Of course, Gen. David Petraeus predicts success in the Iraq war. What wonders couldn't generals achieve with more troops and more time? The battle is always going well until it is lost, and then they blame defeat on the politicians and the public.
There's no shortage of retired generals who will tell you we could have won in Vietnam if only we had sent more troops, or bombed the dikes in the North, or been willing to kill more than the 3.4 million Vietnamese who died along with 59,000 American soldiers. Instead, the politicians and public, led by that bleeding heart President Richard Nixon, lost the will to win. Thus, the dominoes fell to communism, and Red China and Red Vietnam now rule the world by dint of military force. Have you been to Wal-Mart lately? The triumph of communism is total.
Once again, we have a general repeatedly promising to save Western civilization by turning the corner in yet another intractable and unnecessary foreign war. Back on Sept. 26, 2004, in the weeks before the midterm congressional elections, Petraeus took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post to make sure the voters didn't vote wrong. Despite appearances, he claimed the war in Iraq was going very well: "I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up," Petraeus wrote. "The institutions that oversee them are being re-established from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously. ... There has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do."
So keen, it makes one's heart swell. So keen that three years later, after the expenditure of $450 billion more in taxpayer funds, and more U.S. troops in proportion to the Iraqi population than we had in Vietnam at the height of that war, the good general now insists it would be disastrous to even think about bringing any American troops home before next summer.
That's at least another $150 billion and many more Iraqi and U.S. lives wasted. But wait--Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, also testified before Congress this week with Petraeus, and he has more good news about what he still celebrates as the "liberation of Iraq." Remember that Bush administration promise that the oil-rich Iraqis would pick up the check for the cost of their liberation? Well, Crocker is bullish on that front: the Iraqi economy is on schedule to grow by 6 percent, according to his testimony. Perhaps he is referring to the additional money dumped into Iraq's economy by American taxpayers chipping in for the "surge."
He certainly wasn't basing his estimate on any improvement in Iraqi oil production or any other economic component. As the International Monetary Fund reported last month in its annual review of Iraq's economy, "Economic growth has been slower than expected at the time of the last (review) mainly because the expected expansion of oil production has failed to materialize." In case you haven't noticed, oil is the Iraqi economy, yet a recent GAO report stated an additional $57 billion in U.S. tax dollars will be needed to bring oil and electricity production to the level where it can satisfy Iraq's domestic demand by the year 2015.
Ambassador Crocker actually had the nerve to compare the bloody religious fratricide in Iraq, which our inane invasion unleashed, to the American battle over state's rights, once again reducing the complexities of world history to an easily understood but totally irrelevant example from the American experience. In this case, a better analogy might have been made to the American Indian wars, given that the only thing the United States has been able to do effectively in Iraq is unleash superior firepower. At the current rate, Iraq will be liberated when there are no Iraqis.
Perhaps that is why this week's ABC/BBC poll shows that 70 percent of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated since the surge began and that 60 percent believe attacks on U.S. forces are justified. And 93 percent of Sunnis, whom the general and ambassador claim are joining our side, want to see us dead. As for optimism, only 29 percent of Iraqis now think the situation will get better, as opposed to 64 percent who shared that optimism before the surge--which almost 70 percent of Iraqis believe has "hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development."
So, ambassadors and generals lie. Get used to it.
Originally posted at Truthdig.com
Questions I wish had been asked at the hearings:
“General Petraeus, you oppose the prompt departure of our army from Iraq. Last year a poll by a respected organization revealed that 60% of Iraqis not only want us out, but actually favor the armed attacks that are killing our troops. Would you change your mind about leaving Iraq if the percentage of Iraqis in favor of killing out troops was 80%? 100%? Or would you still argue for us to stay even if every last Iraqi was in favor of killing our troops?”
“Ambassador Crocker, you referred several times to the Iraqi parliament. The Sunnis and Shias of Iraq are united on at least one issue: the great majority of both want our army out of their country. Why hasn’t the Iraqi parliament asked us to leave, in accordance with the wishes of the constituents it was elected to represent?”
