0
   

General Petraeus on the conditions on the ground in Iraq

 
 
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 07:48 am
General David Petraeus on the conditions on the ground in Iraq
The Hugh Hewitt Show
7-18-07 at 7:02 PM

HH: Welcome, General. You took over command of the multinational forces in February of this year, February 10. In the past five months, how have conditions in Iraq changed?

DP: Well, obviously, we have been surging our forces during that time. We have added five Army brigade combat teams, two Marine battalions, and a Marine expeditionary unit, and some enablers, as they're called. And over the last month, that surge of forces has turned into a surge of offensive operations. And we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, al Qaeda-Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long term threat, Shia militia extremists as well. As you may have heard, that today, we announced the capture of the senior Iraqi leader of al Qaeda-Iraq, and that follows in recent weeks the detention of some four different emirs, as they're called, the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives.

HH: Do you think al Qaeda in Iraq is buckling, General Petraeus?

DP: Well, it's probably too soon to say that, but we think that we have them off plan. Now having said that, they clearly retain and have demonstrated, tragically in recent, the past week or so, the ability to continue to carry out sensational attacks. They continue to demonstrate the ability to counterattack against our forces, and those of our coalition partners. But the detention, or the capture or killing of the number of leaders that we have taken out in recent months, and weeks, actually, and the progress in terms of just clearing areas of them…as you know, Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda. Eastern Anbar still has some, and we are working in that area. We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. So there has been considerable progress against them, but they do continue to receive foreign fighters through Syria, who become suicide bombers in many cases, and they do certainly have an ability to regenerate, to regroup, and to come back at us.

HH: General Petraeus, we've seen messages passed back and forth between al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and al Qaeda in Iraq. Do you consider them to be operating jointly?

DP: Well, there certainly is a level of direction that takes place, and there is a level of reporting from Iraq that goes back, and it does go back and forth. And periodically, you'll see one of those released. More recently, as an example of the kind of direction, actually given by individuals coming into Iraq, there were the, we announced the killing of two, and it turns out three, actually, al Turki brothers. These are, not surprisingly, from Turkey originally, part of al Qaeda leadership, spent time in Afghanistan in past years, and were sent into Northern Iraq to help shore up the network up there after it took significant blows, particularly in the Mosul area. And we've managed to get the final fifty meters, if you will, on them after sort of pursuing them for some months, and did kill them several weeks ago.

HH: Do you see any evidence, General, that al Qaeda is now operating jointly with the Iranian regime? There've been some reports that in fact, they are now based, in some respects, within Iran and operating across the border with Iran.

DP: Well, there is an al Qaeda affiliate, I think is the best way to put it. Certainly, they're under the overall banner of al Qaeda, an element formerly Ansar al Sunna, some of their members, another group affiliated with al Qaeda, that is located in Northwestern Iran, just east of the Iraqi border, east of the Iraqi-Kurdish province of Sulaymaniyah. They have come into Iraq. Our operators and Iraqi operators have conducted strikes against them. And we believe, in fact, that Iran may have actually taken some steps against them as well. They're not sitting there at the invitation of Iran, but it's a very, very rugged area, and a fairly substantial area as well.

HH: General Petraeus, some of your staff have talked in recent weeks about Iranian government support for various elements of the enemy in Iraq, in the form of sophisticated explosives, some training. Has the amount of material and training from Iran to the enemy in Iraq increased or decreased over the past half year?

DP: Well, it's hard to say. It certainly has not decreased, and it's hard to say whether it's increased or not, but it has remained very substantial. It's something we track, sometimes we're able to interdict some of it, sometimes we capture it or literally stop it. We captured, for example the other day, several dozen rockets that were all set up on timers, and aimed at one of our bases, and some of our air assets happened to see them, and we were able to defuse them, all clearly from Iran. Iran has indeed provided substantial funding, training, equipping, arming, and even direction, in some cases, to what are called the special groups or secret cells affiliated with the militia of Muqtada al Sadr. We captured the heads of the secret cells, as you may recall, several months ago, the Khazali brothers. And with them, we captured a senior Lebanese Hezbollah trainer, the deputy head of the Lebanese Hezbollah department that was apparently created to help the Iranian Quds force, the element that does provide this training, equipping, money and direction to the Iraqi secret groups, or secret cells.

HH: General, what do you perceive to be Iran's strategy in Iraq via that support and their other initiatives inside the new Iraq?

DP: Well, there are various theories on that, and one of those is actually that they may be somewhat conflicted. On the one hand, they should see a neighbor that is, that shares the same religious sect, fellow Shia, although Iraqis certainly are Arabs, and Iranians are obviously Persian. They should see a country that with which they actually already have considerable commercial trade and exchange, and great interest in, in that regard, but they also see a country that has certainly ties to the United States, and one whose democracy is very, very different from the form of government, of course, that you find in Iran, where the senior clerics actually run the country, as you know. And so they, there is discussion about whether they are trying, in a sense, to use certain elements to Hezbollah. Hezbollah is in certain parts of Iran. If they just don't…or Iraq…if they just don't want Iraq to do that well, perhaps, certainly want to give the United States a black eye, a variety of different motivations, we believe. And again, perhaps even a degree of confliction, given that a number of Iraq's senior leaders has close ties to Iran in the past, located in Iran during Saddam's day, and certainly have close relationships with various Iranian leaders, and share the religious sect of Shia Islam as well.

