Posted on 12/17/2006 5:14:36 PM PST by STARWISE
The former secretary of state Colin Powell said Sunday that badly overstretched U.S. forces in Iraq were losing the war there and that a temporary U.S. troop surge probably would not help.
In one of his few commentaries on the war since leaving office, Powell quickly added that the situation could be reversed. He recommended an intense coalition effort to train and support Iraqi security forces and strengthen the government in Baghdad. Powell was deeply skeptical about increasing troop levels, an idea that appears to be gaining ground as President George W. Bush weighs U.S. strategy options.
"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."
He said he was unsure that new troops could suppress sectarian violence or secure Baghdad.
He urged the United States to do everything possible to prepare Iraqis to take over lead responsibility; the "baton pass," he said, should begin by mid-2007.
"We are losing we haven't lost and this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around," Powell said on CBS-TV.
(snip)
Powell endorsed .... group idea: opening talks with Syria and Iran.
He has kept a low public profile since leaving office in January 2005, but has emerged at points in the debate over Iraq to weigh in, as when he said that Iraq was embroiled in civil war.
(snip)
A troop increase, he said Sunday, "cannot be sustained." The thousands of additional U.S. soldiers sent into Baghdad since the summer had been unable to stabilize the city and more probably could not tip the balance, Powell said. The deployment of further troops would, moreover, impose long-term costs on a badly stretched military.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
There is a time and place for everything .. this was neither
Just think for a moment what a comment like that sends to our enemies .. put your bias for Powell aside for a moment and think about that
Perhaps you misunderstand. My bias is toward the United States military. Any commanding officer, active duty or retired, has my utmost admiration and respect. These fine Marines, soldiers, airmen, sailors, coasties, and reservists dedicate their lives and swear their allegiance to the United States of America. Not a political party. I have not seen any indication that General Powell has ever disparaged or compromised his commission. And he has never disobeyed an order from civilian leadership.
How anyone can think or say Powell is a patriot is beyond me. This is beyond the pale.
He and Jimmy Carter. What a pair.
I doubt it.
Your military friends would show more respect for Gen. Powell's experience and rank than you do.
Bump!! to that and if I remember correctly Powell and Les Aspen, then Secretary of Defense, refused our guys in Somalia heavy armor. They didn't want to escalate the war ergo Black Hawk Down.
Powell is just a full blown liberal,an expert on affirmative action.
Now if you want to defend his comments and call our troops broken??
They just say so
1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
CGSC and the War College both teach Sun Tzu. Josef Stalin believed in tactics that we as Americans find morally reprehensible.
4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
Despite the protestations of the "nuke them all" crowd, and the "kill three generations" crowd; these tactics are not within the moral capability of the United States of America today.
Recommended reading:
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
?
There's a respectful way Colin Powell could have said that we need to change things in Iraq.
Calling our Army "broken" isn't the way to do it.
Instead of defending someone, granted with command military service, who's chosen to bash his country and his military publicly, assumedly to salve his wounded pride and ego from not being invited back to the admin, has it ever occurred to you to trumpet all the positive things that have been accomplished by this country and her brave troops?
For the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former Sec. of Defense, this was a reprehensible thing to do. Fine, if he feels that way .. what has he gained except press for himself by doing it publicly? He surely hasn't made our efforts better; on the contrary, he's most likely made them worse. He's besmirched his own government, which he once served for decades. Just appalling.
Do you applaud and express gratitude to our volunteer military? Do you even support this country's survival and our great troops?
Do you not understand that our troops see and digest every negative comment from the internet and press, while striving to keep up morale for fighting these brutal savages?
Where did your thinking go so awry? This is a conservative forum; and, as the owner indicates: we support our President and our troops. It *doesn't* say: "until the going gets tough."
What ARE you doing here, anyway?
Same here. I used to have a huge amount of respect for him. Not anymore.
I should qualify that: I had solid respect for him...not huge.
I have huge respect for someone like the late Adm. James B. Stockdale.
I got no business commenting on these matters.
I just got a case of the ass against the world right now.
Welcome to the FR.com.
The Moral Law does not have clear definition in the USA or the UN. Many leaders from the Vatican, Qom, Mecca, Beijing, Peshawar, and even Salt Lake City have attempted to unify Moral Law amongst the secular leadership.
Is this query directed toward me?
If so, what I am doing here is participating in an open and forthright debate regarding the proper prosecution of the Iraq peacekeeping effort, that the USA is performing under the auspices of the UN Mandate in Iraq. The UN has an open mandate that runs through 2011.
Article Last Updated:11/29/2006 12:14:30 AM MST The U.N. Security Council unanimously extended the mandate for the 160,000- strong U.S.-led coalition in Iraq for 12 more months on Tuesday, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed an international conference at a venue outside the war-torn country to forge reconciliation among Iraq's political parties. Promoting what may be the most controversial issue to face the Bush administration, Annan said that Iran and Syria should be included in efforts to stabilize Iraq.
What a ridiculous response.
How about a few specific answers.
Are you an American?
If so, do you love and support your country and our troops?
This is a conservative, patriotic, troop-supporting forum.
Does that fit you?
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.