Petraeus Statements

[cannon_fodder]

News Report:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIPNF82&show_article=1
Transcript:
Petraeus
Crocker

Super Summary:
1) The surge averted a full scale civil war, its military objectives are being met in large part.

2) Iran has set up paramilitary forces in Iraq and is supplying them to undermine the Iraqi government and fight a proxy war with the US.  Compared the force to Hezbollah.

3) Security is improving but is far from where it is wanted

4) Iraq's military/police are making strides and are about 70% effective - with some support.  They are incapable of handling the security situation by themselves.

5) A complete withdrawal would likely lead to regional powers protecting their interests inside Iraq by allying with in country sects, resulting in a multinational proxy war within a civil war (think Lebanese civil war).

6) The legislature has agreed on principle to a power brokering deal.  The details of which are likely to be as slow as the details after our constitution was drafted.

7) Many Iraqi groups, including AL Sadar, have concluded that the current course of action is counter productive to any Iraqi's goals.  Levels of coordinated violence are expected to continue decreasing.

Corruption in official posts is an ongoing problem.

9) The population and government of Iraq grow tired of foreign occupation but most grudgingly accept its necessity.

10) Reconstruction is continue at a pace that security allows - read slow.  Nearly twice the funds are allocated to be spent this year than last, concentrating on basic necessities like power, water, and sewage.  Such infrastructure remains a prime target of insurgents.

11) Oil production has returned to pre-war levels in spite of attacks.  Exports have been opened over land to Turkey for the first time (a more secure route).

12) Other economic sectors are growing at 6%, hindered by security concerns.  Especially agriculture and manufacturing as products are difficult to transport on open roads.  Iraqi company's are beginning to see foreign investment. Unemployment remains high.

13) Political relations with most neighbors have  normalized.  Saudi Arabia is constructing a new embassy in Iraq.
- - -

The general stressed the need for a prolonged mission and a transition to a training/withdrawal operation only when the situation warranted.  He did not speculate as to needs past the middle of next year.  Overall the situation is improving but far from what he would like it to be.

The ambassador stressed the challenges presented by tearing down a "culture of fear and dictatorship [or similar]" where the state essentially approved all institutions and actions and tried to rebuild it with an open society.  He repeatedly referenced US history and noted that much debate, time and even violence resolved our core founding issues.  He categorized the legislative goals as a means to an end, so progress is as important as the objective (presumably talking in parliament  > shooting in the streets).
- - -

Overall they gave the impression of SLOW and painful progress.  "There will not be a turning point, unless it is realized in hind site" and things will not be quick nor easy - Crocker.  Likewise the general said the security situation is improving but acknowledged that without continued cooperation and growing support it would not succeed.

Seemed like a bleak and honest assessment to me, even with the promise it provided.  Kind of a "we are making progress slowly" coupled with "the alternative sucks" kind of thing.   Lets hope the progress picks up for our soldiers sake, our financial sake, and for the Iraqi's sake.
- - - - -

There was some protesters that tried to disrupt the meeting, as discussed here:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6709

- - -
as a side note, please don't comment blind.  At least read a news report before you form an opinion based on what I said or what you decided before you read anything on what was actually said.

[Conan71]

Pretty much what everyone already knew.  Be patient, give them time.

[rwarn17588]

Of course, the "be patient" line has been used for the past 4 1/2 years.

There's a time for impatience, too.

[iplaw]

It was interesting to me this morning as I was watching a History Channel show about the B-17 and the missions they flew over Germany in WWII.

One of the points of discussion was how high the casualty rate was for a B-17 pilot and crew.  There was a 25% kill rate for B-17's because we did pin-point daylight bombing raids all over Germany.  Churchill actually remarked that it was foolish of the US tactically to do daylight bombings...

Just made me wonder, in our 24 hour a day new cycle society, if we could have even won WWII if it were being waged today?  In reality, WWII was much bloodier and took a much greater toll on our forces than the attempt at the pacification and unification of Iraq.

Has the media, and their steady diet of "death from the battlefield" reports rendered us impotent?  Or are we just now discovering (at least since televised war in Vietnam)that death is a part of this whole war thing?  

[Chicken Little]

After we beat Germany but still faced a bloody campaign with Japan, people were tired.  Everybody had sacrificed so much for over four years and they were feeling spent.  At that moment in time, the War Department took a calculated risk and released pictures of dead Marines on south Pacific beaches.  Enlistment went up, war bond sales went through the roof, and Americans refocused on Japan.

It's not the coverage that is different, it's the war.

[cannon_fodder]

CL, that statement is just wrong.

The WAR DEPARTMENT took a risk and picture photographs to release at a strategic time. That is about as different of coverage as you can get from Al-Jazeera, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, the BBC, the AP, Reuters, the Times of London, the NY Times, and about 1,000 other news outlets having wires in every second of every day and available instantly to the world on the internet.  

Pretending that a handful of military released photographs a month+ after the fact is comparable to today's 24/7 coverage is extremely obtuse.

[Chicken Little]

I stand by my previous statement.  In World War II, all Americans were asked to sacrifice, to fight an enemy bent on global domination.  Iraq does not present that kind of global threat.  Not even our President believes that, as evidenced by his failed attempt to fight a war on the cheap, undermanned and underfunded.  And never forget that he told us that the best way to show our patriotism was to go shopping.  pancakes!  Add to that, a lazy, dysfunctional, Iraqi government that decided to go on vacation for 1/3 of the surge, and you get a pretty clear picture that no "Green Zone Fog" can obscure.  

You can blame the media if you want to, but I have a feeling that these half-*ssed efforts have a lot to do with why most Americans feel that the Iraq War is a failure.



It's not the media coverage that makes this war unpopular, it's the incompetence at the top.

