Top General: Early Troop Withdrawal in Iraq Would Be a Mess
Saturday, July 7, 2007 at 06:38PM Bottom Line Up Front: An early troop withdrawal from Iraq, such as some politicians are calling for, “would be a mess” and result in escalated violence.
Major General Rick Lynch, Commander of the Multi-National Division-Center, gave a briefing (7.6.07) from Baghdad on July 6 and conducted a Q & A session with the press. Anyone interested in digging deeper into what actually occurs on the ground in Iraq needs to watch these videos. Armchair quarterbacks, this isn’t for you.
Part I (4:14) MG Lynch describes his excitement that Iraqis are cooperating with Coalition Forces, how they are stepping up to serve their country and participate in the process, how various ethnic groups are pulling together to unify the country, how essential services are being upgraded and that the economy and employment rates are improving.
Part II (8:01) MG Lynch talks about building the Iraqi military and security forces, the surge, his optimism about continuing process and how a troop withdrawal would cripple the mission.
For my readers with ADD, this segment is the one that made the news. MG Lynch talks about a timetable for withdrawal and how it would damage progress. He said, in fact, “It would be a mess.”
(Transcript) Excerpt:
MG LYNCH: You know, on the 4th of July, I had the great opportunity to be involved in the re-enlistment ceremony and the citizenship ceremony for about 600 great Americans; 500-plus soldiers re-enlisted, almost 200 soldiers became American citizens, and by golly, I was so very proud to be part of that. And every day when I’m out and about wearing 60 pounds of body armor in 111 degree temperature, I re-enlist soldiers, and they raise their right hand and say, “I’ll support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” And they’re doing that between attacks, between memorial services, between mortar rounds coming in, so I just take such confidence in the fact that we got great Americans who have committed themselves to service to our nation, and I’d like you to have that same encouragement.
You know, it bothers me when people say the Army is on the verge of breaking. We’ll never break because we’ve got great soldiers.
Some point to the supposed increase in terrorists as another Bush failure; that is, Bush’s “failed policy” in Iraq has led to an increase of terrorists. Apparently, however, there were enough terrorists before the invasion of Iraq to pull off 9/11. Beside that, it is a natural phenomenon that adversity and necessity make for increased participation, but the pendulum swings both ways. The actions of al-Qaeda on 9/11 produced an increase in American patriots and for the first time in history (aside from the first Gulf War of 1990-91) a major war, in fact a GLOBAL WAR, did not require a draft. Soldiers in theater (combat zone) continue to reenlist and stump war opponents. The United States has an all-volunteer military in a time of war and American patriots continue to volunteer their services in defense of our country and Iraq.
The confidence MG Lynch described about the mission and the soldiers is matter of fact in the military. We all know we’re going to win… (“winning” meaning procuring a secure nation for Iraqis) as long as politicians in Washington don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1137662
Iraq, Military, Troops, War on Terror 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (55)
Interesting use of words: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I just made the identical remark in response to comments on my page. We're close to winning this war, but we can't fight according to some arbitrary timeline set by Democratic retreatists and the MoveOn.org defeatist antiwar cadres. Thanks for keeping the proper pro-victory light on events!
Donald, kudos. You're absolutely correct.
I agree Amy P, the problem is only going to get worse in my opinion. If the troops did retreat imagine how many more suicide bombings and explosions there would be around the world, the people behind these are being kept at bay, imprisoned or killed. I hate to say it but the issue is to take them down and keep at it before they take down the rest of the world.
Yes, early retreat would indeed "be a mess." It would do nothing but embolden terrorists, since all it would accomplish is to show them what wusses we are.
Aimz and Karen, both correct as usual. The void left behind by our absence would create a vacuum filled by the usual suspects: al-Qaeda, Iran.... all our humanitarian and social progress would be totally lost. Al-Qaeda would be back in those neighborhoods murdering all the families they suspected of supporting the Coalition. The a withdrawal is simply inhumane, especially considering there's no good reason to leave. The commanders and soldiers want to stay to finish the mission. Why should civilian politicians have any say over that, especially when it costs them nothing but would cost the U.S., Iraq and our troops everything?
Dear Amy et al.
You all seem to be wearing such double-thick rose colored glasses that I wonder how you can see the keyboard to type. Well take them off long enough to read the NEWS for a change:
“I am unwilling to continue our current strategy,” Domenici, R-N.M., told his constituents during a speech in Albuquerque. The United States needs a strategy “that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home,” he said. (July 5, 2007)
Gee, doesn't "R" stand for REPUBLICAN??? And as for your Mantra concerning "CUT & RUN" DEMS, here's another history lesson. I don't think your sense of history pre-dates 9/11, but read this and be informed:
Viet Nam. Didn't Nixon "Cut and Run" in Viet Nam? Oh, he called it "Peace with Honor" How Republicaneque! Didn't Reagan "Cut and Run" in Lebanon after they blew up over 200 Marines? He did roll over Granada though. How brave! Didn't Eisenhower "Cut and Run" in Korea and now we deal with a nuclear armed North Korea run by a maniac?
