Petraeus Statements

[bokworker]

rwarn.... good points and they highlight another important difference between WWII and Iraq. In WWII we knew who our enemies were, and for the most part, they engaged in warfare on a level that we understood. This is not to ignore the atrocities against the Jews in Germany or even the use of kamikaze pilots by the Japanese which were both shocking in their brutality, but at least on the battle field the war was waged between 2 military forces that had some "rules of engagement".... and yes, we knew at the end of the day, or battle, who the winner was and the loser was... and the military leadership on both sides accepted it. The enemy we face today is not bound by any such "rules of engagement". their weapons and tactics shock and disgust on levels that make it hard to not focus on the short term cost vs. the long term goal. Which by the way, I will agree that the long term goal is foggy at best.

[iplaw]

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

Real, tangible progress is being made in Iraq.  Saddam is out of power which garners many benefits unto itself.  Anbar province has been pacified and is under local control.  The Kurds are now living without the threat of genocidal extinction....there are many others.  

Progress was simple to point to in WWII as it was on a global scale with many, many players.  Progress in Iraq may evidence itself in more subtle and varying ways.  We will never have an Omaha beach moment in Iraq, and to expect such is unrealistic.

quote:
(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.)

Point already made that Germany never attacked the US.

quote:
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.

Though Stalingrad was a significant battle, the war didn't end for almost another year and a half.  That's quite a long period of time. Probably too long for our soundbite society.

And are you trying to tell us that the war with Japan was essentially over 6 months after Pearl Harbor?  Pfffttt...

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

But progress isn't non-existent (e.g. Anbar province) nor peace ultimately unreachable either.

quote:
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.

None of those "reasons" were ever proffered as the end game goal of liberating Iraq.  The end game is, and always has been, the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq no longer under the rule of Saddam.  I don't think any other goal has ever been stated.

quote:
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?

How do you quantify security and stability in terms of dollars?  If divided factions agree to share control and Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy is 40 billion okay?  How about 100 billion?  Or would it only be worth it if it could be done on the cheap?
 

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

It's very easy when you're bound and determined to look for the worst.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I didn't say that the media coverage was the same.  IP contrasted daylight bombing raids in WWII with the war in Iraq.  Many consider both to be strategic blunders, but he theorized that it was the media coverage that was preventing a "win" in Iraq.

I simply pointed out that all wars, even World War II, have sharp, painful, coverage, because all wars are painful.  The difference in the wars is not that they were better at hiding mistakes from the media in World War II.  Americans are smart, independent, thinkers and they don't cotton being led around by the nose...not from the media, not from their President.  They see things as they are: Iraq is a mistake, WWII was a necessity.

[Chicken Little]

Nobody's looking for the worst IP, we just want the truth.  Anbar was "pacified" before the surge.  The sheiks got sick of the civilian slaughter wrought by their allies, foreign terrorists, and kicked them out.  Many have moved on to places where we are not "surging".

The Kurds were inching towards autonomy even under Saddam.  They've wanted their own country for centuries, and they're getting closer.  Sidebar, think Turkey is happy about that?

Neither of these outcomes has been the result of direct US intervention.  They were the result of internal strategic decisions and political comprises.  And that is the only thing that is going to save them.  We started the fight, but they are the ones that will need to finish it.  We need to get out of the way and pray for the best.

[rwarn17588]

iplaw wrote:

How do you quantify security and stability in terms of dollars? If divided factions agree to share control and Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy is 40 billion okay? How about 100 billion? Or would it only be worth it if it could be done on the cheap?

<end clip>

Considering that there has been neither in Iraq, I don't know why you're dealing with hypotheticals.

This price tag is $500 billion and counting. By the time we're done (if ever ... just wait six more months ... AGAIN), it will likely be $1 trillion and higher, if you factor in replacing military hardware that wears out faster, much more health care spending on troops, etc.

Considering that we've gotten very little for our investment in blood and money, I think every American has the right to raise hell about it.

If you want to see a microscopic silver lining in this giant mess, fine. Baghdad Bob was an optimist, too.

[iplaw]

quote:
Nobody's looking for the worst IP, we just want the truth.  Anbar was "pacified" before the surge.  The sheiks got sick of the civilian slaughter wrought by their allies, foreign terrorists, and kicked them out.  Many have moved on to places where we are not "surging".

