No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus

[-Cp]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.

This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan
Gen David Petraeus

He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed".

[Yurt]

interesting, so will he ever declare it a loss or will it forever be in limbo

[Gaffer]

iraq is part of the long war. It will not be won with a clear victory. The area is being pacified, but it will always have an element of islamists there. The victory comes in establishing a government there that will fight the islamists and prevent them from using the country as a staging area and income source.

If we pull out of iraq and afghanistan we will still be at war. It's going to be a very long war as this countries defensive mind set won't allow us to fight it the way we should.

[retiredman]

One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq.

[Kathianne]

One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq.

Isn't that what Pakistan is complaining about?

[retiredman]

Isn't that what Pakistan is complaining about?

isn't that where the perpetrators of 9/11 have always been?

When was the last time Osama bin Laden was in Iraq? Or Iran?

[Kathianne]

isn't that where the perpetrators of 9/11 have always been?

When was the last time Osama bin Laden was in Iraq? Or Iran?

Thank you for making it clear why honest folks should not take you seriously. Mind you, not saying on ignore, just recognizing you for the fake you are. One who tries to portray himself as a serious person, but is only a hateful, vile, partisan, fake.

[retiredman]

Thank you for making it clear why honest folks should not take you seriously. Mind you, not saying on ignore, just recognizing you for the fake you are. One who tries to portray himself as a serious person, but is only a hateful, vile, partisan, fake.

my initial question stands.


"One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq."

We didn't seem to worry about what the people of Iraq were worried about when we invaded, conquered and occupied them for no good reason. Osama bin Laden has not moved more than a hundred miles from where he was the day his forces attacked us seven years ago... and we cannot put enough troops into THAT area to stabilize it, let alone find the man who attacked us, but we can sent 150K troops and $10B a month to Iraq that had abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Now..try being a big girl and address that point instead of just insulting me.

[retiredman]

and I am furious at George Bush for completely squandering a one-of-a-kind window of opprotunity that existed in the wake of 9/11 to rally the majority of the world behind us and against islamic extremism with his boneheaded invasion of Iraq. That is a moment that has passed and will never come again...and it is HIS fault that we missed it. His and his alone.

[Kathianne]

my initial question stands.


"One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq."

We didn't seem to worry about what the people of Iraq were worried about when we invaded, conquered and occupied them for no good reason. Osama bin Laden has not moved more than a hundred miles from where he was the day his forces attacked us seven years ago... and we cannot put enough troops into THAT area to stabilize it, let alone find the man who attacked us, but we can sent 150K troops and $10B a month to Iraq that had abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Now..try being a big girl and address that point instead of just insulting me.
One wonders where it would have been if those that were quoted in the links I gave, stayed true to what was in the best interests of the US. They didn't, because they thought the people of the US would bug out.

However, they didn't, as evidenced by Palin.

Face it MFM, unless Obama throws Biden willingly under the bus, not a hope. Granted Biden seems to be willing to happily be road kill. Now your party has to convince nearly 50% of the Americans it's a good thing. LOL! Luck with that.

[retiredman]

One wonders where it would have been if those that were quoted in the links I gave, stayed true to what was in the best interests of the US. They didn't, because they thought the people of the US would bug out.

However, they didn't, as evidenced by Palin.

Face it MFM, unless Obama throws Biden willingly under the bus, not a hope. Granted Biden seems to be willing to happily be road kill. Now your party has to convince nearly 50% of the Americans it's a good thing. LOL! Luck with that.


mnice avoidance of the topic of my post.

coward.

[Kathianne]

mnice avoidance of the topic of my post.

coward.

What was that? Couldn't read, in English.

[retiredman]

do you think that we might have been able to keep Afghanistan from turning into a bucket of shit if we had "surged" the additional troops there, instead of into Iraq? That was the question which you avoided.... care to address it now?

[Gaffer]

do you think that we might have been able to keep Afghanistan from turning into a bucket of shit if we had "surged" the additional troops there, instead of into Iraq? That was the question which you avoided.... care to address it now?

We could surge in one or the other. Bush chose iraq to start with. I haven't seen any calls for a surge in afghan. If we are going to get laden we will need to go into pakistan. pakistan doesn't like that idea.

As usual you never answer any questions, you just ask questions and demand everyone answer yours. You want answers try answering other peoples questions and then ask yours.

[retiredman]

We could surge in one or the other. Bush chose iraq to start with. I haven't seen any calls for a surge in afghan. If we are going to get laden we will need to go into pakistan. pakistan doesn't like that idea.