HH: Do you have the authority that you need, General, for hot pursuit, or to take the defensive actions necessary to protect American troops and the Iraqi government from Iranian intermeddling?

DP: Well, we certainly have the authority that we need to conduct operations in Iraq against anyone who threatens our forces or Iraqi forces. And in fact, we have done that, as I think you know…

HH: Right.

DP: We detained, for example, five members of the Iranian Quds force that were in Iran, and that we believe were tied into this greater network that has provided this arming, funding, training and direction to the secret cells or special groups associated with Sadr's militia.

HH: General, I want to go back to the surge. About how long have you had the full complement of troops that were necessary for the surge in place?

DP: Well, it's about a month now, Hugh. We received the final Army brigade, the Marine expeditionary unit, and the combat aviation brigade in June, and they all went into operation about the mid part of last month. So it's about a month that they've all been on the ground, and all of our forces have been engaged in what is a pretty comprehensive offensive operation in just about all of the belts around Baghdad, as they're called, and then in also several neighborhoods in Baghdad that are of particular concern because of the activities in those neighborhoods of al Qaeda, or in some cases, of militia extremist elements.

HH: Now you're due to make a report back in September, I don't know if it's early, mid or late September, General Petraeus, is that enough time to really get a fix on how the surge is progressing?

DP: Well, I have always said that we will have a sense by that time of basically, of how things are going, have we been able to achieve progress on the ground, where have their been shortfalls, and so forth. And I think that is a reasonable amount of time to have had all the forces on the ground, again, for about three months, to have that kind of sense. But that's all it is going to be. But we do intend, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the ambassador here, and I, do very much intend to provide as comprehensive and as forthright an assessment as we can at that time of the progress that has been achieved, and where we've fallen short.

HH: Now stepping back a little bit from the day to day, General Petraeus, how would you explain to the civilians listening, and hundreds of thousands of them at this moment, the strategic interest of the United States at stake in Iraq?

DP: Well, I think just first of all, we have an enormous responsibility, because of course, we did liberate this country. And so right off the bat, a lot of us feel, certainly, that degree of responsibility. Beyond that, obviously, Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world. It is blessed with other mineral wealth as well that is very substantial, and has enormous potential in the global economy. It sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines, fault lines between Arabs and Kurds, fault lines between Sunni and Shia Iraqis, and also has substantial populations of other elements, Christians, Yazidis and some others. It is important in regional terms, needless to say, against surrounded by some neighbors that are Sunni, others Turk, and of course, they have, Turkey, they have a substantial Turkoman population as well. And then or course, Shia to their east. So there's enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region.

HH: Some have warned that a genocide of sorts, or absolute terms, would follow a precipitous withdrawal of coalition forces. Do you agree that that is a possibility, or a…and a significant one?

DP: Well, obviously, it depends on the conditions when we withdraw. I mean, eventually, we are going to withdraw. We cannot maintain the surge forever, as everyone knows. There's always been an intention that the surge would be a somewhat temporary endeavor. So it has to do with the conditions at that time. I mean, we saw the sectarian violence of late 2006 and early 2007, and obviously, that was very tragic, and really quite horrific in a number of Baghdad neighborhoods. It literally changed the face of Baghdad. It struck at the very fabric of Iraqi society in places like Baghdad, and in other mixed, sectarian areas. And again, unless the conditions are sustainable by the Iraqis, one would certainly expect that sectarian violence would resume at a very high level. That's not to say there's not still some going on right now, although the level in June was about the lowest in a year, and we're certainly trying to sustain that. I don't know this month whether we can, given the two horrific bombings that took place, however that is certainly what we're trying and fighting to do.

HH: General Petraeus, you wrote your PhD dissertation at Princeton on the lessons of Vietnam, analyzing in part the aftermath of an American military defeat. And obviously, that was horrific in Cambodia, and awful in South Vietnam. What would you expect the consequences of the defeat of America in Iraq to be, both there and in terms of our military posture and position around the world?

DP: Well, to be candid, that's a hypothetical that I'm just not prepared to address. We are determined to do all that we can, while we're given the opportunity to try to bring this to as successful as reasonable a conclusion as is possible, and that is really what is just what I'm devoting all my intellectual energy and physical energy to at this point in time, not thinking about what the implications of not getting it right are.

HH: You and Marine Lt. General Amos coauthored the new field manual on counterinsurgency, and it talked about counterinsurgency has to adapt to local conditions. How long does it really take, in your estimation? I see you saw the BBC yesterday, telling them that it could take nine, ten years to put a counterinsurgency down in Iraq. Is that an accurate assessment, a decade to get this thing contained?

DP: Well, it depends where you are in Iraq, what you're talking about, and so forth. What I was doing there was merely saying that historically, it's taken about a decade or so for the average counterinsurgency to be sorted out. Sometimes, it's taken longer. I mean, in fact, the British Broadcaster interviewer and I were talking about how long it took the UK to reach the position that they've now achieved in Northern Ireland, and that was actually several decades, as you know, In some cases in Iraq, the situation is somewhat resolved. Surprisingly, Anbar Province, all of a sudden, has become just a remarkable development, and a place where you can actually see how it could possibly evolve into a situation sustainable by the Iraqis. Other places remain very problematic, and there's certainly neighborhoods in Baghdad where we are still trying to refine the vision of what would be sustainable, and then determine how in fact to get to that point.

