This story is archived

Petraeus urged to pull out troops »

Posted by: Radiofreeeuropa 2 years, 3 months ago

Archived 114 0 drops

THE US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is resisting pressure from Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and other generals to begin a symbolic withdrawal of American troops from Iraq before Christmas.

Read Full Story at timesonline.co.uk »

Submitted By:

Radiofreeeuropa

All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Rats live on no evil star!
Wasilla: All I saw...
Sorry, just palindroming around with terrorists.
Are you still ...

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 80

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Radiofreeeuropa
Sept. 9, 2007, 1:43 a.m.
The key word here is symbolic. A con to shut the citizens up.
Pull a few troops out and say ooh ooh see we withdrew.
Why are politicians this transparent? The damage done by this administration I know will not be repaired in this generation.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
david_nwpa
Sept. 9, 2007, 2 a.m.
As so many others from Harry Reid to Dennis Kucinich, this is not General Petraeus' report to be released this month, rather we will hear more of the same schtick from President Bush. He is trying to appease the US populace in time for the primary elections.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
gamahuche
Sept. 9, 2007, 2:38 a.m.
Apparently according to the Right Wing English source of this story the hot "new" name is General Betraeus and Americans are losing trust in him.
A comment to the Times article compares the Iraq situation to the Irish civil war - recently concluded after 3 decades:
"It finally ended when the two warring factions decided they wanted it to end, not because of any outside action. The situation in Iraq is a political problem and no military solution is likely to alter that."
i.e. no amount of shuffling and juggling will create peace until the people of Iraq demand it. Maliki is unpopular with the US because he hasn't got the "Oil Law" passed - the sweet deal for the US which this whole sorry business has been about..
Can they find a better. more co-operative stooge who will also satisfy all the Iraqi factions?? A million to one against.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Radiofreeeuropa
Sept. 9, 2007, 5:49 a.m.
Insightful comments! I don't think there is a military solution in Iraq either. Once Bush is out of the picture perhaps the UN or the world court could come up with a consensus as to what should be done. (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Wolfawitz, the whole crew, seem to have some legal business to conduct in the Hague if you ask me.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Amazing1
Sept. 9, 2007, 9:24 a.m.
They should all be pulled out. Tomorrow would suit me. We should never have gone in. The longer we stay, the more chance for the conflict to widen. We need to pay for the damage. But that should be done with money and materials. Not the lives of our soldiers.
Petreas was foolish for accepting this no-win position. He is trapped between politics and the situation on the ground.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DarkWizard
Sept. 9, 2007, 11:17 a.m.
gamahuche,
"It finally ended when the two warring factions decided they wanted it to end, not because of any outside action. The situation in Iraq is a political problem and no military solution is likely to alter that."
I think that statement says it all. America needs to pull its troops out and allow the natural conclusion to play itself out. Right now we are merely playing a game of cat and mouse and our troups are being used as political pawns.
Pulling out is the best solution at this time; the American public wants it, the troups need it, and Iraq won't be able to heal until we do it. This is no longer about winning or losing a war, but trying to salvage some logic out of an illogical situation.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
wildman6557
Sept. 9, 2007, 12:35 p.m.
General Petraeus would have had a chance in 2003. Heck, he probably would have won the war. Unfortunately Bush put idiots in charge of Iraq instead. Now it is too late. Too little, too late.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Obaku
Sept. 9, 2007, 2:57 p.m.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
NelsonR
Sept. 9, 2007, 3:02 p.m.
My that General Petraeus likes to shine Bush's shoes. Sucking up is what life is about to some and conversely some just adore power and glory regardless of the cost to others. The green zone is well defended for the upper brass. Get out on patrol at nights along with your underlings General Petraeus, maybe you will win then. Advocating lunacy without heeding history is quiet inane.
Our American military was never instituted for wars of aggression. We are better than that.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
pcknowledge
Sept. 9, 2007, 3:28 p.m.
The longer the troops are in Iraq:
1. The worse the situation will get because neither the Iraqis nor other muslims who've joined in the war in Iraq trying to oust our troops want any foreign troops there.
They will continue to fight to try & oust any foreign troops.
2. The more people will die on both sides.
3. The more money Bush will have wasted.
Saddam was not a threat to us. If Saddam had been a threat, his whereabouts where known & he could have been taken "out quietly" by special forces. Bush's shock & awe campaign was a waste of human lifes (on both sides), a waste of a lot of money. And the only ones profiting are Bush/Cheney/Halliburton & some oil companies. I hope someone makes the right decision & pulls the troops out, the sooner the better. For our sake & their sake.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Obaku
Sept. 9, 2007, 3:34 p.m.
The entire argument is based on one fundamental lie.
The 'surge's' only point was to create a security environment in which the Iraqi government would reach the political accomodations, and the Iraqi security forces would develop the capability, for them to move forward.
Both of those objectives have FAILED. No amount of statisical juggling, semantic acrobatics, or pretty pictures can overcome those basic, uncontroverted FACTS!
The 'surge' has not met the objectives set for it, nor does it appear at all probable that if continued for ANY amount of time, that those objectives would be met.
That is the reality. Anything, or anyone, that tries to portray some version of a story to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, without disproving those FACTS, is a liar.
LIAR.
LIAR.
LIAR.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
HannibalBarca
Sept. 9, 2007, 3:46 p.m.
I like the sound of the pretty maps, where the red spots are transformed into shades of yellow and green. Any ideas where I can get some
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
pcknowledge
Sept. 9, 2007, 3:50 p.m.
The "surge." I don't think any form of surge would work in any country to create any type of secure/democratic environment. It's not possible to wage a "shock & awe" campaign in a country & expect any positive outcome. The automatic result, as we have seen in Iraq, would be different factions fighting each other & simultaneously the foreign troops, trying to oust them. This was a bad strategy in the 1st place. The problem is the longer this goes on, the more in-fighting will go on. The more people will die. Again, on both sides. Once our troops pull out, they are forced to come up with any type of resolution that will work best for their country on their own which is the best way.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
TonyByron
Sept. 9, 2007, 5:36 p.m.
I shouldn't be but I am amazed at the flood of anti-war, anti-American, anti-Bush articles spewing from the mainstream US and overseas media in advance of Petraus' and Crocker's report.
The liberals are absolutely frothing at the mouth that the news the two are are bringing is positive.
It is somewhat sad to see these people eat their own and other's garbage and regurgitate it in an attempt to downplay or dismiss the positive news that they know is coming. It must be painful. We must remember to have compassion for idiot offspring of idiot parents.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
NelsonR
Sept. 9, 2007, 6:19 p.m.
Why do the neocons still fail to grasp the simple fact that just because America is involved its righteous? Why are they so convinced, a small minority of Americans, that Bush's policies have been beneficial while most Americans and most of the world know better? If you think you as an American individual think that the Iraqi's adore our intrusion and our destruction of their infrastructure was for their benefit, I know not what else to say.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
studentambassador
Sept. 9, 2007, 6:48 p.m.
'A powerful trio, made up of General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral William Fallon, the head of Central Command, and General William Casey, the chief of the army, are concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are overstretching the American armed forces.'
Add those three with Secretary Gates and I'd say that if Petraeus doesn't initiate some kind of drawdown soon, he must have one helluva plan or information source the above four are lacking.
'...to begin a symbolic withdrawal of American troops...'
Symbolic? How about something a little more real after all these years of war?
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
02gsxr600
Sept. 9, 2007, 7:05 p.m.
Heh, the recent surge has shown very impressive results - have you all forgotten about 9/11?
When/If you're right and we do pull out, I hope the terrorists drop a bomb directly on all of your houses. You should be proud of our country and support our president and more importantly our troops! We haven't had a single attack on our soil yet!
- for all of you who say this war is for nothing, how about peace in the middle east? Freedom for the Iraqies and knowing they won't get gassed by their own dictator? Knowing you, your children and grandchildren are safe?