As usual you never answer any questions, you just ask questions and demand everyone answer yours. You want answers try answering other peoples questions and then ask yours.

what question would you like me to answer?

and are you saying that you haven't heard the CJCS state that he would love to have more troops in Afghanistan but was limited by the operations in Iraq from putting them in?

[Immanuel]

iraq is part of the long war. It will not be won with a clear victory. The area is being pacified, but it will always have an element of islamists there. The victory comes in establishing a government there that will fight the islamists and prevent them from using the country as a staging area and income source.

If we pull out of iraq and afghanistan we will still be at war. It's going to be a very long war as this countries defensive mind set won't allow us to fight it the way we should.

But isn't it true, based on the precedence of the past, that even if we do establish a friendly government that will fight extremist, in the next 20 or so years we will find them at our throats with a new dictator (i.e. Saddam Hussein) and once again, we will be the bad guys?

Immie

[Gaffer]

But isn't it true, based on the precedence of the past, that even if we do establish a friendly government that will fight extremist, in the next 20 or so years we will find them at our throats with a new dictator (i.e. Saddam Hussein) and once again, we will be the bad guys?

Immie

Yep that's very true. All we are doing is establishing a temporary security. As long as we keep troops there we can insure no more saddams appear for a while. But once we leave its just a matter of time. And more than likely he will be an islamists.

And keep in mind that iran is poised to get control of iraq in any way it can.

[Yurt]

my initial question stands.


"One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq."

We didn't seem to worry about what the people of Iraq were worried about when we invaded, conquered and occupied them for no good reason. Osama bin Laden has not moved more than a hundred miles from where he was the day his forces attacked us seven years ago... and we cannot put enough troops into THAT area to stabilize it, let alone find the man who attacked us, but we can sent 150K troops and $10B a month to Iraq that had abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Now..try being a big girl and address that point instead of just insulting me.

i suppose OBL is on your christmas card list too

[red states rule]

do you think that we might have been able to keep Afghanistan from turning into a bucket of shit if we had "surged" the additional troops there, instead of into Iraq? That was the question which you avoided.... care to address it now?

Joe Cook has a response to your DNC talking points MFM

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TG4fe9GlWS8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TG4fe9GlWS8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

I guess MFM has redeployed from this thread, and also has a wounded Iraq vet on "ignore" :laugh2:

[darin]

...Iraq is the central front in the war on terror


Makes sense.

[red states rule]

Makes sense.

Even AQ said Iraq was the centeral battlefield in their war against America

[retiredman]

i suppose OBL is on your christmas card list too

stupid insult. Of course OBL is not on my Christmas card list. I thought you were going to stop these insults?

[red states rule]

stupid insult. Of course OBL is not on my Christmas card list. I thought you were going to stop these insults?

Oh, so do you have him over for Thanksgiving dinner then?

You asking for others to stop with the insults? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

and I am furious at George Bush for completely squandering a one-of-a-kind window of opprotunity that existed in the wake of 9/11 to rally the majority of the world behind us and against islamic extremism with his boneheaded invasion of Iraq. That is a moment that has passed and will never come again...and it is HIS fault that we missed it. His and his alone.

There are a lot of decisions that were made in the past that cannot be undone....I choose to look forward and learn from them, and not constantly harp on what cannot be undone.

I dare say, everyone here has heard your beef....got anything new?

If you were the President you would have done things differently...GOT IT, thanks.....

If you were President OBL would be caught or dead, the economy would be fine, and everyone would live in utopia with you....great, GOT IT.

Well play the cards you have, sport....add to the future, and quit living in the past....GOT IT?

[red states rule]

There are a lot of decisions that were made in the past that cannot be undone....I choose to look forward and learn from them, and not constantly harp on what cannot be undone.

I dare say, everyone here has heard your beef....got anything new?

If you were the President you would have done things differently...GOT IT, thanks.....

If you were President OBL would be caught or dead, the economy would be fine, and everyone would live in utopia with you....great, GOT IT.

Well play the cards you have, sport....add to the future, and quit living in the past....GOT IT?

Why would he care what happens to the US? He is fleeing to Mexico even if his guy Obama wins in November

[Yurt]

stupid insult. Of course OBL is not on my Christmas card list. I thought you were going to stop these insults?

it was not meant as an insult. i couldn't understand that you know for a fact that obl has only moved 100 miles from X in the past 7 years. honestly, that was a good one, not mean spirited, just good ol' fun buddy!

