August 31, 2007
The Bad Judgment of Gen. David Petraeus (Brent Budowsky)
Gen. David Petraeus is a good man and a great soldier with a track record of almost complete failure in his previous tours of duty in Iraq.
Let this be said up front: While the president and Petraeus maneuver for him to testify on the anniversary of Sept. 11, the Speaker and majority leader should hold firm and say that this matter is not subject to discussion and the general will not testify on this date.
The fact that Petraeus would allow himself to be used in this attempt at shameful exploitation of the one day on our calendar that should be above exploitation, speaks for itself.
My views on the futility of the surge, which in fact is not a surge but a long-term escalation, have been stated before and will be stated again. The truth is, the majority of generals and admirals in the American military do not agree with the views advocated by Petraeus, Gen. Odierno, and Gen. Lynch, who most recently violated the military protocol for active duty commanders by criticizing and debating against Sen. John Warner's call for some troop withdrawals by Christmas.
To lay the foundation for the historic debate that will begin as Labor Day ends, the point of this note is to highlight how wrong Petraeus has been in his previous tours of duty in Iraq.
Fact: After the initial phase of fighting, in the areas under his command, sectarian warfare ultimately escalated and his efforts for political agreements, while worthy, failed.
Fact: In his tour of duty commanding the training of the Iraqi military, his training results were a dismal failure, and all subsequent training programs have been to redo his failed efforts and undo the damage done during that tour of duty.
Fact: There have been major disappearances, losses and/or misplacement of large amounts of Iraqi weapons that were grossly mismanaged (at best) under his command. Almost certainly those weapons were ultimately sold on the Iraqi black market with some landing in the hands of criminals, insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists who used them to kill Americans and Iraqis.
Fact: The Army has recently expanded a major criminal investigation of the mismanagement, misuse and probable corruption that happened during the Petraeus watch, under the Petraeus command. Petraeus is undoubtedly 100 percent personally honest, but there are people close to him under investigation for weapons and resources under his command, which were stolen or lost, and he bears a substantial command responsibility for bad management and bad judgment.
Fact: Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.
It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote.
Beyond taking a political position in a way that an active-duty general should never do, which demonstrates political tendencies that in truth trouble many of the highest ranking military officers today, his forecast and analysis turned out to be almost completely, catastrophically wrong on every level.
We now learn the “Petraeus Report” was never the Petraeus Report; it was to be a report he drafted, to be rewritten and released with the language, forecasts and recommendations not of Petraeus, but the White House that has a long history of misrepresentation on matters regarding Iraq.
Even worse, we now learn that there will be no written report from Petraeus or the White House that was to have received his original paper. The whole exercise was a political sham, designed to buy time, and now that the time has been bought, the truth comes out: The Petraeus Report will not exist, anywhere, in written form.
As Petraeus prepared to issue what is called the Petraeus Report in September 2007, I am posting here the original Petraeus Report in The Washington Post that preceded the election in September 2004.
Members of Congress should read this and judge for themselves. In my humble opinion, what follows, written three years ago almost to the day, is a compendium of misjudgment and analysis and forecasts that a reasonable person might call delusional, and even the most charitable person would call disastrously wrong, with disastrous consequences for those who served during the three years after this op-ed was written.
Here is Petraeus, in his own words, three years ago. Judge for yourself:
Battling for Iraq
By David H. Petraeus
(From The Washington Post, Sunday, Sept. 26, 2004)BAGHDAD — Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq’s security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight — and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.
The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.
In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses — not to mention horrific terrorist attacks — 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. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.
Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism.
Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.
Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight — so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well.
Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. Two of these battalions, along with the Iraqi commando battalion, the counterterrorist force, two Iraqi National Guard battalions and thousands of policemen recently contributed to successful operations in Najaf.
Their readiness to enter and clear the Imam Ali shrine was undoubtedly a key factor in enabling Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to persuade members of the Mahdi militia to lay down their arms and leave the shrine.
In another highly successful operation several days ago, the Iraqi counterterrorist force conducted early-morning raids in Najaf that resulted in the capture of several senior lieutenants and 40 other members of that militia, and the seizure of enough weapons to fill nearly four 7 1/2-ton dump trucks.
Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.
Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions — generally all except those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area — are conducting operations on a daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently.
Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct.
Iraq's borders are long, stretching more than 2,200 miles. Reducing the flow of extremists and their resources across the borders is critical to success in the counterinsurgency. As a result, with support from the Department of Homeland Security, specialized training for Iraq’s border enforcement elements began earlier this month in Jordan.
Regional academies in Iraq have begun training as well, and more will come online soon. In the months ahead, the 16,000-strong border force will expand to 24,000 and then 32,000. In addition, these forces will be provided with modern technology, including vehicle X-ray machines, explosive-detection devices and ground sensors.
Outfitting hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security forces is difficult and complex, and many of the units are not yet fully equipped. But equipment has begun flowing. Since July 1, for example, more than 39,000 weapons and 22 million rounds of ammunition have been delivered to Iraqi forces, in addition to 42,000 sets of body armor, 4,400 vehicles, 16,000 radios and more than 235,000 uniforms.
Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq’s security forces. Some $1 billion in construction to support this effort has been completed or is underway, and five Iraqi bases are already occupied by entire infantry brigades.
Numbers alone cannot convey the full story. The human dimension of this effort is crucial.
The enemies of Iraq recognize how much is at stake as Iraq reestablishes its security forces.
Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to mount barbaric attacks against police stations, recruiting centers and military installations, even though the vast majority of the population deplores such attacks. Yet despite the sensational attacks, there is no shortage of qualified recruits volunteering to join Iraqi security forces.
In the past couple of months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits just reported for training in various locations. And two days after the recent bombing on a street outside a police recruiting location in Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis were once again lined up inside the force protection walls at another location — where they were greeted by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.
There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq’s elections approach. Iraq’s security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition — and now NATO — support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.
The writer, an Army lieutenant general, commands the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. He previously commanded the 101st Airborne Division, which was deployed in Iraq from March 2003 until February 2004.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 46 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Well, nothing succeeds like success and today he is succeeding. And he was well regarded in Mosul while he was there, things fell apart only when he left.