It's the Republicans that taught America how to "CUT and RUN"! YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO EVEN MUTTER THE WORDS "CUT & RUN DEMS" PEOPLE!!
Here's more HISTORY for you. Which President and Party was in power during these two wars?
World War I? Answer: Woodrow Wilson - DEMOCRAT
World War II? Answer: Franklin D Roosevelt - DEMOCRAT
Now here the BIG question: Who WON those wars?
Go online and read some history folks. As for the future, Bush and his war will just be another Republican failure in the end.
PS - You guys own stock in Halliburton don't you?
Bill from Las Vegas
Registered Independant
Fmr US ARMY, 1st INF DIV (Viet Nam era)
I'm wearing no rose colored glasses, Bill, I assure you. I attend the funerals and know what's going on. War is hell, but that doesn't mean it will always be avoided.
With all due respect, Domenici is wrong. I've heard the explanations from Republicans jumping ship and they are illogical. They say, "The surge is working, but we need to bring the troops home soon." They go on to criticize the Iraqi government with apparently no context of the problems they face and why. They are progressing, but this isn't a drive-thru where you get it your way.
Who won those wars? Not presidents, but nations. The United States won. Liberals are obsessed with division, party and handing out blame, which makes for poor foreign policy, and I'd hardly compare any of today's leading Democrats (take your pick: Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden) to Wilson or Roosevelt. In fact, if the party were more like those leaders, I might actually have some respect for them. The glory days of the Democratic party are long gone.
Reagan also passed an amnesty law legalizing illegals. He was as wrong as Bush on the issue. Regan was, in my opinion, wrong to leave after the Beruit bombings.
In your list of Presidents, you conveniently omitted Abraham Lincoln and the civil war, the greatest president of our time. A Republican.
But it doesn't really matter what party they're associated with; what matters is that they did the right thing during war time, something modern Democrats seem incapable of. Their warped ideolgoy has placed an obstacle between themselves and greatness.
Your comments, while interesting and historically accurate, are a smoke screen against the real issue of the war in Iraq.
What determines "failed policy" in Iraq? Casualities? Were there ever any wars without casualties? Was the Civil War a failure? WWI? WWII? Korean War? They all had far more casualties in far less time.
And those wars required a draft. This is an all volunteer military. It's an unprecedented statement about the resolve troops have to win this war and their understanding that it MUST be won.
Halliburton? Please, you forgot to mention Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. The conspiracy theories are just getting ridiculous and it's better to address the content of the discussion rather than reaching outside it to divert attention from the successes of the war.
Did you watch the videos? You should. MG Lynch in Part I & II described in detail the progress of the Iraqi forces, how the locals are volunteering to protect their own cities, how infrustructure is being repaired and services improved. Why ignore all the signs that progress is indeed occurring unless you have to ignore it to use the "the war is lost" lie?
By the way, Bill, thank you for your service. I respect that and you certainly have a right to your opinion, but you might want to dig a little deeper and follow the briefings from commanders conducting the war. Doesn't that only make sense?
Also, Spree over at Wake Up America points out that Republicans who actually visit the war zone see the surge working and are encouraged by the progress:
As usual, the guys who visit Iraq are encouraged and even excited over the progress by the United States military.
I don't recall the last time Domenici and Lugar were there.
Domeneci said that he made his decision (to withdraw support for the mission) after talking on the phone to the parents of a brave Soldier who was KIA recently.
I grieve in my heart for every one of my comrades who fall in battle. Their sacrifices, however, can only be diminished by emotional decisions like the Senator's. YOU CAN NOT LEAD BY EMOTION. This is something every corporal and every general knows. You must lead by principle, by discipline, and be loyal to the commander's intent.
SEN Domenici seems to have caved into Cindy Sheehanism. This is most unfortunate because liberals are hoisting the Domenici/Lugar banner to trump their QUIT NOW agenda.
No person willing to examine the facts can escape the conclusion that leaders and Soldiers on the ground in Iraq and 'leaders' in Washington, DC are discussing two different Operation Iraqi Freedoms.
Excellent point, Johnny. I was thinking the same thing when I heard his explanation. This is why Cindy Sheehan can't be taken seriously about foreign policy. Emotion does not equal sound foreign policy and it certainly doesn't win wars.
Amy,
Thank you for your well worded and measured response. My comment concerning Halliburton was meant to refer to the current US mercenaries being run by the following US companies:
Blackwater USA and former Halliburton Subsidiary KBR.
They currently employ over 140,000 employees (most of whom are former US military) with over 48,000 in Iraq. Congress has awarded these two companies over $4 billion tax-payer dollars to date and yet, they claim that they are above Congressional scrutiny!! Something that should ALARM us ALL.
Blackwater is run by Erik Prince, a fmr Navy SEAL, Christian multi-millionaire (soon to be billionaire) who is a major contributor to Republicans! He recently hired Kenneth Starr (gee, where have we seen him before?) to protect the company from lawsuits by families who've lost love ones due to corporate security failures in Iraq. 770 contractors have been killed in Iraq with another 7500 wounded. Blackwater is also in Afghanistan and in total, nine countries around the world. Their mission is NOT about Iraqi freedom and democracy, but rather how to pad the bottom line.
