Posted on 06/24/2005 10:41:53 AM PDT by churchillbuff
In a startling example of mixed messages, Gen. John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Persian Gulf, gave testimony to Congress Thursday that directly contradicted recent statements by the vice president and the secretary of defense. Canada's Globe and Mail reports that Gen. Abizaid "conceded yesterday that the Iraqi insurgency is as strong as it was six months ago, countering declarations by Vice President Dick Cheney that the revolt is 'in its last throes.' "
"In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it's about the same as it was," he said, declining to specifically criticize Mr. Cheney's upbeat assessment of the continuing conflict. Gen. Abizaid also said that there are more foreign fighters entering Iraq today than there were six months ago. On Wednesday, a classified CIA document that was leaked to the media showed that the war in Iraq is becoming a urban warfare training ground for many of these foreign fighters. He also recently said there would be a surge in violence in Iraq, particularly against "soft targets" such as civilians and aid workers, as insurgents try to disrupt elections slated for September, but that the process would go ahead regardless of attacks.
06/23/05
Blowback in Iraq?
06/22/05
'Forgotten' Afghan war heats up
06/21/05
Goss's 'excellent' idea
Sign up to be notified daily:
Find out more.
When asked to explain the contradiction between his earlier statements and those of Gen. Abizaid. Mr. Cheney told CNN it all depends what you mean by "throes."
"If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution," he said. "The point would be that the conflict will be intense, but it's intense because the terrorists understand that if we're successful at accomplishing our objective – standing up a democracy in Iraq – that that's a huge defeat for them. Abizaid raised another key issue - public support of the war in Iraq. The Boston Globe reports that he warned that troops are starting to worry about public support for the war. The general "implored political leaders to engage in a frank discussion about how to keep the country behind a mission that the armed forces believe is 'a war worth fighting.' " A recent CNN poll shows that public support for the war it as low as it has ever been - 39 percent of Americans still believes the US should be fighting in Iraq. The Globe and Mail also reports that US politicans are starting to see evidence of this swing in support even in solidly "red" states.
"Public support in my state is turning," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, part of the heartland of Bush support. "People are beginning to question. And I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen. We have a chronic problem on our hands." Cheney, in Thursday's CNN interview, said the Bush administration doesn't "pay much attention" to poll showing support for the war fading. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other US military commanders tried to assure a fractious Congressional hearing that things are not all that bad in Iraq. The Detroit Free Press reports that Gen. George Casey, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, "told lawmakers that the insurgents represent 'less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of the Iraqi population.' He expressed confidence that the insurgency would be defeated, although he added that the solution lay in the political process."
Rumsfeld and Gen. Casey say Iraqi troops now number 170,000, but declined to say how many have been fully trained. Rumsfeld also told the hearing that the US is "not losing the war in Iraq."
Salon writer Mark Benjamin details the "return of the body counts." For the first time in the Iraq war, and in direct contradiction to prior statements by top US military leaders, commanders in the field are now reporting the number of insurgents killed.
An extensive review of combat accounts from military commanders reveals that regular reporting of body counts appears to have begun with the battle for Fallujah in November 2004. US Marines' assault on the insurgent stronghold, launched immediately after the US presidential election, was considered critical to showing progress in the war. The Pentagon estimated 1,200 to 1,600 enemy fighters killed - though at the time the media noted a large and "mysterious" discrepancy in the body count reported following the battle. If history offers any clue, counting dead insurgents is a misleading endeavor that can destroy trust in the Pentagon and ultimately lead to atrocities on the battlefield. During the Vietnam War, historians say, inflated body counts that sometimes included civilians shattered the Pentagon's credibility with the American people and undercut support for that war. Former soldiers from that era say that relying too much on body counts can drive soldiers in the field to commit atrocities in order to achieve a high number of kills – though there is no indication that is happening in Iraq.
The Guardian reports on a bold attack earlier this week by insurgents against Baghdad's largest police station, and the effect it had on inhabitants of the city. Residents said their confidence in the government and security forces was severely dented. A rash of graffiti has spread across the area: "We will be back." One taxi driver, a Shia who loathes the mostly Sunni Arab resistance, shrugged. "Yes, they will." Finally, CNN reports that a new poll taken by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that the image of the United States "is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the US in many long-time Western European allies." The polls were taken in 16 countries, including the US, from late April to the end of May with samples of about 1,000 people from each country.
Yeah, so what? These are all one-sided opinions. Why are you even posting this trash, most of which has already been posted?
Including Cheney's?
today was a mess over there - 6 dead including a couple of female marines, oil lines and water facilities blown up.
and what are the iraqis doing - complaining that they cannot rurn their air conditioners on. pick up a damn gun and turn it on the terrorists living next door to you.
So, how come no one is coming on here and railing against Abazaid for "undermining the troops" or "emboldening the enemy"?
As long as the Dick Durbins and Ted Kennedys keep opening their mouths, American soldiers in Iraq will continue to die needlessly.
War is ultimately a political phenomenon. When a strong constitutional government is established in Iraq, the insuregncy will be toast. Until then, they will receive enough supplies and reinforcements from elsewhere in the Arab world to remain a security threat.
You forgot the "Giddy Dems" alert in the title. I swear to Gosh, those people are actively rooting for the insurgents.
Bingo. Ditto. And whatever other term to explain how much I agree with your post.
Can you imagine FDR during WWII allowing his generals to testify before the Kennedyites and saying that we might not be on top of this and .....? Where are the generals who want to kick butt and will not play this Congressional game of gotcha? The Preez ought to meet with the general staff and read them the riot act. Go on the offensive again, kill them and stop giving wussy explanations so the university profs, the Left, the DNC can undermine the real winners in the ME. US! That is why we lost in Nam. This cannot be allowed today where these thugs could kill thousands here in the homeland.
Hey, I'm sure he's just another pantywaist liberal, right? Right? Yeah right! Blackbird.
"that directly contradicted recent statements by the vice president"
More proof of the MSM bias, which as "news" is merely stating EXACTLY WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE SAYING ... but which Abazaid himself refused to agree with!
"I don't know that I would make any comment about that, other than to say that there's a lot of work to be done on the insurgency," Abizaid said when asked about Cheney's remarks. "I'm sure you'll forgive me from criticizing the vice president."
.... It turns out that Cheney said similar comments. his 'last throes' was in the context of a question about whether we'd succeed by *2009*. From the perspective of weeks, our progress is slow ... we've captured over 1,000 insurgents in the last month and killed a few hundred, sweeping through a few towns. that is progress, yet it won't win the war tomorrow ... from the perspective of years, it assures victory.
.......... So why didnt the MSM point out that Kennedy and Army generals disagree vehemently on the war? ... from another source:
Army Gen. George Casey then injected himself into the debate.
"As the commander in Iraq, I would like to put myself on the record, Senator Kennedy, as saying that I also agree with the secretary that to represent the situation in Iraq as a quagmire is a misrepresentation of the facts," Gen. Casey said. "Senator, that is not a quagmire."
Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs chairman, added, "It's clearly not a quagmire. ... The term has been used loosely, and it's not accurate in my estimation."
churchillbuff = Anything that is negative about the war is a good thing.
That's churchillbutt for you.
Abizaid said the insurgency is about as strong now as it was 6 months ago.
Cheney said it was on its last throes.
If you put 2 gallons of water in a watering can, and start watering, you will find that you can get a steady stream of water, such that at any point in time the water coming out is as strong as it was when you started.
But at some point in time, while the water still comes out the same amount, it would be correct to say that it is in its last throes. Then a second later, the water stops.
Confusing the operation of insurgency with its future capability is apples/oranges.
That said, we don't really KNOW whether the insurgency is in its last throes or not. It stands to reason that if the number of foriegners keeps going up and the number of locals keeps going down, that at some point it will be all foriegners.
HOWEVER, at that point we can't really say whether it will die out because there will be no local support, or if it will be seen as PICKING UP, because the decrease of locals will STOP (because it hits zero) while the foriegn terrorists will keep increasing.
At some point they have to defend their borders. I'm not sure the U.S. has any experience at that :->
Say, if you capture a bunch of people in your country blowing your people up, and you find they come from another country, can you assert that the other country has "declared war on you" and "invaded your country" and launch retaliatory strikes?
I'm not ready to say we should invade Syria or Iran, but having some Iraqi air force pilots run some punitive bombing raids might be kind of fun.
Certainly if we caught armed thugs terrorizing our citizens, and we found they were all in the country illegally from mexico, we would take action, right? right?
Oh. Never Mind
(MS-13 alert)
Question: If the "insurgency" ends up being basically a foreign-based operation, is it still an "insurgency?" Might not "invasion" be more apt? Not that the Reuter-Rooters or the AP Zombies would notice.
The MSM is trying to create cracks in the subjective interpretations of predictive statements. Which is actually silly, since, as Rumsfeld said, this is not a predictable thing. We could be 3 weeks from the end of the insurgency, we could be 3 years it will end when our enemy gives up or dies or it captured. ... From the perspective of long-range history, Cheney's statement is likely correct, on day-to-day basis, it is also correct to say the insurgency is as strong now as 5 months back. but that doesnt mean we arent making progress. The change in composition of the insurgency tells us that the Iraqis are increasingly giving up on fighting, and the foreign terrorists are taking over the fight. We have in effect entered our third war in Iraq, first the groud campaign (3 weeks), then the Sunni insurgency (which we have mostly won), and third the fight against foreign terrorists (Zarqawi et al). History will be the final judge.
The key question is: Are we doing the right things to guarantee victory?
If you see his past post they are pretty negative about what is going on in Iraq. Churchillbuff is making me feel real down. We must cut and run...right Churchillbuff?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.