|
Pentagon to Bush: It's YOUR war, junior
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
So much for that Petraeus Report thingy. The timing of these events prior to that report (written and edited courtesy of your friendly White House staff) is interesting, to say the least.
Why does the Pentagon hate America?:
| quote: | Pentagon won't make surge recommendation to Bush
By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won't make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month's strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.
"Consensus is not the goal of the process," Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. "If there are differences, the president will hear them."
Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat. |
Hmmm, must be all the librul commanders. Damn, where's Rove when you need 'em?
| quote: | "The professional military guys are going to the non-professional military guys and saying 'Resolve this,'" said Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That's what it sounds like."
White said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on. |
"Hey, George, hold this bat for us, will ya? Nevermind that window broke up top there, we'll be right back to tell the principle that we broke it. No, really. Just stay here......."
| quote: | Bush has said on several occasions that he will follow the recommendation of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, but the Pentagon plan makes certain that other points of view are heard.
Morrell said the commanders will make their presentations to Bush at around the same time that Petraeus appears before Congress to assess progress in Iraq in mid September.
Morrell said that those making presentations to the president would include Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. military actions in the Middle East, Army Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, and Petraeus. In addition, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will share his opinion with the president.
Pentagon commanders are known to be divided over how to proceed in Iraq.
Pentagon officials have told McClatchy Newspapers that Casey, who was the top commander in Iraq, wants the U.S. to draw down forces and focus on training the Iraqi forces, as it did during his tenure in Iraq, and worries about the strain the war is having on the Army.
Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Pace would recommend reducing the number of troops in Baghdad because the deployments are straining the military.
Petraeus, however, is expected to argue that the number of U.S. troops should be kept at their current levels, saying that the increase in U.S. forces this year is beginning to reduce sectarian violence.
Gates' position is not known, but he was a member of the Iraq Study Group, which advocated a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The surge, which sent an additional 28,000 troops to Iraq between February and June, was crafted as the secretary took over the department in December, and it is not considered his plan.
The surge, which called for about 28,000 additional troops into Baghdad, has pushed the number of troops serving in Iraq to its highest level since Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.
The increase was intended to reduce violence so that Iraq's politicians would have time to broker deals on some of the country's most divisive issues. Instead, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government is floundering and Iraq's various political and ethnic factions are battling for control of the country.
An assessment by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies last week foresaw little progress during the next 12 months in efforts to reconcile Iraq's warring ethnic groups. It also reported that civilian deaths and violence remained at high levels.
Morrell said that making individual presentations about Iraq policy rather than trying to reach a consensus before talking to the president will lead to a more honest discussion.
Gates is "looking for a way to sort of make sure that the normal bureaucratic massaging that sometimes eliminates the rough edges or the sharp differences between individuals does not victimize this process so that the president can get distinct — if that's the way it turns out to be — points of view on where we are and where we need to go," Morrell said.
At the same time, Morrell made it clear that the decision rests with the president, not the military.
"I think once [the president] receives the advice from Gen. Petraeus — and as I have outlined — and others, my understanding is that he has a decision to make," Morrell said.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19356.html |
I just gotta repeat one of those lines above again:
| quote: | | the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on. |
that's harsh on our little boy wonder. Not that he gives a or would even bother to listen.
Not to worry, though. History will definitely, uhhh, definitely prove that, ummm, George W. Bush........uhhh, something......
ahh hell, just keep clapping. |
|
|
| occrider |
This probably has no coincidence with the most recent GAO report that claims that the Iraq war has only met 3 of its 18 goals.
| quote: |
Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals
GAO Draft at Odds With White House
By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A01
Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.
The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Iraq commander Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.
The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."
"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."
A GAO spokesman declined to comment on the report before it is released. The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normally submits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makes its own final judgments. The office has published more than 100 assessments of all aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May 2003.
The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Congress requested the GAO report, along with an assessment of the Iraqi security forces by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, to provide a basis for comparison with the administration's scorecard. The Jones report is also scheduled for delivery next week.
