Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee No, he's saying that a "POLITICAL CONSENSUS" is necessary for us to win. So when will bush take the first step towards such a consensus? So far he's insisted that his way is right, and the only way.

And just how do you propose to get that consensus with people who are trying to undermine the war effort?

IMO, the first thing that needs to happen is for the undermining to stop and for the politicians(ALL OF THEM) to get behind the war and our troops in Iraq 100%.

[xyzer]

grandpa..you hit on the nub of the problem? What is the definition of success? I haven't seen it described in anything but general terms? Thats why Congress and the President have to get in sync? Just saying we want to win isn't enough? I agree with Congress for once..there needs to be a concrete, measurable goal for success. And benchmarks along the way so that decisions can be made. It's not enough to say we will withdraw X number of troops in 08?

But these gonzos we elect can't see the forest for the political trees that block their view!

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer You got the point Zee! I can only ask you, why doesn't Congress strive for agreement either. All I've seen from them is a stubbor, many faceted, attempt to hinder the effort...through funding, resolutions, and other means.

Has funding been denied? Has there been an enforced date of withdrawal?? Seems that congress has already made concessions, hasn't it? When is bush going to make a move to do likewise?

[xyzer]

Milton..... that U Tube bit was not at all pertinent to the issue we are discussing! This guy wasn't in on the planning or execution of the Iraq campaign. He was in finance? He speaks from his disgruntled experiences with Bush! And of course because he was fired..... and of course because he is trying to up sales of his recent book? Thats what they all the losers do in Washington these days? Try to mke money by attacking someone else in a tell all book.Speaing of loyalty? Money talks?

And in the process these gonzos are interviewed by run down journalists and make all these amazing???revelations about the inside of government?
I hope the interview pumped you up..sorry it didn't do anything for me.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval And just how do you propose to get that consensus with people who are trying to undermine the war effort? IMO, the first thing that needs to happen is for the undermining to stop and for the politicians(ALL OF THEM) to get behind the war and our troops in Iraq 100%.

Some of us believe that getting behind "the war" and getting behind "our troops" are two different subjects.

[xyzer]

Zee..I can only agree with part of this..

Has funding been denied? Has there been an enforced date of withdrawal?? Seems that congress has already made concessions, hasn't it? When is bush going to make a move to do likewise?

I agree, I'm waiting for Bush to make a move too? The surge was his delaying tactic..it extended the day of reckoning a few more months? You can say funding was denied but only after a struggle with the Congressional leaders SAYING THE WAR IS LOST AND WE HAVE TO GET OUT ! Threatening to not approve emergency funding rattling Turkeys cage(they allow us bases for supply replenishment and such).
There has been a whole lot of foot dragging going on on both sides?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee Some of us believe that getting behind "the war" and getting behind "our troops" are two different subjects.

That's part of the problem. Some of you don't seem to understand that "our troops" are fighting "the war"...they aren't different subjects.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Dieval And just how do you propose to get that consensus with people who are trying to undermine the war effort?

Undermine the war effort???? The war effort was undermined by it's own conception and further undermined by the gross criminal negligence by which the Bush League incompetently pursued it. No amount of polyanna wishful thinking is going to turn this sow's ear into a "Victory". No amount of incremental improvements brought about with the 'Surge' is going to change the fact that we can't possibly sustain the efforts needed. Our troops are being stretched beyond their limits, their tours continuously extended... we can't sustain the logistical efforts, our National Guards and Reserves are paying the price to keep our regular forces from collapsing. Cutting a forces by 30,000 in December will simply return the effort to pre-surge numbers, six months beyond the point a military commissioned report a year ago said we could sustain this pace in Iraq without completely wearing out our military.

The resistance in Iraq is doing what they always do... fading away in the face of our offensives, regrouping, and coming back somewhere else. The Iraqi constitution, the various elections, the "Purple Pinkies", all the various 'victories' the Bush League has, over the years, hoopla'd as light at the end of the tunnel have come to nothing, with Iraq as far from peace and stability as it ever was, and our military less and less capable of the years of sustained effort needed to change it.

And now we're transferring the deperately needed Marines to Afghanistan to shore up THAT declining situation created by our neglect and focus on Iraq? Oh goodie.

Quote by: Dieval IMO, the first thing that needs to happen is for the undermining to stop and for the politicians(ALL OF THEM) to get behind the war and our troops in Iraq 100%.

Right! TRANSLATION: Ignore reality, stop complaining and support an administration policy that has proven irresponsible, negligent and incompetent from the gitgo and done vast harm to our national interests. Yeah, that should work.

Quote by: xyzer Agree Bush has been stubborn and slow to act but all Congress has done is antagonoze him and those who are leading the fight in Iraq..Patraeus and Sanchez. Realistic solutions appear to be lacking?