HH: How are the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces? You spent a lot of time training them in the first part of the occupation, General Petraeus. What are their, what's their effectiveness now?

DP: Well, frankly, it is uneven. There are some exceedingly good units. The Iraqi special operations force brigade, a commando battalion, a counterterrorist unit, some other elements, national emergency response unit, the intelligence special tactics unit, SWAT teams in just about each of the provinces, and a variety of other sort of high end units that we have helped develop, each of these is really quite impressive, and almost at the level, certainly in regional terms, of the special operations forces of our own country, again, in relative terms, speaking in regional comparisons. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, there are still some units that have a degree of sectarian influence exercised within them, and some that are still being cleaned up after having suffered from sectarian pressures, and given into sectarian pressures during the height of the sectarian violence in 2006, and into 2007. There's also, there's a vast number of units, frankly, out there just doing what I would call a solid job, manning checkpoints, going on patrols, in some cases in the lead, in some cases alongside our forces, in some cases, following. But I can assure you that the Iraqi forces are out there very much fighting and dying for their country, They, in fact, their losses typically are some three or more times the losses that we suffer.

HH: General, what about the losses on the enemy? You mentioned that hundreds of al Qaeda fighters have been killed in the last couple of months, but are they suffering losses in the thousands every month? Or is it hundred, two hundred? What kind of force reduction's going on there?

DP: Yeah, as you know, we try to avoid body counting, but inevitably, obviously, it is something we keep track of, because we're trying to have some sense of the damage that we are doing to al Qaeda-Iraq, its affiliates, other Sunni insurgent groups, and also certainly to the Shia militia extremist elements. And the answer to that in a general sense is that they are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge.

HH: And you mentioned foreign fighters infiltrating. Has that flow slowed or accelerated over the past five months?

DP: We do not think there has been much of a change in that. Again, it is something that is difficult to measure. Certainly, if you knew precisely how many were coming, or where they were coming, we'd obviously interdict them. And we do in fact interdict some, but not huge numbers. We do occasionally capture them in the act of preparing to, or trying to carry out a suicide attack or some other attack. In fact, we recently killed a fairly substantial element, 34 in one batch, some of which certainly were foreign fighters and had suicide vests and belts on, and we trying to re-infiltrate into Anbar Province and cause problems there. But we think the number of these foreign fighters, foreign terrorists who come through Syria, by and large, has remained roughly the same, and that is a big concern, because of those 60, 80, 90 or so who do come in per month, many of those end up being suicide bombers. And even though their numbers are relatively small in the grand scheme of affairs here, they can cause horrific casualties, indiscriminate death to Iraqi civilians, and really substantial damage, physically as well as psychologically.

HH: General, one of your colleagues, one of the high profile generals in this conflict, Marine Corps Lt. General Maddis, said in December of last year that the enemy had denied American media the battlefield, with some pretty damaging consequences. Is that still true? Are we getting an accurate picture of what's going on in Iraq from the American media? Or can they just not get out where the fighting's going on?

DP: Well, we have media out with us all the time. In fact, one of the items that I have certainly stressed in the commanders I'm privileged to lead here, and the troopers have all tried to do, is to be accessible to the media. I mean, that's why I'm talking to you tonight.

HH: Right.

DP: And I think, I mean, we look on a daily basis at who's doing what out there. I think you've seen plenty of our leaders and our troopers out there. I mean, all of our commanders, just about, go out in front of the press on a fairly regular basis. They have occasionally said things that seem surprising to some people. I mean, we've had commanders who've said they needed more troops. We've had commanders who said we could drawn down at some point. We've had commanders who've said good things about their Iraqi counterparts, and occasionally have expressed some reservations. So we are trying to present as forthright and balanced and accurate a picture as we can. Our job is not to put lipstick on pigs, or to spin. Our job is, again, to try to convey to the American public, and then the public of all the coalitions, and those who follow the media throughout the world, as accurate a picture as we can of what is going on here. It really is our view, you know, an informed population can make the best decisions at the end of the day.

HH: Is the media doing a good job of taking that ample amount of information and transmitting it in an objective fashion in your view, General Petraeus?

DP: I think they generally are. I think it is difficult, though, in a sense, to get past the soundbytes sometimes. It is difficult to convey a nuance sense of events. And certainly, look, at the end of the day, it is hard to get past the fact that a sensational attack is going to lead. And that's just a fact of life. And I think that occasionally, you know, folks will wince over here and say gosh, you know, they didn't get the ribbon cutting we did today, or nobody covered the job fair, or the opening of the new police academy, or whatever it might be, because a car bomb went off. Well again, that's reality, and terrible loss of life, sadly but realistically, is going to bump some feel good stories. So I think that's just something we have to come to grips with. It is again a fact of life, and such is life.

HH: Some of the arguments about Iraq in the United States argue that it's possible for American troops to withdraw to their bases and just strike at al Qaeda, sort of an Anbar only option, I guess. Does that make any sense to you at all, General Petraeus?

DP: Well, first of all, al Qaeda-Iraq is throughout pretty substantial parts of Iraq, and it is a significant enough network in capability that it is not going to be dealt with just by certainly, if you will, classical counterterrorist operations. Indeed, we are doing those. Our best operators in America and in the world are here in the largest number of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. When I think back to the operations that we did, for example, going after war criminals in Bosnia, or something like that, you know, and one of those would be a big deal, and you'd dine off that for the next several months. On a nightly basis here, you know, ten or twelve serious operations are going down by those forces.