Blackwater patroled the streets of New Orleans after Katrina to the tune of $950/day per individual who earned $360/day. No wonder their employees leave the military. They are currently trying to get a contract to protect us from Mexicans crossing the border.
The KEY to knowledge is information based upon facts, not fantasy. Do some research on these companies and you'll be informed on the war(s), Republican interests and the misinformation that Americans are all to used to.
Respectfully,
Bill from Las Vegas
PS - You're right - Abe Lincoln was a GREAT Republican President. In fact, he wrote his Generals, after their victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, to pursue the Condeferate Army while it was in disarray and full retreat. Had they listened to their Commander-in-Chief, the war would have been over before Christmas and saved countless lives and misery. Instead, the Generals allowed the South to escape and regroup for two more years of fighting.
Amy: Great response to Bill from Las Vegas. I especially love the "it isn't a drive-thru where you get it your way." That's rich! Seriously, nations do win wars, and you're right about the contemporary Democratic Party. But to Bill: Presidential leadership matters. Notice how Bill conveniently left out J.F. Kennedy. Kennedy specifically rejected air support for the sea-launched invading ground contingent. Why? To show how tough he was in standing against the Joint Chiefs! That's just brilliant. No cut and run there. Send in the lambs for the slaughter and leave the Cuban dictorship in place to massacre partisans and innocents alike. I don't think Clinton was the most vigorous Commander-in-Chief, and I actually appreciate him in many respects. But airstrikes on some terror camps in Sudan, or the airwar of Kosovo -- despite its success -- doesn't demonstrate the most military moxie for the executive. Lugar and Domenici are grandstanding, in any case. Lugar in particular said he'd still vote with Bush on the war! Elections have a way of focusing the mind on returning to office, to the expense of troops in the field. Cut and run? Not heard in the GOP presidential field. Not true for the Democratic hopefuls, all of whom can't get far enough over to the left in appeasing the fanatical antiwar bloc of hate-addled retreatists!
Bill: I too thank you for your national service in uniform. It adds so much credibility to the discussion. I'm not so happy about Blackwater and all that, but I'd be surprised if military outsourcing didn't take place in a Democratic administration. Defense spending is increasing under G.W. Bush, as it should, but is still in the single digits as a percentage of GDP. Those numbers will fall under the a Democratic White House, though perhaps we won't need a vigorous defense policy. Obama and company will outsource our national security to the United Nations.
Bill from LV:
And who would you rather did the non-military work over there inside the bases and camps? Soldiers? There's a reason contractors do that - democrats keep a tight lid on the size of the active duty military so we must optimize our shooters. I've lived on one of these bases and there are also contractors there from India, Pakistan and the Phillipines.
I also challenge your assertion that 770 contractors have been killed in theatre. Please provide some source other than Bill in LV said so.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece
not what Colin Powell is saying- now at any rate.
Johnny,
here's just one of many sources to verify contractor deaths in Iraq. This article is dated Feb. 23, 2007 and the count is actually higher than the figure I quoted.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-02-23-contractors_x.htm
Why don't don't you call Blackwater and KBR tomorrow and ask them yourself?
Here's the question you SHOULD be asking - Are these contractors draining our military's proficiency by hiring skilled, combat vets away from re-enlisting? Ummmmm - didn't think of that did you?
Bill from Las Vegas
I personally don't know of any skilled combat vets that would rather contract their services out. I do know of vets, combat vets, and even some skilled troops, but the really dedicated Soldiers are the only ones I want on my flanks when I am on a patrol with live ammo and real bad guys.
I will admit the $ being forked out is quite troubling. I would not be so quick as to blame the GOP. It is democrats who scream like babies when we want to increase the size of the active duty military. Democrats are the ones aiding and abetting the enemy with their demigoguery against a sitting US war-time President.
Have you factored in the cost of training, equipping and deploying a single US Soldier? The USA Today article you cited was quick to point out the disparity in pay between contractors and Soldiers, but gratuitously omitted any mention of the actual cost to the government. my assumption would be it is more cost efficient to hire a contractors than to grow a new Soldier from accession to basic training/AIT to unit collective task training at JRTC/NTC to actual deployment. then factor in the benefits, healthcare, housing, etc... and I bet your hot shot contractors are there because the democrats won't allow any meaningful force structure growth thus forcing DoD to augment by a 'back door' method. Either way, to blame President Bush is ludicrous. Even those of you out there that are blinded by your irrational hatred of the President should realize that every single casualty is a deep and abiding wound in the mind of this President.
The reason we didn't need as many contractors in past conflicts was the size of our military. It has been cut in half since the end of the first Gulf war (thanks, Pres. Clinton) while our operational tempo has increased 1000%.
Amy,
The course in Iraq has been better than most imagine. I believe an event may unfold very soon will completely change the dynamics in both Iraq and the War on Terror.
I believe it will also deny Democrats the Presidency in 2008.