Doom and gloom?
How about this Washington Post piece for the REAL story:
A Season of Hope in Iraq
The season now ending with school bells and the return of Congress was supposed to be the "Iraq Summer." A coalition of antiwar groups promised 10 weeks of phone banks, billboards, petitions and protests targeted at 40 Republican members of Congress who support the war. "It's going to be like laying asphalt in August — hot," boasted one organizer.
By this standard, August has been remarkably mild. It brings to mind a couplet by the poet Richard Wilbur: "What is the opposite of riot? It's lots of people keeping quiet."
During their summer vacation, Americans discovered that Gen. David Petraeus doesn't take one. And his energy and urgency have shifted the Iraq debate in some fundamental ways.
A few months ago, it was the received wisdom that Iraq was in the midst of a rapidly escalating civil war. That claim is no longer plausible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001406.html
What part of "no longer plausible" is hard to understand?
Comment by Igor R. — August 31, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Brent: I hope the leadership in Congress follows through on your idiotic suggestion of avoiding 9/11 to hear the report and it becomes a public battle. It will confirm once and for all that Democrats fear the War on Terrorism and perhaps, as a Democrat once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 31, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Igor, Petreaus was well regarded in Mosul
but after he left it fell apart, he made the
same mistakes he is making today when he gives
support to the Sunni insurgents who were
killing Americans recently. Right now out
of desperation we are giving support to both
sides of the Sunni Shi'ite war and mark my
words, we will regret it and it is the kind
of mistakes he made in his prevoius Iraq tours.
The facts I lay out in the post, virtually all
military people agree are indeed facts.
Comment by Brent Budowsky — August 31, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
I find the general's assessment cautiously optomistic about the accomplishments and honest about the difficulties of the situation in Iraq. Brent does us a favor in contrasting the true leadership of this war and its detractors. The posts will follow about "it's about the oil", "Halliburton", "illegal war", and the rest of the talking points, but all I can think is how I thank God that people like Petreaus are in charge and not the Brent Budowsky's of the world. We would have surrendered already and have left the vaccuum for Iran to take one more step in their goal of Western annihilation…
Comment by Rich — August 31, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Brent: After rereading your original post, it comes across with multiple reasons why we should remain in Iraq.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 31, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
General Petreaus, trainer of Iraqi army battalions, Jun 2004–Sep 2005
Sep 2004–Petreaus: "Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. . .Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. . . Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January"
Sep 2005–Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at "Level 1″ readiness than there were a few months ago. . . The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday.
Comment by Don Bacon — August 31, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Rich, if the Brent Budowsky's were in charge,
we would never have invaded Iraq in the first
place, which is what I warned everyone against
in 2002 and throughout. We would not have
3700 gold star mothers and a huge disaster on
our hands. And Bin Laden might well be dead,
instead of having major new recruits, stronger
command and control, and expanded activity in
countries around the world. With all due
respect, if you think we are better off having
invaded Iraq, when I warned both parties at
high levels not to, and then suggested far
more troops at the beginning, if we had to,
you have bigger problems than I realized.
Comment by Brent Budowsky — August 31, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
General Petreaus has found a more reliable military force in Iraq than the battalions he "equipped" and "trained"–the Sunni gangs that have been killing US troops. from Alex in Iraq (extract):
So without further ado, the nominees for Stupid Shit of The Deployment:
Working with 1920s – A Sunni insurgent group we’ve been battling for months, responsible for the death of my friend and numerous attacks, agreed to fight Al Qaeda alongside us. Since then, they’ve grown into a much more organized, lethal force. They use this organization to steal cars and intimidate and torture the local population, or anyone they accuse of being linked to Al Qaeda. The Gestapo of the 21st century, sanctioned by the United States Army.
When word got out to the press that we were in cahoots with insurgents, it was spun out of control. General Mixon said something along the lines of “we can’t be sure they all have killed Americans.” . . .
After a few months of working with them, I’m still on the fence about the morality of the situation. On one hand, they have fought and killed us and hope to in the future when Al Qaeda is gone. On the other, they are more reliable then the squabbling, sloppy, lazy, sectarian and thieving Iraqi police and army.
For now, our relationship with 1920 is one of mutual distrust and hatred, a sign of the times. A conversation between a member of my platoon and a 1920 source is ripe with foreboding on the future of this partnership, and of the war to come.
“Do you want to kill me?” asked the soldier.
“Yes,” replied the source, coldly and without emotion. “But not today.”
–Alex http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/
Comment by Don Bacon — August 31, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Brent, actually I see a perfect analogy: a guy develops what was called a "wholistic" approach to warfare in Mosul and Mosul is calm under his leadership, he is then forced to leave prematurely, before the Iraqi forces are stable, and the inadequate Iraqi forces supported by the insufficient number of American troops totally fall apart in the ensuing fighting, with the "wholistic" approach long forgotten. This is exactly what will happen to Iraq as a whole if the US forces are withdrawn prematurely. You could argue it will happen no matter when the US forces are withdrawn, and as much as one can never be certain about the future in a complex situation, I believe it will be more stable at some reasonable point , not 20 years from now.
Is arming Sunnis a risky strategy? Absolutely, but not all THAT risky if you analyze the details.
Unlike at all previous times in Iraq, the Sunni arming wasn't a part of any plan, it was a reaction by smart and resourceful commanders to the following opportunity: a hostile indigenous population got sick of the incredible brutality of the religious zealot occupiers mixing with converted native insurgents and essentially BEGGED (in some cases just asked) to be helped against them.
I read a report just yesterday about how out-gunned Marines go out on patrol with the former insurgents. That IS bravery, but they are not getting shot in the back while no one is looking. More strategically, the Sunnis HAVE to realize that they are now themselves out-gunned by the new Shia majority and with Iran nearby and the Saudis being an unpredictable, fair-weather friend their ONLY hope is the Americans. It is the confluence of two factors: the fading of hopes and memories of the "good old" times under Saddam and the realization that the Americans are there for the long haul that logically lead the Sunnis to the only possible solution: asking the Americans for help. Will they under some circumstances turn on Americans? If there is real hope for them to gain something major from that, possibly and even likely. But what is it that they would gain?
