U.S. forces 'losing' in Iraq, Powell says (gag alert)

Int'l Herald Tribune ^ | 12-17-06 | Brian Knowlton

[DustyMoment]

Military command under civilian control is a benchmark of this great country.

It may be, but I question how well it actually serves our nation, today. Following the USS Pueblo hijacking on the high seas in 68 and their 11 months in captivity by N. Korea, one of the most insightful books about the entire episode was written by a retired admiral who laid blame for the lack of action by the US on the civilian oversight of the military and the politicization of command decisions. In all, only 1 AF general was willing to try to help the crew and the ship by sending two fighters to provide some assistance. Unfortunately, by the time they arrived on station, it was too dark to see and they had to return to base.

Despite the Commander, 7th Fleet having been notified and kept aware of what was happening during the entire 22 hours that the Pueblo was under attack from NKorean gunboats, no one would come to their aid except the aforementioned AF general because they were afraid of causing "an international incident".

The end result was that our men were held in a NKorean prison camp for 11 months before being released and the ship was never returned. The fear of causing "an international incident" has caused many a military commander to delay or refuse to take action to defend American lives. So, it remains to be seen whether civilian control of the military is still a good or desirable thing. For additional reference, review the Mayaguez incident that occurred under Ford and the Iranian hostage "rescue" that occurred under Carter.

[Non-Sequitur]

I've never been in the military so I have no frame of reference to gauge the militaries' compitence in promoting officers.

Why not? You feel qualified to criticize those who devoted their whole adult lives in the service of their country, believe yourself competent enough to pronounce them traitors, and yet have denied the military the benefit of your obvious brilliance. It's never too late. Join today and maybe you can be a colonel by Christmas.

[Non-Sequitur]

Powell criticized the military prowess of our TROOPS.

Where did he do that?

[Mo1]

Try reading the article

"There really are no additional troops" to send, Powell said, adding that he agreed with those who say that the U.S. Army is "about broken."

[Non-Sequitur]

By their fruit salad ye shall know them.

Indeed. Powell has Combat Infantryman's Badge, Ranger Tab, Airborne Wings, Air Assault Badge, Pathfinder Badge, 7 Distinguished Service Medals, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star with V, Purple Heart, and on, and on.

How shall we know you?

[csx3000]

Oh, I most certainly do call him a traitor, especially him. I'm no military man but even I know that you don't fight a war by showing descention in the ranks. His criticisms should have been handled in private. This isn't a public debate about Social Security or Private Property right, etc., this is a war for goodness sake.

[livius]

I think he's a PC idiot. One of the reasons we probably did not act more aggressively (which would have been the appropriate solution and would have spared us the deaths and problems we are having now) is because the State Dept under Powell overrode the military. But now he wants to distance himself from something that was clearly his fault. What a jerk; and not only a jerk, but a spiteful, backbiting one, at that.

[Non-Sequitur]

"There really are no additional troops" to send, Powell said, adding that he agreed with those who say that the U.S. Army is "about broken."

I did read that part and I can't see where he's criticizing the troops themselves, just stating facts. The troop levels now are such that units are spending every other year in Iraq. The only way to sustain a higher level is either extend units past their year or send them back after less than a year at home. That's pretty close to broken.

[STARWISE]

Absolutely .... the lack thereof.

[Mo1]

I did read that part and I can't see where he's criticizing the troops themselves, just stating facts

Then you are blind fool just like Powell

[Non-Sequitur]

Then you are blind fool just like Powell

Or maybe I know what I'm talking about. Just like Powell. But by all means point out where he's criticizing the troops and not their civilian leadership.

[Mo1]

But by all means point out where he's criticizing the troops and not their civilian leadership.

The Military are advising the President .. You and Powell can spin this all you want and blame only the President

Bottom line .. you are blaming both and saying both are broken

[Arizona Carolyn]

Yes, I've noticed this, too. It also didn't pass my notice he retired after Desert Storm, I think if someone really got him to open up, he wasn't happy we didn't march right into Baghdad back then and decided to retire as a result.

[STARWISE]

The public criticism spoken by Gen. Powell IS the issue to me. You're defending it. I disagree .... when an active general is questioned by Congress, that's a different matter. My opinion is the same about carping retired generals and former presidents and government officials, choosing to diss this administration publicly.

It's extremely unseemly behavior and is reflective of the poor character and puffed up egos of the individuals. Anyone with that kind of heft and status can surely convey their opposing opinions with discretion, as I'm sure many have, without showing disunity to our enemies.

I agree with Don Rumsfeld: even the perception of weakness bodes badly for US, and look how poorly these showboats are behaving.

Colin Powell has a history of being a political operator, not just a military man. Witness his behavior over Valerie Plame, when he knew full well that his trusty sidekick, Armitage, was the leaker and yet he was MUM on that issue, leaving Scooter Libby out there swinging. Some loyalty to your government.

