^ That looks a whole lot easier than refuting his comments.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32419

Quote :

"2 April 2008 Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims. Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic. No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities. Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey. Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight. Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran. Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government’s troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation. Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses."

It goes on. But I'd really like to hear how out of touch his analysis is, since you're so adamant to portray the retired--and thus beholden to none--general in that manner.

And besides, who do you think the Iraq Study Group is listening to? Paula Abdul?

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 11:17 PM. Reason : christ...]

4/8/2008 11:15:38 PM

Quote :

"uh, I would tend to put more weight on the testimony of someone "in the loop""

in theory this is good, but hes just gonna spew out the status quo

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 12:58 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 12:57:17 AM

^^Most of those comments were brought up during the Petraeus hearing yesterday towards the end of questioning around 6:00-6:30pm ish. I dont remember the specific answer he gave though. Is there a transcript of the entire interview from yesterday?

Several of Odom's comments I do remember how Petraeus responded. To the renting the people. He mentioned that alot of them came forth at the begining and volunteered to help. Additionally, 20,000 of the "Sons of Iraq" have been integrated into the Iraqi security forces with more schedueled to do the same thing.

As for paying them, the Iraqi government has large surpluses that it cant effectively distribute for rebuilding let alone take control of all the contracts. They are schedueling the absorbtion of the contracts for these people over time as soon as they get more skilled at following their budgets.

The money the US military saves in having secure areas to drive through far outweighs the money it takes to pay the Sons of Iraq. The vehicles are way more expensive. In addition having these people get payed for this security stimulates the local economy.


Now, I remember a comment Petraeus made about the Kurds and that they do see it in their interest to be apart of the larger government. The Turkey incursion might actually made them more aware of that need.

I dont remember much more from the interview regarding Odom's comments. Anyone know where a full transcript can be found?

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 9:11 AM. Reason : yt]

4/9/2008 9:09:35 AM

http://www.google.com

4/9/2008 12:22:13 PM

obama or hillary will not pull out of iraq.

i guarantee that.

4/9/2008 1:55:06 PM

Even Obama mentioned yesterday that nobody is talking about a extremely quick withdrawl. But a withdrawl of some sort is more than likely so I hope that we can maximize the Iraqi recruiting and deployment for the rest of the year. If the Iraqi force is large enough at the end of 08, it might be possible, if the President wants to imediatly start withdrawing from Iraq in Feb or Mar 1 to 2 brigades per month, that the transitions smoothness will be maximized.

4/9/2008 4:20:34 PM

I also read today that the Democrats are interested in forcing the Iraqis to use some of their oil revenues to pay for their own reconstruction going forward. I'd even be fine with us helping out to a large extent--total if necessary--but this would represent a drastic strategic shift in our approach to the Iraq situation. Link their productivity to their livelihood, and at the same time let them know--"our forces are peacing out slowly, get your shit together."

Not such a bad thing, no?

4/9/2008 6:30:57 PM

We ought not of started the war

4/9/2008 6:31:32 PM

But I've agreed from day one.

Oh, and BEU...

Quote :

""We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel""

-Gen. Petraeus, Yesterday



[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 6:59 PM. Reason : i see he was also all ready to mention the significance of the Sadr ceasefire all of a sudden]

4/9/2008 6:33:33 PM

honestly i wish we would just go down to 20-25k soldiers fo eva

4/9/2008 7:33:27 PM

I see nothing wrong with zero.

They seem to have enough weapons as it is. If they want to defend themselves, let them. If they want to attack each other, let them. It's their country, not ours.

I just don't get it.

4/9/2008 8:15:46 PM

Ron Paul is awesome

4/10/2008 9:43:48 AM

Quote :

"I see nothing wrong with zero. They seem to have enough weapons as it is. If they want to defend themselves, let them. If they want to attack each other, let them. It's their country, not ours. I just don't get it. "

The problem with letting them go at it is largly the problem of how that fight would affect the entire world.

It really depends on how far the infighting would go. Would we have a complete nose dive where Iran and company are forced to stabilize the country? Or do we have militia fighting but not enough to topple to government.

If the nose dive happens, one of the largest oil reserves in the world becomes vulnerable. AQI would almost certainly try to target oil production and processing facilities. If they manage to cripple it, the entire world suffers, especially the US. That single target is probably the most important to hurt the US economy. Not to mention Hezbullah and AQI need a unstable countries to be able to survive.

Then if Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia feel the need to step in before things get to out of hand, there would most likley be conflict over control.

Not to go to far off into a tangent of doomsday, but a failed state of Iraq is just not an option. It would affect to many things globally.

