Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Start your "Countdown to Stupidity" clocks: this news should prompt another delirious "Nothing has changed..." press conference from Harry Reid.
Batiste is not an antiwar General. As a matter of fact he was an assistant to Wolfowitz in pre-war planning.
What he was against was the inept execution of the war and especially Rumsfeld.
This occupation has cost too much money and too many lives, U.S. and Iraqis.
We will have to bring the troops from the surge home, anyway, and the attacks will build up again.
We have given the Iraqis a chance at freedom and democracy. The rest is up to them.
he joined an anti-war coalition called Vote vets.org, therefore becoming anti-war for a time, until Petraeus and our troops started winning that is.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps it's wings like a duck...it ain't a mockingbird...
LOL
The Dems are running on three perceptions: a quagmire in Iraq, an economy in shambles, and a GOP blocking their badly needed populist legislation.
All three are complete fabrications, of course. So what happens when the Dems are out of issues in 2008?
They're out of Washington. For a very, very long time.
In a related note spree, check out the latest Rasmussen survey that shows that only 18% of Americans believe Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons program. 81% of Americans believe Iran is likely to have nuclear weapons, and the shocking thing is that a majority -- 54% -- of liberal voters think Iran still has a nuclear weapons program.
Only the irrational moonbat wing of the Dems are buying this NIE, and that's got the Kos Kidz *scared*. They know they're alone right now...against the rest of America and even the rest of their own party.
America doesn't believe the moonbats anymore. And their time is about to come to a crashing halt.
Lightwave,
Have you seen the value of the dollar compared to other currency? Have you filled your gas tank lately? Have you seen what has happened to the housing and mortgage markets? We owe 9 trillion dollars and a trillion (at least) to the Chinese alone. The interest on the national debt is running at about 50 million dollars and hour...but our economy is doing great...if you are Halliburton...
As far as the NIE is concerned, after the seeing how manipulated the pre-war intelligence was, is it any wonder people are sceptical about anything that is said now?
That said, we, the unwashed, have no idea about what is in the raw data and what caveats are included in the classified report. Read the findings here. (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/
20071203_release.pdf) pay attention to the chart at the end comparing the last 2 NIE's.
My feeling is that if all of these agencies combined to publish this report in contradiction to what the administration wanted or had been saying, I'd trust it a little more than the last.
The main problem is that this Administration has spent the last seven years like Chicken Little on steroids, and yet the sky hasn't fallen. Or, to go to another fable, they have become "The Boys Who Cried Wolf". There was little credibility left, and now they have none.
No, it's not the moonbats who are disbelieved. It's the Bush administration.
Nothing like an irrelevant Halliburton reference in the middle of a discussion about the NIE and Iran.
Cape, you forget history. The dollar and country has been here before and we have come out of it better than we started. Dream on, those of you that like to scream about the sky falling generally get disappointed as you will be when America wins as she always does.
Your defeatism and gloom and doom is because you believe the bullshit fed to you. The difference is WE don't, we are capable of thinking for ourselves instead of repeating other peoples bunk.
Go play at Kos,, they like hearing all that bullshit.
We're also at fifty one consecutive months of job growth, which tends to be an offsetting factor in housing crunches. I like it when you're dainty like that, Spree. Maybe now you'll get hit with an Enron bomb from that bag of outdated crap talking points.
Define "occupation"...and then back it up asshat...and tell me what other countries we've occupied.
Then tell me how the Iraquis AREN'T stepping up to the plate--and back it up as well.
Then I want you to show me, from WWI on, which dem presidents and which repub presidents prosecuted successful wars (hint: it ain't the dems--it takes a republican to fet the job done).
Get over yourself and your defeatism--it doesn't wash here.
Asswiping trolls are falling all over themselves...anybody got some swords to loan them?
Stephen....LOL I have my moments... dainty has never been a word used about me...cool.
I will save that one for the record books!
Uh-oh...Stephen's seeing my troll trouncing come out...lol...I am soooooooo tired of these defeatists and their feigned "moral" and "intellectual" superiority while ignoring hard facts and pretending their truly aren't anything but a bunch of cowards.
Hey Stephen, this is a side of me you never saw at school...lol
LOL Beth. Afternoon to ya!
When Stephen knew me in school I was little Miss quiet, meek, never stirred up trouble...never said boo to a goose...lol
It was hard for me to see what the other students were like from the dean's office. Fred and I had our own chairs in there. Trounce away, young Skywalker.
