Gen. David Petraeus made clear in an interview Sunday that no one should expect significant progress in Iraq by September, which many in Congress have identified as a key deadline for assessing the "surge" and continued military funding. In fact, Petraeus said that the counterinsurgency operation in Iraq would require at least 10 years of U.S. commitment.
Has President Bush really leveled with the American people about what’s required for "victory" in Iraq?
Expect more GOP leaders to break with the president in September. Congress will be pushing anew for a reduced troop presence and a new strategy.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
40 Comments
Petraeus is obviously lying since Cheney said the insurgents were in their last throws and Rumsfeld said this war wouldn’t take more than a few weeks. Petraeus is clearly a defeatist bent on making our glorious leader Bush look like a failure in his moment of triumph as he fights on the front lines.
10 years– a hundred years. What’s the difference? As long as halliburton is making money…
Ten years more of our troops dying in a civil war? Good luck selling that to the American public. Ten years? Heh – sheer insanity, not to mention politically and economically impossible.
“Congress will be pushing anew for a reduced troop presence and a new strategy.”
Libs: When the going gets tough, they get going.
“Has President Bush really leveled with the American people about what’s required for “victory” in Iraq?”
Hell, he hasnt even leveled with the people consistantly on what “victory” is, much less what is required to achieve it.
If you have no idea or plan about where you are headed, ANY road will take you there.
I think he is running out of forks in the road to take, as Yogi would say.
“Libs: When the going gets tough, they get going.”
HEE HEE HEE HEE!!!!
Cons: Keep doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
Or maybe this?
Cons: When something doesnt work, keep doing it over and over and over and over….
So kfg, what are these things these CONS keep doing over and over as pertaining to the Iraq war?
Randy,
What world do you live in?
“Congress will be pushing anew for a reduced troop presence and a new strategy.”
A new strategy?
The only thing the left has offered is withdrawl.
If the left would give us a strategy for victory I see no reason in not listening or following it.
LOL, new strategy… you guys have been saying this since before the election and I have yet to see what it is.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Democrats and Republicans for their commitment to nation building.
Proudman,
Priceless.
Challenge. How many YouTube posts can y’all find where GW promises not to nation build.
Ready… GO!!!
Ten years at $150 billion per year? One thousand to fifteen hundred troops killed per year? A complete inability of our military to address any other issue effectively?
And all of this is 1,500+ days after MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
This is insanity.
And all of this was and is being done to overthrow a two-bit tin pot dictator that could not even control all of his own country.
Great.
We have mortgaged the lives of our children and grandchildren, not to mention losing the lives of 3,500+ just so we could hang Saddam Hussein?
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
“In fact, Petraeus said that the counterinsurgency operation in Iraq would require at least 10 years of U.S. commitment.”
Get out now. Or remove ourselves to the border to keep out others, and let the iraquis duke it out among themselves.
Signedsick of it
“just so we could hang Saddam Hussein?”
Well Clark, ya never know what Saddam knew that our fearless u.s. leaders didnt want US to know.
Murder is always cost effective.
In a country, such as Iraq, it shouldn’t take 10 years to go house to house, as our soldiers are doing now, and killing everybody inside.
A “Surge Gang” of 10,000 should be able to kill everybody, all 28 million Iraqis, in much less time than 10 years.
I’m sure that smiling Joe Lieberman should be able to tell us to the day, being real good with math.
That is about the same length of time as the Vietnam War.
And with a similar outcome …
And why is this a surprise to anyone?
Just a list of other insurgencies and estimates of their length:
Vietnam ~30 yearsN. Ireland: after WWII ~ 30 yearsAfghanistan (Soviets): ~ 10 yearsShining Path (Peru): ~50 yearsSri Lanka (Tamil Tigers): ~ 30 yearsAlgerian insurgency: ~ 8 yearsBasques: ~ 50 years
American Insurgency – 8 years
An occupying force cannot conquer an insurgency without genocide.
Please inform me why our soldiers should continue to die in Iraq for ten years? What is the ‘mission?’ When can we declare success (and not just for a photo-op)? That’s something the wingers can never seem to answer. Define success, please.
ddub
Israel is concerned that if we leave Iraq, Iran will influence the outcome of power in Iraq, and spoil Israel’s expansion.
As long as the US stays in Iraq, Israel can begin murdering the Lebanese insurgents and expand Zionist influence one country at a time, with oil as the prize.