I happen to know from a military friend how prepped and pampered he was, from the time he was a WH Fellow, for his ever grander military roles. He is extremely political. Check the weekend FR Canteeen threads for troop posts. Last one was in the talkshow thread yesterday:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To: rodguy911; Phsstpok; Alas Babylon!; snugs; All Morning, getting ready for church, but here's couple of bits from me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For your information, this is the new incoming editorial page editor at the Slimes, whose views were shared with Brian Lamb of C-Span and briefly shown on Drudge this week. Notice how educated he sounds .... /not!. Rest easy, I think their descension continues:

Incoming NYT Ed Page Editor Says 'Its Becoming Likely' Paper Will Call for Troop Withdrawal from Iraq Fri Dec 15 2006 17:29:02 ET

Incoming editorial page editor of the NYT says "its becoming more likely" that the paper will call for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, in an interview today with C-SPAN's Brian Lamb for "Q & A", airing Sunday at 8/11 p.m. ET. Andrew Rosenthal assumes the post Jan 1. A link to the video clip is at the end.

Lamb: Do you think you'll eventually call for us to get out of Iraq?

Andrew Rosenthal- Wow, should I answer that question?

Lamb - Absolutely.

Rosenthal- I think its becoming more likely.

I mean I don' t know what George Bush is going to say. We've been going through this very odd spectacle this week of all these meetings and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. We actually wrote about it this week.

I mean, are we really supposed to believe he just started thinking about it this week? What are these meetings about? Are we supposed to believe the Army just started thinking about it this week? I mean its crazy. It has to be true that he's just going through this for some crazy public relations stunt.

It depends on what he says - if he comes up with a plan that could lead in some reasonable period of time to an orderly withdraw than that's one thing.

If he sticks to these fictions about achieving victory and all the other things that he keep talking about then we may have to change.

It really does depend, I mean, we're going to withdraw our troops from Iraq and we're going to do that without initiating a fully functioning government that serves as a beacon of hope for the Middle east.

I mean its interesting and very instructive to go back and look at last year's strategy for success in Iraq strategy included: defeating terrorists, establishing full democracy in Iraq, an independent army, and an Iraq that is part of the international economic system, I don't know what that means.

Are they supposed to join the IMF or the WTO I don' t know what the heck that means.

And this kind of burgeoning democracy throughout the Middle East well none of that 's going to happen, I think that's pretty clear - at least not in George Bush's timeframe.

Andrew Rosenthal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, to remind you of the awesomeness of our young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America, defending freedom, humanity and the civilized world and protecting US from the scourge of diabolical beasts who seek domination and our destruction, please .. I'm asking you .. grab a tissue and please read about

Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class John Dragneff and Hospital Corpsman Christopher Anderson,

and say a prayer of protection and thanks for the blessing of such decent and brave young patriots.

Lastly, I want to wish you all a A Very Merry Christmas and Here, too and all the best in 2007. This thread and all it's brilliant interpretations is a MUST SEE. Thank you for what you all contribute. God bless you all.

285 posted on 12/17/2006 10:29:48 AM CST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tell me one positive thing this public criticism and divisiveness by these "formers" has achieved nor can achieve for our country and especially for our troops?

[Arizona Carolyn]

If I read kcvl's post he/she doesn't mean Bush 41 but Clinton (who really took down our military numbers).... yes, Powell was Sec State for Bush 43's first term, but he was Joint Chief of Staff for Bush 41 and Schwartzkopf reported to him during Desert Storm. He was a lot more prone to getting his face in the daily updates on the war than the Meyers was in this war.

[Sam Cree]

"But by all means point out where he's criticizing the troops and not their civilian leadership."

The fact that his criticism may actually pertain to the civilian leadership is really what has folks upset on FR. It certainly isn't directed at the troops themselves. I note that Mr. Powell says that the war is winnable, which is further than most politicians want to go these days.

[Non-Sequitur]

If I read kcvl's post he/she doesn't mean Bush 41 but Clinton (who really took down our military numbers)....

OK, if they're blaming Clinton for reducing the size of the miltiary then what has the curren administration done to bring those numbers back up?

[csx3000]

I may not be a musician either but I know good music when I hear it. If Powell had differences of opinion with regard to how the war was being conducted he should have handled it in private. Come on, your post makes no sense. The man's a bloody General in the U.S. ARMY, the ex Secretary of State and we're fighting a war. A person like that should either have more sense or more patriotism than to go to newspapers to voice his arguements. And this guy is suppose to be presidential material? Maybe as a Democrat but he is certainly no Republican!

[MNJohnnie]

Funny how there is all this Junk Media hysteria over the comments from a guy who has been out of the US Military for over a decade yet the comments of the Commander in Iraq, Gen Abizaid to the US Senate in Nov have been totally ignored.

Could you explain to me why I should listen to a retired Political General with no experience at all in Iraq over the current Ground Commander in Iraq?

[Unicorn]

You listen to him all you want.If you don't know by now what he's all about shame on you.