Couldn't catch much of the Petraeus report today on C-span, nor could I catch much of the commentary on it today. What are your thoughts about his testimony? From what I initially gather, he said nothing surprising - let's stay in Iraq until things are all rosy?
Thoughts and comments from all sides welcome. I'll catch up a bit more on this when I have time.
hardcore trancer
I didnt watch their reports(had to go to work) but I did watch the begining when the congressmen were giving their speaches before Petraeus report and I must say the old man (forgot his name)democrat member(sitting on the left) gave a great speach and he said it like the way things really are,saying how the whole thing is a failure and this report is just an excuse for Bush wanting to stay in Iraq longer.
Johan (DJ Irish)
I read some op-ed piece about this being Bush's own "exit strategy". That he realised that the best way to save his own legacy is to just stay the course and let whoever replaces him deal with the Iraq pullout problem.
This way he could say that he tried his best and that he got some results.
Petreous would thus, in this context, just be a mouth piece for the adminstiration.
Unfortunately I can't find the link to that article anymore but I found the basic idea interesting.
The Arbiter
Not quite. Maybe you guys should actually look at the report in some detail. He didnt just turn up and say ''Yes. Everything is going fine. We stay Iraq longer." (In robot voice)
He went into alot of detail about Iraq and explained where thing's have gone right aswell as wrong, concluding that Amercica had met most ofit's military goal's set out by the surge and that withdrawel of surge troops will be completed by Janurary.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by The Arbiter
Not quite. Maybe you guys should actually look at the report in some detail.
Great. Could you point to where we can see a hardcopy of the report?
quote:
He went into alot of detail about Iraq and explained where thing's have gone right aswell as wrong, concluding that Amercica had met most ofit's military goal's set out by the surge
And what goals are those? For some strange reason, the WH and Patraeus decided not to print out a report and went with a little presentation instead:
quote:
A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony,” the officer said.
The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.
So first we were led to believe that Patraeus would issue his own report, then we found out that the Patraeus report was actually going to be written by the WH:
quote:
Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.
Then Patraeus reassured everyone that he will actually be the author of the report:
quote:
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), told reporters Thursday that Petraeus said he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had briefed the administration on the situation in Iraq, but added that “as far as [Petraeus] is concerned … he is writing his recommendations of that report and testimony.”
And now it appears he won't be giving any hardcopies of his report so we can actually check his statistics and numbers. Gee, why's that, I wonder? I mean, when someone like Patreaus makes claims like there's now a 75% reduction in sectarian violence:
One would certainly like to see how that actually matches up to reality. Seems that a healthy number of analysts are questioning those numbers that Petraeus is touting:
Or how Patraeus and the military counts where someone is shot in the head?:
quote:
The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."
In contrast, the actual nonpartisan GAO report states that sectarian violence remains unchanged:
quote:
It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased–a key security benchmark–since it is difficult to measure perpetrators’ intents, and various other measures of population security from different sources show differing trends. As displayed in figure 4 (see above), average daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007.
Furthermore, how come Patraeus' "report" differs drastically from the mere 3 out of 18 political and military benchmarks sent out by the initial GAO draft report?:
Strange how when the draft of that GAO report was leaked, the WH began watering it down oh so slightly:
quote:
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.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that after reviewing a draft of the Government Accountability Office report — which has not yet been made public — policy officials “made some factual corrections” and “offered some suggestions on a few of the actual grades” assigned by the GAO. … “We have provided the GAO with information which we believe will lead them to conclude that a few of the benchmark grades should be upgraded from ‘not met’ to ‘met,’” Morrell said.
Not that Patraeus or this WH has ever "softened" reports on Iraq or anything, especially not like the NIE report released a coupla months ago:
quote:
The NIE, requested by the White House Iraq coordinator, Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, in preparation for the testimony, met with resistance from U.S. military officials in Baghdad, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence officer there. Presented with a draft of the conclusions, Petraeus succeeded in having the security judgments softened to reflect improvements in recent months, the official said.
And it's not like Patraeus has refused to release his statistics to the public in the past to support his claims on violence decreasing in Iraq:
quote:
U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don’t support the claim.
So I'm really interested to see any report you might have from Patraeus to support his claims.
quote:
and that withdrawel of surge troops will be completed by Janurary.
Are you sure about that? You have a source to support that? Because from what I've read, Patraeus mentioned that the SURGE! troops can BEGIN redeploying in January and will be completed to pre-SURGE! levels by June, which BTW isn't any sign of progress at all. You want to know why they are being redeployed to pre-SURGE! troop levels? Welp, turns out that those troops in the SURGE! will be meeting their endpoint on their tours, and therefore HAVE to be redeployed. IOW, Patraeus has no choice but to redeploy these troops, unless he and the military are willing to extend the 15 month tours of these soldiers fighting in the SURGE!
So sadly, some in our media (that darn librul media, of course) are so easily duped to believe that Patraeus is calling SUCCESS! loud enough to begin drawing down troops, but the reality is he had no choice but to redeploy these troops no matter what. The SURGE! was a bandaid on a chainsaw amputation. The bleeding could never have been stopped and this WH knew that long ago. They are only interested in delaying the ineviteable long enough to pass their ing mess off to the next president.
MisterOpus1
What's also worth noting is outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace said this back in June about the levels of violence:
quote:
What’s most important is do the Iraqi people feel better about today than they did about yesterday, and do they think tomorrow’s going to be better than today? If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we’re on the right path.
