RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,148872,00.html

The only thing I will give this article credit on is the fact that he saw move-on.orgs attack as atroucious. But being aligned with them he did not mention their name.

god talk about a bias article.... mil.com should get better writers.... wished i could write better....

Other than a few personal dumb a$$ remarks, it was a relatively fair analysis of the report. I don't believe there will be a totally objective OPED piece on this for years. It has too high a visibility, with everyone too emotionally involved, with their own agenda interjected.

He did rightly point out that General Petraeuse's report is from the tactical side, not the strategic side. That is the realm of the President and his advisors. "Moderate and forthright" is an apt description of the General’s style, although describing that progress was, " based heavily on the Pentagon's very questionable data on Iraqi civilian deaths and sectarian violence." may not be too accurate.

Hate it, revile it, like it, or adore it! Doubt that anyone's mind will be changes too much by the report or the voluminous reporting soon to come. Although I must admit, that I was pleasantly surprised at the openness and depth the General presented. I publicly make a small apology to him for thinking that he was possibly being set up by the White House as the fall guy.

But the main premise of my previous postings remain. History will be the one to sort this out. And that ain't going to bee soon! Have a good day!~!

Perhaps our high schools should require all students go through ROTC - let kids get a feel for the military - let them decide if they want to pursue a military career - as it is now, they are being told by people like john kerry that only idiots join the military - how do you out there who are presently in the military feel about this?

Hoopla from the Administration or from the MEDIA??
Bias article or just a slap in the face??

Please read this...

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html
Excellent article on An Abar...

A little long, but excellent

Personally, I don’t think Petraeus’ testimony offered any surprises either. We have all known what he would say since July: The Surge needs more time.

And Mr. Rieckhoff is right. Congress and the majority of Americans are asking when we will leave Iraq. But the more appropriate question is whether it will even be possible to stay. Not only is our military at the breaking point numerically speaking (as Mr. Rieckhoff points out), as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have exhausted our available force, but mentally as well. Returning troops are suffering record rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild TBI, and are being redeployed without receiving the care and treatment they need. As troops return for multiple, long tours, the rate of mental health issues will only continue to rise.

I suggest that those of you who decry this piece as too partisan should take a long-hard look at the source. We need more boots on the ground to offer their experience and insight to this issue. And I, for one, am happy to see the conversation be taken to a new level—something above the pro-war/anti-war stalemate.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: em741,

For months, the lead-up to the Petraeus report has sucked up all the air in any public discussion of national security. In the last few days, the debate has gotten completely out of hand, culminating in repugnant personal attacks on General Patraeas before he even delivered his report.

The move-on and ANSWER turkeys (Petraeus-betray-us? geezus what nimrods) have their counterparts too. Like Senator James Inhofe at today's hearings still trying to link Saddam and 9/11, of course on the sixth anniversary of 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8m9ft6z38&feature=dir


And if you'd like a critique of the Petraeus/Crocker report from ex-CIA Larry Johnson here it is, thrill seekers only: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/10/dave-petraeus-and-iraq-kabuki/

quote:

Originally posted by tubeboob:
For months, the lead-up to the Petraeus report has sucked up all the air in any public discussion of national security. In the last few days, the debate has gotten completely out of hand, culminating in repugnant personal attacks on General Patraeas before he even delivered his report.

The move-on and ANSWER turkeys (Petraeus-betray-us? geezus what nimrods) have their counterparts too. Like Senator James Inhofe at today's hearings still trying to link Saddam and 9/11, of course on the sixth anniversary of 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8m9ft6z38&feature=dir


And if you'd like a critique of the Petraeus/Crocker report from ex-CIA Larry Johnson here it is, thrill seekers only: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/10/dave-petraeus-and-iraq-kabuki/

I just read your link. I don't think I would call it unbiased. Now honestly would you. He could have written that at any time in his sleep.