The other aspect that I'm seeing from various reports is, to put it bluntly, a "civilization of savages" effect. As people who have only seen brutality and only knew brutality and injustice as a way of life are seeing mostly fair and law-abiding and law-imposing Americans, they emulate them in some way. As one report put it, insurgents and killers are being turned into soldiers, farmers, and policemen. Strategically, as long as the Sunni buffer is not entirely eliminated, it is positive for the US to have that buffer. It prevents the much desired, by Iran, Iran-to-Syria land bridge and overall creates a balance of power. Let's not go back to how Saddam and Iran were just a perfect couple in the past to create that same balance.
The Shia are the real problem now, because they are on the ascendancy and because they have been thoroughly penetrated by Iran. I contend that the continuous action of hunting down and taking out of action EFP and other weapon smugglers as well as Iranian-trained terrorist smugglers (the so-called "rogue JAM"/ "special group"/"secret cell" actors) is significantly degrading the immediate capabilities of the Iranian arm in Iraq as well as the simple Shia mafia-types.
Will the Sunnis and the Shia collide eventually? If we leave now, for sure, and with ferocity that will be reminiscent of Rwanda. I don't think that scenario will be all that great for the US as I stated a number of times. In the future, I don't know, but the Sunnis and the Shia do live in a state of uneasy peace in many places. A somewhat poor, but still an example is Lebanon, and if it weren't for BOTH Iran and Syria that would be a relatively peaceful country. But there IS Iran. Well my only answer is that some time within the next 3 years there will such a dramatic change in that situation for one reason or another that to extrapolate simplistically is just linear thinking.
Anyway, I believe (obviously unlike many others) that there are some positive trends and an immediate withdrawal will lead to an immediate disaster. Under the circumstances, my recommendation, and that of many whose reports I have read after they visited Iraq recently is to give the strategy more time.
Comment by Igor R. — August 31, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Rich,
I can only assume that you missed the point that Petraeus's cautious optimism about the accomplishments and difficulties in Iraq were written three full years ago.
It only tells me that they are rehashing tired talking points. Petraeus recently said, in Australia, that ethnic and religious violence is down 75% from last year. If anyone here believes that, then I don't see how I can even talk to you.
Comment by blaze — August 31, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Igor,
The Post quote that you gave us was written by Michael Gerson. Pulleeezze!
Comment by blaze — August 31, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Rich - who created the vacuum in the first place? That would be us - who undermined 20 years of US foreign policy by opening up the door to the Iranians that would be the Bush Adm. again. Now imagine instead of blundering Bush - some ill-fated would be democrat president got us into this war - they would have skinned him alive and would be call for impeachment. If the Repubs called for a BJ, I am sure they would have for a failed war.
Somebody please read a book - once you start a civil war it will inevitably take its course. Localize control of an area does not mean the "situation" is getting better. It is artifical - kind of like McCain going to that market in Bagdad surrounded by troops.
Personally I feel bad for the Iraqis, but I don't feel so bad as to spend $8 billion a month and lose on average 60 troops/month. We need to let them sort it out because at the end of the day they are still going to sell us their oil be they Sunni or Shiite. During the 80's we benefitted by supporting both sides in the Iran/Iraq war - now we will do it again - except this time we will be selling weapons to the Saudis and their allies to fight the Shiite who wil lbe supported by the Iranians. Perhaps this will bring down the price of oil.
Comment by Jon C — August 31, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Budowsky: "Petraeus is undoubtedly 100 percent personally honest …"
Is this article satire? Only a total idiot, someone only vaguely aware of what is happening in Iraq, or one so completely brainwashed by the system they have no independent capability of sorting fact from fiction, can possibly believe much of what Petraeus has said is true. Petraeus is certainly not a total idiot, he is more than vaguely aware, and comes across more as a general who knows to toe the line than someone completely brainwashed.
I take the classic statement made by who knows how many US officers on the many occasions innocent civilians were killed by US forces. To paraphrase: "We do our best to ensure that innocent civilians are not killed by our forces." This leaves out the unspoken parts: "So long as it involves any immediate risk what soever to our forces, or interferes with our mission of killing bad guys." Of course, "We are making progress" to describe overall performance is just as ridiculous.
Comment by gde — August 31, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Again and again Bush manipulates the handling of the approach to the war in Iraq. David Petraeus is a Bushy and his report, already preconcieved and written, will perpetuate the fundamental lie…that there is such a thing as victory to be had in this kind of war. There is not a chance that he will report anything except what his commander in chief wants to be reported. The war goes on and will keep our young warriors entrapped and dying in a wholely personal conflict contrived and initiated by our vile and selfish President. David Petraeus…a Bush toady and traitoruos citizen of this once great country.
Comment by Richard Wagner — August 31, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
"Well, nothing succeeds like success and today he is succeeding. And he was well regarded in Mosul while he was there, things fell apart only when he left." This comment by Igor expresses the crux of the problem with the so-called surge. It may be a partial success today, but what about tomorrow? The surge is unsustainable. It'll follow the same tired script: things fall apart when Americans leave, even before.
The surge is a tactic, not a strategy. If the US is in Iraq for the long haul, as General P suggests, then it needs to raise taxes and reinstitute the draft. Why isn't the General and his C-in-C talking seriously about this need?
Comment by dzhef — August 31, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Fact: After the initial phase of fighting, in the areas under his command, sectarian warfare ultimately escalated and his efforts for political agreements, while worthy, failed.
It escalated AFTER his troops were withdrawn and replaced by another, smaller force.
Comment by Steve J. — August 31, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
A few months ago, it was the received wisdom that Iraq was in the midst of a rapidly escalating civil war. That claim is no longer plausible
AHEM!
Are we concerned about the situation in Basra? Absolutely. It is a place where you have a variety of different Shi'a groups competing to control the resources down there and what business there is down there. So it's a — it is a little bit unlike the sectarian conflicts you see further north because there is sort of inter- sectarian strife. And what the motivation really looks like — when I was there, as it was described to me — is that these are sort of almost Mafioso kind of situations where people are trying to carve up the pie and who controls the money-making businesses and ventures down there. But it's ugly and it's a problem…
Comment by Steve J. — August 31, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Fact: Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign
He should have been cashiered for this.