HH: Wow.

DP: And any one of those is far more significant than we conducted for decades. They are very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes, and very effective. Having said that, although they may be the most important operations, because they can take down, as they did the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda-Iraq, or kill the three al Turkey brothers, or what have you, it is also the weight of the operations conducted by the, if you will, the regular special forces, the Green Berets and the others that make up the special operations task force, and operate throughout the country as a very high operational tempo, and of our conventional forces. I mean, it is conventional forces who cleared Western Baquba. Certainly, augmented by, again, our special forces and our special mission unit elements, but they're the ones that, you know, killed the 80 or 90 confirmed kill, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well. And they're the ones who will hold that area against attempts that have already taken place by al Qaeda and their affiliates to try to get back into those neighborhoods.

HH: You know, that…in the forward to that manual that you wrote with General Amos, it said you needed a flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally astute leaders. You're just describing that kind of a force. Is it increasing in its lethality and effectiveness on an exponential basis, General? Has it become a more…

DP: It has very much so, Hugh, yes, very, very much so. In fact, people ask, you know, what are the big changes during the sixteen months that you were gone from Iraq? I left Iraq in September, '05, returned in February, as you noted earlier. And there were two really significant changes. One was the damage done by sectarian violence. It is undeniable, it was tragic, and it has, as I mentioned earlier, ripped the very society, the fabric of Iraqi society. It's caused very significant fault lines between sects and ethnic groups to harden, and it has created an environment that is much more challenging that before it took place. Beyond that, though, I typically will note that our leaders and our troopers get it about what it is that we're trying to accomplish here in a way that certainly was not the case at the outset, or even perhaps a year or two into this endeavor. The typical leader here now has had at least one tour in Iraq, some have actually had two. They have, during the time they're back in the States, they studied this. Of course, while we were back in the States, we revamped the counterinsurgency manual, as you mentioned, published that, revamped our other doctrinal manuals, overhauled the curricula of the commissioned, non-commissioned and warrant officer education systems in the Army, Marine Corps and the other services, completely changed the scenarios at our combat training centers, the one in the Mojave desert, the one in Central Louisiana, the one in Germany, and also captured lessons learned, created the ability to virtually look over the shoulder of those who are down range through expanded pipes in the military secure internet, just a host of initiatives have been pursued, changed organizations, changed equipment, and have given us capabilities, particularly in the intelligence realm, and with the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles, much larger pipes, the ability to shoot much bigger data, if you will, down them, and so forth. All of this has enabled our troopers in a way that certainly was not the case when we did the fight for Baghdad, or even, frankly, when I was here for my previous second tour. And so again, our leaders get it, our soldiers get it, they are these flexible, adaptable, thoughtful, culturally astute, and by and large, leaders and soldiers and Marines, and they are showing that on a daily basis here. That is not to say that it is anything at all easy about this, that the complexity is anything but just sheer enormous, or that this situation is anything but the most challenging that I've ever seen in some 33 years in uniform.

HH: It sounds optimistic, General. I want to respect your time and close with just a couple of questions, one that Senator Webb this past weekend rightly denounced politicians who try and put words into the mouths of troops. So I'm going to ask you. What do you hear your men and women saying about this mission? Do they think it can be won?

DP: Well, I think they do. I mean, I think…nobody…look, everybody wants to go home. I mean, nobody was cheering when we extended from 12 to 15 months, and I wasn't, either, you know? This is my fourth year of longer deployment since 2001. My family would love to have me back home, and I'd love to be there. But we want to go back the right way, if you will, so that although every soldier's first right is to, you know, grouse a bit, and we all exercise that on occasion, I think everybody's very determined to try to do the very best that we can to accomplish this mission. I was privileged on the 4th of July to swear the oath with some 588 soldiers in one huge formation here at Camp Victory, who reenlisted for another tour in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and so forth. And it was extraordinary. And I can tell you, you know, it's not because of the bonus or anything like that. There is no bonus that can compensate for the sacrifices and the hardship in the selfless service that our soldiers are providing here. So again, I think individuals are doing all that they can to try to achieve success in this mission here, and that's the focus of the folks with whom I'm privileged to soldier.

HH: Last question, General. How can the American public support these troops most effectively?

DP: Well, I think the American public has been doing that. I think actually, regardless of the views on Iraq, the American public has supported our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and the civilians that are deployed over here. And I think that that is wonderful. We all saw, some of us, you know, as we were growing up, a situation where that was not the case. And happily in this case, as I said, regardless of one's views, regardless on where one comes down on the issue of Iraq, there is backing for those great young men and women who are putting everything on the line here on a daily basis, in right now, 125 degree heat and body armor and Kevlar, against a barbaric enemy, in an exceedingly tough and complex situation. I think I mentioned to you before that when Tom Brokaw was out here with us one time, he said that surely this has to be the new greatest generation. And I very, very much agree with that. And as I mentioned earlier, I feel very privileged to be able to soldier with these great young men and women here in Iraq again.

HH: General David Petraeus, thanks for your service, thanks for you time today, I look forward to talking to you again sometime.

DP: Thank, great to be with you.

HH: Thank you, General.