Asked to comment on the GAO draft, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are there on the ground every day in Iraq, and it's important to wait to hear what they have to say." He disputed any suggestion that the July White House assessment did not consider all internal views, noting that it resulted from "a lengthy and far-reaching process throughout the State and Defense departments and other agencies."
Johndroe emphasized that "while we've all seen progress in some areas, especially on the security front, it's not surprising the GAO would make this assessment, given the difficult congressionally mandated measurement they had to follow."
President Bush signed legislation in May that requires him to submit by Sept. 15 an assessment of whether the government of Iraq is "achieving progress" toward the benchmarks. The interim July report determined that satisfactory progress was being made toward eight of the 18 benchmarks, most of them on the security front. It found unsatisfactory progress toward eight others and presented a mixed picture on the remaining two.
The May legislation imposed a stricter standard on the GAO, requiring an up-or-down judgment on whether each benchmark has been met. On that basis, the GAO draft found that three of the benchmarks have been met while 13 have not. Despite its strict mandate, the GAO draft concludes that two benchmarks -- the formation of governmental regions and the allocation and expenditure of $10 billion for reconstruction -- have been "partially met." Little of the allocated money, it said, has been spent.
One of eight political benchmarks -- the protection of the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature -- has been achieved, according to the draft. On the others, including legislation on constitutional reform, new oil laws and de-Baathification, it assesses failure.
"Prospects for additional progress in enacting legislative benchmarks have been complicated by the withdrawal of 15 of 37 members of the Iraqi cabinet," it says. An internal administration assessment this month, the GAO says, concluded that "this boycott ends any claim by the Shi'ite-dominated coalition to be a government of national unity." An administration official involved in Iraq policy said he did not know what specific interagency document the GAO was citing but said it is an accurate reflection of the views of many officials.
Overall, the draft report, titled "Securing, Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq," finds that the Iraqi government has met two of nine security benchmarks. It contradicts the Bush administration's conclusion in July that sectarian violence was decreasing as a result of the U.S. military's stepped-up operations in Baghdad this year. "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July," the GAO draft states.
Iraqi security forces also are assessed more severely in the GAO study than in the administration's July report. Although the White House found satisfactory progress toward the goal of deploying three Iraqi army brigades in Baghdad, the GAO disagrees, citing "performance problems" in some units. "Some army units sent to Baghdad have mixed loyalties, and some have had ties to Shiia militias making it difficult to target Shiia extremist networks," it says.
The GAO draft also says that the number of Iraqi army units capable of operating independently declined from 10 in March to six last month. The July White House report mentioned a "slight" decline in capable Iraqi units, without providing any numbers. The GAO also found, as did the White House in July, that the Iraqi government has intervened in military activities for political reasons, "resulting in some operations being based on sectarian interests." But its discussion of Iraqi security forces is often veiled, as when it states that the determination that the security forces benchmark was not met "was based largely on classified information."
The description of the Iraqi military's shortcomings contrasts with comments from many senior U.S. commanders who say that they are pleased with its progress. "Although we still have a ways to go, Iraqi security forces are making significant, tangible improvements," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, said earlier this month.
But Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik, who in June became the commander of the U.S. troops training and advising Iraqi army and police units, struck a more somber note yesterday in a news conference with reporters in Baghdad. "The problems that the military commanders and the minister of defense have here in generating the Iraqi army are very significant, and they shouldn't be taken lightly," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews
|
Yup pure balderdash. Only more liberals exacerbating and celebrating the fabricated failures of Iraq to personally spite Bush. It's not like they actually care about anything other than bush of course ... COMPLETELY unlike the remaining 26% ... |
|
|
| Krypton |
This is a result of failed policy. Invading a sovereign country based on changing their way of life gets the invader a war it cannot win. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they would rise up themselves, something Qecho will refuses to understand. War should only be used in the case of a sovereignty violation by an aggressor state. Then can other states mobilize to meet the threat. Pre-emptive warfare is colonialism in disguise. Besides this fact, the original excuse to invade Iraq was hardly to democratize it. It was WMDs and supposed terrorist ties, all proved false. Then the neo-cons went to their freedom excuse. Which the freedom excuse is debunked by the sovereign state theory of diplomacy.
