Petraeus says US surge has 'not worked out'

[Linkster]

Of course he also hs said that he will give an upbeat report to politicians - but at lest he is being honest with the soldiers in his letter

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=318677

"General David Petraeus, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, admitted on Friday that sending 30 000 more troops into the war zone in January had failed to yield the desired results. "It has not worked out as we had hoped," the general said.

The acknowledgement by Petraeus that the situation in Iraq is "exceedingly complex" and that progress had been "uneven" came on the eve of his testimony to Congress on the state of the war. He offered the assessment in a letter to US forces serving in Iraq"

[moonman]

Hopefully this means Bush has finally run out of generals who support his policy.

CRA, Congressional Research Agency IIRC, is also reporting that any hope of a political solution in Iraq is a pipe dream. The Maliki gubment is hanging on a wing and a prayer and could be toppled at any moment.

Even PM Brown of England is talking like the Brits will pull out soon.

What will it take before Bush gets the message?

[Linkster]

moonman - unfortunately I know that he will walk in and completely support the administration when it comes to actually talking in front of congress and the American people - he has to or Bush will fire him
This was just his attempt to be honest with his own troops over in the zone since he knows that they know what is really happening
Dont think for a minute this message will ever get to mainstream US citizens - it was only intended for keeping the loyalty of his soldiers

[radioguy]

Of course he also hs said that he will give an upbeat report to politicians - but at lest he is being honest with the soldiers in his letter

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=318677

"General David Petraeus, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, admitted on Friday that sending 30 000 more troops into the war zone in January had failed to yield the desired results. "It has not worked out as we had hoped," the general said.

The acknowledgement by Petraeus that the situation in Iraq is "exceedingly complex" and that progress had been "uneven" came on the eve of his testimony to Congress on the state of the war. He offered the assessment in a letter to US forces serving in Iraq"

Hey linkster. That article you posted is bunk!

That is not what the general said at all in that letter. When he said "It has not worked out as we had hoped," he wasn't talking about the military results of the surge, as this writer leads everyone to believe. He was talking about the political progress in the Milaki government.

How demented and disconnected from reality is this writer? That letter is anything but negative. It's only a short two page letter, so read it yourself and see.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/CGs_Corner/070907_cg_mess.pdf

[disrupter]

The WHOLE POINT of the surge was political progress.

IT DIDN'T WORK.

IT'S A LOSER.

The purpose was lost.

Now give up your delusions of imperialist powers,
imposing your brand of democracy,
the theft of iraqi oil for ex-patriot oil companies

AND QUIT WASTING MORE AMERICAN RESOURCES & LIVES ON YOUR FUCKING PARANOID DELUSIONS.

[Linkster]

Im afraid that disrupter is exactly correct - the whole point of the surge requested by Bush was to give time for political progress - not military progress - and having actually read the letter - the writer is exactly correct - and in most places is just reiterating what the Washington Post also wrote - that the surge has been a failure as the Iraqi governement did not respond the way that was expected.

The military advances (while admirable) have nothing to do with the "surge" or the delay time "till September" - as a matter of fact they were already happening in Anbar before the surge was even started - and in other provinces they were well underway - it is amazing what a bag full of money does for you at the feet of a Sunni leader

[Bill]

Maybe if we send in another 50,000 reservists those dirty smelly Iraqis would sign the oil law.

[radioguy]

The goals of the troop surge and what was stated in that article linkster posted are two different subjects.

That article was misleading, deceptive and in my opinion, a lie. The author took the Generals words out of context and applied a totally different meaning to them. He attempted to deceive his readers into believing that the letter the General wrote was an admission that the troop surge was a failure, a conclusion that's about as far from the truth as you can get. Anyone who bothered to read the actual letter, would know this.

Any comments?


As for the goal of the troop surge, here is what I have to say about that:

Many of you seem to be putting the cart before the horse here.

The first priority of the surge was to squash the insurgency in and around Baghdad, then after that was accomplished, it was hoped that it would give the "breathing room" the Iraqi government needed to solve their problems. To say the surge has failed because the Iraqi government hasn't solved their problems, doesn't apply yet, because the troop surge isn't over.