Let me think.
He serves Bush.
Therefore, he lies.
1. Engaging and fighting Bin Laden and Al Queda ? No, he is not even there. We are not fighting Al Queda, but Iraqis insurgents mostly.
2. Capturing the oilfields and taking advantage of the oil supply ? No, they are non-functioning.
3. Spreading democracy to the Middle East ? No, they hate democracy even more and Iraq is nothing near a democracy.
4. Intimidating Iran and neighboring hostile countries ? No, they are actually very much emboldened by our failure and expecting to pounce anytime now.
It has been 5 years now, would you believe another 8 months of more of the same will make a big difference ?
The fact that his opinion is different than mine does not make him original, it makes him deluded, considering the Iraq Study Group Report, The GAO Report and most recently but ignored General Jones Report, not to mention all the retired senior military who hold a different view, oh and I forgot the majority of the American people also hold a different view. Frankly your general "has" made a political decision based on the winds from the likes of turdblossom in the whitehouse. Just the thing you decry when you criticize others. You see he took, for him, the politically correct choice. But it is one that will carry him into the history books, much like Westmoreland. The extremely sad thing is that a lot more soldiers will die and be maimed, all for what he and Crocker could not define during their testimony.
.............
That's what I've been saying all along. We will need to kill the Sunni's who oppose the Shiite puppet government we've installed in Saigon, I'm sorry, in Bagdad. We will need to kill the Shiite militias that are working hand in hand with Tehran. We will need to kill all the al qaida in irag terrorists posing as children and infants in Irag. But the good news is we won't have to kill all those who have fled Iraq. "Iraq will be liberated when there are no Iraqis," indeed!
1) Will we have turned yet another corner when the Sunnis -- who have ABANDONED the al-Maliki government -- accept all manner of local-governance and local-policing accomodations from Petraeus-the-Pragmatic?
Note that these deals were nominally cut to get the Sunnis to forswear AQI, al Qaeda in Iraq, but still.
Note that these deals could have been made WITHOUT an 18-month escalation, er, 6-month surge with renewal option a fait accompli.
BTW, who oversaw the training of the National Police, who are now considered an utterly corrupt and murderous failure?
Hint: rhymes with Retraeus. In his own words:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html
In TIME magazine's words:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1175055,00.html
Back to you-know-who, then but a wee lad (three-star) Lt. Gen. in charge of the Multinational Security Transition Command - Iraq:
""The training tasks that you have learned have prepared you well for what lies ahead when you return to Iraq,” Petraeus said. “You will be part of Iraq’s premiere fighting force.""
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/Dec2004/a120304b.html
Riiiiight. On WHICH SIDE?
2) How will sabre-rattling toward IRAN impact our nominal (but oft undercut per above)attempt to get the Sunnis to REJOIN the Iraqi (Sadrite / Shiite / Iran-hugging) government?
And why should they bother?
Last, is it really true the administration forecasts that the Iraqi economy will grow faster than our own? 6% per above vs. 1% for the US*. Not sure how to get Fidelity to let me buy stock in Iraq Inc., specifically the forced-relocation-at-gunpoint, and burial shroud industries.
* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20730894/
Enough.
March for Impeachment on Sept 15.
High noon in front of the Whiteout House. Or is it the White Outhouse. Flip a coin.
Remember how many times the Administration has changed the mission in Iraq? I think you have finally been able to capture the ultimate mission in one sentence. I (sadly) congratulate you.
The Country is tired of this war. This country is tired of Bush's lies to keep this war in Iraq going. We need a Congress to grow a backbone and stop the funding. Will that happen I don't think so. The war and the deaths in my opinion will still be going on in 2009 when the next President is sworn into office.
If the news reports are true we will probably be fighting a war in Iran then also.
The people must start yelling, marching and letting their members in Congress know how they feal NOW.