4/10/2008 11:15:29 AM

Iraqi Politicial Tells the Truth

4/10/2008 3:53:50 PM

well put.

it was funny how agitated the guy in the bottom right corner was getting.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Jefferson


(enter GoldenViper to explain why this means democracy is so bad )

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ...]

4/10/2008 4:03:54 PM

Does anyone know of studies that have been conducted about the possibility of a regional war over Iraqi oil reserves if the country imploded?

I mean, just over 15 years ago Sadam was marching his troops into Kuwait. Would it really be out of the realm of possibilities to think that one or two of Iraq's neighbors wouldn't try the same thing if the country fell into civil war?

4/10/2008 4:14:43 PM

Quote :

"but a failed state of Iraq is just not an option"

that's the fundamental question here....what is a fail and what is a success? In the terms you put forth in your post, something like the Sadam era would be a smashing success....Secure oil reserves, no haven for aqi.

I hate to say it, but the success as the admin forsees it is probably never going to happen....we'll be lucky to get back to the Sadam era of stability....I think its going to come down to sacrificing their vision of a hub for democracy in the middle east for simple stability, however that may come about.

4/10/2008 4:20:41 PM

I honestly beleive it all depends on the ability of the Iraqi government to show the people it is needed for rebuilding. The biggest problem is that the government is very inefficient at spending its own money. It cant reserve funds for everything across the country because it actually sucks at spending money.

If the government proves to the people that it will protect and benefit their lives, that will go a very long way to prevent any type of unpopular uprising.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM. Reason : hjbbj]

4/10/2008 4:31:00 PM

Iraq has to be able to defend itself against factions from within. When they can do that, we have succeded.

4/10/2008 4:51:14 PM

my money is on al sadr and his militia taking over (assuming he is alive) a few months after our presence has dwindled, whenever that may be.

the net result? a situation not that different than before we went in, except for the ravaged infastructure and hundreds of thousands of deaths.....and who knows, the next dictator might not be as unkind to radical terrorist groups.

^what scares me is a continued US presence is the only way that will certainly happen (and even now, its a monumental struggle)

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2008 4:52:01 PM

What I like is that anyone who thinks change is needed now has an option other than uprising. Getting supporters or themselves elected.

4/10/2008 4:54:13 PM

Quote :

"and who knows, the next dictator might not be as unkind to radical terrorist groups. "

exactly

4/10/2008 4:54:46 PM

i mean here is my thing....if we totally leave another person might come in power that we dont like, and then we wont get that oil...but if we do stay with like 25k and prop up that government we want, we can get the oil....only thing that sucks is we really need a dem pres right now...kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place

4/10/2008 4:55:59 PM

^^ Maybe all the more reason we should continue to support the anemic Iraqi government? Rather than leave and hope for the best?

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ``]

4/10/2008 4:57:19 PM

Quote :

"^what scares me is a continued US presence is the only way that will certainly happen (and even now, its a monumental struggle)"

which is why McCain says what he does. he is telling the truth to what he feels the situation needs. others have not and I dont believe they are being honest to the democratic voters.

4/10/2008 5:00:16 PM

mccain knows war and dems are just promising to make the world better over night

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 5:02 PM. Reason : does that about sum up this years election?]

4/10/2008 5:02:36 PM

^^i totally understand your point, which in some ways I agree with. but my point is, I think the end result will be the same if we're there 1 more year or 100 more years....we're just prolonging it.

[Edited on April 10, 2008 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2008 5:05:39 PM

The problem is not broad public unrest with the government.

There is AQI which is a cancer to all people and should be annihilated. The Mahdi army which needs to be disbanded and not used against the government. Those are really the only two groups who can coordinate anything close dangerous levels of violence.

The government is trying to deal with the Mahdi army as we speak. AQI is limited to the greater Mosul area as their only way of survival.

If these two groups can be dealt with, there shouldn't be any major actors outside of Iran that can really worry us.

4/10/2008 5:22:39 PM

^problem is , al sadr has a very large base of support. Not to menion that we, in effect, created the two groups. I would like nothing more than for us to have 100% success, but it just seems like we create 2 enemies for every 1 we eliminate. And I don't doubt that Iraq will reach some level of acceptable stability, I just find it hard to believe a democracy as the admin intends it will the the way to that stability.


the US/current Iraqi gov would be wise to continue some level of diplomacy with al sadr, and his factions instead of declaring all out war on them, as they've shown some willingness to lay weapons down.

4/10/2008 5:40:41 PM

We dont need to, and frankly dont want to get rid of the sadr movement, just the Mahdi army. The clerics, government, and even Iran have sided with the Iraqi government that it should be disbanded.

