Petraeus Statements

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) their defacto independence was always secured with US Warplanes.  

And that's all that was needed.

quote: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."

No, Halabja was in 1988.

quote: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.

I think they had that before.

quote: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.

First try?  We've been at it for four years and we've tried many strategies.

quote: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."

No, what I'm saying is that it's not our fight to win or lose.  It's theirs.  I don't care what you call it, call it the Pottery Barn rule for creeps, "We broke it...let's get out of here".  I'm not saying it's a nice thing to do, or the honorable thing.  Our cred is already gone, it went out the window when we went after Saddam instead of Osama.  But standing in the line of fire for another 10 years is not going to rebuild it.  So, of the options I can see, it's the only one that is going to allow us to regroup and get Al Qaeda.  That's something we can do.  

quote: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.

You don't have to stand there and keep getting pummeled, either.  It's like watching Raging Bull.  You feel for the guy, but you know he's a freakin' mess.

quote: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.

Who's quitting?  You think this is the last time we are going to have to deal with problems in the Middle East?  I don't.  There's still oil there and there ar two countries with a billion plus populations that want it...and they can walk there.  There's still Osama, radical Islam, and despots.  We're not ready for any of that; militarily or diplomatically.

[rwarn17588]

Conan wrote:

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.

<end clip>

Try bluff and bluster. McClatchy News Service reported *before* the war that the existence of WMDs was very unlikely. Of course, this prescient reporting was ignored.

And this notion that Saddam would have used the WMDs -- which, again, were nonexistent -- on U.S. soil is pure fantasyland.

[cannon_fodder]

1. You are correct, he did not gas them.  He sent the Republican Guard to kill them manually when they attempted independence in 1991. That's when we established the no fly zones... my history was off.  Thanks for the correction.

2.  The Kurds lacked any central governmental authority, tax powers, and had no representation with the central government.   They are clearly better off without a large central power that wants them to die (except Turkey).

3.  Saying "we are not quitting, its just not our fight so we are going home" is an exercise in semantics.  While I agree that the fight is now one between factions seeking power, different religious cults, and a side war between the US and terrorists as well as insurgents... we are the ones that destroyed the status quo.  

Right or wrong, we did it.  It would be profoundly unfair to the average Iraqi who wants nothing more than to have a job and a family to come home to without getting blown up on the way.  It sucks that the job falls on us, but no one else will do it.  Not only have we created a responsibility for ourselves, but the future security and economic condition of the region largely depends on our actions.

As you said, we will have to deal with future problems in the Middle East... so why pretend they will go away if we pull our troops out?  Both choices suck, I agree.  But one is certain failure and one presents a possibility of success.  I haven't given up on success yet.

For that matter CL, I'm not sure when I would.  I'm not saying that I will not, just that I do not know what conditions or prerequisites I require to demand that we leave Iraq to its own devices.  I'm fairly certain a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia would erupt with sides shifting constantly within Iraq (Al Quida, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraqi Governmental Forces and Militias... sunni, Shia, Kurd) and the population stuck in the middle.  If the Kurds then declared independence Turkey would certainly step in... at which point Armenia might step up to defend the ethnic Armenian Kurdish minority in Turkey and try to reclaim territory Turkey stole during the Armenia genocide (which Armenians are a little touchy on still).  In which case Azerbaijan (Turkish Ally) would reclaim territory territory Armenia stole from them in the conflict during the 1990's.  As a protectorate of Armenia, Russia might intervene in that one which would be along their border.  Turkey is a NATO country, so Russia would have to tread very carefully.  And during all of this Israel is sitting by with their finger on the button...

Just so much tension in the region, I'm afraid of what could happen if we allowed a power vacuum.  I'm not paranoid and do not believe the above scenario is likely, but certainly it would not be good.  And what would our other allies think of US help in the future if we just walk out like that?  What precedent does that set for the future.

But maybe you're right.  Maybe we just leave and let them all kill each other and figure it out.  I'd be a huge fan of that strategy if we hadn't already interjected ourselves in destabilizing the region.

/total ramble.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Conan wrote:

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.

<end clip>

Try bluff and bluster. McClatchy News Service reported *before* the war that the existence of WMDs was very unlikely. Of course, this prescient reporting was ignored.

And this notion that Saddam would have used the WMDs -- which, again, were nonexistent -- on U.S. soil is pure fantasyland.

Wow, McClatchy News Service.  I guess they must have had a better inside scoop than the international intelligence community.

It's not a matter of Hussein not having WMD's, it's that he apparently didn't have them anymore.  There was no way of knowing that for certain without invading.

Bush was in a no-win situation.  Either we sit back, WMD's wind up in the hands of asshat terrorists, and Bush is an idiot for not acting on long-standing intel.  The alternative was to go in and risk not finding anything and Bush gets egg on his face.

[rwarn17588]

The so-called "long-standing intel" wasn't nearly as cut-and-dried as you think. There was considerable debate in the intel community about whether Saddam had WMDs at all. Reports since the invasion have revealed this. McClatchy's reporting before the invasion at the very *least* revealed ambiguity on the facts in Iraq and a whole hell of a lot of dubious speculation by the U.S. government.