End of interview.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,416 • Replies: 89
No top replies

 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2007 08:57 am
http://www.insanereagan.com/images/mission_accomplished02-hires.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2007 11:22 am
Petraeus - there's no reason to believe a word he says, as he's been saying the exact same thing for four years, and was wrong every time.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/19/petraeus/index.html

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show was nothing more than a way to give right-wingers a shot of fake confidence. Petraeus has been claiming progress since 2003, and every time has been full of it.

He's only been placed out in front b/c the Bush crew has such a sh*tty reputation for war matters, so they hope that Petraeus will deflect criticism. It won't work, though.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2007 03:04 pm
General Betraeus is playing politics.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2007 03:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Petraeus - there's no reason to believe a word he says, as he's been saying the exact same thing for four years, and was wrong every time.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/19/petraeus/index.html

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show was nothing more than a way to give right-wingers a shot of fake confidence. Petraeus has been claiming progress since 2003, and every time has been full of it.

He's only been placed out in front b/c the Bush crew has such a sh*tty reputation for war matters, so they hope that Petraeus will deflect criticism. It won't work, though.

Cycloptichorn


Our very own baghdad bob?

I though that position was taken by Dick.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Q/j/cheney_baghdad_bob.jpg
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 12:38 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Petraeus - there's no reason to believe a word he says, as he's been saying the exact same thing for four years, and was wrong every time.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/19/petraeus/index.html

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show was nothing more than a way to give right-wingers a shot of fake confidence. Petraeus has been claiming progress since 2003, and every time has been full of it.

He's only been placed out in front b/c the Bush crew has such a sh*tty reputation for war matters, so they hope that Petraeus will deflect criticism. It won't work, though.

Cycloptichorn


Oh gee, Glenn Greenwald doesn't like General Petraeus... what a surprise. Rolling Eyes

Posting an article from Salon doesn't really show anything more then their typical anti-Bush rhetoric. Yet, you and others read it as gospel because you want to agree with it. *yawn*
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 07:45 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Petraeus - there's no reason to believe a word he says, as he's been saying the exact same thing for four years, and was wrong every time.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/19/petraeus/index.html

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show was nothing more than a way to give right-wingers a shot of fake confidence. Petraeus has been claiming progress since 2003, and every time has been full of it.

He's only been placed out in front b/c the Bush crew has such a sh*tty reputation for war matters, so they hope that Petraeus will deflect criticism. It won't work, though.

Cycloptichorn


Oh gee, Glenn Greenwald doesn't like General Petraeus... what a surprise. Rolling Eyes

Posting an article from Salon doesn't really show anything more then their typical anti-Bush rhetoric. Yet, you and others read it as gospel because you want to agree with it. *yawn*


Facts are hard to dispute ain't they McGentrix so you must rely on your dubious wit.

Patraeus has been claiming progress since 2003 but the events on the ground dispute his claims as anyone can cleary see for themselves by keeping up with the daily carnage reported.

For example

If at this same time next year everything is around the same (with not enough progress to outweigh how bad everything is); will finally some of you die hards admit that we can't win Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 09:45 am
You didn't even bother reading the article, did you?

It's not much else besides quotes showing just how wrong Petraeus has been in his estimation of Iraq over the years.

Of course, that makes me anti-Bush in your eyes. But that's bullshit. I submit that you are anti-reality if you believe this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 10:23 am
Posting Greenwald in response to a post quoting Hewitt looks pretty appropriate to me.

Note, if you will, the present strategy of having Pentagon/military folks carrying the PR water for the administration re Iraq. With Bush at 28 and Cheney even lower and anyone else in the administration with similar lack of credibility to the majority of Americans, it's really no surprise they'd try this to "buy some time" (as the ambassador to Iraq puts it). And really, like the five years of soldiers-as-photo-backdrop, it's just a continuation of the marketing trick.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 10:57 am
blatham wrote:
Posting Greenwald in response to a post quoting Hewitt looks pretty appropriate to me.

Note, if you will, the present strategy of having Pentagon/military folks carrying the PR water for the administration re Iraq. With Bush at 28 and Cheney even lower and anyone else in the administration with similar lack of credibility to the majority of Americans, it's really no surprise they'd try this to "buy some time" (as the ambassador to Iraq puts it). And really, like the five years of soldiers-as-photo-backdrop, it's just a continuation of the marketing trick.


I posted an interview, Cyc posted a blog entry... from salon.com, of course it's appropriate to you.

I know liberals have no respect for the military, but do you really believe Petraeus is lying just cause Bush told him too?

Or, do you suspect that he has a job to do and leading his men to victory is more important to him then licking the heels of a bunch of whiny libs?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 11:00 am
revel wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Petraeus - there's no reason to believe a word he says, as he's been saying the exact same thing for four years, and was wrong every time.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/19/petraeus/index.html

Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show was nothing more than a way to give right-wingers a shot of fake confidence. Petraeus has been claiming progress since 2003, and every time has been full of it.

He's only been placed out in front b/c the Bush crew has such a sh*tty reputation for war matters, so they hope that Petraeus will deflect criticism. It won't work, though.

Cycloptichorn


Oh gee, Glenn Greenwald doesn't like General Petraeus... what a surprise. Rolling Eyes

Posting an article from Salon doesn't really show anything more then their typical anti-Bush rhetoric. Yet, you and others read it as gospel because you want to agree with it. *yawn*


Facts are hard to dispute ain't they McGentrix so you must rely on your dubious wit.