I do not wish to say more at this time, except to look for a MAJOR event.
Roxie, I'm not sure what event you might mean but I do believe the Dems do not have it in the bag on election day 2008.
Bill, I'm not sure why Halliburton is so demonized except that Dick Cheney has been demonized by the Democratic party. He has nothing to do with Halliburton and hasn't for some time. I'd also caution those who condemn Halliburton but love the United Nations to beware of the hypocrisy. No greater organization has been established on the face of the earth to bribe, scheme and misuse funds than the U.N. There's a reason why Iraqis hate the U.N. only a little less than they hated Saddam Hussein.
Amy, please send me an email so I can send you what you requested privately.
Bill, the Johnny and amy show is not known for thinking or keeping up with the times, amy writes “In your list of Presidents, you conveniently omitted Abraham Lincoln and the civil war, the greatest president “‘of our time””.
Of OUR TIME amy?
The question we should ask is why the body count for contractors is so high if they only deliver water, wash out latrines and make food as Johnny infers?
Soldiers redeployed as Contractors in Iraq today shows us only one way the government stems the flow of troop loses, paying bonuses directly to serving troops is the other way.
Nevertheless ex-soldiers who become mercenaries are not really lost to the Army if they sign contracts with private companies. As contractors they become hidden combatants, already trained, armed and equipped who have local knowledge and orientation. These ex troops are more than capable of working as mercenaries along side serving soldiers as well as being able to use the convenient cover of fulfilling innocent catering and cleaning duties.
The other advantage is that this supplemental force of up to 120000 will not feature as combat loses when they are killed and the mistreatment of Iraqis can be blamed on overzealous contractors who need to prove productivity while interrogating or torturing innocent Iraqis.
Having the occupational forces split between private and government forces is the way any Empire in history has organised an occupation.
I beleive Bill has seemed to have forgotten that it was Democratic/anti-war activists that pressured those presidents into leaving those wars. He has forgotten that the South Vietnemese were holding the North at bay well enough before Nixon was forced (again due to whining Democrats) to cut off funding and arms, thus Saigon fell. And you might remember that until the Battle of the Bulge, WWII wasn't exactly going our way either. Yes, Reagan pulled out of Beirut (again because of pressure at home from whom? One guess.)
And, um, you seen to have chosen to omit that Bubba got out of Somalia pretty damn quick when the polls weren't going his way. These are also historical facts.
One more thing: Bill, do you believe that the dems are completely innocent of contract bids and rewards? Also, this "Halliburton is evil" mantra that comes from the left is a little hypocritical don't you think, seeing how the likes of John Kerry and Michael Moore are stock holders?
Amy: Halliburton's a proxy for the military-industrial complex, which liberals loathe. Cheney's former ties to the firm only give activists grist for their conspiracy theories. I'd be interested to see more regarding your feelings on GOP presidential prospects for 2008. Some party officials are looking ahead, as far as 2016, before the Republican Party can regain the grandeur of the Reagan years. I remain, of course, a big Bush backer, and I think our difficulties in Iraq -- and America's at-times Pacifist streaks -- accounts for the poor GOP prognostications. It's going to be a great political contest, in any case, especially if the parties truly get highly qualified nomineees. I like McCain on the war issue, but he's old and fading fast anyway. I'm still thinking about the choices, but Guiliani's looking good.
Have a great week!
Very nice blog here! Love the color theme and layout, and most of all the conservative voice you are brining to the web. I wanted to let you know that I am trying to get a conservative digg alternative going called GOP Hub (GOPHub.com). Anything you can do to help with this effort would be awesome. Plus feel free to submit any articles you write here on your blog :). Take care and have a great week!
Now, I don't know much about the Blackwater group, but you need to remember or learn, there are few companies who do what Halliburton does. As a consequence they get a rather large share of the contracts... Sorry but that's just the way it is. It's probably their stuff that was used in the first place, so it only makes sense they are signed on to fix it.So, yes, it's just more demonizing by the left.
There would be more a lot more companies that could do just what Halliburton does if there was a free and open bidding system. Halliburton only does what it does because no other company is allowed to offer a better service at a competitive price.
The conspiracy theory’s have all been a proven facts since the republican lies were uncovered.
Jon, I'll check it out.
simon, what you're describing with Halliburton is a big government problem, not a Republican Party problem. I'm a contractor myself working on our military post and had to go through a bidding system. While I'm sure it was different from bidding at the level of a Halliburton, there are many factors taken into account: 1) qualifications, salary demand, reputation, etc., etc.
If you have a problem with the bidding system, that's one thing, but you shouldn't be blaming it on the Republican Party. Bill Clinton was borderline abusive in his contracts/bids to all his Arkansan buddies.
simon, "of our time" historically, not generationally. Sorry I didn't make that clear. As for all your mercenary talk, it's just that: talk. You do not have the creditentials or believability factor that Johnny has, as he dialogues daily with warriors in the zone, has been there himself and as he continues to contribute to the war effort through the Combined Arms Center and Lessons Learned.
Picky arnt I? our time",is in recent years. Recent generations, the baby boomers but definatly not ancient history.
