RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,146707,00.html


...........................................
Is there anyone who really gives a rats *** about this guys opinion?

I often have problems with Mr. Lind's opinions and views. Here, he is showing his predisposition to think the worst of General Petraeus's report because he expects the general to put the situation in Iraq in too positively a light. I happen to think that the General, if left to his own devices, would render a very honest report. But of course, he will have to review his report with Secretary Gates, and perhaps the Vice President as well, before presenting it to the Congress.

The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is a tragic consequence of viewing all enemies of Zionism as enemies of the United States. Saddam Hussein was no threat to us in 2001/2/3; but he was supporting the Palestinian Intifada against Israel. Iran was as opposed to the Taleban and Al Qaeda in 2001 as we were; but our President had to call them part of the "Axis of Evil", because Iran supports the end of the "Jewish state" and consequent oppression of the Palestinians.

We picked this fight with Iraq and Iran without understanding the limits of American military power, nor of the intensity of Islamic nationalism. I don't think that General Petraeus is capable of "speaking [this much] truth to power", when he addresses the Congress. No one, who ever has made such a comment, has ever had a meaningful career thereafter.

We have admired many an insurgent leader who "has to know when to fold 'em and know when to run". Perhaps we have to expect General Petraeus to tip toe around the "Inconvenient Truths" about Iraq and Iran, so that he may remain in the running for Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs or Army Chief of Staff.

Mr. Lind often gets way out there. Likewise, he can predict future problems quite well... like his scenarios for any any forced exodus were one to occur. The September report was hyped as Gen. Petraeus's report. (how many times has Bush personally stated "Gen. Petraeus's report?") Now we find out it will be either filtered and edited through the WH or totally written by Administration staffers. If the the report is to have any significant credibility, it must be established that authorship is solely that of the General and his staff, and not the White House. If Petraeus gives the impression or admits he is relaying messages from the Adminstration, it might be another Powell-at-the-UN moment. Except this time, it won't win the day. But it will still dog the man.

"I do not know General Petraeus, and I therefore cannot judge his character."
So why Judge his character after stating you can't.

quote:

Come September, we will find out what General Petraeus is made of. Depending on that, we may also find out something about the war in Iraq.

No need to wait. GW told us himself, yesterday. It is just like Vietnam was! Doesn't matter that the death squads in Cambodia started LONG before we left Nam, nor that they happened THERE and not in Vietnam, nor does it matter that "3 million deaths" were NOT tied to our withdrawal from Vietnam, nor that what we fought there was Communist Expansionism and NOT a Muslim Theocracy in the making, and also in the midst of Civil War, nor that bla, bla, bla...

The Prez compared the two anyway...!

Coming back in here to comment on this is something I didn't really want to do, but I once compared the two (Nam and Iraq) wars, as far as the politics of that war and this one go, yet I was Blasted for it. Now the Prez himself compares the two? Expected, but Laughable.

Don't you guys get it yet? It does not matter what the entitled "Patraeus Report" says or doesn't say, as we are NOT leaving IRAQ before this Prez leaves the White House nor perhaps for many, many years after that. It isn't Pateaus "metal" which will be divulged in whatever "report" is released in September, we all know how good HE is.

The upcoming report will be about staying in IRAQ, period... Unless we elect a new and overwhelming Democratic majority, which now seems likely ... Thank God.

Weathergusser
Did you listen to how the comparrisons were made or just get the jist of it from moveon.org the only comparrisons that were made was what would happen when and if we were to leave the Iraq. Death sqauds also were in Germany long before we left (and got there) as well. You also think a Democratic majority will end the war that is naive thought. The Democrats are now running for cover because they have been preaching the war is lost. Any good news out of Iraq is going to make them look like defeatist that they are.

quote:

Originally posted by rdf9442:
Weathergusser
Did you listen to how the comparrisons were made or just get the jist of it from moveon.org