Patraeus has been claiming progress since 2003 but the events on the ground dispute his claims as anyone can cleary see for themselves by keeping up with the daily carnage reported.

For example

If at this same time next year everything is around the same (with not enough progress to outweigh how bad everything is); will finally some of you die hards admit that we can't win Iraq?


Never mistake opinion for fact, it rarely works out to be.

If all I watched was the daily news, I'd probably see nothing but the carnage too Revel. The progress isn't reported because it's not important enough to the news ratings and doesn't fit well with the 5 minute headlines.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 11:03 am
Quote:
Predictably, Petraeus' claims spawned multiple news accounts and Op-Eds touting the Great Progress we were making in 2005 in standing up the Iraqi troops so that we could stand down, using similar though even more excited language than Petraeus used with Hewitt yesterday. The Air Force Times reported on November 5, 2005 (via Lexis):

There are more than 211,000 members of the Iraqi security force, including police, border patrol and military members, said Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, former multinational security transition commander in Iraq, and the number keeps growing. . . .

Petraeus, now the commanding general of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., compares the training of Iraqis to a stampede, and to illustrate, he pointed to a painting by Frederick Remington.

"I can tell you there is very substantial momentum in this effort," Petraeus said, pointing to a reproduction of "The Stampede," which shows a galloping horse, during remarks at an event sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Nov. 8 in Washington.

In November, 2005, Petraeus claimed there was "very substantial momentum" in standing up Iraqi forces; with Hewitt yesterday, it was a "reasonable degree of tactical momentum" with the Surge. Is there any doubt we will hear exactly the same thing come September?

Even in the Spring of 2006, when the Iraq civil war erupted by all accounts, comments from Petraeus continued to be cited as proof of how well our occupation was progressing. From the U.S. Army War College's Parameters in March, 2006:

Most important, there is one critical difference -- and it is that our current strategy is showing signs of succeeding. Iraq's third successful election in the course of one year provides evidence that we and the Iraqis are successfully isolating the insurgents politically, if not physically. . .

The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq states that progress on the political front has led ordinary Iraqis to provide better intelligence on insurgent activity. According to the Brookings Institution's December 2005 Iraq Index, such tips reached an all-time high in November. More important, the Iraqis' increasing commitment to the political process has led to an increasing and tangible commitment to the Iraqi state. In a key indicator, recruiting for Iraqi security forces continues to outpace requirements. Moreover, according to Lieutenant General David Petraeus, those security forces are increasingly capable of independent operations.

An article from Agence France Presse, quoting Petraeus, reported on November 7, 2005:

"Huge progress" is being made in training Iraqi combat troops, and 24 homegrown battalions have now taken control of assigned territory, the general formerly in charge of the massive program said Monday.

Lieutenant General David Petraeus said in an address that by the time of Iraq's looming election in December, it was hoped to have 230,000 trained and armed Iraq security forces operational. . . ."Twenty-four of their battalions had assumed their own battle space. That is very, very significant," Petraeus, who handed over control of the training effort in July, said.

The President himself repeatedly touted Gen. Petraeus' sunny reports in excitedly telling the country how great things were going in Iraq. From a November 2005 Bush speech:

BUSH: In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress, from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the ratification of a constitution in the space of two and a half years.

(APPLAUSE)

I have said as Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand down. And with our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with each passing month.

At the time of our Fallujah operations a year ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today, there are nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces.

(APPLAUSE) General David Petraeus says Iraqis are in the fight. They are fighting and dying for their country and they're fighting increasingly well.

This progress is not easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

And White House Press Releases, such as this one from November 26, 2005, repeatedly relied upon statements like this from Petreaus to convince Americans that things were going great in Iraq: "Well, Here's The Bottom Line Up-Front For You. The Iraqi Security Forces Are In The Fight; They Are Fighting For Their Country. They Are, As This Notes, Increasingly Leading That Fight."

Needless to say, Frederick Kagan -- who has been telling us for years about Victory in Iraq --- wrote an October 2005 Weekly Standard article modestly entitled "Blueprint for Victory" based in part on Petraeus' reports and wrote:

After the fiasco with the half-trained forces that fled Falluja in April 2004, CENTCOM brought in Lieutenant General David Petraeus in mid-2004 to overhaul the Iraqi army completely, with the particular goal of focusing on counterinsurgency. This undertaking has proven far more successful than the handful of light infantry divisions originally envisioned. Iraqi units performed admirably in the second battle of Falluja (in November 2004), in Tal Afar (September 2005), and in numerous other fights.

Even many months before Petraeus' slide show of Great Progress, Fred Kagan, again using Petraeus' claims, took his good news to the Los Angeles Times in August 2005:

Perhaps the best news from the region these days is that the Iraqi army is finally producing units able to fight on their own. According to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, there are now more than 170,000 "trained and equipped" Iraqi police and military personnel, and more than 105 police and army battalions are "in the fight." Over the next few months, tens of thousands more Iraqi troops will be able to take the field against the insurgency. They should number around 250,000 by next summer.

War supporters and even the military were actually claiming that an early U.S. withdrawal from Iraq was possible due to the great successes Petraeus was reporting. From Jack Kelly in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 2005 (via Lexis):

Ever since Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus took responsibility for training Iraqi security forces last year, the target date for beginning a major American withdrawal has been June 2006. It is by this date that the United States expects to have 275,000 Iraqi policemen and soldiers trained and equipped and organized into effective units. There are 178,000 on the job now, according to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable.