Comment by Steve J. — August 31, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Wow, the fact-challenged righties just wait for this stuff, don't they? What part of thr following do you not get?
Forbes 08.30.07
Auditors Say Iraq Goals Not Being Met
WASHINGTON -
The Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush's Iraq war strategy, congressional auditors have determined.
MSNBC
GAO: Iraq meets only 5 of 18 goals set by Bush
Updated: 6:27 p.m. PT Aug 29, 2007
WASHINGTON - Congressional auditors have determined that the Iraqi government has failed to meet the vast majority of political and military goals laid out by lawmakers to assess President Bush's Iraq war strategy, The Associated Press has learned.
Washington Post
Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals
Yessiree, that there surge is working just fine, as long as you don't count any of the goalposts that were set when it began, and don't count any bodies killed and let the White House write the Patreaus Report.
Seriously, do you guys get paid to lurk and post fiction for the White House? Let the grown-ups write here - we might actually figure a way to solve this cluster-f**k you "conservatives" have gotten us into.
Comment by Mark — August 31, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
General Betrayus is just like Westmoreland, consistently painting an optimistic picture to please his president.
Westmoreland underestimated the force against him in Vietnam, and it may have been on purpose. With generals like this, we are in big trouble as a nation.
It is likely that Betrayus is doing the same thing. I don't know how the man can live with himself knowing that American soldiers are dying for nothing.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 31, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
And incidently, nobody here wants to "surrender". We're simply realizing that the inept leadership has taken our formidible and brave army and led it so incompetently that they, the Bush Administration, has lost the war and created more terrorists than previously existed. They failed miserably to stabilize a country they invaded without provocation.
Rather than admit their failure, that administration would rather drag this out at the cost of the lives of our brave soldiers and more Iraqis and leave it for the next administration to clean up.
It's a cold-blooded political decision.
Unfortunately, some of you guys are the gullible rubes they're using to keep their charade going.
Comment by Mark — August 31, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Fact: You're an ass, who isn't worthy to tie the General's shoes.
by the way - in Baghdad - where are you?
Comment by Jack Moss — August 31, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
General Petreaus wasn't the only Iraq general making rosy forecasts just prior to the last presidential election. His boss General George Casey also made some predictions. Commander of the most technically advanced occupation army on earth, Casey was more recently unable to secure the capital city of the occupied country three years after "mission accomplished" and was rewarded by being promoted to army chief of staff.
from a Sep 2004 press conference with General Sharp:
Q: Well, I guess the bottom line is will Iraqi security forces — when will you have enough trained and equipped Iraqi security forces to take over the local control that we’ve talked about in Iraq to achieve their goal of getting the insurgents out of this mess? Will it be by December? Will it be by the [Iraqi] elections in January [2005]?
SHARP: Gen. Casey has taken a look at the plan to what we believe the equipment delivery will be and the training schedule. And he believes that, based upon that, he will be able to be at what his definition of local control is for the majority of the country, not the entire part of the country. There’s going to be areas out there that we’re not going to be able to get the local control by the end of December [2004].
Presenter: Lieutenant General Sharp
Monday, September 20, 2004
Media Availability with Lt. Gen. Sharp
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040920-1322.html
Perhaps Casey believed Petreaus?
Comment by Don Bacon — August 31, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
So typically republican for the comments to be that we are finally succeeding just be patient. Please read the date of the Petreous op ed- it was THREE YEARS ago. If things were going so well in the training of Iraqis then why in the world did we need to escalate our troop presense in January?
If we are to continue this war, which has already lasted longer than WWII, then lets really do it and reinstitute the draft -absolutely no deferments -and lets get Republican sons and daughters right over there to save us from terrorism. But oh I forgot they have better things to do just like Dick Cheney and Romney's five sons. Instead they suggest giving illegal immigrants citizenship in exchange for serving 2 years in Iraq (that is if you survive). Yup the Fall of the Roman Empire all over again.
I think we can just substitute a few words here and there on the op ed and we'll have the new Petraeous report- it'll save him a lot of prep time.
If republicans had their way we would still be in Viet Nam saying we just need a little more time and we'll have everything under control.
Comment by Dorothy — September 1, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Brent,
Why must you always focus on the past and never on the present?
Question: What would you have done with George Washington after Kips Bay, Brooklyn, and the losses of Fort Washington and Fort Lee?
A big no, I am not comparing the Revolutionary War to the Iraq war. I am comparing Brent's disregard for anything General Petraeus does or says because of past performance (no matter how biased the view Brent takes of it) and am applying to another general who had anything but success and yet turned it all around. Many generals and military leaders were publicly decrying Washington's performance and some (Reed and Lee) were more public than others.
Again not comparing Petraeus to Washington either, just the reactions to their performances and to add a little perspective to lets deal with what is happening NOW.
What say you Brent, why do you not wish to hear what the general says? You really believe he is a Bush puppet? or is that more of your BDS showing through?
Do you ever "think positive"?
btw, I am waitning for your next Gore article I have not had a good laugh in awhile..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — September 1, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Imitation time:
Gary…
"Bush planned and cunducted 911 for his oil buddies and WTC7 was brought down by explosives."
Chris in NM..
"Right on Brent. Another article to send the repukes into a spin.."
Gets old and boring or should I say IS old and boring, but that totally depends on what the definition of "IS" is.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — September 1, 2007 @ 2:01 am
Petraeus has already compromised his credibility. By the same token it will be difficult for him to be impartial and objective; after all there is a conflict of interest — he is reporting on his own performance.
It is amazing the same arguments, the same ole same ole and yet people still fall for it? Six more months give the surge time to work, things are improving in Iraq, so on and so forth …
Whatever happened to the truth?
Evidently it seems not to have completely disappeared. The GAO report was released early due to the likelihood of it being politicized and/or whitewashed after the administration's assessment.
In July after having fudged the facts, the administration concluded Iraq was on track on 8 of the 18 benchmarks. In contrast the GAO reported Iraq met only 3 of the 18 benchmarks. The GAO concluded with saying, "it would be more useful" if the administration would back-up their judgments with more details and provide data on the broader measures of violence from all relevant US agencies."