Logical fallacies don't need a political website to be understood. Politics in general, and most surely our current two major parties and their respective speech writers make a handsome living from maximum use of logical fallacies with folks like Rove setting all new standards, IMOH. Bush's recent remarks show how logical fallacies can be layered. Comparing issues of WW2(global) to issues of Iraq(regional)? Comparing SE Asia of 40 years ago to today's Middle East? Assuming America's exodus from Viet Nam had anything to do with "killing fields?" Assuming staging a war in the ME would somehow stop a cell of 10 or 20 fanatics from doing its business anywhere in the world? Denying that our venture into Iraq has increased Iran's influence and empowered fanatical Muslims? Now we have a public relations push centered on a particular highly competent and seemingly charismatic general and an alleged report that he would make only to find out he might not make it? Or be reading words given to him by the White House? It's all too much.

I have met Gen Petraeus. I shook his hand and spoke to him about what we "are doing over here". He is a very earnest and business-like gentleman and knows his command. While Mr. Lind has a very impressive resume and is no doubt smarter than this average guy (with only one Masters) he does not know the entire story. While serving there with him, I didn't know the whole story and Gen Petraeus certainly knew what was happening better than most. To doubt what he says, is a little one-sided. I do bleieve it is easy to sit here in our relative security and cast stones. Gen Petraeus will no doubt highlight successes and talk about where we need improvements. Mr. Lind paints it as though he will come over here smiling and dancing. There are levels of all successes and failures in this campaign. Gen Petraeus should tell us of how well we are doing because I don't see it in the mainstream media. I was sickened by the coverage while on both deployments because it tells so little of the good we are doing. Similar to what Mr. Lind would have us believe; it is a lost cause and the General is white-washing that. I choose to not believe that.

But Iraq IS a lost cause. We might be able to win on the Tactical (Local) level, but we still lose, because we can't win on the operational (Iraq, as evidenced by the incompetent national government) and the Strategic (Middle East) Levels (practically every Middle Easterner hates the U.S. even MORE after the Iraq war, and you add that to the anger there already was against the U.S. since the U.S. has been interfereing there for the past half century).

Not to mention that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place.

-It's time to get back to our roots and the Founding Father's principles. Namely non-interventionism!

quote:

-It's time to get back to our roots and the Founding Father's principles. Namely non-interventionism!

enetman1000

I tend to disagree with most of your statement but particularly with the bit quoted above. While General (then President) Washington did warn against foreign entanglements in his farewell address and many people take his meaning as you do, the father of our country wasn't expressing a desire for isolationism, but instead a need for the new nation to be free of European interference until such a time as it was "ready for prime time", so to speak. In fact without the "foreign entanglement" of a critical alliance with France the U.S. would most likely not exist today.

Your statement about "going back to our roots" is erroneous; historically speaking the U.S. has never been able to avoid intervening in foreign affairs (and that link is just to military examples). Doing so would have invited disaster, either economically or militarily and as the world gets smaller due to advancements in technology it becomes less and less viable for the U.S. to sustain any sort of isolationist policy for exactly the same reasons. Can you imagine what would have happened had the U.S. not gotten invovled in WWII, or decided that the Cold War hadn't been worth it and simply allowed the Soviet Union to expand communist government to it's heart's content?

Non-intervention as a national foreign policy has not been viable in our country's past and certainly can't work now. We are far too connected to the rest of the world to think that events in geographically far off places (especially places vital to the world economy) would have no effect on the U.S. The primary function of government is the protection of it's citizens from threats foreign and domestic, and to protect it's citizens the U.S. has to ensure it's national interests are looked after globally as well as locally. Key to esuring that protection is ensuring stability in strategic areas around the world through military force if necessary; exactly as our country has done throughout it's history.

Doh.

Just so everybody knows, I am responsible for the post above, apparently changes to profile names and whatnot are not applied retroactively.

quote:

Originally posted by enetman1000: -- It's time to get back to our roots and the Founding Father's principles. Namely non-interventionism!

The rat-like squeak of a newly born "cut-and-run conservative"!