....“it’s about progress … in the minds of the Iraqi people“
Just to reiterate the point I was making earlier when I said:
quote:
Patraeus mentioned that the SURGE! troops can BEGIN redeploying in January and will be completed to pre-SURGE! levels by June, which BTW isn't any sign of progress at all. You want to know why they are being redeployed to pre-SURGE! troop levels? Welp, turns out that those troops in the SURGE! will be meeting their endpoint on their tours, and therefore HAVE to be redeployed. IOW, Patraeus has no choice but to redeploy these troops, unless he and the military are willing to extend the 15 month tours of these soldiers fighting in the SURGE!
So sadly, some in our media (that darn librul media, of course) are so easily duped to believe that Patraeus is calling SUCCESS! loud enough to begin drawing down troops, but the reality is he had no choice but to redeploy these troops no matter what.
Under questioning from Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Petraeus confirms exactly what we all knew:
Yet our darn librul media takes yet another bite at the bull proported by Petraeus and the WH with such headlines like this:
quote:
Petraeus: Troop withdrawals by year's end
The 30,000 additional troops deployed to Iraq in January could come home by next July, but further American withdrawals would be "premature," the U.S. commander there told a fractious congressional hearing Monday.
One has to reach down in the pits of utter stupidity and the mentally disabled to think that our media has apparently missed this most obvious ing point:
THEY WERE GOING TO ING COME HOME NO MATTER WHAT.
There was no "success" marker that enabled them to return. Unless the military was going to go back on its word and stretch the tours of duty past 15 months on our military men and women, THE ING MILITARY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO REDEPLOY THEIR SURGE! TROOPS.
I've often called our media intellectually lazy, often refusing to demonstrate the most simple skills required for investigative journalism. This is beyond laziness - this is absolute abandonment of the obvious and going for pure enabling of the patently absurd.
Oh yeah, strange how our Pentagon may have a bit of a different opinion than Petraeus and Bush in a report coming soon:
quote:
NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.
It's all academic as Patraeus' 'testimony' if you would rather call it that for technical reasons, reflected his opinion. Wether the hardcopy will be written by the whitehouse or not, you get around the propoganda by paying attention when the event take's place. I was glued to the entire day's news report's on CH4 (British Tele for anyone confused.) as they reported on what Patraeus had said. CH4 is famed for cutting out the propoganda and the bull knowing that politics nowerday's is all about dodging the question. They acknowledged that Patraeus was largely accurate, not proclaiming a winning battle as Bush tend's to but labbelling successes and failure's.
quote:
Furthermore, how come Patraeus' "report" differs drastically from the mere 3 out of 18 political and military benchmarks sent out by the initial GAO draft report?:
Last time I looked congress was largely democrat (If I'm wrong correct me, Im not exactly an expert on the American democratic system. Hell, it confuses me most of the time.) and will be against the war full stop ---->. I can't see them setting out realistic goals in a long term war because if they did, they might be acheived reflecting well on the Republicans. It reflect's differently because the report is based on the White Houses goals and benchmark's, not congresses and let's not forget it's actually the White House raging this war.
Capitalizt
found a list of excerpts from his report...The impression I got...things are getting better, but they still suck:
Originally posted by The Arbiter
It's all academic as Patraeus' 'testimony' if you would rather call it that for technical reasons, reflected his opinion. Wether the hardcopy will be written by the whitehouse or not, you get around the propoganda by paying attention when the event take's place. I was glued to the entire day's news report's on CH4 (British Tele for anyone confused.) as they reported on what Patraeus had said. CH4 is famed for cutting out the propoganda and the bull knowing that politics nowerday's is all about dodging the question. They acknowledged that Patraeus was largely accurate, not proclaiming a winning battle as Bush tend's to but labbelling successes and failure's.
I have a channel on my TV, a very impressive channel that also is well known for "cutting out the propoganda and the bull". Of course those who believe it's well known for such things tends to believe Saddam had WMDs ready to use against the U.S., had moved those WMDs to Syria, and are part of the al Qaeda group who attacked us on 9/11. Most folks tend to call it Fox News.
Perhaps you've heard of it?
Interestingly, that channel ALSO say a lot of the same things too about Petraeus' report. Isn't that a great coinkidink?
Perhaps if you demonstrated what specific points you are apparently agreeing with with evidence to support your assertions and counter the points I made above, that might actually give your argument a little more credibility.
quote:
Last time I looked congress was largely democrat (If I'm wrong correct me, Im not exactly an expert on the American democratic system. Hell, it confuses me most of the time.) and will be against the war full stop ---->. I can't see them setting out realistic goals in a long term war because if they did, they might be acheived reflecting well on the Republicans. It reflect's differently because the report is based on the White Houses goals and benchmark's, not congresses and let's not forget it's actually the White House raging this war.
Strange. Last time I checked, those benchmarks in the GAO report that were passed by our (*gasp*) Democratic majority Congress were lauded (and subsequently signed off) by our dear Mister Bush:
quote:
This important bill also provides a clear roadmap to help the Iraqis secure their country and strengthen their young democracy. Iraqis need to demonstrate measurable progress on a series of benchmarks for improved security, political reconciliation, and governance. These tasks will be difficult for this young democracy, but we are confident they will continue to make progress on the goals they have set for themselves.
As Bush also mentioned long ago last January about setting those benchmarks:
quote:
I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation”. (…)
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