Mr. O'Reilly did seem to see you two an awfully lot--weren't your chairs engraved with your names and retired when we graduated? To say the least, Spree, Stephen and Fred were amazingly brilliant in school (and obviously still are), Mr. O'Reilly was our dean of men and for the most part pretty reasonable--in fact, Stephen, I often got the impression he was secretly amused by you and Fred, secretly applauded your shenanigans but had to hide that to "conform"....he could never definitively pin anything on the two of you, though, and certainly couldn't suspend or expel you for your grades...lol
YOU were Miss Quiet? NO COMMENT...laughing here.
And meek, and even tempered and obedient and never questioned a thing...lol
I can vouch for the fact that MIss B. was nice. Quiet is very relative with me, however. Virtually everyone talks less than I do. Thank God I get paid for it.
To Miss Beth: Websters Dictionary: Occupation: the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force.
So, what don't you understand about the word? Are you saying that our military force in Iraq doesn't hold and control? Sounds defeatist to me.
We have occupied other countries numerous times, like Germany and Japan in WWII up to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaking of WWII, did you notice that it came after WWI? I know, Roosevelt was a notorious Republican who successfully prosecuted a war. And the Vietnam War was successfully prosecuted by those noted Democrats, Nixon and Ford. So what wars are you talking about? But I would never defend all Democrats as always being great leaders and never wrong, in fact I wouldn't defend anyone as being "never wrong", even myself.
Using the phrase about Iraqis "steppiing up to the plate" I meant that it is time for them to take over running their own country and security. We overthrew Hussein, got them to form a democratic government, and helped rebuild their security forces. Now we should declare victory and move our combat troops home in the next year, like our ally Gordon Brown is going to do.
And why is it necessary to use words such as asshat and asswiping in your commentary? My father, now deceased, a retired C/Msgt in the Air Force, taught me that people use that kind of invective as "lazy language", used when the person didn't have the education or patience to us an accurate or more precise adjective. Really now, has anyone ever seen a persong wearing an ass for a hat? And the phrase asswipe? Are you accusing me of being someone who wipes their own ass? If so, guilty, although I always thought that was a good hygiene issue and I haven't needed help with it since I was 2. If you mean the remainders feces that transfers to a piece of toilet paper when cleaning myself after a bowel movement, well, what does that mean precisely? Are you saying that I'm brown? No, not since summer.
Are you saying that my opinions stink? Or don't you know know what you are saying?
See, very imprecise.
Oh, and Spree. Just when has the dollar "been here before"? When, before, have we had a 9 trillion dollar debt? I must have missed something.
And I know you all think I am a "troll" or are a Kos koolaid sipper, but that's not how I see myself. I read all kinds of blogs and journalism from all perspective, not because I want my beliefs reinforced, but because it is unwise to think that any one site, paper or pundit has the corner on wisdom. I want to be challenged in my thinking, not insulted. If this is a site that discourages that, sorry, I didn't mean to upset your prejudices.
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....e-
american.html
Learn your history, the dollar had bottomed out after Vietnam, and then listen to Sinclairs words to understand why AMERICA IS SO GREAT AND WHY IF PEOPLE ARE NOT PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN, LET THEM SEE IF THEY ARE HAPPIER ELSEWHERE.
Anti-American bullshit will not be tolerated here, learn quick.
Roosevelt--WWII...prosecuted successfully over the communist/democrat caterwauling; Bay of Pigs--started by Kennedy (D) who reneged on air cover, didn't follow up with appropriate force and had to be bailed out because the democrats didn't have the stomach to finish; korea (still there--democrat sold out south korea so north korea communists could overrun it), vietnam, started by kennedy, perpetuated by johnson who both refused to fund it properly; honorably ended by nixon after democrats refused funding to soldiers on the ground--no stomach to finish what they're president started; grenada--over in about a wee, communists began to lose ground in face of republican integrity; cold war ended under reagan, soviets became second class power; gulf war, successfully prosecuted under republican; gulf II (iraq) started successfully, dems back it, then backed off as they don't have the courage to see it through.
The only land we OCCUPY is those graves where our servicemen are buried--period. The rest of each and every country is the sovereign domain of those countries, not our "occupation". To call the Iraqi action an occupation is disingenuous and misleading, not to mention a strawman talking point.