Iraq is complex. So many different scenarios are playing out that it is difficult to keep up with all of them. Here are a few:
The US has somewhere between 35,000 - 60,000 Iraqis in custody. Since March the number of imprisoned Iraqi child soldiers, some as young as 11 years of age, escalated from 100 to 800. This presents another strong argument to review Bush's military detention policies and the lack of access to the courts especially for juveniles.
News out of Anbar province is generally "good", but the surge had nothing to do with it. It has been fairly calm since last September and that was only because a federation of tribes gathered to form the Anbar Salvation Council to counter extremism. Calmness prevails only in the homogenous Sunni areas. The Sunni tribes started turning against "al-Qaeda in Iraq" over a year ago, before General Petraeus was in charge and before the surge. Furthermore that does not translate into support for the central government.
Neither Sunnis nor Shiites trust the US understandably and allegiance is non-existent. While the US trains and arms people they know nothing about, Sunnis and Shiites are honing their skills for whatever comes next.
Another development not widely covered in the media ought to give reason for pause: Iraq's government is infiltrated with militias and criminal gangs who are using the Ministries as personal sectarian fiefdoms: Ministry of Health, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Defense, and the Ministry of Oil.
The Ministry of Defense is missing $850 million. No one is even concerned about it.
The Ministry of Interior, in charge of police, "has been co-opted by organized criminals who act thru the legal enterprise to commit crimes such as: kidnapping, extortion and bribery."
The Ministry of Oil keeps no accurate accounting of the oil production. Organized crime groups are stealing oil "for the benefit of militias, insurgents, corrupt public officials and foreign buyers."
Not only is the government dysfunctional, Iraq's army and police are, too. How can anyone expect the government to control Iraq when they are uncontrollable?
As a remedy someone decided weeding out the criminal aspects — to the tune of 23,000 - 26,000 army and police personnel — would be a good idea. While necessary, Iam not convinced it would be wise at this point. Re_member what happened when Bremer fired 500,000 Baathists. Although on a smaller scale, still 26,000 suddenly out-of-work young angry men will be no picnic either.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Rumours have floated around about removing Maliki — Allawi seems to be the pick du jour. However while serving as Iraq's interim Prime Minister (May 2004 thru April 2005) Allawi was not popular with the Iraqis then and nothing's changed since. But that has not stopped him from lobbying the WH to return him to power as al-Maliki's replacement.
Allawi's tenure was rife with corruption. It was reported he personally executed 6 unarmed "suspected" insurgents at Baghdad's Police Station. There is speculation that Hazem Shaalan is Allawi's benefactor. Shaalan, who is living in London, is suspected of stealing $1 billion dollars from government funds.
Don't even get me started on the no-bid contractors bilking the American tax payers for billions of dollars.
The hurdles seem impossible to overcome. There does not seem to be an answer, but if so, it certainly is not an easy one.
Iraqis want Americans to leave and say until we do the violence will never stop because it is our presence that keeps the violence going.
There is an 800,000 pound gorilla being ignored: the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
Over 1.025.000 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the the US invasion/occupation [according to Just Foreign Policy]:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
Another two million Iraqis are displaced inside Iraq and starving. That many more fled Iraq due to the violence. Days on end Iraqis go without food, water, medical supplies and electricity.
Millions of human beings are suffering. This must end!
For Bush, Iraq is simply a strategic geo-political location that serves US hegemony. He has no intention of re-building their homes. Attacking Iraq was never about bringing democracy to the Middle-East. Bush's motives, as evidence shows, include: regime change, expanding corporate globalization, privatizing Iraq's oil, preserving the dollar reserve and transforming Iraq's economy into a market-economy. The next time Bush insists we must "secure our vital interests in the region" it is only fair to insist he qualify what that means.
If Bush & Cheney had been sincere about liberating the Iraqi people they would have done so and left.
Meanwhile the situation is dire and grows worse. The complexities are far from being addressed.
The US cannot control Iraq. This is something only they can work out. Iraqis will make their future the Iraqi way.
But the US must do everything in its power to end the humanitarian crisis. If that means leaving then by all means let's get out.
Americans finally get it: never take at face value anything this administration says.
Actions speak louder than words. Therein is the truth.
Comment by serena1313 — September 1, 2007 @ 2:37 am
Brent, you seemed to have snuffed out all of them again. Thanks for the truth, which is no longer available from our government, or the roll call of authoritarian war lovers above. They don't care about the facts of the past and present, only about more death to quench their thirst.
Mr. Rich is a riot mentioning talking points. Rich, if we want to mention talking points, let's talk about those you mentioned, rather than shouting "9-11″ or "islamofascists" everytime someone wants to engage you. Is this war legal? How much has Haliburton gained in no bid contracts since this debacle began? Can we know what Cheney cooked up with the oil companies, because he didn't want to reveal that, and even went to court to keep it a secret? Do you support transparency in your government?
The answers to these questions will be predictable. "9-11″! "Central front" etc. etc.
My dear authoritarians, I must take on the war god Petraeus. There have been more civilian deaths in Iraq in August than any month before. There is no political progress in the Iraqi government. These are the facts my hostile friends, but just keep the harrangue going. You will have more death.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 1, 2007 @ 11:11 am
You Republican sheeple should get out a bit more. Stretch your legs, see the world - not a Faux cartoon but the real world.
"Western annihilation"? From a bunch of third rate terrorists? No it's the world-class terrorists in the White House - the Constitution's "enemies domestic" - which are the real problem. You may be happy to live in Cheney's reconstruction of the Soviet Union but some of us value what our forefathers fought for.
Comment by Mike5000 — September 1, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Jon, my point is that Petreaus is making the
exact same kind of mistakes now, that he made
before. The worst is this idea of giving arms
and money to Sunni insurgents who weeks ago
were killing Americans, are now taking our
assistance, and weeks or months from now will
be using our money and weapons to kill Iraqi
Shi'ites in their sectarian war (and may be
doing it now) and could well aim at our people
again.