[bokworker]

One other huge difference.... the pictures released in WWII were meant to galvanize support and unify the war effort.... much of the news coverage today is meant to divide and reduce support.

[rhymnrzn]

looking into the mirror of ancient Babylon.......

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

One other huge difference.... the pictures released in WWII were meant to galvanize support and unify the war effort.... much of the news coverage today is meant to divide and reduce support.

I disagree.  Most of the coverage is meant to inform.  There are certainly exceptions, but I try not to get my "news" from propaganda outlets, e.g., FoxNews and Al-Jazeera.  But yes, I read many stories about A-holes blowing themselves up in civilian markets; about combatants shifting from "surge" areas into previously "quiet" areas; about body counts that are rising, not declining; about a national police force that is nothing more than uniformed, factionalized, murderous bands of militia; and about an Interior Minsiter who would rather watch cartoons than talk to a US Congressman.  I read that stuff, and yes, I draw conclusions.  I make judgments.  I decide where I stand.  Feel free to tell me about the "good news"...I'll listen.  But, don't hand me a bag of doo-doo and tell me it's lavender.

[rwarn17588]

The big difference between Iraq and WWII was that real, obvious progress was being made in the European and Pacific theaters.

(Plus the fact the Japanese and Germans actually attacked us made Americans more willing to aggressively pursue the war. There was no such link with Iraq on 9/11.)

The tide-turning Midway Island battle in the Pacific was barely six months after Pearl Harbor. D-Day was 2 1/2 years after Pearl Harbor, and the Germans were already in retreat on one major front in early 1943 after the battle of Stalingrad. Americans stuck with it because progress was being made.

Nearly 4 1/2 years after invading, progress in Iraq isn't apparent.

The other big difference is goals. The goal in WWII was to defeat Japan and Germany. In Iraq, the goals are ever-changing. First, it was to get rid of WMDs that weren't there. Then it was to allow the Iraqis to hold elections. Then it was to train a national police force to stabilize the country. Now it's to prop up the government so that it can stabilize the country and reconcile the warring sects. Of course, incompetence by Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al, are responsible for a lot of quagmire.

This is how goofy it's gotten in Iraq. After de-Baathing the country, the U.S. is now supporting the pro-Saddam Sunni elements. The U.S. is training policemen who are undoubtedly using their weapons and badges as members of sectarian death squads. With all the talk about the fight against Muslim extremists, Iraq has turned into an Islamic republic that's lousy with nutjobs. It's gotten so bad with al-Maliki that prominent U.S. officials have been talking openly about ousting him and replacing him with a "strongman" leader -- essentially replacing him with someone like Saddam Hussein.

It's madness.

F.B. spends a lot of time bloviating about local tax vampires and the alleged "Tulsa Premium." He ought to be a lot more outraged about the "Iraq Premium." After a half-trillion dollars, wouldn't you expect a helluva lot more in return? Who would think this is cost-effective? Mr. Magoo?

So it's not difficult to see why people have turned against this war.

But no, we'll still have a few people begging for "six more months," despite the players' abysmal history.

[cannon_fodder]

Hey, I was making no reference to either the merits of the war, its leadership, or its effectiveness.  I'm not even talking about the effect of the coverage.  I was simply responding to the outrageous comment that the media coverage of the Iraq war and WWII was the same.  That coverage dictated and released by the military on a monthly basis is somehow the same as free LIVE media coverage around the clock.

If you truly believe the media coverage is the same, then there is no point discussing it with you.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

One other huge difference.... the pictures released in WWII were meant to galvanize support and unify the war effort.... much of the news coverage today is meant to divide and reduce support.

I disagree.  Most of the coverage is meant to inform.  There are certainly exceptions, but I try not to get my "news" from propaganda outlets, e.g., FoxNews and Al-Jazeera.  But yes, I read many stories about A-holes blowing themselves up in civilian markets; about combatants shifting from "surge" areas into previously "quiet" areas; about body counts that are rising, not declining; about a national police force that is nothing more than uniformed, factionalized, murderous bands of militia; and about an Interior Minsiter who would rather watch cartoons than talk to a US Congressman.  I read that stuff, and yes, I draw conclusions.  I make judgments.  I decide where I stand.  Feel free to tell me about the "good news"...I'll listen.  But, don't hand me a bag of doo-doo and tell me it's lavender.

Ah yes, much more reliable sources like MSNBC, home of Keith Olbermann.  He's not biased against the war or anything...

FWIW, Bill O'Reilly has been a very harsh critic of the war.

[Hometown]

Well Rwarn, only six more months would be some improvement but I think what people anticipate is that this will go over into the next administration.

I heard an interesting item last night.  In every war there are foreigners that put their lives at risk to help us.  In past wars we have granted those people entry to the U.S.  But now the Bush administration is not granting our friends in Iraq entry to the United States even though they have put their lives in jeopardy to help our troops.

[cannon_fodder]

A couple more points...

1) Germany never attacked us, if you want to sharp shoot on minor points...

2) You fault the Bush administration for being static and for changing strategies.  They can not win no matter what so they have opted to simply ignore many critics.  This is NOT a good thing, but given the tendency to fault them no matter what course they take, they no longer care.

Shifting goals and strategies is absolutely essential to achieving the desired outcome: a peaceful Iraq and a denial of victory to Islamic extremists.  For your WWII analysis...your analysis would have us continue to press for the recapture of Manila instead of Island hopping - faulting the admirals for changing goals.  Or continuing attacks on Austria and Italy even after they dropped out of the Axis alliance... because changing allies is goofy.  Likewise, you would fault the casualties of precision daytime raids on Germany and then fault them for inaccuracy if they shifted to nighttime raids.  

There is plenty of reasons to criticize the war and the administration, by stretching everything out and grabbing for every straw you cheapen the   real problems and faults presented.