[retiredman]

it was not meant as an insult. i couldn't understand that you know for a fact that obl has only moved 100 miles from X in the past 7 years. honestly, that was a good one, not mean spirited, just good ol' fun buddy!


disingenuous at best.

sad, but expected.

[Yurt]

disingenuous at best.

sad, but expected.

:dance:

[IrishCop]

I get so sick of the "If it wasn't for Iraq, we'd have Bin Laden" bit, of course followed by "And it's all because of Bush". These comments come from peolple who have absolutely zilch of an idea of what it takes to find a person who doesn't want to be found, and who has an established infrastructure and pretty much unlimited resources to enable him to meet his goal. And as for President Bush...look, HE GOT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS TO INVADE IRAQ! Now, you can't have it both ways. Either President Bush is an evil, manipulative genius, capable of fooling the entire Congress of the United States (And most of it's citizens if I remember the opinion polls of the time correctly) OR, he's the retard, dumbass, illiterate cowboy that you people (I mean like MFM) insist that he is. Pick one opinion of GWB and stick with it, will you?

[retiredman]

I get so sick of the "If it wasn't for Iraq, we'd have Bin Laden" bit, of course followed by "And it's all because of Bush". These comments come from peolple who have absolutely zilch of an idea of what it takes to find a person who doesn't want to be found, and who has an established infrastructure and pretty much unlimited resources to enable him to meet his goal. And as for President Bush...look, HE GOT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS TO INVADE IRAQ! Now, you can't have it both ways. Either President Bush is an evil, manipulative genius, capable of fooling the entire Congress of the United States (And most of it's citizens if I remember the opinion polls of the time correctly) OR, he's the retard, dumbass, illiterate cowboy that you people (I mean like MFM) insist that he is. Pick one opinion of GWB and stick with it, will you?

I think that he is a retarded dumbass and his daddy helped him hire a staff of evil maniputulative geniuses. How does that work for ya?:laugh2:

[Gaffer]

I get so sick of the "If it wasn't for Iraq, we'd have Bin Laden" bit, of course followed by "And it's all because of Bush". These comments come from peolple who have absolutely zilch of an idea of what it takes to find a person who doesn't want to be found, and who has an established infrastructure and pretty much unlimited resources to enable him to meet his goal. And as for President Bush...look, HE GOT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS TO INVADE IRAQ! Now, you can't have it both ways. Either President Bush is an evil, manipulative genius, capable of fooling the entire Congress of the United States (And most of it's citizens if I remember the opinion polls of the time correctly) OR, he's the retard, dumbass, illiterate cowboy that you people (I mean like MFM) insist that he is. Pick one opinion of GWB and stick with it, will you?

I feel the same way. Makes it even harder when your not allowed to go into the area where he's suppose to be hiding.

[bullypulpit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.

This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan
Gen David Petraeus

He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed".

Yet simple slogans are all the Bush administration...and now the McCain campaign...have ever offered. Oh, and Grampy McCain knows exactly how to achieve 'victory' in Iraq. C'mon Grampy! Tell us, please! And it also appears that Grampy knows EXACTLY how to capture Osama bin Laden. Now, why hasn't he shared that with Bush? Is it just payback for the rogering he got from the BUsh campaign in North Carolina all those many years ago? But that also begs the question as to why dear old Osama is, as far as we know, still wasting perfectly good oxygen. Far be it for the Bush administration to waste a perfectly good boogey man.

[IrishCop]

I think that he is a retarded dumbass and his daddy helped him hire a staff of evil maniputulative geniuses. How does that work for ya?:laugh2:

Okay, let me get this straight. Your premise is that GWB wanted to invade Iraq, so he orders his Daddy-appointed staff to make it so (apologies to Captain Picard).

1. If Daddy was so good at picking genius staff that could develop and implement a massive conspiracy capable of fooling the Congress and most of the country into going along with this reaction to a "non-existent threat", why the hell was he only a one term president? Wouldn't he have used that same ability to get himself re-elected?

2. You were a career military man, MFM. I spent 20 in the USAF and the last 15 working for the Government at the county level. I presume, in your position as an O-5, you had a Top Secret/SCI clearance, right? SCI means Specially Compartmentalized Information, mil-speak for secrets being broke up so that only a very few people have access to the whole picture. The type of operation you're inferring would involve thousands of persons in the military, intelligence and diplomatic community, all of whom would have to have been totally loyal to GWB and committed to his goals, not to mention totally aware of the big picture to pull this op off. Sorry, Man, that just doesn't work for me. There would have been someone in that tired web of deceit that you're promulgating that would've blown the whistle. Not the least of which was Colin Powell, whom I am sure you'll agree is a decent, honorable and trustworthy man.

