RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,145137,00.html

.........................................

This guy really needs to get back on his medication.

When something is going right and or going our way, this guy sure comes up with crapola to bring it down.
Enough of the negativity, please !!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by LouieSuzara:
When something is going right and or going our way, this guy sure comes up with crapola to bring it down.
Enough of the negativity, please !!!!!!!

'Something' is going right?
What?

I'd be inclined to pay a little more attention to him if he addressed the POTUS as Pres. Bush instead of "Mr. Bush"... And I would be worried if Pres. Bush DIDN'T listen to his Generals, especially those on the ground, whereas this guy is saying that it worries him that he DOES listen to General Petraeus.

quote:

Originally posted by armywifefigueroa:
...whereas this guy is saying that it worries him that he DOES listen to General Petraeus.

armywifefigueroa: I don't think Huber is criticizing Pres. Bush for listening to generals, but for selective listening to generals when it suits the Administration's agenda. The growing list of generals "reassigned" or resigning or giving de facto resignations by way of elective retirement is ample proof this Administration will turn a deaf ear to generals.

quote:

Originally posted by armywifefigueroa:
I'd be inclined to pay a little more attention to him if he addressed the POTUS as Pres. Bush instead of "Mr. Bush"... And I would be worried if Pres. Bush DIDN'T listen to his Generals, especially those on the ground, whereas this guy is saying that it worries him that he DOES listen to General Petraeus.

"Mr. Bush" is a polite and legitimate form of address ... I see no particular reason to be offended by its use, even if you do. But although he does overstate his case a bit (for example, I read the GAO Report he cites and see no indication that all the missing weapons went missing on his watch, and that a good many of the programs he instituted in Mosul in regards the Iraqi army got overridden by Jerry Bremer) he does make a good point. Command authority has no business putting quite so much into the rucksack of the most junior four-star in the armed forces ... however capable I personally believe him to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Squizzer:

quote:

Originally posted by LouieSuzara:
When something is going right and or going our way, this guy sure comes up with crapola to bring it down.
Enough of the negativity, please !!!!!!!

'Something' is going right?
What?

I certainly will not get into any discussions with you because I know what you are.
The surge is working and you know it.
And by the way, are you the same guy who offered to accept my bet when I said Prince Harry is not going to Iraq ??

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:

quote:

Originally posted by armywifefigueroa:
I'd be inclined to pay a little more attention to him if he addressed the POTUS as Pres. Bush instead of "Mr. Bush"... And I would be worried if Pres. Bush DIDN'T listen to his Generals, especially those on the ground, whereas this guy is saying that it worries him that he DOES listen to General Petraeus.

"Mr. Bush" is a polite and legitimate form of address ... I see no particular reason to be offended by its use, even if you do. But although he does overstate his case a bit (for example, I read the GAO Report he cites and see no indication that all the missing weapons went missing on his watch, and that a good many of the programs he instituted in Mosul in regards the Iraqi army got overridden by Jerry Bremer) he does make a good point. Command authority has no business putting quite so much into the rucksack of the most junior four-star in the armed forces ... however capable I personally believe him to be.

Point taken.

I still support Gen. Petraeus, especially if he remains consistent with what he said at the beginning of the surge (paraphrased):

• Victory in Iraq cannot be accomplished by the U.S. military.
  
• The mission of the surge is to give the Iraqi government and ISF an opportunity to take charge of their country.
  
• He'd like more troops but is doing the best he can with what he's been given.
  
• He will provide a no BS assessment of how things are going in September, including projections of how long the surge can realistically be maintained.
  

The first bullet is the most important. People keep talking like this is a war with a U.S. military solution. If the September report doesn't include a frank assessment of the ISF and Iraqi government's performance, I'll be skeptical about its value. It doesn't really matter much longer we can sustain the surge if the Iraqi government is not doing its part.

Huber is saying things a lot of folks on this forum don't like to hear, but Huber speaks for many, no just himself, in challenging the existing actions and rationale.
A feature of today's politics and especially this Administration, IMHO, is to forcefully reduce complex political issues down to John Wayne movie plots. Patreaus is "The Duke" in this one. Our roles are to wait until our hero, Marshall "Rooster" Patreaus, rides into town. Then, in hushed awe, we hear the report!. The cameras, of course, will only give us a passing shot while nodding our heads in support. We will not be listed in the credits. We will all go back to our day-jobs.

What an IDIOT! This guy actually gets paid to write this stuff???