If Iran remains a powerhouse in the Middle East, Israeli ruthless expansion is pretty well stymied, as a new incoming president in the United States will most likely demand concessions for peace, which Bush has never even suggested.
By 2009, Americans will have “had it” with high priced gasoline being driven-up by an expected all out war in the Middle East, which Israel continues to threaten.
I hope that sheds a little light on your question.
I think some serious thought should be given to past actions by this country. There is a telling sequence of events in each dictator we supported, in this case, Latin/South America:http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladictators8303.html
Then look at the so-called reason we supported Iraq, and in turn, Saddam. We supported Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war because we were afraid Iran would turn to communism, via Russian support and ideological conversion.
Shows what we knew about Muslim countries. Hell, it would have been the other way around. The Russians got their asses handed to them because they had no clue as to what fanaticism really meant. It didn’t help they were both out fought and out thought.
My DSL service limits my uploads: suks
Which closely resembles what’s going on in Iraq today. We still don’t understand what we did; and this administration has no idea how to get out of this war we’ve already “won.”
The operative change is communism is basically dead, but terrorism has done a more than adequate job of taking the stage. Going to war with Iraq has shown to be an excellent training ground for terrorism, i.e, Al-Quida.
So what’s wrong with this picture? Ten more years in Iraq, training future terrorists’; or finding a politically positive way to get the hell out?
I don’t even think we will be out in 10 years. I fully expect this to turn into another Korea and we will be there decades from now. Unfortunately we have no choice. We have to stay.
Yeah, there’s no way this will be a 10 year commitment. It’ll take *at least* two consecutive Iraqi generations (~ 40yrs) of American support and probably more than three.
Petraeus’s estimate of 10 years is *extremely* optimistic. Given that the Pentagon apparently signed onto this quick war from the start, Patraeus probably believes what he says. But there’s no way. Peace in Iraq won’t start, can’t start, until America finds a way to get out from between Iraqi factions and allows Iraq to fight it out.
If the US hurries things along, then as WSClark points out it will require something akin to genocide on our part; if the Iraqis fight it out themselves then the world will call it a civil war instead. Either way, it has to happen.
And THAT can’t start until Jan-09 at the soonest, when Augustus Stupidus finally drags his sorry ass back to Crawford, Texas. Hell, the US military still says amnesty for Iraqi insurgents is off the table, a non-starter. Amnesty has *always* been Step 1 in any political settlement between occupying and insurgent forces. Under the “leadership” of Bush, we can’t even talk seriously about Step 1.
Petraeus may not mean to, but his statement is more akin to “if Americans are in for a penny, then they should be in for a pound.” Thing is, it’ll be a long, long, long time before 2049 rolls around.
Personally, I think it’s virtually impossible to overestimate the level of American commitment to Iraq required at this time. This will require a HUGE amount of American resources.
We can leave Iraq, and never look back, and that’s a fact Jack…and the sky won’t fall and the rivers will flow well, and Walker will keep misspelling al-Qaida { al-Qaeda } until the freezing-over of hell.
Please. This Administration isn’t looking ten years into the future: it’s looking to January 2009, after which point it can hand off its disaster to the incoming Democratic Administration and dish off the blame for the catastrophe it has engendered.
However, I believe we ought to hold Republican officeholders responsible. They sold the Splurge with a September deadline, and that’s still the benchmark.
Come September, Representative Tiahrt, and Senators Roberts and Brownback, your constituents expect you to act like elected representatives rather than camp followers.
“and Walker will keep misspelling al-Qaida { al-Qaeda } until the freezing-over of hell.”
Damn, when did they change:-)
Poor Gurard, getting screwed over for another 10 yrs., when they hear that, they’ll definitely decide it’s time to get out. Hundreds of billion for ten more years for a failed president’s failed ambitions.
We best stay in Iraq because if we leave they’ll come to America and attack us, just like they did after we left Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia, Philippines, and Cambodia. Well there was one place we left where they did come back and get us, that was Afghanistan but it’s because we gave the insurgents weapons. Let’s hope Bush doesn’t make the mistake of giving insurgents in Iraq weapons.
Ooops, too late.
I could lose my hard-earned anti-Semitic, racist, bigoted reputation after writing a poem to another Dude…
Al-Quda is just fine….
nathan – many people have offered alternative strategies to Bush about the Iraq War but he has blown everyone of them off.