But your comment was a complaint about a lack of progress, and that's clearly progress.  Looks like Al-Sadr may be preparing to do the same thing in Sadr city.

quote:
The Kurds were inching towards autonomy even under Saddam.  They've wanted their own country for centuries, and they're getting closer.  Sidebar, think Turkey is happy about that?

The Kurds have stated that they are NOT interested in an independent Kurdistan any longer.  They abandoned that when the chose to participate in the Iraqi government as a recognized minority.

quote:
Neither of these outcomes has been the result of direct US intervention.  

How do you figure?

[cannon_fodder]

You realize that the Kurds were removed from all authority, their lands forcibly resettled, and their rebellions ended with wholesale slaughter under Saddam?  Certainly their choice to participate in a government that will not slaughter them with chemical weapons is an improvement brought by the US invasion.

Also, I hope you realize that Anbar province is the location of Fulljah.  To say that the terrorist/insurgent heaven there was not influenced by the US is folly.  We kicked the insurgents hard and stuck with it, providing the locals an alternative to their rule.  They determined that our way was better than the zealots.   Without a strong US presence, certainly they would have relied on others for governance.

Go read the ambassadors statement.  I think he says it well when he talks about the challenges that exist.  Its unfortunate that our initial plan did not foresee any of these problems so we could ACT on them instead of react to them.  Certainly an instance where poor planning on the front side has lead to insane costs and burdens on the back.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

iplaw wrote:

How do you quantify security and stability in terms of dollars? If divided factions agree to share control and Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy is 40 billion okay? How about 100 billion? Or would it only be worth it if it could be done on the cheap?

<end clip>

Considering that there has been neither in Iraq, I don't know why you're dealing with hypotheticals.

This price tag is $500 billion and counting. By the time we're done (if ever ... just wait six more months ... AGAIN), it will likely be $1 trillion and higher, if you factor in replacing military hardware that wears out faster, much more health care spending on troops, etc.

Considering that we've gotten very little for our investment in blood and money, I think every American has the right to raise hell about it.

If you want to see a microscopic silver lining in this giant mess, fine. Baghdad Bob was an optimist, too.

The calculus of war does not include variables for price or blood.  You either believe that it was the right thing to do or not.  If it was the right thing to do, you do what's right despite the cost.  If it was the wrong thing to do, then the point is moot.

Would taking out Hitler have been the wrong thing to do if we would have had 2 million deaths as opposed to 400K?  Of course not.  Either the cause is just or unjust.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I didn't say that the media coverage was the same.  IP contrasted daylight bombing raids in WWII with the war in Iraq.  Many consider both to be strategic blunders, but he theorized that it was the media coverage that was preventing a "win" in Iraq.

I simply pointed out that all wars, even World War II, have sharp, painful, coverage, because all wars are painful.  The difference in the wars is not that they were better at hiding mistakes from the media in World War II.  Americans are smart, independent, thinkers and they don't cotton being led around by the nose...not from the media, not from their President.  They see things as they are: Iraq is a mistake, WWII was a necessity.

Everyone wants to point to "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."  This was declared as a global war on terrorism.  Al Qaeda had terrorists and a recruiting network strewn all over the Arab world- including Iraq.  Hussein was identified as being the #1 threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests after the fall of the Taliban.

Once the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda operatives were fleeing everywhere, Iraq was suspected as one place who would roll out the red carpet.

In WWII, as with WWI the mainland U.S. was never attacked.  Hawaii was not even a state yet.  The war was about protecting foreign interests and preventing the Germans and Japanese from attacking and invading the U.S. mainland by taking the battle closer to their own turf.  Pretty much the same philosophy we are using now:

Go after governments who harbor terrorists, find terrorists and terrorist cells, destroy them, and disrupt their sources of funding and recruiting before they wind up within our own borders.

Please point out to me why WWII was any more of a necessity than the global war on terrorism- not why you think the WOT is less significant than WWII in terms of American homeland security and foreign interests.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
Nobody's looking for the worst IP, we just want the truth.  Anbar was "pacified" before the surge.  The sheiks got sick of the civilian slaughter wrought by their allies, foreign terrorists, and kicked them out.  Many have moved on to places where we are not "surging".

