - ever. Doesn't that seem to take some of the gleam off your dear leader? For most sane people it would. Due to your devotion to this preznit, you simply cannot see where fantasy starts and reality begins. You are so un-american it scares me.

[charles]

But we've given this war 4 years. Churchill, FDR, and Stalin were discussing how to divy up Europe by now

ziffy wants to nuke the muslims

[HotWheels]

You're an idiot. The US should not even BE IN IRAQ! You are talking about wasting the lives and wealth of our country for 5-10 years?
Posted by: Tom

Of course, because Operations Northern and Southern watch were very cheap with Saddam taking pot shots at our pilots everyday.
I also cannot understand why the left refuses to let me do what I want to do, my job. I volunteered to serve knowing that I may lose my life. I am OK with that. Let me do what I want to do and shut up. There is no draft in place, so there is no argument that "we are doing this for the troops." No, you are doing this to ensure defeat. Of this we are sure. The troops volunteered for this and they think you are idiots. I haven't spoken to a single individual in my unit that doesn't support this effort. I have spoken to many that think the dems are hypocrits.

[BobInStamford]

You sheep are so tedious. You lost the Iraq Adventure years ago. Its over and you morons lost. Face facts.

[Jeff]

"But we've given this war 4 years. Churchill, FDR, and Stalin were discussing how to divy up Europe by now"

We would be out, if we weren't so constricted by the fear of collateral damage. In WWII we used nukes and firebombed civilian populations... if we did the same in Iraq it would have been done 2 years ago, but the dems shed a tear every Iraqi civilian and freedom fighter that dies... lucky our dead troops help wipe those tear.

3100+ troops. I have cried reading stories from Iraq, and they are sad. But dems don't care except they advance their agenda of surrendering in Iraq.

Lest idiots like Bob take over our government.

[BobInStamford]

"I have cried reading stories from Iraq". I hope you mean about the innocent, unarmed civiliians. Invaders shoot and get shot at. Thats how it goes. Didn't they teach you that at Mensa??

[Hard Right]

I picture Bob as a fat, balding man in his 40's angry that no one has ever recognized his brilliance while he works at 7-11.

Folks, I listen to what the soldiers-the people who are there and have been there-have to say. They have pointed out progress has been made and things have improved.

So while you call us "armchair commandos" I would have to call you "weak willed basement cowards".

As for chickenhawk, you are basically saying that since I'm not serving I have no right to support the effort. Well, as you lefties aren't serving you have no right to say we are losing or criticize the war then.

[Zifnab]

"In WWII we used nukes and firebombed civilian populations... if we did the same in Iraq it would have been done 2 years ago"

We just have to nuke and firebomb the insurgents, right? You mean the insurgents in Bagdad and Tikret and Kirkuit? And this will end the civil war by... decimating the population?

When Allied tanks rolled into Germany, they really were greated as liberators. Heck, when American tanks rolled into Bagdad, they were greated as liberators too. Difference between Germany and Iraq? We didn't proceed to rape Germany for economic gain a day after putting boots on the ground. That's why we never had to stick around and fight facist insurgents for the next ten years.

Bush lost the hearts and minds. Thank god he wasn't President during the 1940s. The Germans would be begging to bring back Hitler by now.

[Jeff]

"Difference between Germany and Iraq? We didn't proceed to rape Germany for economic gain a day after putting boots on the ground."

So the war isn't costing us too much money? You better call every lib in the country and notify them (include yourself on that list).

[Hard Right]

Zif after that little "rape" comment, do you understand why you're called anti-American?
Rape? You are a raging idiot. Too bad, you seemed somewhat reasonable until now.

[Cindi]

I haven't spoken to a single individual in my unit that doesn't support this effort. I have spoken to many that think the dems are hypocrits.

Posted by: HotWheels | Thursday, March 08, 2007 at 07:09 PM

Thanks for your service HW. Most Americans do support you guys and what you are doing. If you are there and we are here, you know the difference being made, better than any of us do. Not one military person I have had the pleasure speaking with believes anything different than what you do.

GOD BLESS YOU!

[yyy]

In WWII we used nukes and firebombed civilian populations.
-----------------------------------------------------

I realize it is a minor point to you folks, but in WWII the United States was directly attacked by Japan and Germany invaded, attacked and conquered several countries before being defeated.

Iraq did not attack the U.S., when Iraq did invade its neighbor we went to war and rolling them back to their own country.

The belief by many nuts that we should use nukes in Iraq and just kill a few hundred thousand or million 'extra' civilians in order to kill the few hundred or thousand militants might be EXACTLY WHY IRAN WANTS ITS OWN NUKES, to protect itself from this kind of crazy thinking.

[Zifnab]

"Of course, because Operations Northern and Southern watch were very cheap with Saddam taking pot shots at our pilots everyday."