Remember the Baker-Hamilton group that came up with several strategies? And that group was not just the Godless Left Liberals, as you like to label anyone that dares to question your beloved little leader Bush.
The Democrats are now in power, Nathan, so there will be no more marching in lockstep with Bush as it has been done in the last 6 years of total Republican control.
Total Republican control = total chaos. And, fortunately, more than 70% of Americans now disagree with Bush and it isn’t looking very good for the Republicans for 2008 – either the White House, House or the Senate.
Ten years? So it will take THREE terms of democratic presidency to fix this mess?
Nice job. Mission accomplished.
Still no strategy from the left.
Where is it Randy?
Where is this pushing anew for a different strategy?
Withdrawl is not a strategy.
Fedup,
Why is the left not pushing for those recommendations then?
All I see is demands for withdrawl.
They are, Nathan, if you will shut your mouth for a few minutes and actually listen to others.
Democrats have power but not the majority of power. Hence, Bush has the power to browbeat those Republicans who still insist that their boy is God personafied on Earth. But there are more and more Republicans who are jumping the Bush ship because they see the tide of unpoularity that Bush has brought upon himself.
Just because you do not agree with the alternative strategies, does not make them useless. So go buy some ear wax removal kit and try LISTENING to differing opinions – okay?
fedup,
I see your typing, but I have yet to see the Democrats offer strategy.
What is it?
Please do tell. Don’t tell me there is a strategy they are offering, show me what it is.
I already see a bunch of posts saying there is a strategy.
WHAT IS IT?
“Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him to advocate ‘war, pestilence, and famine,’ than to act as an obstructionist to a war already begun.”
Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant…from about 130 years ago.
We are indeed destined to repeat the mistakes of the past if we don’t learn from them…and once having learned, we must stand up no matter the personal repercussions on reputation or fortune.
“U.S.: Attacks kill 14 American troops in IraqBomb attack claims 5 GIs and 4 Iraqis, military says; mayor’s office also hit”
“Updated: 8:53 a.m. CT June 21, 2007BAGHDAD – The U.S. military said 14 American troops have died in several attacks in the past 48 hours, including five slain Thursday in a single roadside bombing that also killed four Iraqis in Baghdad.
Elsewhere, a suicide truck bomber struck the Sulaiman Bek city hall in a predominantly Sunni area of northern Iraq, killing at least 16 people and wounding 67, an Iraqi commander said.
The latest U.S. deaths raised to at least 3,545 the number of American troops who have died since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.”
Deaths on WednesdayFour other U.S. soldiers were killed and one was wounded Wednesday when their convoy was struck by a roadside bomb in a western neighborhood in the capital, the military said separately.
Southwest of Baghdad, two U.S. soldiers were killed and four were wounded Wednesday when explosions struck near their vehicle, according to a statement earlier in the day.
Two Marines also were killed Wednesday while conducting combat operations in Anbar province, west of Baghdad, the military said.
Several mortars or rockets slammed into the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, raising fresh concerns about the thousands of Americans who live and work in the heavily fortified area in central Baghdad.
The explosion in Sulaiman Bek occurred about 10:30 a.m., and killed 16 people, the local Iraqi army commander said.
Mayor targetedMaj. Gen. Anwar Hama Amin, the commander of the Iraqi army’s 2nd Brigade, blamed the blast on al-Qaida, saying it was the latest in a series of strikes by the terror network against government officials, whom they accuse of collaborating with the U.S. and the Iraqi government.
Sulaiman Bek is about 100 miles north of the capital and just outside the border with Diyala province, where thousands of U.S. troops are engaged in an offensive against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Amin said the target apparently was the mayor, who has lost five relatives in previous assassination attempts. The blast heavily damaged the city hall, along with several nearby houses and stores.
‘I was walking in the street …’Thamir Mohammed, a 28-year-old newlywed, said he was on his way to city hall to do some paperwork to get a new ration card when the blast occurred, knocking him off his feet and wounding him in the head and legs.”
More….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19349522/
Is Nathan totally ignorant or is he just trying to play stupid? Democrats and some Republicans are for withdrawal of our troops if the Iraqi government does not hold up their end of the deal.
The future of Iraq is up to the Iraqis – not us. When will Nathan understand that just because he is making money off his Halliburton stock, this is no justification for what Bush did to Iraq.
But, then again, it doesn’t bother people like Nathan and his dad to make money off dead soldiers.