Newshoggers Comments
Deleted at request of commenter.
Edited By Siteowner
Deleted response to comment above.
Edited By Siteowner
Let the demonization of David Petraus and those around him begin...... If you can't defeat the message, defeat the messenger. We finally get a Commander on the ground in Iraq who is winning, and the knives come out.
The timing of this article in the NY Times is very convenient, for those who wish to marginalize the man before he reports to Congress and the Nation next month.
Please define winning --- almost all metrics are showing year over year increases in violence, no political progress (announcements on tentative agreements on draft proposals do not count in my book), an exhausted army and increased inter and intrafactional fighting does not look like success to me
While we are at it Fester, let's also try to debate the meaning of the word "is".
Winning means that AQ is on the run and the Sunni sheiks have decided we are their best bet and sided with us agains AQ. Winning means we are getting more and more actionable intel every day due to the Clear and Hold strategy and the embedding of our trainers into Iraqi units.
Winning means the levels of violence are dropping and that the NY Times and USA Today are publishing articles that show the Surge is having positive results. Even Hillary told the VFW that the Surge is having some success, although true to form, she recanted her epiphany 2 days later to please the current audience....
Winning is when a Democratic congressman (Brian Baird) comes back from Iraq and changes his mind and writes an eloquent op-ed piece supporting the Surge and rejecting his previous call for withdrawal timelines.
Let me clarify for you that "winning" was used as a verb as opposed to saying "won".
Publius, you've been snorting the KoolAid.
The Sunni Sheiks are making an alliance of convenience and will return to killing Americans as soon as the AQ threat to their own personal power is dealt with. Before, The US was a greater threat to that power than AQ but when the US lost Anbar that changed.
More and more intel but little more of it actionable in a positive way is how I read various reports. What's happened is that the US has become a proxy for fighting feuds. Piss off your neighbour and he reports you as a terrorist.
Levels of violence aren't dropping by any independent measure - just the US military's say-so - and the military refuses to put figures on its claims. How gullible are you, exactly?
Finally, if you think an investigation over a year old is just out to get Saint Pet now then you're verging on utter paranoid. The mainstream and Dems have given Petreaus plenty of free passes in the past. Such as his very questionable ethics over the torture survey back in May.
Regards, C
Why does the government want to babysit Iraqi idiots and extermists. I would think the US congress & the state governments would put more money into food, health care, and housing.
That's like all the Sex Offender Laws, after they've paid whatever debt to society. Not helping these people afford housing, or saying we need tospend 10-15 years knowing where they live, is harassment, hidden behind a public paranoia.
Commenting by HaloScan