Why the constant neoconservative and liberal back and forth on this issue - I now see many of the old heads that used to write comments, no longer do. It is a waste of time. It is a in concrete that we will not change any of the Iraq policy one iota till after POTUS Bush leaves office. Give it a rest, we've heard all the arguments both pro and con - who will debate or bet that General Petraeus will say that all is just fine and we are progressing as planned - just give me more time. If I had money, I'd take any bet. This is from an Independent and not a far right or far left kook.

quote:

Originally posted by Squizzer:

quote:

Originally posted by LouieSuzara:
When something is going right and or going our way, this guy sure comes up with crapola to bring it down.
Enough of the negativity, please !!!!!!!

'Something' is going right?
What?

................................................
Quizzer, I know this is a waste of time, but here is a link to a story about the surge, by the AP.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08072007/news/worldnews/dub...ert_burns.htm?page=0

I don't know about that! FDR sure did rely on Eisenhower a lot!

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:

quote:

Originally posted by armywifefigueroa:
I'd be inclined to pay a little more attention to him if he addressed the POTUS as Pres. Bush instead of "Mr. Bush"... And I would be worried if Pres. Bush DIDN'T listen to his Generals, especially those on the ground, whereas this guy is saying that it worries him that he DOES listen to General Petraeus.

"Mr. Bush" is a polite and legitimate form of address ... I see no particular reason to be offended by its use, even if you do. But although he does overstate his case a bit (for example, I read the GAO Report he cites and see no indication that all the missing weapons went missing on his watch, and that a good many of the programs he instituted in Mosul in regards the Iraqi army got overridden by Jerry Bremer) he does make a good point. Command authority has no business putting quite so much into the rucksack of the most junior four-star in the armed forces ... however capable I personally believe him to be.

quote:

Originally posted by smokey5:

quote:

Originally posted by Squizzer:

quote:

Originally posted by LouieSuzara:
When something is going right and or going our way, this guy sure comes up with crapola to bring it down.
Enough of the negativity, please !!!!!!!

'Something' is going right?
What?

................................................
Quizzer, I know this is a waste of time, but here is a link to a story about the surge, by the AP.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08072007/news/worldnews/dub...ert_burns.htm?page=0

A very good article, that probably deserves its own thread ... however much the body of the piece isn't quite as optimistic as the headline would imply. About my only objection to it is that he doesn't seem to factor in the importance of the current infrastructure crisis is to the situation in Baghdad ... while security is a necessary condition for it, it is not the only condition, because it doesn't do a resident much good if he doesn't get blown up by a car bomb, but dies of cholera because the water system broke down. Something is going to have to be done about securing the electrical lines coming into the city, and I don't know where we are going to get the forces to do it, unless General Petraeus is willing to start moving people around now instead of waiting until the end of the year as the article predicts.

quote:

I don't know about that! FDR sure did rely on Eisenhower a lot!

Rely on him, yes (and Nimitz, and MacArthur, in his case somewhat less cheerfully). What he did not do was refer in print or on the radio to "the commander's plan" ... although he did give credit to the planners when their work bore fruit.

Either way, Gen Petraeus is a good soldier and has a great understanding on what we need to do in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Airborneinfantry:
Either way, Gen Petraeus is a good soldier and has a great understanding on what we need to do in Iraq.

Always glad when we are in complete agreement.

"I'm impressed that a general in his mid-fifties can outdo fit men half his age in tests of physical fitness, but all the one-arm pushups in the world won't fix what's broken in Iraq."

Two things, One, No man in his mid-fifties will outdo fit men half his age and thats a fact, If you think I'am lieing give it a shot and find out for yourself. If anything they let him win to keep his ego up, thats a fact of military life.

Two, It seems that the Constitution has been turned inside out by this Admin and it's hawks and it is the job of the congress to make sure that it does not happen, The Repubs or neo-cons as some would call them, dropped the ball in that regard. The Demo's have a chance to make that right, if they don't then it will be time to vote some new Demo's in that will. Simple.

"Anybody that work at a job for to long have a tendency to loose it"

quote:

Originally posted by Slider451: I still support Gen. Petraeus, especially if he remains consistent with what he said at the beginning of the surge (paraphrased):

• Victory in Iraq cannot be accomplished by the U.S. military.
• The mission of the surge is to give the Iraqi government and ISF an opportunity to take charge of their country.
• He'd like more troops but is doing the best he can with what he's been given.
• He will provide a no BS assessment of how things are going in September, including projections of how long the surge can realistically be maintained.

The first bullet is the most important. People keep talking like this is a war with a U.S. military solution. If the September report doesn't include a frank assessment of the ISF and Iraqi government's performance, I'll be skeptical about its value. It doesn't really matter much longer we can sustain the surge if the Iraqi government is not doing its part.

That is IMHO a d*mn fine summary---well thought out, well expressed.
Better than the column that started this thread, IMHO!