Petraeus' assessments of Iraq were equally sunny in early 2005. From a March, 2005 Press Release of the Army News Service, entitled "SECRETARY SEES 'SOLID PROGRESS' IN IRAQ":

"The latest polls are quite heartening," said Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, commander, Multi-National Security Transition Command -- Iraq, while updating the secretary on the training of the country's forces. "The Iraqis are by nature an optimistic people."

This is evident in the fact that 8.4 million people risked the potential election-day violence Jan. 30 to vote for the 275-member transitional Iraqi National Assembly.

"The weight of Iraqi security forces is being felt," Petraeus told Harvey. There are more than 145,000 Iraqi soldiers who are trained and individually equipped, with 35,000 more in uniform and awaiting training.

He was optimistic in his assessment of progress. "Iraqi security forces are in the fight, and Iraqi leadership and coalition force back-up are the keys to success." . . .

Comparing Army units to football teams, [Army Secretary Francis] Harvey told Soldiers stationed at Abu Ghraib that he will do his best to provide the best game strategy, coaching and training possible.

"As long as I'm around, I'll ensure that you remain strong and well-equipped," he said.

"I think that we've turned the corner," he said. "It's not over yet, but we've done it before, in France, Italy, Germany and South Korea, we have a long history of spreading peace and freedom around the world."

As has been clear for months, the White House has increasingly incorporated media and communications strategies into the highest levels of the U.S. military command in Iraq. Just last month, the White House moved one of Bush's own aides into the position of Chief Spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, and the military's claims about Iraq have increasingly matched White House political aims. The rhetoric from all top military commanders, including Petraeus -- one could say especially him -- reflects White House talking points without deviation.


ALL the blog entry really is is a listing of his past pronouncements of 'turning the corner' in Iraq. Literally every year since the war has begun, he's predicted progress and victory. It's no more accurate now then it was then. Petraeus isn't somehow immune to being wrong, as you seem to believe.

Cycloptichorn

on preview:

Quote:


If all I watched was the daily news, I'd probably see nothing but the carnage too Revel. The progress isn't reported because it's not important enough to the news ratings and doesn't fit well with the 5 minute headlines.


There is absolutely no progress that matters taking place in Iraq. Rebuilding a school is nice, but doesn't put the country back together. There is no political progress and the Iraqi Army isn't picking up the fight (as was supposedly a critical component of the 'surge.' Bring some actual good news before crowing about how it's 'not important enough' to report some feel-good, namby-pamby bullshit about how we're making such progress over there.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 11:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
Posting Greenwald in response to a post quoting Hewitt looks pretty appropriate to me.

Note, if you will, the present strategy of having Pentagon/military folks carrying the PR water for the administration re Iraq. With Bush at 28 and Cheney even lower and anyone else in the administration with similar lack of credibility to the majority of Americans, it's really no surprise they'd try this to "buy some time" (as the ambassador to Iraq puts it). And really, like the five years of soldiers-as-photo-backdrop, it's just a continuation of the marketing trick.


I posted an interview, Cyc posted a blog entry... from salon.com, of course it's appropriate to you.

I know liberals have no respect for the military, but do you really believe Petraeus is lying just cause Bush told him too?

Or, do you suspect that he has a job to do and leading his men to victory is more important to him then licking the heels of a bunch of whiny libs?


Ask your rhetorical question the other way round... if Petraeus, or any other military figure in a similar position, held opinions in serious variance with that which his bosses in the administration wished him to speak publicly, would he be able to speak freely? And the real-world answer is, of course not. He's an employee.

His job isn't "leading his men to victory". His job is following the orders of his seniors whether those orders are to take a territory or to eradicate some portion of a designated enemy or to develop a plan to remove and protect the forces under him, etc.

I'll wager you haven't read Rick's Fiasco. No military figure associated with Iraq comes off better than Petraeus in this account. But that does not make him a saint or even necessarily a hero nor does it make him right in all he believes or says. It does make him a voice worth listening to. But as those other dynamics I mention above are also in play, it makes him a voice deserving of serious skepticism.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:45 pm
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
Posting Greenwald in response to a post quoting Hewitt looks pretty appropriate to me.

Note, if you will, the present strategy of having Pentagon/military folks carrying the PR water for the administration re Iraq. With Bush at 28 and Cheney even lower and anyone else in the administration with similar lack of credibility to the majority of Americans, it's really no surprise they'd try this to "buy some time" (as the ambassador to Iraq puts it). And really, like the five years of soldiers-as-photo-backdrop, it's just a continuation of the marketing trick.


I posted an interview, Cyc posted a blog entry... from salon.com, of course it's appropriate to you.

I know liberals have no respect for the military, but do you really believe Petraeus is lying just cause Bush told him too?

Or, do you suspect that he has a job to do and leading his men to victory is more important to him then licking the heels of a bunch of whiny libs?


Ask your rhetorical question the other way round... if Petraeus, or any other military figure in a similar position, held opinions in serious variance with that which his bosses in the administration wished him to speak publicly, would he be able to speak freely? And the real-world answer is, of course not. He's an employee.

His job isn't "leading his men to victory". His job is following the orders of his seniors whether those orders are to take a territory or to eradicate some portion of a designated enemy or to develop a plan to remove and protect the forces under him, etc.