For 4 years, the GOP Congress gave Bush everything he asked for. Only now, with the vultures circling over the disaster that the Bush League's ill-conceived, ill-planned and ill-pursued policy has wrought, have Americans finally declared "Enough!" and voted in a Democratic Congress, who are doing only what Americans are demanding... trying to extricate us from a bad war.

Bush has been stubborn and slow to act???? You're trying to flatter him with vast understatement. Bush has been a friggin' disaster!

.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval That's part of the problem. Some of you don't seem to understand that "our troops" are fighting "the war"...they aren't different subjects.

Of course they are. If bush had ordered "our troops" to jump out of airplanes without parachutes, would it be supporting "our troops" by stifling objections to that order?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dieval That's part of the problem. Some of you don't seem to understand that "our troops" are fighting "the war"...they aren't different subjects.

Odd, isn't it, that "Getting behind our Troops" didn't mean getting behind the administration policies that deployed them when it was Bill Clinton creating the policies.

No, by golly, viciously attacking the administration and supporting our troops were two entirely different and supportable things back then, weren't they?

.

[xyzer]

Bush set the plan into action after Congress approved the concept! The Military responded with a lightening conquest of Iraq and the elimination of Saddan and sons! Bremer, I guess representing the State Department, engineered an election and restoration of the government...This took a couple of years so you cant say that we have been fighting all the time. During that phase things were comparitviely peaceful. Bremers mistake was abolishing the remnants of the Iraqi Army and Police. That led to the breakdown of law and order and the rise of Al Qaeda again. We have been struggling to cope ever since. Thus I agree with Sonart..the effort was undermined by the restoration of government phase. It allowed opponents to gather power. Evidently our western mindset didn't understand the Islamic sectarianism?

Thats why I agree we are spinning our wheels now..we need a definite date for phased withdrawal of our troops and a complete turnover to the Iraqi government. We don't need the 'blame game' we need a cooperative effort for phased withdrawal.

[Sonart]

Quote by: xyzer Bush set the plan into action after Congress approved the concept!

The concept! A concept based on the flawed intelligence the administration had been spoon-feeding the various REPUBLICAN led Congressional committees. A concept based on the belief that the Bush League has some vague idea of what it was doing and why.

Quote by: xyzer ]The Military responded with a lightening conquest of Iraq and the elimination of Saddan and sons!

Oh horsepoop... sure, the conquest of Saddam's conventional military went quickly. Even I predicted that. But it took 8 months to capture Saddam, by which time he had become irrelevent, the insurgency increasingly well organized and growing, with Shiite and Sunni militias already developing.

Quote by: xyzer ]Bremer, I guess representing the State Department, engineered an election and restoration of the government...This took a couple of years so you cant say that we have been fighting all the time.

I can't???? Please, show me the period of time when we weren't fighting insurgents and taking casualties. Take as much time as you need.

Quote by: xyzer Bremers mistake was abolishing the remnants of the Iraqi Army and Police.

That was just one of dozens of mistakes. The biggest mistake was that we had absolutely no plan whatsoever for a post-invasion Iraq. It was simply assumed that flower throwing Iraqis would help us in every way to restore Iraq to full function. We didn't need to lift a finger, so no plan was necessary.

Quote by: xyzer we need a definite date for phased withdrawal of our troops and a complete turnover to the Iraqi government.

Alas, we don't have the military assets necessary to sustain a phased withdrawal of the type that will be needed in the face of currect resistance.

.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sonart Undermine the war effort????

xyzer listed some of the ways that our effort has been undermined so far, in a previous post. Go take a look.

Quote by: Sonart Right! TRANSLATION: Ignore reality, stop complaining and support an administration policy that has proven irresponsible, negligent and incompetent from the gitgo and done vast harm to our national interests. Yeah, that should work.

Wrong. Have a united front, give our troops what they need, when they need it, and let them do their job and win the damn war. When you have senators and such going in front of a camera and saying that war is lost, what message does that send to our enemies, let alone our troops??? HELLO MCFLY!!

Quote by: Sonart For 4 years, the GOP Congress gave Bush everything he asked for. Only now, with the vultures circling over the disaster that the Bush League's ill-conceived, ill-planned and ill-pursued policy has wrought, have Americans finally declared "Enough!" and voted in a Democratic Congress, who are doing only what Americans are demanding... trying to extricate us from a bad war.

Why is congress's approval rating lower than Bush's now? Maybe voting democrat was a mistake as well..

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sonart Odd, isn't it, that "Getting behind our Troops" didn't mean getting behind the administration policies that deployed them when it was Bill Clinton creating the policies.

Such as?

Quote by: Sonart . No, by golly, viciously attacking the administration and supporting our troops were two entirely different and supportable things back then, weren't they? .

Again, what are you referring to?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee Of course they are. If bush had ordered "our troops" to jump out of airplanes without parachutes, would it be supporting "our troops" by stifling objections to that order?