We are now arming both sides in the sectarian
war. We are supporting the same government
(Maliki) that the Iranians are supporting;
much of the aid we give them, ends up in the
hands of their partners, the Shi'ite militia,
who bosses control the government with or
without Maliki. Now we are arming the Sunni
insurgents. Meanwhile the Sunni insurgents
and Sunni tribal leaders take a major percent
of all our aid moving by truck through areas
they control, which are most areas in key
provinces. So we fund both sides in the war,
while they are killing each other.
To a degree this is the mistake Petraeus made
in Mosul, which is why those relationships
ultimately dissolved into sectarian war and
this is the mistake he made when so many
weapons given to Iraqis disappeared and ended
up in the hands of our enemies.
The core problem is we never had enough troops
for a war that should never have happened in
any event. We subcontract to Maliki and the
Shi'ite military in his government, we then
subcontract to Sunni insurgents; all of whom
are glad to take our money and arms and all
of whom want us to stay forever, so they can
keep taking our money and arms.
Same mistake in Afghanistan, where they have
subcontracted to tribal leaders and warlords
who take our money, do nothing for us and
let Bin Laden get away, and are in bed with
the poppy producers. I could go on, you get
the idea. The mistakes Petraeus made then
are similar to those he makes now; the same
predictions of success then are similar to
those he makes now; the result tragically will
be the same down the road, as it was in the
past.
All of the above is part of the reason that
the Joint Chiefs and many commanders across
the services do not agree with what is
happening and that is why many of them,
like Senator John Warner, want us on a path
to careful and orderly reduction of troops
in Iraq and not perpetual escalation that
wont work and is destroying the Army.
Comment by Brent Budowsky — September 1, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Of all the comments the one I found most interesting is this one by serena:
"But the US must do everything in its power to end the humanitarian crisis. If that means leaving then by all means let’s get out."
This is like saying "We must do everything to end the suffering of this cancer patient. Let's throw him out of the window".
There is also another interesting trend. The opponents of the war throw out lots of facts, suppositions, and opinions, and then ask "Given this how can we win?".
My answer: nobody knows if we can win. The trends are positive, or at least people who will get to decide think so and those who are on the fence are confused, so there will not be a withdrawal on Bush's watch. I know how important it is to the Democrats to get to this goal, but it's not to be. Either a Republican will win because things in Iraq will improve or Hillary will have to deal with the problems. Tough break, but that's how it's going to shake out.
Comment by Igor R. — September 1, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Igor,
1. You write that arming the Sunnis who are "out-gunned by the new Shia majority" would enable them to turn on the Americans if they had something major to gain. Hello, Igor, the Sunni have been the major killers of Americans for over four years now. Four years! Apparently they took exception to US support of their new Shia rulers. They considered that to be major. Imagine that! The only reason they have called a temporary cease-fire is that they needed weapons to become even more powerful, and to eliminate some jihadis thet were giving them trouble.
2. Your idea that violence is being damped is belied by accurate (i.e. non-governmental) statistics. You see positive trends–what are they? There are over four million refugees, some of them in the north now contracting cholera, and the killing and maiming continues. The only positive trends are the spun stories from Bushco acolytes and friends of Petreaus, like O'Hanlon.
3. Your fervent hope that the oncoming attack on Iran will solve all this is exactly the opposite of what will probably happen as the war is widened and the killing really gets into high gear. It'll be a "dramatic change" alright. How about a US aircraft carrier going to the bottom with all hands–would that make you happy?
4. "Give the strategy more time"–we've been hearing this for years. The situation has gotten worse with time, and will continue to do so. There is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq now, and it doesn't need "more time".
5. Why aren't you in Iraq, Igor? Our guys are tired and you're fresh meat. Are you afraid?
Comment by Don Bacon — September 1, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Mike the Pub sheeple are dumbed down by watching Fox news. They simply cannot learn anything until they change the channel, permanently. And beyond that, they need to read alternative news, because the press has abdicated their responsibility to report the truth.
The mainstream media, MSM, is ground zero for propaganda. Can you imagine? Propaganda. A word I NEVER thought would ever be applied to the American press. And yet they do it daily, both in what they report and what they leave out. MSM is scum, just like the administration they have sold out to.
I am so ashamed of what has happened to this country. General Betrayus is truly a traitor to our country. No other explanation for his behavior.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 2, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Nobody has mentioned the cholera outbreak in northern Iraq. Or the cancers going untreated which may well be the result of microscopic particles of Depleted Uranium, our ammo of choice. The phrase "collateral damage" never reflects the true horror of what our troops are doing in the midst of an ongoing occupation. This is a war crime of gargantuan proportions. A component of the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is guilt for what they were ordered to do.
Comment by Pat Williams — September 2, 2007 @ 12:23 am
General Petraeus had a full shot at training Iraqi security forces several years ago, and what did he achieve? Current Generals under his command now in Iraq tell us that the Iraqi security forces are still years away from being capable of keeping order in their own country. General Petraeus got his current job as top military commander in Iraq at the end of last year when our self-styled "War President" asked the Joint Chiefs and other top military commanders whether the President's proposed "surge" was likely to work, and General Petraeus was virtually the only one willing to tell the President what he obviously wanted to hear. Now General Petraeus has adopted the "brilliant" idea of arming private Sunni tribal groups who are sworn enemies of the predominantly Shia government (which the people of Iraq happen to have democratically elected), while at the same time insisting that the Shia Prime Minister disarm private Shia groups (including the Badr Brigade of SIIC which rode into Bagdad on US tanks). Based on his track record in Iraq, General Petraeus is an incompetent, ass-kissing fool. Sorry if that offends you worshipers of military officers, but my credentials as a Korean War enlisted man give me the right to call them as I see them.
Comment by Richard Young — September 2, 2007 @ 1:23 am
Brent, you've gone and riled up the crazy neocons, again. Great post.
No matter how simple you make it to understand, these whacked-out, space cadets can not imagine how stupid they look and sound. They choose to ignore facts so as to perpetrate thier fantasies of grandeur.
Clealy the rabid neocons have been margenalized to the lunatic fringe. Check out the crazed postings of Pemberton, Igor, and RR. Sweet, isn't it? Pemberton and Igor are proof that AM radio is not the place to get your education. Hannity and Rush have done disservice educating these cling-ons.