3. Was the incursion in Iraq warranted? I believe it was. Was the aftermath mishandled? In some instances, certainly. But again, No war is ever fought perfectly in the hindsight of history. The wonderfully successful Invasion of Normandy was almost a total disaster, and our march across Europe after that wasn't an error free campaign, either.

I know that I haven't changed your mind with my little tirade, but you're gonna have to come up with something pretty concrete to get me to change mine, too.

:salute:

[Gaffer]

Yet simple slogans are all the Bush administration...and now the McCain campaign...have ever offered. Oh, and Grampy McCain knows exactly how to achieve 'victory' in Iraq. C'mon Grampy! Tell us, please! And it also appears that Grampy knows EXACTLY how to capture Osama bin Laden. Now, why hasn't he shared that with Bush? Is it just payback for the rogering he got from the BUsh campaign in North Carolina all those many years ago? But that also begs the question as to why dear old Osama is, as far as we know, still wasting perfectly good oxygen. Far be it for the Bush administration to waste a perfectly good boogey man.

The only slogans I have seen are from the libs like yourself.

I hate Bush.
Stop the war now.
We need to have dialog.
I hate Bush.
The military sucks.
No drilling.
Rights for terrorists
I hate Bush.

No concrete plans, just empty rhetoric. Oh and they hate Bush.

While the rest of the country is at war with islam, the libs are at war with Bush.

As for McCain having a plan. I have never heard him say that. That was kerry that had the plan. Apparently he's still keeping it a secret. You can bet anything McCain has will be shared with the president. An example being the surge.

[retiredman]

Okay, let me get this straight. Your premise is that GWB wanted to invade Iraq, so he orders his Daddy-appointed staff to make it so (apologies to Captain Picard).

1. If Daddy was so good at picking genius staff that could develop and implement a massive conspiracy capable of fooling the Congress and most of the country into going along with this reaction to a "non-existent threat", why the hell was he only a one term president? Wouldn't he have used that same ability to get himself re-elected?

2. You were a career military man, MFM. I spent 20 in the USAF and the last 15 working for the Government at the county level. I presume, in your position as an O-5, you had a Top Secret/SCI clearance, right? SCI means Specially Compartmentalized Information, mil-speak for secrets being broke up so that only a very few people have access to the whole picture. The type of operation you're inferring would involve thousands of persons in the military, intelligence and diplomatic community, all of whom would have to have been totally loyal to GWB and committed to his goals, not to mention totally aware of the big picture to pull this op off. Sorry, Man, that just doesn't work for me. There would have been someone in that tired web of deceit that you're promulgating that would've blown the whistle. Not the least of which was Colin Powell, whom I am sure you'll agree is a decent, honorable and trustworthy man.

3. Was the incursion in Iraq warranted? I believe it was. Was the aftermath mishandled? In some instances, certainly. But again, No war is ever fought perfectly in the hindsight of history. The wonderfully successful Invasion of Normandy was almost a total disaster, and our march across Europe after that wasn't an error free campaign, either.

I know that I haven't changed your mind with my little tirade, but you're gonna have to come up with something pretty concrete to get me to change mine, too.

:salute:

1. I didn't say his DAD was a genius... Karl Rove, however, is.

2. For the record, I had a TS/SCI(CNWDI) clearance. And you and I both know that career military men might argue with the president and the civilian command structure behind closed doors, but once the orders are given and determined to be lawful (not necessarily wise, but only lawful) the guys in uniform salute and march off smartly and do their damnedest to carry them out. There have been a PLETHORA of top military brass who, only after retirement, have come out and been starkly critical of the Bush administration's plans in Iraq.

3. I disagree that the invasion of Iraq was warranted and have been vehemently opposed to it since before it happened. On the other hand, in the wake of 9/11, I was very much a supporter of George Bush and even volunteered to go back on active duty to help the president fight the people that attacked us.

I realize that nothing I have said would cause you to change your mind, and I welcome the opportunity to respectfully agree to disagree.

:salute:

[Psychoblues]

I've heard "victory" defined 50 different ways from this administration and none of them have been achieved yet any operational success suddenly becomes the new overall "victory". I don't know about any of you cats, but this cat ain't buying into the mumbo jumbo from the idiots in chief.

I will offer this caveat. Any operational success is indeed a victory for the troops that participated. Excuses like "the long war" or "the surge worked" are meaningless to any overall "victory" over the ideologies that precipitated the beginning of the war or even the end of it altogether.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute: