This story is archived

U.S. commander says no military solution to Iraq »

Posted by: gatitabonitasen 2 years, 9 months ago

Archived 127 0 drops

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi security forces cannot solve the problem of violence in Iraq without political action and reconciliation with some militant groups, the U.S. commander in Iraq said on ThursdayGeneral David Petraeus, in his first news conference in Baghdad since he took command last month, also said he saw no immediate need

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »

Submitted By:

gatitabonitasen

Never end a wish without whispering
I Belive ! ... and make 2008 your dream -come -True-Year .

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 372

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
TimALoftis
March 8, 2007, 7:55 a.m.
BBC article;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6429519.stm
Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)
BravoSierra
March 8, 2007, 10:04 a.m.
The statement that there can be no military solution in Iraq is true. It's so true the need to state it is mind boggling. There is NEVER a military solution to ANY international dispute.
I'll use Clausewitz as a way of explaining it. According to Clausewitz, war is an extention of diplomacy by other, violent means. The purpose of diplomacy is to establish favorable trade agreements. The purpose of warfare is to destroy the enemy's will to fight for the purpose of bringing them back to the negotiation table to establish more favorable terms for trade.
War is always a symptom of a failure of diplomatic relations to establish favorable trade and quality of life among nations. International disputes ALWAYS begin and end with a diplomatic solution. The belief that there can ever be a 'military' solution to a problem, unless you are going to exercise genocide, is an opinion based in total ignorance.
Avg rating: (+1/-1 0)
Daylight
March 8, 2007, 10:08 a.m.
It may be news to the western world but not to us, before America invaded Iraq, we knew it, that America will be humiliated and defeated in a matter of time, because its intentions were morally wrong and it will be the same result wherever America and its allies are involved.
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
angermanagement
March 8, 2007, 10:10 a.m.
I beg to differ. One bomb could fix the whole problem, without losing any more american lives.
Avg rating: (+4/-2 2)
angermanagement
March 8, 2007, 10:11 a.m.
good morning daylight
Avg rating: (+3/-1 2)
angermanagement
March 8, 2007, 10:16 a.m.
0
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
miklkit
March 8, 2007, 10:17 a.m.
BravoSierra is correct. Big Bush knew these facts, and let Saddam Hussein live. Little Bush and his handlers were and are ignorant about these matters. And here we are......
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sieben
March 8, 2007, 10:39 a.m.
You learned "NOTHING" from Vietnam, to win a war you cannot have your hands tied in what you can and cannot engage, you must have the support of the people.What you created was a full blown Civil war,You should not have been in IRAQ in the first place . Bush & Cheney Should be held accountable for entry in this Unnecessary war & "IMPEACHED" "ONLY IN AMERICA" Clinton Lied,"BUT NO ONE DIED" Bush LIED and 3000 died and the count continues
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
March 8, 2007, 10:48 a.m.
I am also troubled by what I hear in the press about the new campaign. I'll trust that the press don't know enough to see the real strategy, however, what I'm seeing is reports of us focusing on finding bomb factories and setting up checkpoints. Clausewitz warns against such actions. He states that one must not be mislead into focusing on the small unit operations like this. He says one must discern the crux of the matter and strike "straight as an arrow" to the heart of the matter. I see no evidence that the US leadership has yet discerned what the strategic heart of the matter is. If we discern this and strike directly at the heart of the enemy then we will destroy their will to fight and the bomb factories will start to disappear and the checkpoints will become unnecessary. Tactically, we are bogged down once again, patrolling the same routes, using checkpoints, etc.
Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
BravoSierra
March 8, 2007, 10:53 a.m.
This will never succeed because it has us fixed in place while the enemy is mobile and elusive. While we must provide security for the populace, we must discern the crux of the matter and utterly destroy those things that will destroy the will to fight. At the same time, we must offer hope. The purpose of the Tet Offensive was to utterly destroy the South Vietnamese's hope in the US. We have allowed the same thing to happen to us by not sending 400,000 troops to begin with and by allowing our contractors to screw up so badly. That opportunity for creating hope is lost due to Bush's incompetence. Now, we have to engage the entire region in diplomacy as the King of Jordan has been advising. We must leave no one out of the discussions or the Russians and Chinese will use them against us. We need a comprehensive Middle East economic development plan.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
inthemiddleof
March 8, 2007, 10:58 a.m.
Here's another tidbit of info for everyone. The islamic "wars" have been going on since biblical times. Most notiably since around 300 a.d. So if anyone thinks that they can stop a war, in a year or fifty, that's been raging for 1700 plus years. Please let me know.
We need to find a graceful way of leaving Iraq, and this may be a start.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
aquarius448
March 8, 2007, 11:45 a.m.
The time to get out of Iraq was yesterday, so we are overdue for a pullout. The U.S. military is built to fight a conventional war...that is why the Iraqi military machine was shattered in days. This is a war with no front lines and an invisible enemy. The Iraqi merchant selling you a coffee in the morning will be shooting at you in the afternoon, then back at his shop the next day with a smile on his face as he serves the next group of soldiers.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