But your comment was a complaint about a lack of progress, and that's clearly progress.  Looks like Al-Sadr may be preparing to do the same thing in Sadr city.

quote:
The Kurds were inching towards autonomy even under Saddam.  They've wanted their own country for centuries, and they're getting closer.  Sidebar, think Turkey is happy about that?

The Kurds have stated that they are NOT interested in an independent Kurdistan any longer.  They abandoned that when the chose to participate in the Iraqi government as a recognized minority.

quote:
Neither of these outcomes has been the result of direct US intervention.  

How do you figure?

My comment was not about the lack of progress, it was about failure.  As in, our President has failed this country and theirs.  Hopeful signs of peace and reconciliation are happening in Kurdistan and Anbar province, but not because of the surge.

The Anbar tribal leaders were expelling Al Qaeda fighters prior to the surge; they started over a year ago.  That was a decision they arrived at on their own, and it was because those Al Qaeda a-holes were indiscriminately slaughtering civilians.  The sheiks got fed up.  And there is no surge in Kurdistan; if I'm not mistaken, there aren't even any US troops in Kurdistan.  So this hopeful sign also has little to do with the actions of US troops on the ground.  

I want successes, but I don't think that the US can force them.  I could argue that the US, by our very presence, is enabling these factions to dream their ambitious little dreams.  And when we go away, they may decide not to kill each other after all.  They may decide to work it out.  

Or, maybe you're right, as you have said many times before, and we are holding off a genocidal slaughter.  Perhaps that is inevitable, no matter how many years we remain.  

Neither one of us knows for sure what will happen over there.  But, in either case, it seems to me that we are standing in the way of Iraqi self-determination; even if their choice is  suicide, it's still their choice.  And we are taking shots from all sides (except the Kurds).  Is there ANY indication that we (the US) are succeeding in getting these guys to settle down and work things out?

I think that we aren't helping very much, and that we can't even sustain the effort that we have in it right now.  So, I think we should leave.

[rwarn17588]

<Conan wrote:

Everyone wants to point to "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." This was declared as a global war on terrorism. Al Qaeda had terrorists and a recruiting network strewn all over the Arab world- including Iraq. Hussein was identified as being the #1 threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests after the fall of the Taliban.

<end clip>

Every credible report said that al-Qaida had NO link to Saddam Hussein. If there was a link, it was incredibly trivial, on a par with bid Laden making a phone call to the palace and Saddam not even bothering to pick up the receiver.

That's because Saddam didn't want al-Qaida in his country. That's because al-Qaida would be a destabilizing force in Iraq. An unstable Iraq would be a bad thing, as the U.S. found out far too late.

And to call Iraq the No. 1 threat to U.S. interests? Bigger than China? Bigger than North Korea? Please.

You're going to have to come up with a more credible argument than that, Conan.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

You realize that the Kurds were removed from all authority, their lands forcibly resettled, and their rebellions ended with wholesale slaughter under Saddam?  Certainly their choice to participate in a government that will not slaughter them with chemical weapons is an improvement brought by the US invasion.

You are a war behind.  They gained de facto independence in 1991.  They'd still have it today whether we invaded in 2003 or not.

quote:Also, I hope you realize that Anbar province is the location of Fulljah.  To say that the terrorist/insurgent heaven there was not influenced by the US is folly.  We kicked the insurgents hard and stuck with it, providing the locals an alternative to their rule.  They determined that our way was better than the zealots.   Without a strong US presence, certainly they would have relied on others for governance.

You realize that Anbar province also included Ramadi, and we have had to send Marines there, too, because Al Qaeda and other militant groups fled there after Fallujah.  It's was whack-a-mole.  The Al Qaeda guys have now fled to places where we are not surging, and our strategy is now to rearm and resupply the very same tribal resistence that was shooting at us a year ago in hopes that they will now fight Al Qaeda and not ally with them again, as they have done two times previously.  Maybe this time they will, the Al Qaeda jerks have killed 8,000 civilians in the area.  If it were me, I'd stay mad at 'em, but who the h*ck knows?    

