I don't get why anyone is slating this general....
Irrespective of whoever is in power he has to work to a given mandate - that is what he is doing.
He's certainly not going to want to stand up and say "hey this is rubbish, I’m off home".
He is going to do exactly what he has trained his whole entire life to do.
You, see this brings up the whole 'support the troops but not the war argument', I don't support the Iraq war - but i'll back that general against politicians and the media and support him in doing the best job possible irrespective of the war being right or wrong - because his job is about duty.
All he was asked to do was give a factual SitRep to congress and offer personal insight into the feasibility of the operation – as such it is his highest duty to report to congress whether the situation is declining and or not effective etc, this he did not do and for that very reason and because he’s out there and we’re not – his word is more important than anyone else’s as he is the one person who actually knows the full and complete state of affairs militarily (including the president on this particular subject).
for the sake of establishing a place in the middle east that does not harbor terrorists and is a friend to the U.S. By all accounts the surge seems to be working. It's clear that Iran is just waiting with bated breath for us to leave so they can take control of the region.
Jordan, last I checked was in the Midde East and did not harbor terrorists, no? They took to the street to denounce terrorist acts (as did the Iranians six years ago today) Are you accusing the government of Dubai of harboring terrorists? The rulers of Saudi Arabia (our "strongest ally in the area")?
The Petraeus report is the only report I've seen that claims the surge is working. The G.A.O. report disagrees, you posted on a Washington Post piece written by the leaders of a bi-partisian commission which disagrees yesterday, there are rumors in Newsweek of an internal Pentagon report which disagrees, the American people disagree, the numbers used by Petraeus in arriving at his conclussions are not open to analysis or discussion by anyone outside of the White House or the 2 out of 18 intelligence agencies that agree with his numbers... (I could go on here, but I'm sure it would be futile) And yet you are willing to post that "By all accounts the surge seems to be working." Do you honestly believe that only the "accounts" that agree with you exist, and the others simply don't.
And the Iran warmongering.... c'mon. Did you learn nothing from the first time around? There is no credible evidence of this. There are "anonymous leaks" to foriegn press, which are then reported in the U.S. press as "reports" of Iran meddling in Iraq. The British Soldiers who were stationed along the Iranian border for the past year found nothing to corroborate this claim, and every claim made by the U.S. Government has been contradicted by the U.S. Government.
While the "Truth" may be very clear to you, there are those who actually research these kind of questions professionally who do not share your certainty. Are these the people you are refering to below in your previous post who "don't deserve" to be free from terrorism?
But when it comes to war, one has to trust those leading it. If we don't, then why have military leaders at all?
We have military leaders to carry out the policies of our civilian leaders which require military intervention. We have military leaders to ensure that our nation stands ready to be protected from credible threats to our national security.
The role of military leaders should not be to run P.R. campaigns for the administration, or to set foreign relations policy for our nation.
Bush's decision to allow the military to set military policy is not only at odds with the way America is suppose to be run, but is also not what is happening. The number of "retired" generals who have not only refused to continue to participate in this abuse of the U.S. Military, but have spoken out against it is astonding, and is something that was not seen even at the height of the anti-Vietnam movement.
But then again, you live in a world where "the surge seems to be working" "by all accounts", so these things may not exist where you live.
Why do we not hear from Douglas Lute? What is William Fallons stance on the surge?
It's not just that Petraeus wrote a glowing op-ed about the progress being made in Iraq just prior to the 2004 election (which turned out to be completely wrong) which calls his credibility into quesiton, there is also the fact that he failed to "show his work" on reaching his conclusions and would not even name the two (out of 1
intelligence agencies willing to sign off on his data, the fact that anything negative he may say about the progress made by the surge would directly show weakness in his military leadership there (a position that the administration should never have placed a serving military officer in except at a court marshal hearing), and his comments about progress in Al Anbar back in January (before the surge) which is the same progress he is now crediting to the surge, and many other problems that were not addressed yesterday.
Also, we heard within weeks of the "surge" starting that the longest it could possibly go without crippling our military was until next March/April. He is now claiming that it is due to the "progress" of the "surge" (of which he apparently has total authority, despite William Fallon being in charge of CentCom and Douglas Lute being the War Czar) which will "allow" for these draw downs. Is he saying that if things start geting worse in Iraq we won't be bringing our troops home after their 15 months is up (it is a given that we don't have anyone to replace them with)?
You Tube video of when the "surge" will end.
patreyus? betrayus? Its all chopped liver ya shmuks.
what is a shmuk?
If you are going to dismiss him out of hand, why don't you be man enough to actually take that to its logical conclusion. Since you believe he is either grossly mistaken, or lying, he continues to put the men and women of the US Armed Forces in harms way for something he knows we cannot acheive. As such, he is allowing the blood of American children to be spilled, over a lie. If that does not make his a traitor, and a disgusting human being, I do not know what would.
Yet, that it what you say of him, without hesitation.
This was Pelosi and Reid's dog-and-pony show.
so what is the objective again?
Commenting by HaloScan