"...during Operation DESERT STORM against Iraq in 1991, the USAF lost a total
of 14 aircraft after flying more than 29,300 combat sorties, or .048 percent." This accounts for all USAF combat losses in Iraq between 1990 and 2000. Saddam's pot shots never hit anything.

"I also cannot understand why the left refuses to let me do what I want to do, my job. I volunteered to serve knowing that I may lose my life. I am OK with that. Let me do what I want to do and shut up."

No one has denied you the right to serve in the armed forces - unless you were gay. No one has obstructed your efforts. The war has been fulled funded and Democrats and Republicans alike have been very loose with their checkbooks to see everything was paid for. But, last I checked, "Let me do what I want and shut up" is not the motto of any military organization in the US I'm aware of. Just out of interest, what branch are you in?

[yyy]

Maybe 'let me do what i want to do and shut up' is the new motto of the military but the change over is a matter of national security, so the public still thinks the mottos are all about loyalty, duty, patriotism, etc.

In fact, the more I think about it, 'let me do what i want to do and shut up' is most definitely Dubya's motto, so why not make it the military motto as well.

[Hard Right]

YYY and Zifnab, your arguements are so disingenuous on so many levels it's hard to find a place to start.
Did Iraq come to American territory and attack us? No. They didn't have to. The UN resolution said that if they did not comply with inspections etc. force was allowed. He did not comply and as was found, he had weapons programs ready to resume shortly after sanctions were lifted. Your requirement that we be attacked first is sheer stupidity. If a group that Iran gave a nuke to detonates one in America, you'll be the first one to scream we should have invaded or attacked them. As it was Saddam had invaded Kuwait and attacked Iran.
Your claim that Iran wants nukes because of a minority with no power wants them nuked is insane. The last time we used a nuke was WWII. Our posture on the use of nukes has been strictly defensive for over 4 decades now. So your claim they are afraid of us that's why they want nukes is a pathetic attempt to justify their weapons program. Typical of leftists you are unable to grasp that when a madman like Amenijad says he will use his nukes on Israel and America, he isn't bluffing.
Zifnab, some of the current Rules Of Engagement are because of leftists like you. The left has blamed hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths on American soldiers. As a result the military is more concerned about accidently killing civilians than protecting soldiers. Even the average grunt is concerned about being court martialed for merely defending themselves. And please don't tell me the pressure applied by the left has no effect. Remember the soldier who killed a wounded terrorist playing possum? If not for left wing outcry he would never have been charged. He was found innocent, but the trial should never have happened. Haven't impeded our efforts? Bullsh-- !

Finally, the enemy has been encouraged to keep fighting by your kind's defeatest attitude. They see your whining, weak willed claims we've lost or that we can't win. They see the efforts to pull our soldiers out of Iraq ASAP. They know they have no chance of beating America militarily, but understand with the help of people like you they only need to hang on long enough and inflict enough casulaties until your gutlessness wins out. Thanks to you lefties America is seen as weak willed and unable to follow through.

[yyy]

Iran has NEVER ever said they would nuke Israel, period. They claim they aren't even trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Israel and the US on the other hand have said that ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE, which would implicitly include a first strike nuclear attack. Whether we or Israel would actually nuke Iran in a 'pre emptive' attack to prevent them from getting something they say they aren't after is up for debate. I would tend to think not, but a lot of military experts say that w/out using nukes the facilities wouldn't be destroyed....so there you have it.

The military should be concerned about accidentally killing civilians, only a brute would think otherwise. That is exactly why the military DOES NOT BELONG IN IRAQ.

Certainly if our military forces just went in and leveled the Sunni neighborhoods and the Shia areas where the militias are known to come from that might get us a "win"...Historically, most insurgencies have been defeated by just such scorched earth tactics, if you kill/torture/imprison almost everyone you will eventually break the back of the population most of the time.

The question for America is that the kind of war we want to fight and win? Are we willing to pay any price in dead Iraqi civilians to put this tragedy in the "win" column?

We should never have invaded Iraq. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and he wasn't even much of a threat to his neighors, he was ZERO of a threat to the United States. Anyone who isn't willing to admit that is simply drinking neocon kool aid.

[wf]

YYY - Iran is so scared of Israeli nukes they have to finance a proxy army to terrorize Israel and randomly kill Israelis. That´s how scared they are. They are so scared they are threatening Israel (and us) with destruction even before they have their own WMD.

Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades and did not use them. But Iranian threats - don´t pretend you never heard of them - are putting Israel into a situation where they can use their nukes only too early or too late. That crisis is provoked by Iran, not Israel. And if we never had invaded Iraq we would be worrying about their nuclear program on top of that, because we would not know more today than we knew in 2002.

Why do you think everyone from the Gulf States to Egypt is suddenly professing an interest in nukes NOW? Because Israel has proven to be a responsible state and Iran has proven it is not. Anyone who isn't willing to admit at least that is drinking SOME kool aid. Or maybe just doesn´t give a shit.