At least that’s the way this old soldier and proud Coast Guard dad sees it! :

Did anyone expect anything different? The surge was supposed to be temporary, but it was never meant to be temporary. It was meant to be escalation; the exact same thing they did in Vietnam.
And when they pull troops out, they'll do what they did in Vietnam. They will transfer all troops who were supposed to rotate into one or two units. Their replacements will already be there in the unit they just left. Then they will make a big deal out of pulling out units, but they will be troops who were rotating home anyway and were replaced.
That's how they did it in Vietnam when they said they were going to pull Marines out.

One other solution: Let the Mexican Army go to Iraq. Enough of them are in the states by now.

quote:

Originally posted by Xtrooper1:
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,148872,00.html

The only thing I will give this article credit on is the fact that he saw move-on.orgs attack as atrocious. But being aligned with them he did not mention their name.

Since he is in no way aligned with them, or with any other political organization, he didn't mention their name since doing so would give them publicity they didn't deserve. If you don't think there was anything else of value in it, your ought to brush up on your critical reading skills.

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO: He did rightly point out that General Petraeuse's report is from the tactical side, not the strategic side. That is the realm of the President and his advisors.

Just to state bluntly, there is no strategy in the conventional sense. Nor could there be.

"Plan A" failed (neoconservative goals by Reaganite means). Then "Plan B" failed (the surge, with a top-down rebuild of the Iraqi government). So we are now on "Plan C" (the surge, with a bottom-up rebuild of the Iraq nation).

The essence of "Plan C" is this general order: "Learn and adapt at the local Iraq level. Do what it takes to make sure that every month in your neighborhood is better than the month before. We'll glue it all together at the national level *after* we get a grip at the neighborhood, city, and province levels."

Is this a *military* strategy? H*ll no. But then, we've know for a long time, that there is no winning military strategy in Iraq.

Is this strategy winning? Yes, IMHO. Provided America invests as much in nation-building and diplomacy, as we have alread invested in war-fighting.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by SLDO: He did rightly point out that General Petraeuse's report is from the tactical side, not the strategic side. That is the realm of the President and his advisors.

Just to state bluntly, there is no strategy in the conventional sense. Nor could there be.

"Plan A" failed (neoconservative goals by Reaganite means). Then "Plan B" failed (the surge, with a top-down rebuild of the Iraqi government). So we are now on "Plan C" (the surge, with a bottom-up rebuild of the Iraqi government).

The essence of "Plan C" is this general order: "Learn and adapt at the local Iraq level. Do what it takes to make sure that every month in your neighborhood is better than the month before. We'll glue it all together at the national level *after* we get a grip at the neighborhood, city, and province levels."

Is this a *military* strategy? H*ll no. But then, we've know for a long time, that there is no winning military strategy in Iraq.

Well, the Marines in Anbar thought Plan "C" was a strategy ... and the fact that AQI copped an attitude in the province allowed us to capitalize on that patient work, and account for the lion's share of progress that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker just reported on. But it was long and patient work (once we lost the opportunity to do so back in 2003, when the sheiks made much the same offer) that paid off, and not the result of the extra 2,000 people that the "surge" brought in, that made the difference.

Had we not done that work, we could not have capitalized on AQI's mistakes, and we would be far worse off in country. If you want to call that "tactics" instead, feel free ... but call me a tactics fan while you are doing it.

When is Patreus going to get his uniform in order.

His unit Combat Patch is wrong...The eagles beak should be pointed forward.

quote:

Originally posted by kawika49:
When is Patreus going to get his uniform in order.

His unit Combat Patch is wrong...The eagles beak should be pointed forward.

A fashon critic? I do believe that his uniform is in good repair and according to regulations. If not, a senior officer and at least one senior NCO will be pulling CQ somewhere in the remote outback of of one the "stans". Thank you for your contribution. Have a good day!~!

If he expects his men to be in uniform...It is only right for him to be...

"..the surge cannot persist after April 2008 without extending tours or instituting a draft.."

This much we know as being FACT.


So let me get this straight, the increase in troops (surge) has worked but, sorry, we can't continue this successful strategy after April 2008.