Picky arnt I? Our time" historically speaking, ‘of our time’ refers to recent years. Recent generations, cut off from the baby boomers defiantly not harking back to ancient history.
Its ok, it does not prove a thing.
.I Just Googled, "mercenaries in Iraq”,” Private Army” It’s not just talk anymore amy, its a whole lot of FACT, thousands are paid millions to protect US interests over there and they may even outnumber the cheap labour in our time.
Do you think that what motivates a mercenary is the same goodwill that motivates all warriors?
What motivates a warrior to become a mercenary? I wonder when mercenaries were once warriors, did they just cease to be benevolent.
As there are less benevolent warriors and more mercenary warriors in Iraq to protect and serve are we at risk of losing the humanitarian justification for continuing the conflict?
Should I Google "Mercenaries secure Oil"?' or “Halliburton makes a killing” “Tax-free”
Here's a sample
The security industry: Britain's private army in Iraq. ... Published: 03 June 2007. Baghdad is a city where there is no safety and no law, ...
news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2609308.ece - 8 Jul 2007 - Similar pages
Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bateman: "There are currently thousands of private military contractors in Iraq ..... Riding Shotgun with Our Shadow Army in Iraq,", May 2007 ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_contractor - 97k - 8 Jul 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
Blackwater - America's Private Army -
I'm pretty new to the idea of private mercenaries. ... Blackwater - America's Private Army. Posted May 30th 2007 5:56PM aol.com/2007/05/30/blackwater-americas-private-army/ - 51k - 7 Jul 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
As the United States decries the private militias of Lebanon and Iraq, GOP-connected, ... Bush's Shadow Army. Jeremy Scahill |. 04/2/2007 issue ...
www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/scahill - 32k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.thenation.com ]
US's 'private army' grows | csmonitor.com
Instead, they are part of the unofficial army of private US contractors working in .... Leniency for Libby and the '08 presidential race (07/05/2007) ...
www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p06s01-woam.html - 62k - Cached - Similar pages
AlterNet: War on Iraq: Mercenaries 'R' UsThere are currently thousands of mercenaries serving in Iraq. Their high salaries and shorter terms of employment will inevitably make a serious dent on the ...
www.alternet.org/waroniraq/18193/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Halliburton is making a killing from the conflict and they were given the contact by their own people in the republican party who get a share of the profits,
you can Google that too.Lots of stuff on Halliburton watch
Oh and while you are supporting Republican cronyism billions are arriving in offshore accounts to protect the interests of the morally bankrupt.
Bill Clinton never did corruption half as well as those who are now in charge. Ofcourse Bill had to pay off his supporters, but the sums were millions in peace time not billions during a war.
There's a difference.
Different supporters with deadly debts who demanded a unwinnable war.
Imagine how the profits will build as this war drags on for decades.
"There would be more a lot more companies that could do just what Halliburton does if there was a free and open bidding system. Halliburton only does what it does because no other company is allowed to offer a better service at a competitive price.
The conspiracy theory’s have all been a proven facts since the republican lies were uncovered."
It gets a little tiresome having someone tell you facts without anything to back them up as facts... while making snide little remarks in the doing of it... so, prove it. Prove it and I'll listen but I won't hold my breath waiting.
What amazes me is very people who, when terrorists openly say they plan to kill them, and plan to destory America, refuse to believe, but when offered the most fictional theory about their own nation's leaders destroying their own nation rush out and embrace it with open arms.
Rather reminds of the phrase, "Not having the good sense God gave a goat."
The connection of events running from,
* the Dept of Defense,
* to CEO of Halliburton,
* to the Ame(R)ican VICE president,
* to ongoing payment from Halliburton, while VICE president
* to share options driven up by the wa(R) cont(R)acts, while VICE president
* to Halliburton over billing, while VICE president
Is a problem of big government ... but only IF that government provides no oversight for a (R)epublican p(R)esidency.
For the more empirical of 'US', these are a 'Cheney of events' that IS a TYPE of government, that IS the c(R)onyism of the neo-(R)epublican Pa(R)ty ... neo-(R)epublican 'big' government, if you will!
Oh and on the Wa(R) in Iraq, on escalation and Withdrawal ... This must be really difficult for you Amy, and the folks like you, who believe in the White House and their 'WMD' ... err ... '9/11 terrorists in Iraq' ... 'democracy in Iraq' (which means a Shia-Iran-focused Iraq ... Oooops!) ...err ... justifications for the wa(R). Even if you've accepted the 'moving-target(s)' justifications, it must now be clear that the possibility is the wa(R) in Iraq is in fact starting to wind down. In fact, David Brock (who supported/supports the wa(R)), says that privately, most congressional and senatorial (R)z acknowledge the wa(R) is lost.
The '(R)ighting' was unavoidably on the wall, once the US started to arm the Sunnis. Arming the Sunnis is the final admission that (R)econciliation is now dead, that Iraq, as predicted before the war, would Balkanize, if invaded, and that three separate states in Iraq would be the result of the war ... Kurd, Sunni, Shia.