The point is--every war started by a democratic president, the goal was to come to a stalemate--not a win. ONLY republicans have had the stomach to WIN--they don't lose their courage and they don't back down. Dems back down to pander to their communistic sides--even to the point of literally not defending those being threatened with being overrun by communism--and then the dems blithely turn their heads at the carnage that follows and act stupid that it's not directly attributable to them.
And, btw, Nixon and Ford were republicans, Roosevelt a democrat--who started and/or expanded the entitlement system in place today.
Further, in Vietnam, the dems beloved comparison, only 20% of the population wanted out--80% of the country was all for finishing the job. Not quite what you heard on the news at night, from the MSM or the fruit loop fringe brigade we are hearing from again.
Basic bottom line--we are winning and those that can't stand to win, those invested in defeat, are busy gnashing their teeth and going back to old talking points. As you are.
Precise enough for you now?
Nicely said Beth. Taking the day off...or gonna try. See ya'll later.
You know, Spree, I'd rather be a chicken hawk--than a chicken. Dems are chickens.
LOL Beth. That is the nicest thing I could think of to call them at this point.
Check out the not so brilliant Move On today:
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....sten-to-
us.html
Now that I finally went through the email, I am heading offline for a bit.
See ya later.
DON'T EXPECT TO BE ALLOWED TO COMMENT AGAIN UNTIL YOU CAN FOLLOW THE RULES OF POSTING. i SUGGEST YOU READ THEM--Spree
Edited By Siteowner
This comment thread is taking on a life of it's own. Sort of like Teddy Kennedy's nose. I'll jump in just because I'm an attention whore.
Most of these points can be cherry-picked by either side in a pithy discussion like this. It's late so I'll only deal with some of them.
The Bay of Pigs invasion went wrong for a variety of reasons, not the least of which may have been KGB infiltration of the CIA. Still, the CIA couldn't go without Kennedy's OK. Let's just say he didn't handle it well once that was given.
Vietnam was begun, escalated and became a real quagmire under Democratic presidents and legislatures. It reached its nadir under Lyndon Johnson and that micromanaging idiot Robert McNamara. McNamara tried to run a war like a car company and ended up doing nothing more than sending a lot of pilots to the Hanoi Hilton. Nixon was handed a mess and an increasingly difficult Democratic congress.
There is debate all over the place on the trade imbalance and its effect on the U.S. economy. True, the imbalance is daunting yet we're experiencing a record period of job growth. When we import more and export less jobs are usually hit hard. The potential for the imbalance to be problematic is certainly there. However, given the jobs growth and the seemingly bullet proof stock market it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's "never been worse for America."
What the Soviets did in Poland during the Cold War was an occupation. What the U.S. is doing in Iraq is a war. Occupying troops tend not to be attacked much. If we stopped 99% of the violence and hung around another ten years after that it would be an occupation.
You leapt anonymously into this discussion with an incorrect assertion about the antiwar activities of Gen. Batiste so you might just want to rein in the pomposity about facts.
Just sayin'.
Stephen, well said!!!! Thank you.
Stephen, I love when you call yourself an attention whore--you're so disgustingly honest with yourself (you have got to get down here so I can see the act--Spree, I'll buy the tickets, you in to see Stephen?)
Stephen Kruiser:
What incorrect assertion did I make about Batiste? That he worked with Wolfowitz planning the invasion? He did. That he was critical of Rumsfeld and the President in the way the troops were supplied and protected? That the administration relied on the military and didn't do enough on the diplomatic and economic fronts?
Here are direct quotes from General Batiste in the past year:
"I'm a patriot, as are the rest of us in VoteVets. VoteVets is not an antiwar organization. We're focused on what's best for this country. We're focused on being successful and winning the effort against global terrorism. And we're damn sure focused on doing what's right for our great military, which, by the way, is doing incredible work in Iraq and Afghanistan. God bless them all."
"This is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who's relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq."
"Sadly, we're missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There's no unity of effort between the agencies."
"It - the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we're wasting our time."
"General David Petraeus is the best we've got. If anybody can pull this off militarily, he can. We have the best military this nation has ever fielded. But the president's strategy relies almost wholly on the military, and ignores the important components of diplomatic, political, and economic hard work."
"If we don't get this right, we're going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that's the last thing we can do."
Not exactly an antiwar, peacenik statements. He wasn't and isn't antiwar. He is a critic of the policy makers and their policies in this war.