I'll wager you haven't read Rick's Fiasco. No military figure associated with Iraq comes off better than Petraeus in this account. But that does not make him a saint or even necessarily a hero nor does it make him right in all he believes or says. It does make him a voice worth listening to. But as those other dynamics I mention above are also in play, it makes him a voice deserving of serious skepticism.


And if you listen to his report with a bias set in concrete, your argument gives you the perfect cover to disregard whatever he says.

I can't imagine that he will have anything to say in September that will not be reflexively discounted by the Democrats as they bend over backwards to praise him for a brilliant and honorable patriot.

He may, however, have something to say which will stiffen the spines of Republicans and inspire the hope of Americans. If this is the case the Democrats full court press to surrender could be checked.

The only position of honor in this debate is that which supports staying the course. It may be ill advised (although I don't believe so) but it is consistent and based upon conviction, rather than political expediency.

By contrast we have the Democratic party that is like a leaf on the wind, moving in whatever direction they believe their political careers will most benefit. Of course, we have a few craven Republicans joining this lot, but no one ever said to be Republican was to be perfect.

I will say this, Obama was, indeed, against the war while his fellow Democratic candidates supported it. I do believe this was a position of conviction rather than political strategy, and I commend him for it. It's a big reason I will never vote for him, but I like his style.

Similarly, it is steadfastness which drives me to continue to support McCain.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 08:47 am
Quote:

He may, however, have something to say which will stiffen the spines of Republicans and inspire the hope of Americans. If this is the case the Democrats full court press to surrender could be checked.


There's nothing he can say. The Iraqis aren't holding up their end, and that's all there is to it.

Would you care to lay money on him convincing the American people, Finn?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:26 am
Quote:
And if you listen to his report with a bias set in concrete, your argument gives you the perfect cover to disregard whatever he says.

I can't imagine that he will have anything to say in September that will not be reflexively discounted by the Democrats as they bend over backwards to praise him for a brilliant and honorable patriot.

He may, however, have something to say which will stiffen the spines of Republicans and inspire the hope of Americans. If this is the case the Democrats full court press to surrender could be checked.



And I'll wager you, like McG, haven't read "Fiasco" either. If there is a negative account or opinion in that excellent book re Petraeus, I don't recall seeing it. You will not find, in any post I've ever written here, a single derogation of the man from me.

The other side of this coin is yourself and McG. What information are you relying upon to offer up your support for the fellow (with his suspicious Ph D)?

As I said, the fellow deserves to be listened to.

But it is also the case that he is now in precisely the position of a defense lawyer or a PR firm's representative...he is obligated to speak only a limited and a biased set of notions.

Quote:
The only position of honor in this debate is that which supports staying the course. It may be ill advised (although I don't believe so) but it is consistent and based upon conviction, rather than political expediency.


Nothing quite so "honorable" as the performance of the Light Brigade. Or the Japanese kamikaze pilots. Or Iranians, bodies stacking on bodies, as they charged into Iraqi bullets. They stayed the course. They were consistent. They were convinced. And you, in your office in Dallas, have a shining compass pointing to 'honor' while Pat Tillman's brother knows only cowardice and expediency and dishonor.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:52 am
I would suggest that as the Head Honcho of operations in Iraq, he is in a far better position to know the facts and conditions on the ground far better then any pundit stationed in an office in the US.

As a General in the Armed forces, he has established himself as an honorable, intelligent man that believes in not sacrificing his men in needless combat, or unnecessary heroics.

Let me ask you Blatham, do you skip over Cyc's obvious disdain for anyone in the military or administration that may disagree with his rather warped view on the events in Iraq, or do you agree with them?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 09:55 am
McGentrix wrote:
I would suggest that as the Head Honcho of operations in Iraq, he is in a far better position to know the facts and conditions on the ground far better then any pundit stationed in an office in the US.

As a General in the Armed forces, he has established himself as an honorable, intelligent man that believes in not sacrificing his men in needless combat, or unnecessary heroics.

Let me ask you Blatham, do you skip over Cyc's obvious disdain for anyone in the military or administration that may disagree with his rather warped view on the events in Iraq, or do you agree with them?


Love how you can just dismiss years of inaccurate and false predictions by the guy with nothing more then a wave of your hand. Pretending that Petraeus is somehow more right now, more honorable now, or whatever, then he was then, is ridiculous.

If he was better equipped to know the facts, why has he been talking about 'progress' and 'turning the corner with our recent actions' for years now? B/c it's propaganda and nothing more. he has to say that stuff; Bush has made it perfectly clear what happens to those military commanders who aren't good little cheerleaders.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 10:02 am
I know, you read all about it in someone's blog. How nice for you.

Let me know when you have something interesting to add.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 10:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
I know, you read all about it in someone's blog. How nice for you.

Let me know when you have something interesting to add.


The fact that it's written in a blog doesn't change the accuracy of which his comments were quoted, as you well know.

You posted a piece from an interview of Petraeus on the Hugh Hewitt show; there is no difference between a blog and a radio show, in terms of validity of content. In fact, the two are both eerily similar, in that they revolve around Petraeus' own words.

You are committing a logical fallacy, trying to attack the messenger when you're too limp to attack the content of the post. I dare you to actually address the fact that Petraeus' record of judgement of the progress of the war is sketchy at best, and nothing but political cheerleading at worst.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » General Petraeus on the conditions on the ground in Iraq
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 08:26:16