Furthermore, arming Sunnis (against the Shia militias, who are in and supporting the Maliki government), is also an admission that, as predicted before the wa(R), an invasion would make Shia-Iran the big winner, since Shia-Iran would loose its opposition in Saddam-Iraq, while simultaneously gaining a Shia-Iran-focused Iraq.
Sitting (R) members, like 70% of Americans, are starting to 'get this', as '08 approaches. There is now a Luger pointed at the president's head ... Will Luger withdraw or will the President ( ... the president who is just trying to stall so the (D)z are left with his mess in '08, by the way)?
The odds are that the President will announce some sorta withdrawal first. If not, he will be abandon by the (R) party and quite possibly be impeached as a result.
Sorry Amy, but like the wa(R) in Vietnam with the Tet Offensive, events on the ground are becoming irrelevant to 'Political Reality', to a public tired of the wa(R) itself. It is over, Amy ... all but for the leaving! And I am sorry for those who believed in it and sacrificed for that belief. Aside from the possibility of the p(R)ivatization of the Iraqi oil fields, everything else has reached its incompetent apogee ...
Snerd
The connection of events running from,
* the Dept of Defense,
* to CEO of Halliburton,
* to the Ame(R)ican VICE president,
* to ongoing payment from Halliburton, while VICE president
* to share options driven up by the wa(R) cont(R)acts, while VICE president
* to Halliburton over billing, while VICE president
Is a problem of big government ... but only IF that government provides no oversight for a (R)epublican p(R)esidency.
************
If that's true why don't they impeach him, then? They've had 4 years to do it and aren't. Why?
I've asked the question before: "Are we really tired of the war or tired of hearing about it?" Since Day 1, the Democrats have been after Bush over this war. It has gotten to a point where it's been given a mental illness type name: Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm sorry for those who suffer from it.
We have one of the most rabid Congresses I've ever seen or read about in the history books. They have done almost nothing except initiate investigation after investigation in an effort to isolate the President and have succeeded for the most part while oblivious to the fact that they have made mockeries of themselves with their actions. It's pretty sad when such a now unpopular president has a higher approval rating than Congress and Congress tries to shrug off the responsibility onto the minority party. That's sad, sad, sad.
But there is hope for the future. A totally clean slate in D.C. will do the trick and I believe the people are more tired of the mudslinging politics than they are a war that hasn't affected them hardly at all except for the smear jobs being done in the MSM.
Speaking of the MSM, the ratings on them are just as abysmal as those for Congress and the President.
I must ask you, simon and Snerd, if you don't like what is said here, why are you here? This is a personal blog. Why waste your time putting people down here? Do you really think your manner towards the posters and blog owners is really going to change their minds about how they think and feel? Or do you imagine it gives you some kind of power to be able to come here and say nasty little things and make snide insinuations?
Neither one of you are from the states, so what's it to you except some weird way of getting your jollies?
Steph, great points, and these Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers are crafty in their astute avoidance of Congress' approval ratings: IN THE TEENS.
Not ONE of theses dem supporters has offered an answer to the snowballing terrorist threat that is surely coming after a premature American troop withdrawal.
Damn, you'd think the COMMON SENSE evidence that the VERY PEOPLE fighting and dying are solidly in support of the mission would at least curb some of the foaming at the mouth rabidity - but no, they ignore the most powerful evidence that they are dead wrong.
The most ugly, obscene, offensive and terror-favoring LIE that democrats perpetrate is that they care for the troops and out of craven, hollow, girly-man 'pity' for Soldiers, want to "bring the poor soldiers home". To that I say GO TO HELL. We do not need/want your emasculated, sissified, limp-wristed 'pity'. We want the backing of the American people to keep on putting the BEAT DOWN on the terrorists and win the peace in Iraq. DO NOT INSERT WORDS INTO THE MOUTHS OF SOLDIERS. There IS NO ANTI-WAR, protest movement in the ranks. That is a liberal media FICTION. The spineless Phil Donahue types can LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE and let us FIGHT.
How the HELL anyone can parrot Bin Laden's talking points on the floor of the Senate/House and then talk about "helping the poor troops" is way beyond me. Forgive me for the emotional outburst, but these democrats are in bed with Al Qaeda and they make most Soldiers sick. We do NOT WANT YOUR CRY BABY pity. We want to achieve victory with honor.
Not ONE of theses dem supporters has offered an answer to the snowballing terrorist threat that is surely coming after a premature American troop withdrawal.
_____________________________________________________________________
Johnny, perhaps you need to understand and identify your enemy before you go back to the crusade, right now you’re terribly confused. The Dems are not supporting AQ and their wish to extract American troops does not in anyway reflect a common goal. Even some republicans are not so sure about the war anymore and are now voicing their opposition.
No one is against the US troops just because they no longer support the war.
As an opposition party it is the Democrats task to oppose the actions of the incumbent government unless a common desire is shared, in which case by-partisan support is the metric used to measure a justified cause worth everyone’s support.
The war has not achieved by-partisan support and therefore it is not only unwinnable it only has a fraction of the support enjoyed by the republicans. This makes it a lost cause.