As to your other points:
Kennedy's young administration made mistakes, but cut its losses and took responsibility for the failure. You are right about the CIA's failures, but there were also things like loose lips among the Cuban expatriots in southern Florida and poor training and equipment from the CIA. But this was a policy that transcended administrations.
Vietnam was a bi-partisan failure. Most look at that war as something that happened from the early sixties to 1975, when, in fact, there was a long history of battles and wars from WWI on as the Vietnamese tried to get rid of French colonialists and then the SEATO forces. There were a number of times in those 50 plus years where the rig
right decisions made by the French and/or American governments, both Republican and Democrat, would have headed off this war. Hell, even during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the ambassador to Vietnam was Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
It is possible that if military leaders had been more outspoken on the bad policies of those administrations, we could have avoided spending a lot of blood and treasure there. Republicans, at one point during the Johnson administration refused to vote for funding for the war unless Johnson compromised on domestic spending, so there is not a lot of glory in either party's part in the war.
Job growth in itself say little, since most of the growth is in the low wage service industries. Wages for most working Americans have been stagnant while expenses like health care have exploded. One little discussed irony is that part of that job growth is because of illegal immigration, who require services like anyone else and they help depress wages, making more expansion possible.
The market indices are poor predictors of national economic conditions, since most of the companies reflected in them are multinational in scope, so their profits don't depend only on the United States. Also, with the weakened currency, it takes more dollars to buy shares in these corporations, artificially driving up the price.
It's a semantic argument over what is an occupation and what is a war, and is only important since the Bush administration, in the early years after overthrowing Hussein, abhorred the word, especially in the run up to the 2004 election. It has become a red flag that really riles up the base. I don't care much what you want to call your baby. That said, it seems that what you are saying is that when they do it, it's an occupation and when we do it, it's a war. On the contrary, dictionaries and treaties define occupation a bit differently.
The Hague Convention of 1907, which we adhere to, has the legal definition of "occupation":
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
Once the Hussein government was defeated and its military disbanded, we occupied Iraq. The fact that there is an insurgency only clarifies what type of occupation there is in Iraq.
There is a long list of "belligerent military occupations" that had to deal with insurgencies.
You might better argue that it is now a limited occupation, since some of the powers of an independent country have been returned to the indigenous population. However, as long as we provide much of the internal and external security and finances in Iraq, we occupy Iraq.
But a rose by any other name...
I'm busy so I'll just keep popping back here for one or two quick responses at a time.
First, Batiste's association with votevets.org DID make him antiwar despite his assertion to the contrary. Heck, the group is already pre-protesting a war with Iran.They support candidates who are antiwar. Some of the incumbents they're behind also voted against the surge. Having one of their members claim they aren't antiwar is a lot like Rosie O'Donnell saying "I'm not fat, I'm just big boned..."
Your claim that most of the jobs being added are low wage service industries is wrong. High tech has been adding jobs for most of this expansion. In fact, for the first time since the tech bubble burst, all four tech sectors monitored by the Bureau of Labor are adding jobs.
That we are adding lower wage jobs is still significant since it is those jobs that theoretically get hit hardest when a trade imbalance occurs (we don't really import a lot of lawyer and CEO-related goods and services).
Oh, the idea that illegal workers are pumping an appreciable amount of money into the U.S. economy is stretch almost not worth commenting on, but comment I must. Most anecdotal evidence coming from advocates for illegal workers claims that they come here mainly to send what they earn back to Mexico. Factor in the drains on education and other areas and it's hardly what can be described as a boon to the economy.
Off to be me for a while. It's SO time consuming!
Kennedy's young administration made mistakes, but cut its losses and took responsibility for the failure.
and the hypocrisy never stops--THIS was ok for a democratic president, but the relatively comparable issue of 9/11 leads to who knew what when investigations and non-stop castigation of Bush, NOT TO MENTION THE ONGOING RIDICULOUS TRUTHER NONSENSE
Republicans, at one point during the Johnson administration refused to vote for funding for the war unless Johnson compromised on domestic spending, so there is not a lot of glory in either party's part in the war.
That's because for the first time in history, entitlement spending overtook defense spending--but that's ok, cause it was a dem, right?
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
So by this definition that would be the UN's hostile occupation since that's where we ultimately pulled the authority for the war--just we're the only ones, with very few allies in the UN who has had the balls to stick it out and not be intimidated by mealy mouths and terrorists on the home front (like Spain)
is only important since the Bush administration
Is that why only the defeatists insist on calling it an occupation? Is that more PC bull nonsense? Don't call it what it is?