Yes, we can kick anybody hard if we want to.  But who?  Tribal resistence?  Al Qaeda?  Other Sunni militants and disgruntled, professional ex-soldiers?  Al Sadr?  Other Shiite militias?  What about the Shiite murder squads in cop uniforms?  If your answer is, "We need to kick all their *sses.", then, I don't disagree with you.  But, we'd need a couple hundred thousand more Marines and soldiers (and all the retrained sailors and airmen we could muster).  And, that won't happen.  Short of that, it's a bloody mess and I don't think we need to be in the middle of it.

quote:Go read the ambassadors statement.  I think he says it well when he talks about the challenges that exist.  Its unfortunate that our initial plan did not foresee any of these problems so we could ACT on them instead of react to them.  Certainly an instance where poor planning on the front side has lead to insane costs and burdens on the back.

We don't have the presence to do more than react.  Even with the surge, the ones that really want to fight have found new places to operate.  There have even been a couple of market bombings in peaceful Kurdistan recently.

When we draw down, which is inevetible, things may very well heat up again in Anbar.  Woody Allen once said, "90% of success is just showing up."  That may be funny, but it's no way to fight a war.  But that's exactly the strategy that we have pursued.  We've put too few men out there, we haven't provided adequate protection, and we haven't given them a game plan for success.

[Chicken Little]

Where the h*ck is Osama, anyway?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<Conan wrote:

Everyone wants to point to "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." This was declared as a global war on terrorism. Al Qaeda had terrorists and a recruiting network strewn all over the Arab world- including Iraq. Hussein was identified as being the #1 threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests after the fall of the Taliban.

<end clip>

Every credible report said that al-Qaida had NO link to Saddam Hussein. If there was a link, it was incredibly trivial, on a par with bid Laden making a phone call to the palace and Saddam not even bothering to pick up the receiver.

That's because Saddam didn't want al-Qaida in his country. That's because al-Qaida would be a destabilizing force in Iraq. An unstable Iraq would be a bad thing, as the U.S. found out far too late.

And to call Iraq the No. 1 threat to U.S. interests? Bigger than China? Bigger than North Korea? Please.

You're going to have to come up with a more credible argument than that, Conan.

China and NK weren't playing a shell game with UN weapons inspectors, RW.  Hussein was percieved as a much larger threat by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, the CIA, Congress, and the Senate.  There was intelligence for years prior to Bush II that there was WMD in Iraq.  Okay, so we got there and figure out one of either two things: Hussein was all bluff and bluster or he managed to get WMD's out of the country.

The alternative would have been to allow him to remain in power and assume he had no WMD's until he used them somewhere in the Arab world or Europe to attack U.S. interests, or God forbid, use them on U.S. soil.

Al-Qaeda wouldn't need a link with Hussein to recruit or operate training camps in Iraq, and there was credible evidence that Hussein HAD supported various terror groups over the years with weapons and/or money.  This is the war on terrorism, not the war on Al-Qaeda.  Al-Qaeda seems to be getting most of the focus due to being responsible for 9/11 and they are still stirring the proverbial **** bucket in the ME.

[cannon_fodder]

1) their defacto independence was always secured with US Warplanes.  Not to mention defacto independence left them without a voice in Baghdad and vulnerable to whatever threats Saddam wanted to send their way.  The gassing of the kurds took place while they had their defacto independence.  "Defacto" meaning "not really."

Now they have a functioning government, their own security forces, governmental revenue, and a say in politics.  That's a step better than independence by virtue of neglect of the central government.

2) We were running a whack-a-mole strategy and it went as you indicated.  Currently we are trying to whack the mole, set up a an internal security force, then move off to whack another mole.  It is called a strategy shift, as I described with island hopping.

Am I to understand your strategy shift would be to go "crap, our first try is not working... leave!"  I assume not.  One must try different things to succeed.

3) Basically what I am hearing you say over and over is "we cant win, lets quit."  That's it in a nut shell.  "All we can do is whack a mole."  "The ones that want to fight will."  "There is always another bad guy we have to fight."

Yes, there almost always is another bully in the playground, another murdered on the street, or another terrorist trying to kill you.  That doesn't mean you simply give up and go home.

This is entirely frustrating in that I do not support the vast majority of what the president has done.  I believe this war was ill prepared.  I believe our previous strategies did not garner the yields we needed.  Yet the argument "we tried, we failed, we quit" does not fly with me just yet.