The troop surge is working, but it still has many more parts of Iraq to deal with, especially in and around Baghdad. When the surge has accomplished what it set out do, then it will be time to address the issue of the Iraqi government. The surge has only been at full strength a short time, but based on the progress happening on the ground it's obvious that it is working.

When Baghdad is secured, then comes the time to hold the Iraqi governments feet to the fire and demand that they put up, or shut up. For now, we need to let our military continue the progress that's being made on the ground against al qaida and continue to work with the Iraqi government to help them get their problems solved.

.

[Bill]

See - no problem.

Just pony up another 150 bil - 250 max.

Those Iraqi politicians are just one step away from giving up.

[Linkster]

Amazing how things can spun so quickly - I guess most people in the US dont have a memory that goes back to 6 months ago when the "surge" was planned and the president was giving a reason for it- instead they quote recent senators comments on why we did it that have been spun to match what has happened
Saying that the surge is working would be like saying that we have won a victory in Iraq and then still having soldiers being killed over there - oh wait a minute - we did that too

[Linkster]

I will give you the point that the article is cherry-picked - I guess he learned that from the right wing nuts that teach other "journalists" the tricks of the trade - seems to be a common disease among the news media

[Bill]

Every day longer that the war goes on is a bad day for republicans.

They just aren't aware enough to have figured this out.

Let them break their teeth on their beloved surge.

Their fantasies are destroying them.

[radioguy]

Amazing how things can spun so quickly - I guess most people in the US dont have a memory that goes back to 6 months ago when the "surge" was planned and the president was giving a reason for it...

I think my recollection of things was pretty accurate. Let's just have a look at what the president said to the American people in a televised speech back in January:

"The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced."


To say that the surge was only for the purpose of getting the Iraqi government to snap to attention, is a misrepresentation of the goals the troop surge set out to accomplish in the beginning. It was and is, only part of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq, though you would never know it if you only listen to democrats in Washington.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I think my recollection of things was pretty accurate. Let's just have a look at what the president said to the American people in a televised speech back in January:

To say that the surge was only for the purpose of getting the Iraqi government to snap to attention, is a misrepresentation of the goals the troop surge set out to accomplish in the beginning. It was and is, only part of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq, though you would never know it if you only listen to democrats in Washington.

Well. Thanks for finding the transcript. Now we have it in "black and white" print that the surge has failed on more than one front. :D

[radioguy]

I will give you the point that the article is cherry-picked - I guess he learned that from the right wing nuts that teach other "journalists" the tricks of the trade - seems to be a common disease among the news media

Thank you for acknowledging the point I was making, but I have one more observation for you.

You laying blame on "right wing nuts" for that deceptive article written by an "anti-war liberal", seems like an attempt by you to justify the writers deceptions because he embraces your viewpoint. A liberal writer lies to his readers, and that's the fault of the "right wingers"... Give me a break!

[Linkster]

No - I was not blaming one writers cherry-picking on them - I was blaming the entire news medias' misrepresentations on them - its been shown that if you can get an audience of 800k a night you can sell advertising - and if you have to do it by lying, ranting and running accusations based on theories (no matter whether left or right) it works - the right wing nutcases were the first to experiment with it and proved it worked - everyone else has followed suit.

That said, I have huge misgivings of any media outlet that has the ties that exist in every organization out there today - whether they get labelled left or right - to certain "groups" and tend to normally disregard them all - however I do like to stir up discussion so I will play from all sides as I am not a real "believer" in either the left or the rights philosophies. I have my own beliefs and those allow me to analyze things from a completely different perspective while observing others reactions to certain button pushing

[Linkster]

BTW - as a small retort to what you posted about the goals of the "surge" - those were some cherry-picked comments that the president used - they were not the intended complete goals set out by the military in combination with the congressional agreement - they were just a small part of it - which is why there is so much discussion about the report that the president is required to give next week to congress on the progress - while he plays on 2 small aspects of the goals - the other 16 or so are being left out so far - but since it is a congressional requirement that the president report on all of the goals by the 15th Im sure we will hear more

[radioguy]

BTW - as a small retort to what you posted about the goals of the "surge" - those were some cherry-picked comments that the president used - they were not the intended complete goals set out by the military in combination with the congressional agreement - they were just a small part of it - which is why there is so much discussion about the report that the president is required to give next week to congress on the progress - while he plays on 2 small aspects of the goals - the other 16 or so are being left out so far - but since it is a congressional requirement that the president report on all of the goals by the 15th Im sure we will hear more

True, they were not all of the goals, but they were the primary ones. Those were the first ones he discussed in his speech and I posted them to show you that I had not forgotten what the president had laid out as the main objectives the troop surge. Which by the way, you notice wasn't what you and others have claimed.