It's a WAR--not an occupation, no matter how many ways you try to spin it.
Yes it is Beth.
Spree, want some cats? Christmas trees, glitter balls, bells and lights plus cats just are NOT mixing!
I have no interest in defending Batiste. He's a big boy and can handle it himself.
But, let me see if I understand you. You are saying that since Gen. Batiste joined VoteVets, regardless of his reason, the fact that you see VoteVets as anti-war makes Gen. Batiste anti-war. Did I get that right?
So, then, the General joined with Pete Hegseth to write the recent op-ed in the Washington Post. Since Batiste is anti-war, his joining with Hesgeth would, therefore, make Hesgeth anti-war, too.
And since Hesgeth is anti-war and he leads the organization Vets for Freedom, that would mean, according to your logic, that Vets for Freedom is an anti-war group, too.
Batiste was against a failed strategy. Look up his comments. He, at no time, said that we should quit Iraq. He never said we shouldn't fight terrorists. He said that the Bush administration was pursuing a failed policy in Iraq, that Rumsfeld was incompetent and surrounded himself with sycophants. That doesn't make him anti-war.
I never said that illegal aliens pump money into the economy. I said that, in other words, they require services, like you said, in "education and other areas", which requires additional people to provide those services. I was talking job growth, not any positive or negative balance sheet total.
Entitlement weren't more than the defense budget during the Johnson administration. In fact, the first time the whole rest of the budget eclipsed defense spending was at the end of the Nixon-Ford term. Defense spending started to rise again in the Carter administration and again exceeded the spending in the rest of the budget. We account for about half of the total military spending in the world. I think that is overkill and wasteful. But the point I was making was that I couldn't understand why the Republicans were so against the troops back then...
The U.N. never explicitly authorized the use of force in Iraq. The US knew that any request for authorization was futile, so the went in with the "coalition of the bought.
Whenever I get into the conversation, with a Bush supporter, over the question of whether or not to call what is going on in Iraq a war or an occupation, I feel like the man in the classic Monty Python skit who pays for an argument but then only gets contradiction. I cited two sources towards my point that it is an occupation and all I get back is "No, it isn't!", usually with a pejorative attached. But, as someone once said, "If it walks like a duck..."
But all this is beside the point. I came into this discussion to counter that Batiste was ever anti-war. I've done that.
Sorry, that last comment was me.
"end of the Nixon-Ford term."
Wrong.
"why the Republicans were so against the troops back then..."
It wasn't the republicans--it was the dems. However, revisionist history written by the communist dems doesn't let that be known.
Bush supporter or no, you're still trying to spin it--it sounds better to call it an occupation and riles up the defeatists rather than calling it is what it is--a war. Period. End of Story.
Coalition of the bought--now that's rich considering all the coalition forces with us at the beginning--all UN forces.
Nixon-Ford, once again were REPUBLICANS--CARTER WAS A DEMOCRAT--JOHNSON WAS A DEMOCRAT. Are you clear on who was what now?
"We account for about half of the total military spending in the world"
Yes, we do--and regardless of what you think is overkill or wasteful, we defend more than half the world when they scream for our help--whether they've stood by us or against us, we still respond and help and by God we better have the capability to do it, regardless of what you think.
Let's start with the tortured logic at the beginning of that post regarding Batiste and Hegseth. You're being a little cat-and-mousey here and I think you know it. Nowhere at any time have we said that Gen. Batiste was ALWAYS antiwar. However, given the leanings of Vote Vets I think it's safe to say that he was going through an antiwar phase, which he had every right to to. Moving from VoteVets to Vets for Freedom most certainly represents a shift in focus. There is quite a difference between supporting people who voted against the surge and aligning oneself with people dedicated to explaining why the surge was necessary.
So, to clear this up and avoid plunging further into a semantic circle-jerk, Batiste was antiwar while affiliated with VoteVets. I don't care what he said at the time, becoming involved with any Soros-funded group brings a killer dose of guilt-by-association with it. If Batiste was never antiwar then speaking out for VoteVets was an odd way to prove it.
This thread has been going on so long that I sometimes think we're debating the War of 1812. I hear Soros it trying to grandfather in a surrender for that one. Keep an eye out for his next project, a Broadway musical titled "This Country Made Me Now I'm Going To Piss All Over It". The script hasn't been written yet but the New York Times has already called it "brilliant".