Yes, its true that the Mahdi army was created by Sadr as a result of the war. And it is true that AQI is there trying to destroy all sources of law and government because they need a failed state. But it is important to realize that AQI has no support anywhere in Iraq without intimidation. As long as there are enough forces to concentrate on Mosul, like they are doing now, AQI has no where to run in Iraq. The population will not allow them to come back.

A large belief of the Sadr movement is that there should be no occupying forces in Iraq. Problem is, those forces are the control against violence. Everyone knows that we cannot stay there with large permanent forces and therefor it should be possible to bring in the Sadr movement with the promise that we are going to get the hell out as soon as you help the government function effectively.

4/10/2008 5:50:49 PM

Good article about the many different factions in Iraq making peace under a functioning democratic government very hard to achieve

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054224/

Quote :

"The shift was articulated this week in Washington by Gen. David Petraeus, who told Congress that "unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.""

Quote :

"That intra-Shiite competition is likely to continue — sometimes violently — regardless of whether the Iraqi government and its U.S. backers force al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or not."

Quote :

"In part, that's because the conflict has been ever-evolving — from at first a Sunni insurgency, next to a Sunni-Shiite sectarian bloodletting, and now a violent competition for power within the Shiite community."

Quote :

"The trouble started last month when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, launched an ill-prepared offensive against Shiite militias and criminal gangs in Basra in the south."

It's gotten to the point now where Shites are fighting Shites for power, and the Iraqi gov is worsening the problem. We stamp out one problem, and 2 more spring up in its place. With the military's assertion that aqi is becoming less and less of a problem in Iraq (largely b/c of the Iraqi people's unwillingness to cooperate). It seems like the fears of a broad aqi takeover in the event of the US pullout are also lessening. If the outcome is a civil war for power, and by many accounts it is happening regardless of the fact we're there, what's the point? The admin is just trying to save face by setting up a democracy that is probably doomed for failure.

4/11/2008 9:39:09 AM

Jan 07 was a borderline civil war.

April 08 is nothing by comparison.

4/11/2008 11:21:59 AM

its called winning


rome wasnt built in a day, neither will democracy in the arab lands


but WE CAN DO IT

4/11/2008 11:28:37 AM

difference is, the Romans built Rome.....

4/11/2008 11:29:57 AM

Democracy is the solution to everything.

4/11/2008 11:30:54 AM

what else is? Communism? is that what you advocate?

4/11/2008 11:35:59 AM

as a forethought to all of whats coming up in the world, i wish we had left them to suffocate in their regime and let the wars play out by themselves amongst themselves.

sorry to all the 100k's of people that would've been killed cruely by it, but hey, i need lower gas prices and a better us economy right now.


speaking of oil, since the whole world thinks we are there for oil anyways, why don't we just steal some and make it worth it?

4/11/2008 11:40:05 AM

Quote :

"what else is? Communism? is that what you advocate?"

1. Democracy and commumism are not mutually exclusive.

2. There are plenty of non-democratic, non-communistic countries.

3. I should really stop arguing with trolls.

4/11/2008 11:46:18 AM

Quote :

"as a forethought to all of whats coming up in the world"

let me get in on that crystal ball, I've got a lottery to win

Quote :

"sorry to all the 100k's of people that would've been killed cruely by it"

what about the 100's of thousand that have died as a direct result of our actions in the last 5 years?

4/11/2008 11:47:33 AM

Big oil reserve found in North Dakota

Quote :

"The government estimates up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, using current technology. The U.S. Geological Survey calls it the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed. …The Bakken Formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota, where the oil is trapped in a thin layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface. Companies use pressurized fluid and sand to break pores in the rock and prop them open to recover the oil. "

Thats it, no need for Iraq. Pull out tommorow!

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM. Reason : das]

4/11/2008 2:14:48 PM

I have already posted this article somewhere else, but I think this quote should be pointed out to, yet again, show the fundamental change in Iraqi's view of America and the soldiers. And yes, the author is the most respected independent journalist reporting from Iraq.

Quote :

"The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com.""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787343563306609.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM. Reason : sdf]

4/14/2008 9:20:58 AM

I'm not reading it, but does it mention that we're literally paying militants for this newfound loyalty? Renting them so to speak?

4/14/2008 11:10:47 AM

Quote :

"I'm not reading it"

You remind me of Bill Mahr....

I was going to go find an article from people in Iraq that know way more about the situation than any of us that have already commented on that very issue.

But instead, I will show you a ruff idea of why thinking that these people will flip on us at the drop of a hat is wrong.

Lets compare and contrast the same people paid by AQI vs the Iraqi Government.