Of course, politicians aren't rewarded for ambiguity, which is why they seldom go there.

Invading a country because it *might* have WMDs -- especially when plenty of evidence existed to the contrary -- is abominably stupid. If you go to war, you'd better be damned certain on your rationale. You literally have lives on the line.

[Townsend]

Just to throw this out there...German Uboats attacked American shipping pryor to US declaration of war.

The lend lease gig kind of forced it.

[cannon_fodder]

The intelligence community debates ALL ASPECTS of every intelligence issue.  That is their nature and their job.  They debated on an attack on pearl harbor and got that one wrong.  They debated on the likely reaction of the Soviets to US Support in Afghanistan and got that right, and the Cuban Missile Crisis before that.

In both instances some said the soviet would react with a nuclear strike.  If they had, someone somewhere could be shouting "the US government was warned this would happen."  Absolutely, they are warned of all contingents.  But they still have to chose one and risk the others.  

To revisit a 7 year old debate:  Saddam had WMDs, Saddam broke the peace treaty and refused further inspections.  The intelligence community was split as to the extent of his existing weapons programs - but as far as I am aware none were confident in his compliance.  So knowing he had them and knowing he would not show us what happened to them the safest conclusion was that he STILL had them.

Its akin to my 7 year old claiming he brushed his teeth and then not letting me see his clean teeth.  I'm not going to believe him.

The real disagreement was not whether Iraq had WMDs left over, but what to do about it.  An entirely different debate involving human rights issues, respect for international law (his and ours), and sovereignty issues in a dictatorship (is the country the peoples or the leaders?  If the peoples, can an outsider decide they want to overthrow a dictator for them?).  Not to mention the politics involved in re terrorism, enforcement of will, and the Middle East in general.

Bah.  All indications still suggest the best evidence from France, the (former) KGB, the CIA, NSA, and the UN indicated he had weapons, they were unaccounted for and he was not cooperating.    In my view he forced a beat down upon himself and now he's dead.  Apparently to protect the illusion that he had WMDs, good job a**hole.

[Conan71]

I'm going to throw you a bone rwarn.  If I were President at the time, I would have kept Saddam on a tight leash and not risked a war.  

It's hard for me to personally say that Bush made a mistake.  I think far too many people are trusting that the media "knows" everything.

America was still licking it's wounds from the largest attack ever on our soil, we had a loose-cannon dictator who previously had tried to build up WMD capabilities, was playing shell games with UN inspectors, a thoroughly confused intelligence committee, and a terrorist group in the market for WMD's to cause more harm.

It's hard for me to fault why he chose to go to war.  It's not the decision I would have been willing to make, but with much more information than you or I are privy to, it might have looked like the most prudent course of action to President Bush and his advisors at the time.

[rwarn17588]

Frankly, Conan, I'm not convinced Bush 100 percent altruistic motives in mind with the Iraq motivation. I'm not sure what all of those motives were.

But it was apparent even to me and my wife, especially, that something about the rationale for Iraq invasion wasn't quite right.

To be sure, some people got snowed or fooled.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Frankly, Conan, I'm not convinced Bush 100 percent altruistic motives in mind with the Iraq motivation. I'm not sure what all of those motives were.

Oooh.  

20 questions:

1.  Is it mineral?
2.  Is it viscous?
3.  Is it dark brown?
4.  Is it bigger than an oil barrel?

Why not say the War is about oil?  It may be a bitter pill for the public to swallow, but it least it's actual national security concern.  It certainly makes more sense than the rationale du jour, "Buying time for the Iraqis to waste", or whatever.

But, I guess if you called it an oil war, the public might actually start conserving energy.  Surely, the President isn't that jaded.  Cheney, maybe, but not the President.

[cannon_fodder]

The war for oil argument has always been extremely weak in my opinion.  Any war in the middle east is going to RAISE oil prices.  Bickering with Iran and Venezuela is going to RAISE oil prices. If it was actually a war for oil wouldn't we have most out military presence in the oil fields and leave oil deprived Baghdad to its fate?

If we are in this war for oil, we are doing a worse job than if we are really trying to set up a government.  Clearly oil is one of our primary interests in the region, but I do not believe it is driving policy.  Perhaps it should, because the current course is universally agreed to be ugly.

[Conan71]

There are plenty of oil reserves in other places around the world.  "War for oil" is a kindergarten concept.  

What would the rationale be if Gore and Lieberman had been in office under the same circumstances.  Lieberman is trying to protect the diamond merchants in Israel?  Remember, Gore was VP to the man who insisted right up to the invasion of Iraq that: "...without a doubt Saddam Hussein had unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction the day I left office."

[Townsend]

Petraeus quit.

NBC tweet:

#BREAKING: Andrea Mitchell (@MitchellReports) confirms David Petraeus resigns as CIA director

CIA Director David Petraeus submits letter of resignation, cites extra-marital affair

[Conan71]

Petraeus quit.

NBC tweet:

"CIA Director David Petraeus submits letter of resignation, cites extra-marital affair"

It's Washington D.C. for crying out loud.  You can drive around with a rotting body in your trunk.  Who cares?

[nathanm]

Must have been an underage boy.