One more thing. Beth, you and Spree would NEVER have to buy tickets to see me live. Puh-leeze.
It would be so worth it--dang, I don't think I ever got you to sign my yearbooks--I'll have to check--lol...those "autographs" would be priceless now! Course, then people would want to see me in all my geekiness (UGH)....speaking obliquely (it's LATE) of school--whatever happened to your key club hat???
"Guilt by association" is not a valid argument. If it were, then the associations with the Bush family with the BinLaden construction firm would suggest that Bush is a member of Al Queda. If you had evidence in Batiste's words that he was anti-war at the time...
This is how I see it:
Batiste was tired of the screw ups in Iraq caused by Rumsfeld and his minions, and, by chain of command, the President. He saw the intransigence there and decided to speak out. Knowing he couldn't legally do that as an active duty officer, he resigned. He tried to, through testimony before Congress and other activities, effect change. When he saw that he was having little effect, he looked for a way to bypass the politicians and speak directly to the American people. He was given the opportunity by VoteVets, who had their own reasons to do so, and he took it. And it worked. Rumsfeld was replaced immediately after the election and the situation in Iraq has improved, at least for the time being. You are confusing what he said with the vehicle he used to say it.
If you could show me one quote of his that shows he was against this war or saying that we should withdraw, I might be willing to change my mind. But you don't. You can't.
Searching the FEC database, I can find no evidence of George Soros giving money to the VoteVets PAC or any other direct funding of the group.
But I, also, can see no amount of evidence can change your mind. But, I guess, this is typical here.
Here's a hint for the future, though. Using name calling and non sequitors in your "arguments" are not likely to sway anyone to your side. Reasoned discussion and respect for others might be more appropriate and convincing.
Just a thought.
Cape, you obviously don't know the difference between just being "associated" with someone or some group and becoming a SPOKESPERSON for that group, which is what Baptiste did.
If you do not like the debates here, a hint for you, there is a little X on the top right hand side, CLICK IT.
Otherwise, grow up.
dumbass trolls.
losers all.
The general's anti-war comments?
"First, there were a number of assumptions and assessments that did not bear out. Prominent among them was the assumption that Iraqis would remain in their barracks and ministry facilities and resume their functions as soon as interim governmental structures were in place. That obviously did not transpire. The assessment of the Iraqi infrastructure did not capture how fragile and abysmally maintained it was (and this challenge, of course, was compounded by looting). Additionally, although most Iraqis did, in fact, greet us as liberators (and that was true even in most Sunni Arab areas), there was an underestimation of the degree of resistance that would develop as, inevitably, a Shi’a majority government began to emerge and the Sunni Arabs, especially, the Saddamists, realized that the days of their dominating Iraq were over. Sunni Arab resistance was also fueled by other actions noted below.
Beyond that, as noted recently by President Bush, there were a number of situations that did not develop as was envisioned:
- There was the feeling that elections would enhance the Iraqi sense of nationalism. Instead, the elections hardened sectarian positions as Iraqis voted largely based on ethnic and sectarian group identity.
- There was an underestimation of the security challenges in Iraq, particularly in 2006 in the wake of the bombing of the mosque in Samara, coupled with an over-estimation of our ability to create new security institutions following the disbandment of the Iraqi security forces – which was not helped by the planning issues described below.
- It repeatedly took us time to recognize changes in the security environment and to react to them. What began as an insurgency has morphed into a conflict that includes insurgent attacks, terrorism, sectarian violence, and violent crime. Our responses have had to continue to evolve in response, but that has not always been easy.
A number of mistakes were made by both political and military leaders during the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
- The very slow (if that) execution of the reconciliation component of de-Ba’athification left tens of thousands of former Ba’ath Party members (many of them Sunni Arabs, but also some Shi’a) feeling that they had no future opportunities in, or reason to support, the new Iraq. To be fair to CPA, AMB Bremer intended to execute reconciliation (or exceptions to the de-Ba’athification order) and gave me permission, e.g., to do so on a trial basis in Ninevah Province; however, when we submitted the results of the reconciliation commission conducted for Mosul University and subsequent requests for exception generated by Iraqi processes with judicial oversight, no action was taken on them by the de-Ba’athification Committee in Baghdad. As realization set in among those affected that there was to be no reconciliation, we could feel support for the new Iraq ebbing in Sunni Arab majority areas.