If we go back to world war II, if the French and British had invaded Germany when Germany had occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia or invaded Poland (circa 1939), history might of been different. But if the French and British had invaded when Germany had not yet violated another state's sovereignty, then they would be viewed as the aggressors. Just as we the US are viewed as the aggressors all over the world. But here in the US, dimwits still believe we are the noble ones in this war in Iraq when it is we who acted as aggressor. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
This is a result of failed policy. Invading a sovereign country based on changing their way of life gets the invader a war it cannot win. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they would rise up themselves, something Qecho will refuses to understand. War should only be used in the case of a sovereignty violation by an aggressor state. Then can other states mobilize to meet the threat. Pre-emptive warfare is colonialism in disguise. Besides this fact, the original excuse to invade Iraq was hardly to democratize it. It was WMDs and supposed terrorist ties, all proved false. Then the neo-cons went to their freedom excuse. Which the freedom excuse is debunked by the sovereign state theory of diplomacy.
|
Right on!! +100% |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
This is a result of failed policy. Invading a sovereign country based on changing their way of life gets the invader a war it cannot win. If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they would rise up themselves, something Qecho will refuses to understand. War should only be used in the case of a sovereignty violation by an aggressor state. Then can other states mobilize to meet the threat. Pre-emptive warfare is colonialism in disguise. Besides this fact, the original excuse to invade Iraq was hardly to democratize it. It was WMDs and supposed terrorist ties, all proved false. Then the neo-cons went to their freedom excuse. Which the freedom excuse is debunked by the sovereign state theory of diplomacy.
If we go back to world war II, if the French and British had invaded Germany when Germany had occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia or invaded Poland (circa 1939), history might of been different. But if the French and British had invaded when Germany had not yet violated another state's sovereignty, then they would be viewed as the aggressors. Just as we the US are viewed as the aggressors all over the world. But here in the US, dimwits still believe we are the noble ones in this war in Iraq when it is we who acted as aggressor. |
I'll bump this. |
|
|
| Krypton |
The Charter of the UN guarantees 6 rights to national sovereignty (Whitman).
1. States are legally equal.
2. Every state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty.
3. Every state is obligated to respect the fact of the legal entity of other states.
4. The territorial integrity and political independence of a state are not to be violated.
5. Each state has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems.
6. Each state is obligated to carry out its international obligations fully and conscientiously and to live in peace with other states.
----------------------------
We need to respect every sovereign states rights even if they are a North Korea, Iran, Syria, or Iraq. For democracy to work, the citizens of any state must fight for it. The process is long and hard, but it has to start with the grass roots citizenry. It cannot be exported by force. It will never work. The Iraqi government is currupt, non-functional, and only exists solely because of the American occupation.
[[[ Once it was realized that WMDs were not likely to be found, many war proponents shifted their excuse to invade Iraq on the basis of the regime’s human rights record. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein brutalized his own people, denying them life and liberty. But every nation has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems. It is the Iraqi people who must make the decision to change their domestic scenario and not a foreign power. No freedom has ever come without the bloodshed of patriots. That is why the US cannot simply bestow upon the Iraqi’s a democracy, but rather the Iraqi’s must shed their own blood before they can attain such freedom. In the short essay A Few Words on Non-Intervention (Mills, 1873), John Mill states, “If the people have not sufficient love of liberty to be able to wrest it from merely domestic oppressors, the liberty which is bestowed on them by other hands than their own will have nothing real, nothing permanent.” ]]] |
|
|
|
|
