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

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

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Here is a quote from General Abizaid's comments on November 15th-

"Precisely how we do this continues to be worked out with the Iraqis and with our own staffs, but we believe that ultimately, capable, independent Iraqi forces, loyal to equally capable, independent Iraqi government, will set the conditions for the withdrawal of our major combat forces."

Does that make him cut-n-run?

http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Press%20Briefings/Nov%2015%2006%20-%20Senate%20Armed%20Services%20Committee%20Holds%20Hearing%20on%20Current%20Situation%20in%20Iraq%20and%20Afghanistan.htm

[Radix]

"How shall we know you?"

I think that Colin Powell is the real deal when it comes to his medals and other accomplishments.

I also think that it takes quite a bit of political acuity in order to achieve the rank of General.

There are a plethora of people out there wearing honors that are not exactly deserved.

How to know me? Hmm, I ain't got no medals, but I do pay attention to a few folks that have been around some that do.

I think that General Powell is a great man but I would not want a politician to be quarterbacking my team.

[Non-Sequitur]

There are a plethora of people out there wearing honors that are not exactly deserved.

So what is the definition of deserved honors and undeserved honors? Do those who agree with you deserve their's while those who disagree with you do not?

[Radix]

No, I have no definition for you about "deserves."

I just know that there are men who have served under others that have claimed honors after falsifying records.

I figure if I know some of those stories, then others likely must as well.

I'm talking about Iraq, 2003.

If I had a mind to, I could prove that there are medals for valor that have been awarded to persons who were not even theater at the date of the incidents.

That is not going to happen here, but I'll never not know what I know.

I have no interest in being contentious with you.

Have a nice day.

[colorado tanker]

Well, I guess by making these remarks publicly, he's answered the question whether he's more loyal to the troops and the Army he once led - or to his own media legacy.

[Plains Drifter]

Merry Christmas!!!!!!!

[STARWISE]

I will ditto that! Those here who choose to defend his publicly disgraceful comments put themselves in the boat with his kind.

[colorado tanker]

His comments may or may not be accurate - there are respectable people on both sides of the issue. What is inexcusable is making the comments publicly, where our enemies listen, while troops are fighting in the field.

[TexKat]

Powell: Can We Win?- Video

FTN 12.17.2006, part 1: Bob Schieffer talked to Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell about the war in Iraq and what it will take to win.

[MNJohnnie]

Did you ever bother to consider, even for a heartbeat, that YOU only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear? That you only believe the statements made against the mission in Iraq and simply scream bile at anyone who points out where your emotional whimsy is NOT backed up by data or fact?

Sorry you hate GW Bush. How about instead of gleefully being a PR stodge for the terrorists because of your domestic political feelings, you actually try LEARNING something about Iraq that does NOT validate your emotion based preconceived opinions?

Screaming hate and bile at everyone who points out the FACTS on Iraq will not validate YOUR group think and knee jerk emotional hysteria as fact. Instead of projecting YOUR intellectual shortcoming on everyone else here because they do not mindlessly validate your own feeling, sit down, shut up and actually finally learn something about Iraq. QUIT putting your hands over your ears and screaming NO NO NO NO at every single fact that refutes your emotionally hysteric, ignorant posting about Iraq.

TRY actually reading the data this time instead of simply screaming down anything that prove your emotion based position on Iraq wrong.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Force

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it

[longtermmemmory]

Colin Powel was on TV saying "his sources in the pentagon" were confirming his negativity.


This confirms my belief that Colin Powel was "Mr. Leaky". If he had a southern drawl, he would be the twin brother of Jimmy Carter in the nutty department.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

I have read the National Strategy. The first section has a judgement call that seems flawed-"There are other elements that threaten the democratic process in Iraq, including criminals and Shi'a religious extremists, but we judge that such elements can be handled by Iraqi forces alone and/or assimilated into the political process in the short term."
This has not worked so well. I also read the quarterly reports located at http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/Index.html

Todays report is not available yet. The strategy is sound, but the assumptions that the IG will pro-actively uphold their end of the deal regarding security is ludicrous. There is no incentive for good performance in the IG. Likewise, they get the reconstruction benefits no matter what. No disincentive. We are building a dependent country that is preoccupied with settling sectarian scores. The problem is Islam. And we do not have the stomach to impose a secular government. The road to Iraq hell was paved with good intentions.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

And wiki is not a credible source.

[MNJohnnie]

What your feel are not facts. You need to look beyond the end of your own nose and consider the whole picture. You freak out about 20-30,000 militants. I suggest you start considering the other 24,970,000 Iraqis. I also suggest you get out a map of the Middle East and consider Iraq's strategic location in regards to Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia

Running away and hiding under your bed hoping the bad men go away is not an option with these people. Notice that since the ISG report came out there has been a sharp spike in attacks? Ever read Bin Laden's Fatwa?

Showing weakness to these people encourages them. Bin Laden specifically mentions this in US DC Establishment's run away and hide mindset as one of his reasons for attacking

Quit being the Terrorists PR stodge. These people are NOT going away just because you wish they would. Your " just ignore the problem and hope it goes away" dogma is one of the reasons 09-11 happened.

Quit clinging to your emotion based Neo Isolationist dogmas. They died on 09-11-01.

[Prost1]

Or General Pershings command.

