Bush Goes Against Military Advisors in Tonights Speech

[Dfresh]

"When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against."

-- Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872.html?referrer=digg

[Evil]

Dougie Fresh, wassup with my ni....brotha? :lmao:

[Gaffer]

Since military people can't make political statements it seems that report is inaccurate. The only comments being made are from retiree's who have nothing to do with events in iraq.

He's making a decission based on input from a lot of sources, and his commanders on the ground carry the most weight. I doubt seriously he's ignoring their suggestions.

[Dfresh]

What's up Evil? :beer:

Speech was better then I expected. Do you think deploying 20,000 more troops would stabilize Iraq? :dev:

[Gunny]

What's up Evil? :beer:

Speech was better then I expected. Do you think deploying 20,000 more troops would stabilize Iraq? :dev:

Depends on how they are deployed, IMO.

[manu1959]

deploying 20,000 and letting every troop do what they are trained to do with zero political input will win this war in 30 days....

we trained them to kill.......let them kill

[Gaffer]

Depends on how they are deployed, IMO.

He stated that they are going after the areas they couldn't go into before, and sounds like he's telling the government of iraq, we are all going in after sadr and his gang and we are going in after the sunni gangs and we are taking over. And you WILL support us and do your part or we're finished with you.

They have to do take and hold ops if its going to work.

[Gunny]

He stated that they are going after the areas they couldn't go into before, and sounds like he's telling the government of iraq, we are all going in after sadr and his gang and we are going in after the sunni gangs and we are taking over. And you WILL support us and do your part or we're finished with you.

They have to do take and hold ops if its going to work.

Works for me. Taking ground and giving it back never made any sense to me, and ITA the Iraqis need to step up if they want to keep whatever their version of democracy is. That was always a part of the deal from the beginning as I understood it.

It's also telegraphing our blow to the Islamofascists.

[Evil]

What's up Evil? :beer:

Speech was better then I expected. Do you think deploying 20,000 more troops would stabilize Iraq? :dev:

Hi Doug, was wondering what took ya so long to show up!

Honestly I have'nt a clue what the answer is on this one. I do know pulling the troops out is a mistake, and a deadline makes no sense unless it was something that was kept secret...ha, like that would happen.

I think as Manu stated a post or two up, allwoing the troops to do what they are there to do is a good start. I think cutting back on the media coverage is another good start. Too many things are being skewed that come out of there which in turn really has heated the whole thing up. Turn the lights out, let nature takes it course, and move on to another day.... or something like that.:D

[Pale Rider]

The prez has appointed a whole new command team in Iraq, and they've been told to "win the war". Now if we LET them, we'll see results, fast.

[Dfresh]

Bush Says Sending More Troops To Iraq Would ‘Undermine Our Strategy


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/08/bush-more-troops/

Who's the flip flopper now?

[manu1959]

Hi Doug, was wondering what took ya so long to show up!

Honestly I have'nt a clue what the answer is on this one. I do know pulling the troops out is a mistake, and a deadline makes no sense unless it was something that was kept secret...ha, like that would happen.

I think as Manu stated a post or two up, allwoing the troops to do what they are there to do is a good start. I think cutting back on the media coverage is another good start. Too many things are being skewed that come out of there which in turn really has heated the whole thing up. Turn the lights out, let nature takes it course, and move on to another day.... or something like that.:D

hell dude...the media hates bush...bush should go on and say i have instructed the military to kill them all and if my approval rating goes to zero i don't care.....what are the going to do hate him twice as hard.......

[manu1959]

Bush Says Sending More Troops To Iraq Would ‘Undermine Our Strategy


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/08/bush-more-troops/

Who's the flip flopper now?

he is just following miz pelosis advice form 2004...bush is a uniter not a divider dude

[darin]

Seriously - when he doesn't send "enough" troops, he's going against his advisors...when he sends 'more' he's going against his advisors.

Lame.

[stephanie]

He stated that they are going after the areas they couldn't go into before, and sounds like he's telling the government of iraq, we are all going in after sadr and his gang and we are going in after the sunni gangs and we are taking over. And you WILL support us and do your part or we're finished with you.

They have to do take and hold ops if its going to work.

I agree with you, Gaffer..

NOW lets go KICK SOME ASS...

[Gunny]

Bush Says Sending More Troops To Iraq Would ‘Undermine Our Strategy


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/08/bush-more-troops/

Who's the flip flopper now?

Anyone who is too closed minded to not adjust to new information and/or changing circumstances is too closed minded for me.

There's a difference between that and switching sides on a issue trying to pander to voters.

[Dfresh]

Hi Doug, was wondering what took ya so long to show up!