:rolleyes: A response to this is not even justified.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dieval xyzer listed some of the ways that our effort has been undermined so far, in a previous post. Go take a look.

Dissent against a war effort does not undermine it, or should the Republican Congress have been charged with treason while CinC Clinton was conducting operations in the Balkans? And as I stated, for 4 years, the REPUBLICAN LED CONGRESS granted Bush his every wish, without dissent and without oversight. Only now, going on 5 years, with the war having gone to hell in a handbasket, with the American people frustrated and angry enough to turn out the entire GOP House and Senate, are ya'll suddenly whining about the war effort being undermined. It was always undermined by it's own stupidity. Your complaint is that folks are now trying to find a way out of the quagmire instead of just blindly following Dear Leader deeper into it.

Quote by: Dieval Wrong. Have a united front, give our troops what they need, when they need it, and let them do their job and win the damn war.

Absolutely laughable. When has the administration ever given the troops what they needed??? Didn't give them the troops the Army Chief of Staff said they needed to occuypy Iraq. Didn't give them a counter-insurgency plan. Didn't give them armored vehicles they needed. Took money from the VA.

What our troops need is 100,000 more troops, decent rotations, a surge of new equipment and a competent Commander in Chief. Don't look for any of that soon, and it's not the 'Dissenters' who are in the way. It's the reality of a bad, bad war.

As to letting our troops "Win the damn war", that isn't ever going to happen. A Moslem insurgency, in the heart of the Moslem mideast, surrounded on all sides by hostile Moslem populations, was never something we could 'win'. It's just something we could fight, year in and year out, forever. The insurgents don't have to win, the simply have to not lose, and in a war where the enemy is everywhere and nowhere, where we can't tell friend from foe, when our FRIENDS don't even know friend from foe, there's no possible way for us to win... certainly not by conventional military means. The only alternative is to become a massively repressive, murderous occupier, slaughtering everyone indiscriminantly in our efforts to root out insurgents. To, in effect, become the Nazis... and by becoming what we despise, we lose, by setting the world against us.

Quote by: Dieval Why is congress's approval rating lower than Bush's now? Maybe voting democrat was a mistake as well..

Try reading for comprehension, instead of just reading for soundbites. The American people are frustrated with Congress because THEY'RE NOT GETTING US OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!!

"Who would you say deserves most of the blame for that: President Bush and the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress?"

Bush and the Republicans in Congress --- 51%
Democrats in Congress --- 25%
Both -- 20%


"Do you think the policies being proposed by the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?"

Right Direction --- 50%
Wrong Direction --- 39%


"Do you have more confidence in President Bush or in the Democrats in Congress to deal with the major issues facing the country today?"

President Bush --- 35%
Democrats in Congress --- 48%


"Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic Party is in control of Congress?"

Good for the Country --- 57%
Bad for the Country --- 31%


"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?" Aug-Oct. 08

Good --- 19%
Fair/Poor --- 76%


"How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?" Aug-Oct. 08

Good --- 29%
Fair/Poor --- 67%


George W. Bush, overall job approval for Oct. 07 --- 30%

That's Nixon territory, dood.

Quote by: Dieval Again, what are you referring to?

I'm referring to the endless grief Bill Clinton took from Republicans during the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts.

“You can support the troops but not the president.”–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)”

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”– Governor George W. Bush (R)-TX

And yet, surprisingly, Clinton's efforts in the Balkans turned out to be a huge victory... a victory done without alienating Europe, Russia, the UN or the Moslem world, that ended the ethnic cleansing, with Slobodan Milosovic on trial for war crimes, and without the loss of a single American to enemy action and all in less than a year.

.

[Rainbow]

General Sanchez has been criticized by some current and retired officers for failing to recognize the growing insurgency in Iraq during his year in command and for failing to put together a plan to unify the disparate military effort, a task that was finally carried out when his successor, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., took over in mid-2004. General Sanchez included the military and himself among those who made mistakes in Iraq, citing a failure by top commanders to insist on a better post-invasion stabilization plan. He offered a tepid compliment to General Petraeus. The general, he said, could use American troops to gain time in Iraq but could not achieve lasting results. General Sanchez’s main criticism was leveled at the Bush administration, which he said failed to mobilize the entire United States government, not just the military, to contribute meaningfully to reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq.

U.S. military personnel blames Bush's administration, and vice versa. That is the way WhiteHouse-Pentagon communication works.

I think that real factor - started by Mitterand - was overlooked, and/or underminded. 9/11 events forced U.S. to change objectives, in an attempt to achieve both goals.

What goes on in Iraq ?
Lack of political force demonstrated by Iraqi governing bodies, along with day-to-day strategy, tactics changes, result in uncertain results with concern to Iraq's stabilization.
Political enterprise is a must. Otherwise, all the efforts are lost, since no military personnel can establish political grounds for any state, except for non-democratic one.