Many pundits on the right predicted back in July, that if the troop surge was showing a reasonable measure of success against the insurgency, that the democrats in Washington, the liberal media, and the left bloggers on the internet would move the goal posts and find a new angle to push there cut and run agenda. That sir, is exactly what has taken place.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Blast Kills 15 in Shiite Area of Baghdad
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: September 9, 2007

BAGHDAD, Sept. 8 — A bomb in a parked car exploded late Saturday in the Shiite stronghold Sadr City, killing 15 people, officials said.

The bombing was the first against Shiites in Baghdad since last week, when the cleric Moktada al-Sadr ordered his militia to halt all attacks, and it was one of three attacks against Mr. Sadr’s supporters on Saturday.

A roadside bomb struck Shiites in the holy city Kufa, Mr. Sadr’s base, killing five people. In Najaf, a drive-by shooting took the life of a tribal sheik who works closely with Mr. Sadr’s office in Najaf, said Sheik Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman at the office.

The attacks came as official Washington is preparing for an intense week-long debate over President Bush’s troop buildup. The top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the top diplomat, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, are expected to testify on Capitol Hill on Monday and Tuesday. President Bush is expected to address the nation about what he calls "the way forward" in Iraq after their testimony has concluded.

Mr. Bush followed his trip to Australia with a visit to Hickam Air Force Base in Honolulu on Saturday, where he visited wounded troops, ate lunch at Pearl Harbor and urged Congress to "sit back and listen to what we all have to say before they reach the conclusions that they’re going to reach."

The bomb in Baghdad, set between a market and a police station, killed civilians passing by as they did their weekly shopping. It wounded 45 people.

The Iraqi police found 11 unidentified bodies around Baghdad, according to figures from the Interior Ministry.

In Diyala Province, more than 400 families have returned to their homes in different parts of the capital, Baquba, since the American military operations there in July, an Iraqi police officer in Diyala said. The officer asked not to be identified because the numbers are not official.

However, scattered violence continued in the province, with eight civilians killed in several incidents and three unidentified bodies found by the police, a police official said. Extremist Sunni Arab groups have been active in Diyala, and there has also been sectarian fighting between Sunni Arabs and Shiite militias.

An incident on Saturday gave a measure of the brutality that has become increasingly common in the northern province. Four members of a family in Dakok, south of Kirkuk, were killed at close range when they met with kidnappers of one family member’s son, said Capt. Taher Mahmud, a police official in Dakok. The kidnappers had called the young man’s family and said they were prepared to release him, then shot the family members when they arrived to pick him up.

In Baghdad, Parliament voted unanimously to extend until the end of the year the work of the committee recommending changes in the Constitution.

The extension is a measure of the difficulties in Parliament as political factions try to agree on a way to divide oil revenues, determine the status of the northern city of Kirkuk and delineate the powers of the presidency.

The last of the four Sunni Arab blocs that had boycotted Parliament announced that it would return. The group, the 11-member Iraqi front for National Dialogue, led by Salam Mutlak, returned to the chamber on Saturday; the other three Sunni Arab blocs had already resumed attending Parliament sessions.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting from Honolulu, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Kirkuk, Diyala, Najaf and Sadr City.

[Independent Harry]

Hey lady mod, when is scam.com going to be back up and running, grim called me, and he just kept muttering something about damn liberals this and damn liberals that under his breath. I think he's starting to loose it. We should get scam back up before he sets himself up in a clock tower...

[Jennifer]

Just to sum up General Petraeus. General Petraeus told members of Congress the Iraq troop buildup had met its objectives in large measure, said he believed 30,000 troops could be withdrawn by next summer. But that didn't sit well. There was Code Pink in there. You heard Tony Snow refer to it. Code Pink, the communist sympathizing anti-war group in this country was in there, along with Cindy Sheehan, she was arrested as part of the group, too. She was arrested in the room or near it. It was not clear whether she was in there. Now, how did Code Pink get in there? We all know how Code Pink got in there, Democrat staffers. There were five or six of them in there, and here's how it sounded. This is the first of two sound bites.