So....sorry, it doesn't matter WHAT the situation is on the ground six months from now (better or worse), we will have to begin drawing down.

That doesn't sound like a "plan for victory" to me.

What it sounds like to me is:

"We are counting on the situation improving in six months and if that doesn't happen we will cross that bridge when we get to it".

It's no wonder that a majority of Americans have concluded that the Iraq project is a failure.

A comment on this article.
1. Arrogance and error in Iraq.
Response: Did not the United Nations Security Council of at least 6 permanent members not choose to sanction decisive action in the elimination of the threat imposed by the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and his political party, military infrastructure etc? I think someone should re-open all the UN Security Council resolutions for memory refreshment.
2.Pentagon's very questionable data on civilian deaths and sectarian violence.
Response: How many United Nations, other nations, groups, or organizations have gone over to Iraq to confirm the questionable data? Does that include other international organizations who do the body counting all over the world everyday?
Uneven military progress in Iraq.
Response: Just how many other nations have invested anything at all in this little endeavour? Token forces, promises for financial compensation that have thus far been 0. I wonder why there is uneven progress when so many nations voted on the resolutions?
Limited military success.
Response:That is clearly a subjective statement. Ask the Iraqis who have new schools, fresh water, can go from their home to work and they feel safe if our success is limited. What do the people want? War is messy, not fun, and surely not quick in any reality. We have been fairly lucky in the past. Anyone ever hear of the 100 years war? Limited success versus whom? who has ever in the annals of history gone up against this kind of war since the mid-evil times?
Troops serving longest overseas deployments since WWII.
Response: Some troops are, not all. If the nation wants a larger army, tap the most abundant resource crossing the Rio Grande river in record numbers. I'll bet 11+ million personnel required to do compulsory military service obligations for citizenship or get out of our country would quickly change that tune don't you think? We may only have to do 6 month tours once that crowd is in the pipeline.
Equipment readiness of the National Guard and Reserves.
Response: We are at war. It takes time to restock the machine and we are in the middle of an explosion of technology, etc. Maybe a little more GDP for the WAR and we could be refurbished a little faster, as long as the money is monitored and people are not taking advantage of military procurement. As far as equipment to help in case of disasters, Wal-Mart, Target, and sporting goods stores have plenty of stuff for a state emergency if needed. I saw a whole lot of ONAN generators and over the shelf equipment making it back from Storm 1. It's all a question of what will the Govenor need.
Iraq is not somekind of terrorist flypaper
Response: Maybe not but I'll bet you the majority is in that area just wanting to get a shot at an American soldier. We tend to be a little better prepared as soldiers than the American citizenry who sit over here in their blissful existence and besides, the terrorist who are hunting for American trophys usually end up on the losing end. Less than 4,000 US soldiers killed, maybe a hundred thousand injured? Want to bet the enemy numbers are a little heavier then that. But put it in context 6 years of WAR 4,000 dead.(All heroes by the way)how many died on the US highways last year?
Politicians tell you what you want to hear. Ask them why they deserve a $4,000 a year raise, a pension that matches what they make monthly for life, free health care, and many more perks that I don't know of. Last I knew they were our servants, representing us. I don't think any of them could truly represent me cause I don't live as well as they do. The media is a mouthpiece for big people. Not the majority of us out here. Sensational news sells, thats what I learned in journalism class in high school.
Of course; thank the stars I live in a country that allows me to voice my opinion. That is why I am still here serving her.

quote:

Originally posted by outlaws93:
god talk about a bias article.... mil.com should get better writers.... wished i could write better....

And what would you say??? "Kill more ragheads!"

quote:

Originally posted by soldiermama:
Perhaps our high schools should require all students go through ROTC - let kids get a feel for the military - let them decide if they want to pursue a military career - as it is now, they are being told by people like john kerry that only idiots join the military - how do you out there who are presently in the military feel about this?

ROTC? They can't all be Gin'rals. Why not universal National Service for two years after high school? Sort of like Mormon missionaries.