joemont
March 8, 2007, 11:59 a.m.
KelLuv
Agree with you, but the problem is larger than anything we have ever seen. We leave and we simply foment a breeding ground for International Terrorism the like of which we have not even begun to imagine.
These Radicals do not think or believe as you and I do. They want complete and total domination of the World with their brand of Islam, at any cost.
The only way to defeat that school of though is from within. The moderate Muslims must gain control and weed them out themselves.
Go Jayhawks(3)
(:>)
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
March 8, 2007, 12:04 p.m.
It's important to realize that much of the sectarian violence is triggered by radical islamists but it's not rooted in Islam. 1) Because we left a security and social services void the locals had to turn to militias. These are like the local neighborhood watch on steroids and are not fundamentally terrorists. We have to make it safe for them to lay down their arms. 2) The sectarian violence is based only somewhat on religion. It is primarily economic just like the problem between North and South Ireland. The Shiites have oil rich land...the Kurds have oil rich land...the Sunnis have nothing. The battle is over whether one sect or clan becomes second-class citizens subjects to gradual enslavement or whether everyone gets a shot at being oil rich. It's a battle over national resources. Ultimately all conflict in the Middle East has always been a battle for resources...there just aren't any and never have been many.
lovermanComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
walden3
March 8, 2007, 12:24 p.m.
There is no winning. There is no exit. We are there for decades. No way will there be a withdrawal of troops before the 08 election. This ill-advised occupation will bleed us dry literally s well as figuratively.
Very sad. Probably the biggest blunder in our country's history.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Veritatis
March 8, 2007, 3:27 p.m.
KelLuv,
Gotta argue with you on that, "Bush's blunder", the American people vote on who is President (not forgetting what the Supreme Court did either) and it is US, the people, who choose our leaders.
If we want to assign "blame", we have to look at ourselves and who we put into office - and I am saying "every office", not just the Presidency.
Bush, alone, could not have gotten us into Iraq if a whole lot of others had not agreed with him.
Avg rating: (+7/-2 5)
edromar2
March 8, 2007, 12:57 p.m.
And this Gen. Petraeus is the so-called "expert" on insurgency warfare? He is the guy the Democrats confirmed with just as much guilt as the Republicans.
The first key to any warfare is to respect your opponent and his abilities and to understand his psychology. Having the sophisticated belief that your enemies who are willing to give up their lives to stop your occupation are just thugs is no better than just calling them all heros.
The key to stopping the insurgency is to understand the different motives of the different groups so you can appeal to some and drive a wedge between them. It is the same foolishness that Duh?bya engaged in by calling Iran part of an Axis of Evil. They are people who are reacting violently to what we are doing to their country in an attempt to get us to stop.
Whether or not we should stop in no way means that we have any right or cause to continue to denigrate the enemy. Any successful commander in Iraq has to know that!
Avg rating: (+4/-1 3)
arion
March 8, 2007, 12:58 p.m.
I like all the liberal Generals posting today... Liberal Generals = faggots... aka Wesley Clark
Avg rating: (+12/-0 12)
mbkijb
March 8, 2007, 1:40 p.m.
I could have told you this from the get go.
We really elect, hire and promote rocket scientists in the good ol' US of A, don't we?
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
siliconoff
March 8, 2007, 2:03 p.m.
The U.S. military has been there long enough and in big enough numbers that it should be turning the corner at this point, if that were possible. The fact that things are getting worse instead of better shows that the majority of Iraqis clearly aren't willing to side with the U.S. or the U.S.-backed government.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
NelsonR
March 8, 2007, 3:02 p.m.
Finally the Democrats have a plan of action. I will now take back some of my dipleasure I voiced concerning their ambivalence and inaction towards the Iraq war. Its about time. The only problem I see is that our troops will still be dying for a hopeless cause until Aug. 2008.
At least its a plan so I have that to appease me unless the Bushites get us into another conflagration.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
B737Tech
March 8, 2007, 3:34 p.m.
And he warned that military force alone will not be enough to quell the country's violent insurgency.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Shirtless
March 8, 2007, 3:34 p.m.
As I read the BBC Story, including its headlines and sublines, the general said that the military cannot be the only solution, and that it will be necessary to get the factions together so they can negotiate a settlement.
Ahem.
Does the general realize that the Sunnis and the Shiites have been going at it for over 1,000, and some of them probably do not know what the dispute is about?
Avg rating: (+8/-2 6)
espse
March 8, 2007, 3:55 p.m.
Bravo: ":)...like I said...the military knows the business of the civilians better than the civilians know the military's business and better than the civilians know their own business...:)"
Smiley face noted, however I think you actually believe this. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire basis for this democracy is civilian control of the military. It sounds like maybe you think a coup is in order. The military and those in it serve at the pleasure of the civilian controlled president. The literature you have copiously quoted from was written by and for those in the business of war. If you're out of the military now, its time maybe to study something else.