[Sonart]

.

I think that real factor - started by Mitterand - was overlooked, and/or underminded. 9/11 events forced U.S. to change objectives, in an attempt to achieve both goals.

Really? I think 9/11 accomplished exactly what bin Laden intended for it to accomplish... to provoke us into invading and occupying a moslem country, so they could repeat their glorious victory over the invading and occupying Soviets and defeat the other super power. Not only did we fall for it, we arrogantly invaded and occupied TWO Moslem countries. Now we're in danger of losing both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote by: Rainbow Otherwise, all the efforts are lost, since no military personnel can establish political grounds for any state, except for non-democratic one.

Um, perhaps... military personnel under George Washington managed to establish political grounds for the Unitied States, and I'm sure there are other examples... but certainly no military personnel imposed on a local population by a government from another continent.


.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sonart Dissent against a war effort does not undermine it

When you tell the enemy that they've won, it does undermine it.
When you tell the troops that they've lost, it does undermine it.
When you call for meaningless votes in congress, detracting from doing their job, it does.
When you call for a vote that will harm relations with a country where 70% of the supplies for our troops pass through, it does undermine it.
When senators/congressmen constantly slander our troops, it does undermine it.

Quote by: Sonart , or should the Republican Congress have been charged with treason while CinC Clinton was conducting operations in the Balkans?

How many troops were on the ground durring the air war??

Quote by: Sonart And as I stated, for 4 years, the REPUBLICAN LED CONGRESS granted Bush his every wish, without dissent and without oversight. Only now, going on 5 years, with the war having gone to hell in a handbasket, with the American people frustrated and angry enough to turn out the entire GOP House and Senate, are ya'll suddenly whining about the war effort being undermined. It was always undermined by it's own stupidity. Your complaint is that folks are now trying to find a way out of the quagmire instead of just blindly following Dear Leader deeper into it.

There are quite a few aspects of the war that were handled very poorly in the past, but when progress is actually made, people claim that it's a complete failure, just like you're doing now.

Quote by: Sonart When has the administration ever given the troops what they needed??? Didn't give them the troops the Army Chief of Staff said they needed to occuypy Iraq. Didn't give them a counter-insurgency plan. Didn't give them armored vehicles they needed. Took money from the VA.

I do agree that they are missing troops, equipment, etc, but that in large part is because the President is trying to fight a PC war and keep everyone happy, and it's not working. Again, everyone in washington, including Bush, needs to get over their problems, give the troops what they need and let them win this war and come home.

Quote by: Sonart What our troops need is 100,000 more troops, decent rotations, a surge of new equipment and a competent Commander in Chief. Don't look for any of that soon, and it's not the 'Dissenters' who are in the way. It's the reality of a bad, bad war.

I'd go along with part of that statement...more troops, more equipment is needed and the commander in chief needs to stop letting politics get in the way of what needs to be done...on that note, the other people in Washington need to do exactly the same thing.

Quote by: Sonart As to letting our troops "Win the damn war", that isn't ever going to happen.

Doesn't it seem to be a little hypcritial to say you're behind the troops, but they'll never ever win the war they're fighting?

Quote by: Sonart Try reading for comprehension, instead of just reading for soundbites. The American people are frustrated with Congress because THEY'RE NOT GETTING US OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!!

They're not getting us out of Iraq because they know their voters want us to WIN the war before our troops are brought home. Pulling the funding for the war would show their true intentions and the voters won't stand for it.

Quote by: Sonart "Who would you say deserves most of the blame for that: President Bush and the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress?" Bush and the Republicans in Congress --- 51% Democrats in Congress --- 25% Both -- 20% "Do you think the policies being proposed by the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?" Right Direction --- 50% Wrong Direction --- 39% "Do you have more confidence in President Bush or in the Democrats in Congress to deal with the major issues facing the country today?" President Bush --- 35% Democrats in Congress --- 48% "Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic Party is in control of Congress?" Good for the Country --- 57% Bad for the Country --- 31% "How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?" Aug-Oct. 08 Good --- 19% Fair/Poor --- 76% "How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?" Aug-Oct. 08 Good --- 29% Fair/Poor --- 67% George W. Bush, overall job approval for Oct. 07 --- 30% That's Nixon territory, dood.

The funny thing about statistics is...taken from the same website you provided -

Look at PollingReport.com - Public Opinion Online

The job ratings of the President is in the 30's on every level, yet just below that it shows congress's ratings in the 20's...hmmm Kinda like what I said...Congress's approval raiting is less than the Presidents...go figure.

Quote by: Sonart I'm referring to the endless grief Bill Clinton took from Republicans during the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts. “You can support the troops but not the president.”–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) “Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”–Joe Scarborough (R-FL) “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 “[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)” “I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done eno