Paid by AQI: The paid Iraqis are required to attack the US and Iraqi forces, while helping AQI. AQI is raping, murdering, torturing, and beating all that do not follow their very strict laws. Laws that are alien and foreign in origin. Meanwhile while having to follow these laws, the AQI forces imposing these laws are bringing in drugs, prostitution and other illegal things while imposing laws that ban them. Oh, and the endless fighting ruins the local economys. Oh yea, and since the economy is gone, taking any food or money from the US or Iraqi government means AQI will kill you or your family members to insure they control everything. Oh, and you cant smoke. (Big deal fyi. AQI < Addiction)

Or

Paid by Iraqi Government: Paid to secure checkpoints from any suspicious foreign fighters or AQI members. Paid to secure local towns and cities that you, your neighbors, and your families live in. You have these crazy Americans on the ground asking what you need help with, paying people to clean up the trash that AQI allowed to fill the streets and rebuild what was destroyed during the fighting. The crazy Americans somehow manage to get your children to jump for joy evertime they see them and give them candy. And lets not forget the job that you now have which you can spend in the local markets that just happen to be booming because of the security that you help provide.

We dont pay people for our own protection do we?

Maybe, I have no idea why anyone would prefer to work with the Iraqi Government.

Or maybe I actually read news coming out of Iraq from multiple sources.

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : kj]

4/14/2008 12:50:41 PM

Quote :

"BEU: We dont pay people for our own protection do we?"

Sure we do!

4/15/2008 4:59:33 AM

Iraq War Memorial Planners Forced To Revise Length Again

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/iraq_war_memorial_planners_forced

4/16/2008 11:49:35 AM

Quote :

" HEY HOLLYWOOD! This Book's Success Should Tell You Something The movie industry has released one box-office flop after another regarding our modern wars against Islamic extremists, leading the dim and the dull in studio boardrooms and backlots to assume that Americans don't want to see or know about those conflicts. But if the American people want to ignore those wars,then why is Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq currently #12 #10 in Amazon's sales rank? The obvious answer is that we aren't tired of content about the war, we're just tired of movies portraying our soldiers and Marines as psychopaths, murderers, or victims. Show us a film that respects our troops, portraying their honor, their sacrifice, their dignity, and exceptional humanity under the most trying of combat conditions. Show us a film that portrays Islamic terrorists as the callous, torturing, murderous and irreligious thugs they really are. Show us that film, and I'll show you a film that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in profit and could actually contribute to winning hearts and minds around the world. Oddly enough, that very project is waiting in the wings. A smart producer could build upon Yon's growing popularity, and his stories based upon the exploits of Deuce Four, the Stryker Brigade known as the Punishers, already made legendary in Yon's dispatches like Gates of Fire. That might mean setting aside the community's general anti-war feelings for money, but somehow, I think they have the moral flexibility to make that happen."

Quote :

"HOLLYWOOD - Superstar actor Bruce Willis is so upset by the media's negative portrayal of the war in Iraq, he has decided to make a pro-U.S. armed forces movie. The Die Hard star is basing the as-yet-untitled project on a group of highly decorated U.S. troops—from Deuce Four in the 1st Batallion, 24th Infantry—who have spent the last year fighting insurgents in Mosul, Iraq. He says, "(The movie is about) these guys who do what they are asked for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom." Earlier this month, Willis offered $1 million to anyone who turns in al-Qaeda terror leaders. Article Copyright World Entertainment News Network All Rights Reserved. "

Now, as an avid reader of Micheal Yon's blog, I must say that this is very good sign. And I must say that I agree 100% about the conclusions regarding the sales of the antiwar movies that have been released. And I am ESPECIALLY glad that Bruce intends to focuses on the deuce four. This Stryker brigade saw IMMENSE success in the surge efforts and has a ~90-95% reenlistment rate. There tales can be found on Yon's website in one of his dispatches.

And this one(which is by far the most exciting and intense dispatch ever.)

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=141:gates-of-fire&catid=61:archive-2005&Itemid=106

This one from 05
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151:the-punishers-ball&catid=61:archive-2005&Itemid=106

And I do have a copy of his book on the way.

4/16/2008 1:44:45 PM

because who needs nuance in movies? they should have an agenda from the start.

4/16/2008 1:46:07 PM

I am used to getting attacked.



[Edited on April 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM. Reason : jh]

4/16/2008 1:47:57 PM

the anti-war movies that have been released in theaters here are about the families of troops back home.

4/16/2008 1:51:09 PM

do you even understand what i'm saying? having an agenda from the get-go was the issue with these movies that failed. i'm not saying that willis's movie will fail. it may do great. people love to flag-wave at a movie theater. that doesn't give the war any more or less merit.

success at the box office doesn't validate an idea, nor does it imply quality. look no further than what DOES succeed in hollywood for further proof.

4/16/2008 1:53:06 PM