It's almost funny how factually challenged these neocon goof balls are. Bush and Cheney are spineless, gutless chickenhawks that have cost this country greatly. These crazy-assed, nutball, neocons think Bush is a genius. Go figure.
Comment by Chris in NM — September 2, 2007 @ 10:21 am
In a rare appearance in Washington, General Casey offered an optimistic but cautious assessment of the situation in Iraq, where he commands more than 140 thousand U.S. and coalition troops.
"We're actually a little further along than I thought we would be at this point."
The general said the Iraqi insurgency is still capable of launching devastating attacks, but he says it is weaker than it was a few months ago thanks to continuing offensive operations by his troops and the new Iraqi army and police.
"In general terms, they are falling off and not effective. We took a look at the election attacks, because we said, 'the elections ought to tell us something about the strength of the enemy.' Well, we saw about 300 attacks (and) maybe 70-percent of those were ineffective."–General George Casey, March 8, 2005
Play it again, Sam.
Comment by Don Bacon — September 3, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Endless war is the PNAC plan. Endless stupidity is the Bush legacy.
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 3, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Interesting how the left wing "Kool-Aid" drinkers are only interested in the "facts" appearing on the like minded websites and blogs. If you want the facts on Iraq, why don't you simply talk to the soldiers who are or have been there? AND, please, use a statistically significant sampling…Not ONE disgruntled grunt! But, I guess, that would be too easy…and far too dificult for you to support your position.
The real issue to me is: Wherever the blame lies, what do YOU propose to do about it? Just send in the helicoptors ala Saigon? And repeat the same type of massacres?
So very typical of the Kool-Aid drinkers on both sides..too busy pointing fingers to propose any real solutions.
Comment by Dan — September 3, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Chris in NM,
what am talking points did I write? What about my first post is innaccurate?
Hmmm, let me post at your level, "Chris in Nm had repeated the favorite Olberrmann lines of how the President sucks and we need to leave Iraq toady. No original thought just a stupid unoriginal attack.
PS Brent,
Thank you for directly responding to my post, I have a clearer poicture of the point you were making as I hope you of mine. At least we exchanged thoughts and points without the mindless dribble of Chris in NM and Gary Anderson's stupid-ass conspiracy theories.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — September 3, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Yes, Pat Williams, and that one case of food poisoning in Basra: that must be why the British gave up control, and that is wny we must leave Iraq IMMEDIATELY!
Comment by Igor R. — September 3, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
We need to leave Iraq immediately because we do not have the right to be there. We do not have the right to steal their oil.
http://action.priceofoil.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6978&t=wide.dwt
Comment by Gary Anderson — September 4, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
That wasn’t the only BS Petraeus helped spread. Below are other examples of him, over the years, telling us how good it was going in Iraq. I guess it went so well, that we needed the surge.
Let’s look at some of Petraeus earlier lies, where he gave us a ‘rosy picture’ implying we should stay the course. I guess all those Iraqi’s he trained turned out so well, that the surge wasn’t needed.
And I love his Jan. 2005 comment where he let slip that: “Iraqis must provide for their own security. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish”
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3158
September 14, 2003 . . .
. . . Schieffer: Let me ask you one other thing, and that is this intense criticism that seems to be boiling up on Capitol Hill. This story this morning is filled with it, and basically it comes down to that Don Rumsfeld, and I'll just put this straight to you, is stubborn, and that's the reason he won't admit that he made a mistake when he said we have plenty of troops there, and that that's one of the reasons you're having problems on the Hill and within the Pentagon. I just want to give you a chance to respond to that.
Rumsfeld: Sure, I'm glad to. How do you respond to whether or not you're stubborn. I guess you respond this way, we have General [John] Abizaid who is in charge of the Central Command, [Lieutenant] General [Ricardo] Sanchez, who is in charge of Iraq, and then a series of division commanders, good ones, [Major] General [David] Petraeus, [Major] General [Raymond] Odierno, and they meet regularly, and they ask that question, do we need more U.S. troops, and they say they don't. They do not feel that we ought to bring in more additional troops, why?
Rumsfeld: Just let me respond. Now, should I be stubborn and say, you're wrong? What I do is I say, why do you or don't you need something, and I go and discuss it. And they come back consistently and say they do not need more additional troops, you need more force protection, you need more combat support people if you're going to have more troops. We're managing the skill mix of the troops, because they're not doing a lot of combat, they're doing a lot of presence and a lot of construction, and a lot of assistance, and a lot of forming city councils, 90 percent of the people in Iraq are now living in an area that's governed by a city council, or a village council.
Schieffer: So you do not feel that you made a mistake‑
Rumsfeld: If I felt I'd made a mistake I'd change it.
Schieffer: Misestimated, or underestimated.
Rumsfeld: My problem is the people who are saying we need more troops are not giving any good reasons. There's no substance to their arguments, they're just saying we don't have enough. Our military people say we do, and they then explain why they think they do, and why they want the effort on increasing the Iraqi capability. So I listen to the two sides of the argument. I would increase the number of troops in five minutes, if people would come to me and make a decent argument, but all I see is critics saying, you need more troops. Something has to be wrong. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26181
June 28, 2004 – Recent adjustments made to improve Iraqi security forces are working, a senior U.S. officer in Baghdad said June 27.
Ongoing changes "are gradually, but markedly improving the quality of Iraqi security forces," Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, chief of the Office of Security Transition in Iraq, reported during a Pentagon Channel interview. . .
. . . "But, there are also areas where we see considerable success," he pointed out. For example, he said, Iraqi security forces had months ago assumed a variety of important security tasks from coalition forces in the north and south of the country. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1643
January 05, 2005. . .
. . . GEN. METZ: No, no. The original plan for the Iraqi army was 27. As we began to grow — a year ago, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, which became the National Guard, that number has changed a number of times since I've been in command. We are focused right now on 45 battalions, but with an expansion program to about the 65-battalion level. That has a relationship to the amount of equipment we can ship in to get them to that level.
So I just don't have all the numbers memorized, but there is a 27-battalion army original plan; 45-battalion National Guard growing to 65 plan. The minister of interior has an ever-increasing and robust structure that he's putting together. The army has made some decisions inside of that original plan to go with intervention forces and change some of the training for the army battalions. He's brought on — he's working on bringing on mechanized forces.