Therefore it is equally true to say that the republicans are now willingly sacrificing soldiers to stall a withdrawal for a war they know has already been lost.
If troops were withdrawn from Iraq yesterday it would not be premature. The escalation of terrorist activity both in Iraq and globally has increased since the invasion began which means the Mess we are now in is just a continuation of the mess the US created.. Therefore it is possible that the withdrawal of troops will actually reduce the global threat while the fight for control of Iraq, in Iraq by Arabs will be resolved faster by those concerned and a new peaceful Iraq will actually emerge sooner.
It is accepted that violence will increase in Iraq with or without US involvement. Therefore continual deployment is pointless because the surge has not and will not and cannot subdue increasing violence and only a negligent uncaring government with another agenda would treat soldiers like cannon fodder and continue to waste lives in a futile attempt to control Iraq.
The global threat of terror is hard linked with US interference across the entire Middle Eastern region in the last three decades. Therefore terrorists will not cease retaliatory strikes until the US respects the borders of all Arab nations, traditions and cultural differences. This might take some time but US troops must first be removed from the region for peaceful negotiations to begin. However a withdrawal from Iraq and Saudi Arabia immediately will restore pre gulf war relations with 80% of Arabs and put the world on the right track to honest reconciliation.
Once the first step is taken we might get some respect back and then we can begin working with the Palestinians to resolve the Israeli mess.
Could you describe for us Johnny, the style of democracy that has been achieved in Iraq?
A referendum in the US and Iraq would settle the issue democratically. Why not ask the people concerned if the US should remain in Iraq. Why wait for the elections when the issue is not the only focus, why not ask the question now?
Stiph: "We have one of the most rabid Congresses I've ever seen or read about in the history books. They have done almost nothing except initiate investigation after investigation in an effort to isolate the President and have succeeded for the most part"
AND
"It's pretty sad when such a now unpopular president has a higher approval rating than Congress "
SG: So a Congress which is more unpopular than the president, and therefore has less credibility by your reconning, has been able to successfully use that lack of credibility, to alter the public's opinion about the President, who they saw and still see as more credible ... Is that your argument?!
Is that your explanation for why 70% of Americans oppose this president and his wa(r)?
Stiph: "I must ask you, simon and Snerd, if you don't like what is said here, why are you here? ... Do you really think your manner towards the posters and blog owners is really going to change their minds about how they think and feel?"
SG: Well, personally I believe in dialogue, as the communal benefit of freedom of speech. In fact freedom of speech without the communal benefit is just someone talking to themselves, alone and in isolation.
Secondly, freedom of speech that metastasizes into only accepting those views in agreement with your own, is to practice and promote restriction on free expression ... a form of fascism. Canadians as you point out, are apparently a little less inclined in that direction.
Snerd
John: "Damn, you'd think the COMMON SENSE evidence that the VERY PEOPLE fighting and dying are solidly in support of the mission would at least curb some of the foaming at the mouth rabidity - but no, they ignore the most powerful evidence that they are dead wrong."
SG: Well Johnny, your '(R)-goo-ment' that someone willing to die for a cause is 'the most powerful evidence' of the validity of that cause, is no less valid for American soldiers, than it is for for suicide bombers ... as an (R)-goo-ment, that is.
However, if I am wrong in my reasoning, I'd be interested in you pointing out where ...
Snerd
Stiph: "If that's true [about a Cheney VICE Pres-Halliburton connection] why don't they impeach him, then? They've had 4 years to do it and aren't. Why?"
SG: So how is it 'they' have had a sufficient majority to 'do it' for '4 years' and 'aren't', I have to ask?
Snerd
AMY: "the really dedicated Soldiers are the only ones I want on my flanks"
SG: I didn't ask, but you told me anyway ... It's not suppose to work like that, I thought ...
Snerd ;-)
So, Snerd, you're saying your right to free speech trumps common courtesy such as not deliberately and consistently mispelling someone's name to make it sound like something else that is insulting? WOW! And that's dialogue in your view?
How many times have you swayed someone to your point of view doing that sort of thing? You've been on here a few months now, doing the same things over and over. The only ones who even come close to agreeing with you are the ones who come here doing the same type things you do. Yet, you keep doing it so either you're really insane or it's just a way to get your jollies; makes you feel powerful. Which is it?
In the 7 months since they took office, this Congress has launch 300 investigations and issued 350 subpeonas. In the meantime, they have had their own "ethical" behavior brought into the light of day... so yeah... I'd say their credibility is just about nil right now.
Snerd, I didn't say: "the really dedicated Soldiers are the only ones I want on my flanks" and I don't see where that quote originated. All of JERkron, I mean, KEvron's comments will be deleted as usual.
I don't see that Johnny made that comment, either, although I see nothing wrong with an NCOIC (non-commissioned officer in charge) desiring that. I don't know, does any supervisor want undedicated employees working under him? I'm not sure what the beef is with that comment or where it orignated.
Nothing left for me to add. Snerd Gronk compares me and my fellow Soldiers and Marines to Suicide Bombers.