- Disbanding the Iraqi army
"- Disbanding the Iraqi army (which was, to be sure, an army that Iraq did not need in the long term as it had vastly more senior officers than were remotely required and was more of a jobs program than a competent military force) without simultaneously announcing a stipend and pension program for those in the Army, the future plan for Iraq’s defense forces, and provisions for joining those forces undoubtedly created tens of thousands of former soldiers and officers who were angry, feeling disrespected, and worried about how they would feed their families. (The stipend plan was eventually announced some 5 weeks after the disestablishment was announced, but it did not cover senior officers, who remained, therefore, influential critics of the new Iraq.) This action likely fueled, at least in part, the early growth of the insurgency and anti-coalition feeling.
- We took too long to recognize the growing insurgency and to take steps to counter it, though we did eventually come to grips with it.
- We took too long to develop the concepts and structures needed to build effective Iraqi security forces to assist in providing security to the Iraqi
people.
- Misconduct at Abu Gharyb and in other less sensational, but still damaging cases, inflamed the insurgency and damaged the credibility of Coalition forces in Iraq, in the region, and around the world.
- We obviously had inadequate plans, concepts, organizations, resources, and policies for the conduct of Phase IV (stability and reconstruction) operations; consequently, we were slow to move into Phase IV operations.
- We had, for the first 15 months or more in Iraq, an inadequate military structure. With hindsight, it is clear that it took too long to transform V Corps HQs into CJTF-7 HQs, and that even when we had CJTF-7 HQs, it was not capable of looking both up and down (i.e. performing both political-military/strategic functions and serving as the senior operational headquarters for counterinsurgency and stability operations). Moreover, it is clear that we should have built what eventually became MNSTC-I HQs and the TF-34 HQs (which oversees detainee/interrogation operations) much sooner, along with the other organizations that were eventually established (e.g., the Gulf Region Corps of Engineer HQs).
- Although not a problem in the 101st Airborne Division AOR during my time as 101st commander, it is clear that in certain other AORs there were more tasks than troops – especially in Anbar Province for at least the first year and likely in other areas as well.
- Finally, the strategy pursued in the wake of the bombing of the Al Askariya Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 was unable to arrest the spiraling violence and rise of harmful sectarian activities. Repeated operations in Baghdad, in particular, to clear, hold, and build did not prove durable due to lack of sufficient Iraqi and Coalition Forces for the hold phase of the operations."
Cape...try dealing with the PRESENT, not the past. We are seeing tremendous success NOW.
Hindsight is great but does nothing to change history.
STICK TO THE TOPIC OF THE POST, which is the article by Baptiste and Hegseth, where Baptiste has changed his position. (As progress was seen, Baptiste changed his opinion, publicly and bravely)
If you cannot stick to the issue, you will not be commenting here anymore....are we clear?
That is the last warning you will get.
You are right. Since that was a quote from General Patraeus, it is off topic.
But isn't this whole "changed his mind" meme a bit of "dealing with" the past, not present?
A spokesman is a person who speaks as the representative of another or others often in a professional capacity, often with a script from somebody else and it doesn't necessarily represent the viewpoint of the speaker.
General Batiste (not Baptiste) spoke his own words for no pay. He said the same things to the White House, Congress, the military, military and foreign affairs committees, to anyone who would listen. With his help, a number of veterans were elected to Congress and a good number of them supported the "surge".
I can't fathom why you want to believe that he "changed his mind" even though it is obvious he is saying the same things. Maybe you blame him for the historic losses the Republican Party suffered in '06. Maybe it's because you were so blindly swallowing what Rumsfeld and his ilk were spooning out that you are angry that he has been proved so wrong, showing you up. I would hesitate to guess and I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze you.
Batiste was right, then and now. Rumsfeld and the neo-con ideologues screwed up from day one and they, and their "strategy", should have been given the boot long ago. That was what he was saying then and is saying now.
He is saying a lot more than that. The op-ed has a number of proposals on how we move forward from here. Maybe you should think seriously about them and not trying to prove the unprovable.
Cape, you are the only one that cannot seem to understand that by being a spokesmanfor an ANTIWAR group, he was speaking an anti-war message. His leaving the group and joining one in support of the victory is a CHANGE.
Maybe you should look up the definition of the word 'change' in the dictionary.
Now quit running in circles, add something new or see ya on another thread.
dumbass trolls.
Commenting by HaloScan