[TexKat]

Tonight, the White House insists there's no big disagreement on Iraq between President Bush and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. As Jack mentioned, Powell is throwing cold water on a proposal being considered by the Bush administration right now to send even more troops into Iraq, at least in the short-term. Listen to Powell's pointed comments for yourself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it is important before a decision is made to send more troops to Iraq, if the president is considering that, you've got do a very serious analysis of what mission it is that they are being sent to accomplish and is it something you can do? If the mission is go secure Baghdad, you can't do that. And no amount of American force structure will be able to do that.

So, I think you have to look carefully at what the mission is. Is it something that can be accomplished? And then do we have the troops to do it? And when we talk about surges, all we're talking about is putting more people into the cue faster. It's not as of the Army has grown suddenly. It's just putting more people into the cue faster and keeping those who were there now a little longer. And so that analysis has to be made.

My concern is that we have surged previously. In the summer of this past year, 2006, we had operation forward together. Phase one and two, where we surged thousands of additional troops, U.S. troops and Iraqi troops into Baghdad and where the prime minister said he was going to dig a ditch around Baghdad. And the situation has deteriorated further. So I would have to hear a persuasive argument as to what more troops would do, and would they make a significant enough difference to undertake the expense and the turmoil within the forced structure for additional troops.

QUESTION: Do you know how we win in this war?

POWELL: No. That's what Mr. Gates said, we're not winning, and the Hamilton/Baker Commission described it as grave and deteriorating. And it is grave and deteriorating, so it doesn't mean we have lost. And it doesn't mean it is not winnable. But it is not appropriate to say that we're winning when I think we're not winning.

QUESTION: Do you have any (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

POWELL: I was part of it. I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone. I'm glad that he is now about to face ultimate justice. I regret that we did not do a better job in phase two in stabilizing the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Colin Powell, the former secretary of state speaking bluntly. And to back up those words in effect, a Pentagon report sent to Congress today says attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians, those attacks now have reached their highest level in two and a half years. The report shows the weekly average of attacks is now up to nearly 1,000 -- 1,000 attacks each week.

Meantime, by most estimates, the number of civilians killed in Iraq's unrest doubled in the past year to about 25,000 civilians dead. Thousands more have fled the country as sectarian slaughter continues. More than a million Iraqis have fled into Jordan and to Syria or other neighboring countries. Another million or so, according to the United Nations, have been displaced internally within Iraq, meaning they have had to flee their own homes.

Our senior international correspondent Nic Robertson is in Baghdad with a closer look at the relentless violence and its affects on ordinary Iraqis.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(SOUNDS)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Turn on the TV in Iraq and this is what you can see. Insurgent videos showing in minute detail mortar attacks, rockets and roadside bombs, even sniper fire aimed at U.S. soldiers. The station that shows them Sadr was banned by the Iraqi government last month but within days it was back on air. Sadr has become part of Iraq's inescapable tapestry of decline.

Violence is the war paper of life here. No one escapes. Not even the children. Just ask these youngsters at school in Falluja.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

ROBERTSON: There is no security, he says. When we go home to sleep, we don't know what's going to happen. They know kids outside Iraq are having better lives.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

ROBERTSON: I envy their peaceful life. We have no peace here, he says. They have no Americans. We have killing here. The hope of a better future, amid the chaos of Saddam Hussein's overthrow three years ago is long gone. In the Baghdad of today, religious identity, Sunni or Shia, divides communities. Militias control neighborhoods by day. Gun toting vigilantes control streets at night.

(on camera): A new normal is being imposed. For now (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to visit many of Baghdad's neighborhoods requires permission from which ever armed gang controls it. And even then, there are no guarantees a rival faction won't grab you. Kidnapping is big business for Sunni insurgents and Shia militias alike.

(voice-over): For Iraqis, living in these increasingly divided and isolated communities, life is far worse. Religious extremists on both sides are in the ascendancy and women suffer twice over.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I cannot take my kids to visit friends or to visit my family, I cannot go, cannot go, even if there is a private car. Even in my car I cannot because nowadays, even the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the woman who are driving.

ROBERTSON: Walking in Baghdad is almost too dangerous for many women. They fear kidnapping and rape. The only way to minimize the risk is to wear the old shrouding black chador, a symbol of subservience to religious edicts. Hundreds of thousands are better off, better educated. More progressive Iraqis are leaving. Iraq's creaking health care system strains under the twin burdens of sectarian bloodshed and the flight of its doctors.

Iraq is hemorrhaging it wealth and talent. And when you turn on the TV, the insurgents parade their latest exploits; on the TV channel no one seems able to close down.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Baghdad.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/18/sitroom.03.html

[angcat]

Missed ya today!

[ARealMothersSonForever]

I suggest you start considering the other 24,970,000 Iraqis.

They have been considered. They suck, for they refuse to fight for their freedom. 50% go AWOL when ordered into combat. Syria, Iran, and the KSA are not going to be subject to any US military action. To place the US in to the center of a strategic cesspool is sheer lunacy. I am not running away from anything. Missed you during the Wintergarten talks in Bonn. The Stern Hotel was fabulous. By the way, I was there on September 11th, 2001. And went back outcountry on September 22nd through January 2002. Where the heck were you? The breakfast was excellent at the hotel, but all of the candy@sses were in Dusseldorf at the consulate, or Bad Godesburg whining in the US embassy. Yeah, I am a big isolationist. You have never been outcountry sissy boy.

[khnyny]

"U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880.html