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 ...
If so, do you love and support your country and our troops?
Yes.
This is a conservative, patriotic, troop-supporting forum. Does that fit you?
Absolutely.
Since we are playing the question game, please indulge.
Are you a participating United States of America citizen?
If so, do you serve on jury duty when called?
Do you place partisan GOP politics above constitutional obligations, duties, and rights?
Since we are playing the question game, please indulge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you a participating United States of America citizen?
Yes
~~~~~~~~~
If so, do you serve on jury duty when called?
I have, but can no longer. I'm now prone to anxiety attacks, particularly when driving.
~~~~~~~~~
Do you place partisan GOP politics above constitutional obligations, duties, and rights?
The Constitution above party.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
I'm a registered Republican, and I support the GOP and President George W. Bush.
I'm allergic to liberals.
I detest those who tear down and constantly criticize President George W. Bush, the CIC, and in doing so, lower the morale of our military in time of war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You left out some other answers, but you knew that.
Just a reminder: this is the mission statement of this site. Ring a bell? How about this?
We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
~~~~~~~~~
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side.
Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security.
We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency.
We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.
We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization.
We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property.
Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum.
Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you ever post a genuinely supportive post about our President and positive comments about our brave troops and what they're accomplishing, let me know.
If the internet and the rabid press had been present during WWII, we would be speaking German or Japanese.
While our enemies from without watch and seize opportunity, the enemies from within are destroying our country.
God help us.
To: ARealMothersSonForever 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? 79 posted on 12/17/2006 11:46:01 PM CST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
Nope. Answered every question that was posited.
If the internet and the rabid press had been present during WWII, we would be speaking German or Japanese.
Jedoch spreche Ich fein Deutsche Sprache. Folglich sprechen Sie nicht Arabisch täglich.
Roughly translated, the fact than some people speak proper German language today means that YOU do not speak Arabic on a daily basis. Perhaps one would rather that one single person or office stand between freedom and oppression.
You are welcome.
Could you refer me to your conservative, patriotic, troop-loving comments on this thread and forum?
"To: Mo1
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.
62 posted on 12/17/2006 10:29:09 PM CST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754994/posts?page=62#62
"To: Carolinamom
He did no such thing as criticise the prowess of our troops. The Hussein regime, and the Iraqi army was soundly defeated in record time. The mission was accomplished, in that there was NO military resistance under a unified COM/CON structure after Baghdad fell. Here is what General Powell said:
"There really are no additional troops" to send, Powell said
I will not parse "combat troops" to "troops". Two combat brigades (around 6,500 to 7,000) take time to recruit, train, mobilize, and support. The REMF structure currently runs 65 to 70 for each combat troop. Perhaps some wish to mobilize 7,000 troops without proper support, for political gain. Others choose to heed the counsel of retired commanding officers that have been in command positions. There was nothing derogatory to any branch, division, battalion, or unit in this statement. Our troops have won every engagement that they were allowed to win. Mookie is still sucking air, and whoever made the command decision to allow him to live should be summarily discharged. I claim it was at the behest of Wolfowitz.
52 posted on 12/17/2006 9:29:13 PM CST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754994/posts?page=52#52
Oh, and feel free to ping those that prefer to not be pinged by me. You know, the crowd that has been restrained.
Count on Powell to mouth the conventional wisdom. Even if it's true this time, is it new? Uh, no, it's not. Has this man ever said anything interesting? Ever?
"Q: So now there is the much-reported, I just want to make sure I get it right, famous meeting at --
It's been reported in a couple of different ways, and I'd like to get it in your words if I can, the famous meetings that first weekend in Camp David where the question of Iraq came up. I believe the President heard you discussing Iraq and asked you to elaborate on it or speak more about it. Can you give us a little sense of what that was like?
Wolfowitz: Yeah. There was a long discussion during the day about what place if any Iraq should have in a counterterrorist strategy. On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when. There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first.
There was a sort of undertow in that discussion I think that was, the real issue was whether Iraq should be part of the strategy at all and whether we should have this large strategic objective which is getting governments out of the business of supporting terrorism, or whether we should simply go after bin Laden and al Qaeda.
To the extent it was a debate about tactics and timing, the President clearly came down on the side of Afghanistan first. To the extent it was a debate about strategy and what the larger goal was, it is at least clear with 20/20 hindsight that the President came down on the side of the larger goal."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html
"Mookie"?
Not the New York Mets outfielder?
BTTT
The problem is that Powell knows better. What he can do if he feels this way is call the president and let him know what his logic, thoughts, ideas and conclusions are about Iraq. To say these things publicly while the war is engaged shows us the real character of the man.
You're clever .. but not that clever
The article isn't about Powell's military service and whether he followed orders or not
But I'm sure that won't stop you from defecting attention away from what he said about our Troops
Why should he be? Was Rummy at his or something?
Yes. He was Secretary of State during his first administration.
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.