Honestly I have'nt a clue what the answer is on this one. I do know pulling the troops out is a mistake, and a deadline makes no sense unless it was something that was kept secret...ha, like that would happen.

I think as Manu stated a post or two up, allwoing the troops to do what they are there to do is a good start. I think cutting back on the media coverage is another good start. Too many things are being skewed that come out of there which in turn really has heated the whole thing up. Turn the lights out, let nature takes it course, and move on to another day.... or something like that.:D

Yeah I agree that pulling the troops out would be a mistake at this point too.... and even though Bush didn't directly state it last night I think he finally has an exit strategy. A large surge of forces would hopefully be enough for the Iraqi's to take control at which point we can scale back our number of troops. And if this last push fails we would have no choice but to scale back. It was never clear to me what the real goal was in Iraq but now that Saddam is dead I say we won and lets get the hell out of there.

[dirt mcgirt]

Since military people can't make political statements it seems that report is inaccurate. The only comments being made are from retiree's who have nothing to do with events in iraq.

He's making a decission based on input from a lot of sources, and his commanders on the ground carry the most weight. I doubt seriously he's ignoring their suggestions.

GENERAL ABIZAID: "Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

[avatar4321]

Trying this again since the last one didnt work.

Im so sick and tired of Democrats speaking from both ends of their mouth. For months they've been yelling for President Bush to stop listening to his military advisors and change things. So he finds new advisors, and they object.

A few months ago Nancy Pelosi was arguing that we need to send more troops to Iraq. Now Its being completely opposed.

Democrats, make up your freaking mind. The American people are sick and tired of this double speak.

[Gaffer]

GENERAL ABIZAID: "Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

We do have to turn it over to the iraqi's. And they won't really step up until we are not there to fight for them. But at this time they seem to be overwhelmed. I expect the surge will be to passive a number of regions using mostly iraqi forces with US backing. Then let those iraqi forces hold the region while the US goes to support other iraqi forces.

Once we passify everything and they take over it will be up to them to hold it and I expect there will be some serious fighting once we begin to withdraw. That's where the iraqi's make or break.

[OCA]

deploying 20,000 and letting every troop do what they are trained to do with zero political input will win this war in 30 days....

we trained them to kill.......let them kill

Unfortunately Manu Bush avoided the 1 thing he should've addressed.....battlefield tactics changes.

Another 20,000 troops runder the same restrictions the current troops are under will do nothing.

And one and for all i'm sick to death of hearing about this fucking fantasy of training Iraqi troops and police forces so they can secure theirselves, by all accounts these forces hold more allegiance with their ethnicity and tribes than they do to any Iraqi constitution, in fact this kid I know who just got back from his 2nd tour says that they go out on patrol with these fucks and when they get into some shit he sees these fucks running at our guys as our guys are going forward, he thinks he's killing the wrong people.

Kind of reminds me of a line from "Ful Metal Jacket" when Cowboy is talking about South Vietnamese regulars.

[darin]

Unfortunately Manu Bush avoided the 1 thing he should've addressed.....battlefield tactics changes.

Another 20,000 troops runder the same restrictions the current troops are under will do nothing.

And one and for all i'm sick to death of hearing about this fucking fantasy of training Iraqi troops and police forces so they can secure theirselves, by all accounts these forces hold more allegiance with their ethnicity and tribes than they do to any Iraqi constitution, in fact this kid I know who just got back from his 2nd tour says that they go out on patrol with these fucks and when they get into some shit he sees these fucks running at our guys as our guys are going forward, he thinks he's killing the wrong people.

Kind of reminds me of a line from "Ful Metal Jacket" when Cowboy is talking about South Vietnamese regulars.



Battlefield tactics ARE part of the new strategy. However, nobody's going to release "For Official Use Only" Tatics to a general audience. ;)

[OCA]

Battlefield tactics ARE part of the new strategy. However, nobody's going to release "For Official Use Only" Tatics to a general audience. ;)

I don't know, alot of talk about training up Iraqi forces and such, IMHO we should take care of busines first, and by that I mean squaring the whole friggin country away, insurgent free, and then train up these forces, we've been trying to do two things at once and because of that both are going along piss poor.

Again I reiterate that the kid gloves need to come off, no more worrying about who gets shot or where or what mosque or such other thing gets leveled in an artillery bombardment.

[Mr. P]

deploying 20,000 and letting every troop do what they are trained to do with zero political input will win this war in 30 days....

we trained them to kill.......let them kill

Yup..war is about breaking things and killing people, something we lost sight of in VN I'm afraid. It's NOT, nor will it ever be an acceptable political tool (I hope) no matter how hard as they try to make it one.

That is the rub with me, the politics. As my dad always said 'shit or get of the pot'!