PETRAEUS: It is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi special groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.

CODE PINK CHICK: That's a lie!

PETRAEUS: The most significant development in the past six months likely has been the increasing emergence --

CODE PINK CHICK: That's a lie!

SKELTON: Will the gentleman suspend with the --

CODE PINK CHICK: That's a lie!

SKELTON: Will the entire group that's back there supporting that person be removed?

PETRAEUS: the most significant development --

SKELTON: Just a minute, general.
RUSH: Now, folks, I'm not joking here. I'm not trying to be funny, even though I know I am. I am one of the most entertaining entertainers there is, but I'll tell you this. I've got the Drive-By stories in the stack here, the Democrats, there's an unnamed senator out there saying, "We're not going to call the guy a liar. We have our surrogate groups for this." Now, Code Pink just didn't walk in there and get tickets. They were all dressed up, and you couldn't miss these people. They looked like deranged jacks-in-the-box, totally deranged, miserable, unhappy, ugly fat women. Thank you. Thank you. They didn't get in there by accident. Democrat staffers no doubt arranged for them to get in there and cause this little protest to call Petraeus a liar. By the way, he was exactly right. This has always been a proxy war with Iran, make no mistake about it. I'm stunned he admitted that. I'm glad he did, because it's been one of the earliest assertions made by me on this program many, many moons ago. Here's the second bite.

PETRAEUS: All Americans should be very proud of their sons and daughters serving in Iraq today. Thank you very much.

CODE PINK CHICK: General Petraeus (screaming unintelligible gobbly gook). The American people don't believe you anymore!

SKELTON: Let me make this announcement. Please remove them.

CODE PINK CHICK: (Shrieking) I have a right to speak! Arrrrgh! Arrrgh!

SKELTON: Will be prosecuted under Section 10, 503.16 of the District of Columbia, and we will prosecute them under the law.

That was Ike Skelton, Democrat leader on the committee there. He's from Missouri. "General, the American people don't believe you anymore." Really? Whose talking points are those? That sounds just like Tom Lantos to me; sounds just like Harry Reid; sounds just like Feinstein; sounds just like Nancy Pelosi to me; sounds just like John Kerry to me. Democrat talking points emanating from Code Pink, not so much Democrats in the hearing.

Looks to ME like he said it worked out splendidly. But hey, I'm only listening to what the man actually said, not what the spin-meisters are saying.


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cindy-sheehan-arrested-in-outside-petraeus-hearing-2007-09-10.html

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5420.html

[Jennifer]

I will give you the point that the article is cherry-picked - I guess he learned that from the right wing nuts that teach other "journalists" the tricks of the trade - seems to be a common disease among the news media


Yea, it is a common disease and George Soros is the one infecting the media with it. That's why all broadcast media has a very liberal bent, so much so, most of them have actually admitted they are biased against conservatives.

[Linkster]

Soros? Ya mean the guy that gave $5 billion dollars to get democracy established in Russia? - I hardly think he has much to do with any bias the media has either conservative or liberal
Seeing the reports that show up on the leading cable news shows I would have to say they are all conservative leaning - at least they all seem to parrot whatever the white house puts out in releases - I havent seen a real liberal media outlet in quite some time - even the traditionally liberal outlets like the Washington Post and NY Times have all gone conservative and full of pundits and idiots that just follow the crowd - it sure would be nice if Graham was still around to run the Post the way it used to be with real news and investigators

[Bill]

She must be thinking of Murdoch.

[Linkster]

I dont know Bill - I dont think he would be bent on pushing a media organization to a specific side from stuff Ive read of his - there must be someone else shes thinking of???

[disrupter]

The Iraq invasion has been a series of moving goalposts.

911 connection? no?

WMDs? no?

Democracy? no?

Surge = Political progress? no?

When will Americans and/or Congressional Democrats stand up & Stop the deception of moving goalposts?

this war is all about the empire of oligarchy, and nothing more.
everything else is a lie.