And so, again, we had a plan before sovereignty and it was a baseline to work from. But the sovereign government has made decisions and is changing things, and we're offering advice. But it's going to be a robust enough structure, I think, in 2005 to take on the insurgent fight here in Iraq, and it will be equipped and trained to do so.
Does that help?
Q Yes, sir, thank you. Just, the 65, is that by the end of this year, or what is –
GEN. METZ: I would say by the end of '05 for sure. I'm sure that we can get you that data. I just — I apologize, I just don't have it all memorized –
Q Sure, no problem.
GEN. METZ: — and that's because my good friend, Dave Petraeus, he's supposed to put me out of business. And every time I see him I hug him and say, "Dave, you've got to put me out of business. I'm the Multinational Corps fighting here. You're building the transition security capability — get on with it." And he is. And we really are a team. We're good friends. But I look to him to memorize all those numbers. And when he gets them trained and they become tactical control, take on to the Multinational Corps, we employ them and they are good troops. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24406
Jan. 10, 2005 – The U.S. Army general in charge of training Iraqi forces said here today that the job is tough, but it is a mission that must be accomplished before coalition forces can leave Iraq.
And, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, added, progress is being made. . .
. . . Iraqis must provide for their own security, Petraeus said. The coalition cannot impose a peace on Iraq, nor can force make democracy flourish. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31204
March 14, 2005 . . .
. . . Petraeus said the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections provided a boost to the security forces. Iraqis manned the two inner lines around more than 5,000 polling places nationwide. Insurgents launched more than 270 attacks on Jan. 30, but did not penetrate any polling place, he said.
Following the elections, the general continued, the Iraqi forces got a boost in morale for their fine showing, and the Iraqi people developed trust in the security apparatus. This respect has meant more recruits for the Iraqi army and police, and a greater role in the defense of their own country.
Iraq has 96 operational combat battalions today, Petraeus said. The battalions are out in the cities and rural areas of the country. They are going on independent operations and they are getting results, the general said. Iraqi forces are "shouldering the burden" in 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces — the three Kurdish provinces in the north and the nine provinces in the south.
"It's making a big difference. You see it in Fallujah, you see it in Baghdad," he said. "You also see it in places like Tikrit and Mosul." . . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16991
Aug. 2, 2005 – The chief of the coalition command charged with training Iraqi security forces said "enormous progress" has been made in the effort. . .
. . . Petraeus said that while most of the Iraqi units rely heavily on coalition forces for support and guidance, "there are still some three dozen of them that are assessed to be in the lead." By this he means that the Iraqi units are leading the fight against the insurgents with minimal or no help from coalition forces. . .
. . . Given continued progress and acceptable conditions, Petraeus said, the United States may be able to reduce troop presence in the country next year, noting this depends on political progress as well as progress in the security capabilities of Iraqi forces. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18152
Oct. 5, 2005 – The Iraqi security forces have made enormous progress over the past 16 months, the U.S. Army general who oversaw their training for more than a year said during a Pentagon news conference today. . .
. . . Iraqi security force readiness has continued to grow with each passing week, the general told reporters, and will grow even more between now and the Oct. 15 national referendum on a draft constitution. "There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and that should be close to 200,000 by the time of the referendum," he said.
More than 115 Iraqi police and army combat battalions are in the counterinsurgency fight, he said. About 80 of the battalions are fighting alongside U.S. forces, which the general said equates to Level 3 readiness in the four-tier readiness rating system. "Over 36 (battalions) are assessed as being 'in the lead,'" he said. In the lead is the term associated with Level 2 readiness, and means the troops are capable of leading joint patrols, as opposed to merely participating.
Level 1 units are labeled as being "fully independent." There is one battalion in this category, Petraeus said.
The general said it is a mistake to fixate on the Level 1 unit. He said Americans should to expand their understanding of the readiness levels and what each unit brings to the fight. . .
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18157
Bush Pleased With Progress of Iraqi Security Forces
Oct. 5, 2005 – President Bush said today he's pleased with the progress Iraqis are making in developing a military capable of handling the security challenges of the future.
Bush spoke to the press following a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq. Rumsfeld and the generals briefed the president on the status of Iraqi forces and coalition operations in Iraq.
Comment by Kuni — September 6, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
I found this story very interesting, and should be read by every freedom loving American.
I only heard about this today thanks to Randi Rhodes.
Thank you.
Comment by Judy Walsh — September 12, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
I'd like all of those who've stated that we should remain in Iraq ALSO state for the record that:
The US needs to immediately reinstitute a draft, and, their sons and daughters will immediately enlist for the cause.
Let's hear it.
Comment by J Safranek — September 13, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
I would like to know WHO within the Move On organization placed the ad and how early it was submitted.
Actually, from an advertising/promotional standpoint it's as brilliant at Geico's Gecko.
Petraeus/Betray Us. Who will ever forget the connection?
Petraeus is presumably Greek….as, I believe, was Spartacus, a valliant slave of the Roman Empire.
If Move On was saying to our America's leading General…."say to an illegitimate leader 'I am Spartacus,'" then what's wrong with that?
We still have freedom of speech, don't we?
If, on the other hand, no one will come foreward from the Move On group to take credit for the placement of the ad….look to the Bush camp…particularly Young and Rubicam, the Bush related advertising and public relationtions firm that created the Willie Horton ad. Such whinning has all the earmarks of a cutout plot, as well.
Presidents and Generals who can't take the heat should stay out of the kitchen…particularly when the best of the cooks have already bailed out because the KITCHEN IS ON FIRE!
More importantly, what would Col. Theodore Westhusing, the beloved ethics teacher at West Point and lover of Greek contributions to Western Civilization say about the ad were he alive? And if you don't know who Col Westhusing is, you haven't read Christian Miller's BLOOD MONEY.
Speaking of Gecko's…that pretty well describes the spinless US Senate. Senate…repeat after me…"I am Spartacus!" "No, I am Spartacus." "No, here I am."
WHC
Comment by Will Carr — September 20, 2007 @ 9:36 pm