[Grumplestillskin]

Time to leave Iraq to the barbarians. No matter what strategy is used, the place will turn into a bloodbath after the US and Brits pull out..

[Mr. P]

Time to leave Iraq to the barbarians. No matter what strategy is used, the place will turn into a bloodbath after the US and Brits pull out..

Not if there's nothing left...we're too nice. Instead of breaking em we build em..

[Grumplestillskin]

Not if there's nothing left...we're too nice. Instead of breaking em we build em..

Well, that would be one solution. Totally uncivilised, but a solution nonetheless..

[darin]

I don't know, alot of talk about training up Iraqi forces and such, IMHO we should take care of busines first, and by that I mean squaring the whole friggin country away, insurgent free, and then train up these forces, we've been trying to do two things at once and because of that both are going along piss poor.




But I know. I know for a fact there are tactical and operation shifts happening. Unfortunately, it's FOUO; I'd LOVE to post up my sources. :(

[darin]

Time to leave Iraq to the barbarians. No matter what strategy is used, the place will turn into a bloodbath after the US and Brits pull out..


Doing so would mean "Leave Iraq to Al-Qaida." Do you 'really' want OBL to command Iraq and all of it's resources?

[OCA]

Doing so would mean "Leave Iraq to Al-Qaida." Do you 'really' want OBL to command Iraq and all of it's resources?

Chump is so naive at times, its kinda sad.

[Mr. P]

Well, that would be one solution. Totally uncivilised, but a solution nonetheless..

And WAR is civilised? :laugh:

[Gunny]

And WAR is civilised? :laugh:

I think we've proven enough that war cannot be fought by arbitrary, holier-than-thou rules. I got called a dinosaur for thinking we should wage total war.

Which war that we fought unconditionally as a total war have we lost? None.

How many have we won trying to be PC? None.

The evidence is pretty clear to me.

[Grumplestillskin]

Doing so would mean "Leave Iraq to Al-Qaida." Do you 'really' want OBL to command Iraq and all of it's resources?

Won't happen..

[Grumplestillskin]

And WAR is civilised? :laugh:

Not really, but aspects of it can be. That is why there is the GC

[Mr. P]

I think we've proven enough that war cannot be fought by arbitrary, holier-than-thou rules. I got called a dinosaur for thinking we should wage total war.

Which war that we fought unconditionally as a total war have we lost? None.

How many have we won trying to be PC? None.

The evidence is pretty clear to me.

Agreed.

[Mr. P]

Not really, but aspects of it can be. That is why there is the GC

Which aspects?

[Gunny]

Won't happen..

Leaving Iraq now would all but insure a fundamentalist Islamic government. It doesn't matter whether or not it is AQ and/or bin Laden specifically.

[Grumplestillskin]

Which aspects?

Limiting civilian casualties. Treating POW;s humanely....

[Grumplestillskin]

Leaving Iraq now would all but insure a fundamentalist Islamic government. It doesn't matter whether or not it is AQ and/or bin Laden specifically.

I'd be surprised if there is any form of cohesive govt after the US pulls out...Might be for six months or so, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Somalia or Afghanistan....

[Mr. P]

Limiting civilian casualties. Treating POW;s humanely....

Pow's Ok..civilians? Civilians need to get the fuck out..bombs aren't selective..

[Gunny]

Pow's Ok..civilians? Civilians need to get the fuck out..bombs aren't selective..

If the civilians would start shooting these asshats when they try to hide out among them, and rat them out at every turn, this would be a LOT easier.

[Dilloduck]

If the civilians would start shooting these asshats when they try to hide out among them, and rat them out at every turn, this would be a LOT easier.

That's the damn truth.

[Mr. P]

If the civilians would start shooting these asshats when they try to hide out among them, and rat them out at every turn, this would be a LOT easier.

Yup.

[Dilloduck]

Yup.

The "civilians that start shooting asshats" need a leader, a cause and a name to rally around. I think the cause has to be Iraqi sovereignty.

[Mr. P]

The "civilians that start shooting asshats" need a leader, a cause and a name to rally around. I think the cause has to be Iraqi sovereignty.

Sure does! My tax $$$ doesn't need to go there in aid. Hell no, not when they have all that oil to pay the bills!!!!

[Gunny]

The "civilians that start shooting asshats" need a leader, a cause and a name to rally around. I think the cause has to be Iraqi sovereignty.

No leader. A leader requires organization which ultimately becomes a target. I'm talking about John Q just pulling a piece when Abazzzabut comes pounding on the door and putting a round in his head.

It's the individuals who aren't doing their part. They're trying to be noninvolved in a battle for their freedom.