OK people, see what we're dealing with here? These people make Jane Fonda look patriotic.
Snerd: "I'm sorry, Amy, it's all over... but for the leaving!"
1) the joy with which you exclaim that is distrubing, you compassionate liberal.
2) based on what? Do yourself a favor. Go to the Pentagon channel and watch the OIF Today shows and see what soldiers are actually doing in Iraq. Then watch the commanders briefings under Townhall/Briefings and hear about the progress being made. Did you watch any of the 3 videos I posted before making your comments? The sectarian divide is becoming less and less an issue as all ethnic groups are standing side by side in the Iraqi police force, security teams and military. That's just a fact.
3) the war is all but over based on what? Violence? As GEN Pace said, that doesn't determine defeat or success (I wrote about it a couple entries down). The only people who can be blamed for the violence are the ones doing it: al-Qaeda and other terrorists.
Johnny, at least Snerd and Simon can't be accused of supporting the troops... they DO know you are one, right?
Of course, this is what happens when ignorant assumptions and a lack of acquaintance with the facts make their way to biased minds: you get comments like terds... I mean, Snerds.
Based on what?
Based on the facts amyp
Amy, why on earth do you still have faith in either the Pentagon or the republicans?
Both of these self serving organisations will say everything’s going great, they always have because they must, when only killing takes place.
It should be obvious to you by by now that we all need a better source of information, and you need it as well.
I want to hear someone other than a republican or Pentagon official say something positive and verifiable about the Iraq war. I want an opinion from an independent source that will support the troops.
Hearing a positive report from any one of the many nations supporting America, will I feel sure, restore faith in the effort.
Is there such a source? Who will support the troops or are your people just filling orders for body bags ,crutches, wheel chairs and straight jackets?
simon says: "Is there such a source? Who will support the troops or are your people just filling orders for body bags ,crutches, wheel chairs and straight jackets?"
Probably not because whether you know what their party affiliation is or not, you'll still call them a Republican but here you go:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ or how about this fellow http://www.julescrittenden.com/ or this one http://michaeltotten.com/ ?
As for body bags, crutches, and strait jackets, how many do you think get used each and every day in just one city in the states or in Canada? And for what reasons, such as a high school kid shooting another over a pair of shoes? But that's okay, right? They're all just misunderstood... until you're the one standing at the wrong end of the barrel.
snerd, I'm basing my intelligence on:
1) first hand accounts from soldiers on the ground
2) pouring over hours of briefings from top commanders, mostly commanding generals but also LT COLs, COLs and even MAJs, and hearing their assessments of how missions in their battle space are being executed and what the results are
3) DOD military message boards (for people with Army accounts like Johnny and I have) in which high ranking soldiers/commanders discuss the intricacies of the war and the enemy
4) understanding the context of this war and the historical context of Iraq
5) and be being reasonable about things like casualties, knowing they don't determine success or failure of war. If that were the case, every war Americans have fought in would be utter failures (from Civil War to the GWOT)
It's interesting, steph, that I saw a report on the Pentagon Channel from the Army medics putting it in context. The interesting data was this: most US casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan are not fatalities and there is a much higher rate of recuperation, not death, compared to every past war. Our medics are so well trained and sophisticated that casualties in this war are very low comparatively speaking.
We could go back to the good old days for simon and gronk and have mass casualties as with the WWs, Vietnam, Korea, Civil War, etc.
simon, I don't put my trust in the DOD or the Republican Party and you cannot judge me and say the opposite. The military is a huge bureaucratic organization with lots of people who make mistakes and frankly I don't like and disagree with, but I cannot let that affect my knowledge that our soldiers do good and do right in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You also have to understand that the GWOT is not limited to Afghanistan. To say we should fight our enemy in Afghanistan is incredibly niave.. for all intents and purposes, bin Laden is not even in Afghanistan, so what then? There's a reason it's called the GLOBAL war on terror... we have a GLOBAL enemy.
Meanwhile, you can sit back and criticize all you want but you personally reap the benefits of an administration trying to safeguard America (to include Canada with intelligence sharing, etc.) and soldiers pulling terrorists from other parts of the world into Iraq where they can kill them. If you think what's been happening in Britain is a fluke you're wrong.
Johnny is right in saying Snerd and his kind make Jane Fonda look patriotic!
It's obvious that you are doing a wonderful job here, Amy, otherwise these idiots wouldn't be messing with you! Keep up the good work! :)
Thank God for the "can do" attitude of our forefathers, those who overthrew the tyranny of Britain at our founding, the tyranny of Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, and Japan in the day. and to those who still "can do" today, thanks, from a grateful citizen.
to you narcissistic whineybabies, tell me what the fruits of your labors in whining and sniveling are? it does not take a genius to see that the fight between freedom and Islamic fundamentalism will keep growing for some time, Islam has it's mandate to subjugate the world. freedom and subjugation are opposed to each other. if you can't stand and fight tyrants, at least keep your mouth shut and let those willing to stand for YOUR freedom do what needs doing! Jeez! even a narcissist should see the value in that!