Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Gunny, Dec 30, 2007.
Couldn't possibly be .....
Have you read his resume? This guy is sharp. If I am remembering correctly, PhD. from Princeton and he was researching counterinsurgency methods when everyone else was still thinking mass infantry maneuvers in central Europe. He is the type of person we need as head of the joint chiefs, secretary of defense or president.
Yep, here's his official bio:
Somehow the numbers just don't jive with reality. But, if it makes you feel better then go for it. I, as a veteran, don't feel a damn bit better.
Which reality would THAT be? Without some real evidence showing otherwise, those numbers ARE reality.
Can't help but notice that nothing quoted mentions al Sadr. He's almost done with his self-imposed non-involvement in chaos. Very soon now we should be hearing from his militia. They've had time to rebuild.
Yes, it's quiet on the Iraqi front, for now.
Are some of you thinking this calm is a permanent thing? How's the supply of electricity; is gasoline plentiful and cheap; are jobs plentiful; is the infrastructure being rebuilt at a rapid pace?
And do let us praise Gen't Petraeus. He so reminds me of Powell, the go-to guy who swept away some of the more atrocious activities in Nam, the man who went before the UN and knowingly lied to the world. You understand why I can't applaud Petraeus and his politcally inspired dog-and-pony show that he performed at his confirmation hearing.
How's YOUR electricity? Rolling brown-outs? I YOUR gasoline plentiful and cheap? Are jobs plentiful here? Of the ones still here in the US ... ? How's the inner city or the boondocks look where YOU live?
No, I don't see logically why you cannot applaud Petraeus. Kind of obvious why you do though ....
You're joking right?
The numbers put out by the military/state department are fantasy by there very nature.
Are you saying the "surge" is working? Sorry to inform you otherwise, but the reduction in violence is far more due to policy changes than to the surge. Policy changes which could have been made 3 and a half years ago.
What pisses me off is we have lost a couple of thousand brave young men (and women) we need not have lost. It was acceptable to refuse to make deals with local tribal/militia leaders on principal, but it is not acceptable to now make those same deals and then attribute the "success" to the surge when in fact it has little or nothing to do with the surge in order to create a political "win" which is in fact a fantasy.
Because he deserves no applause. He is just a willing participant in a sham. He knows the surge is not what has brought about the reduction in losses in Iraq, and if you listen to him he will never make an outright claim that it is. But he will allow the White House to spin it this way and the press to report that spin, knowing full well it is false.
There were good sound arguments against making the deals which have now been made. The idea was to have the Iraqi military provide security in a unilateral manner rather than have what amounts to local Warlords doing so. This would, if successful, have lead to a stability in Iraq not possible under the warlord system. The cost was American lives, and that loss is now wasted.
What is happening now amounts to taking sides. We have in effect taken the Sunni side in the upcoming full scale civil war.
Separate names with a comma.