Reid Gathers Generals to Blast Bush's Troops Surge
One General Calls Active Duty Officers 'Props'
By AmandaBCarpenter Posted in Anti-war liberals | Democrats | Reid — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Flanked by two former Army retired generals Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blasted President Bush for “clinging to a failed escalation strategy” in Iraq and “failing our troops and our country.”
One general went so far as to say that active duty military officers were being used as “props” by the Bush Administration.
Read on please...
Reid is scheduled to meet with the White House this week to negotiate the Iraq supplemental spending bill Congress passed before Easter recess that contains a timetable for withdrawal. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that would cut funding for the troops or dictate a withdrawal date, but Reid said “the President is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it.”
With a banner behind them that said “Support the Troops” and “Transition the Mission” Reid stood with Ret. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Ret. Brig. Gen. John Johns and said that the surge should be abandoned.
I asked Reid and the generals if they believed the surge strategy had been given enough time to say with certainty that it was not working. Their answers were defiant.
Gen. Gard said “the problem is too little too late.”
“We have the got the right declaratory policy at this point that we should have implemented four and a half years ago,” he said. “Where we are going now is counter- productive. It is detrimental to our national security.”
Gen. Johns agreed. He said he was against the surge because ground combat forces “will always be seen as an occupied force and create resentment.”
Reid told reporters, “If you look at strictly numbers, the numbers of Iraqis being killed, the number of bombs being detonated and a number of American soldiers being killed, averaging a little more than three a day, that should say it all.” (In January, Reid had voted with the rest of the U.S. Senate to unanimously confirm Army Gen. David Petraeus to become Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq. Petraeus is the main architect behind the surge strategy and authored military’s counterinsurgency doctrine in Baghdad last year.)
Gen. Johns said active service military officers, like Gen. Petraeus, were being used as “props” by the administration. “The American people need to be told the truth. The only reason I speak out as a retired officer is the President, as all Presidents do, use the active duty military as props to make it appear that the military is united behind his policy.”
Gen. Johns pointed to an April 16 op-ed written by retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan in the Washington Post as evidence of this. Gen. Sheehan had written the piece to explain to the public why he had rejected the Bush administration’s offer extended to him to become their “war czar.”
The position was created to replace Deputy National Security Advisor Meghan O’ Sullivan, who will be leaving the administration soon. The war czar would seek to coordinate the State and Defense departments with a direct line to the White House.
Gen. Sheehan said he did not accept the position because it was unclear how short-term missions in Iraq supported long-term goals and regional interests.
“I concluded the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to the broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically,” he said.
The two other officials known to decline the position are Gen. Jack Keane of the Army and Gen. Joseph W. Ralston of the Air Force.
In the press conference Gen. Johns said it would be hard find someone who would accept the war czar position because “there is no articulated strategy that puts Iraq into the context of the overall Middle East policy.”
Gard said the current situation reminded him of Vietnam in the spring of 1965. “Both the then Secretary of Defense and the President knew the war was unwinnable militarily,” he said.
“Just as our own military leadership has said over and over again, the war is not winnable militarily. Well, we had a surge in March of 1965, 20,000 more troops to Vietnam. There had been 24,000 battle deaths in Vietnam. But because the President did not want to be tarred with losing the war we continued on for five more years and 34,000 more combat deaths with an outcome we could have achieved at the time of the surge. We are at a turning point like that now to continue on-to continue when the violence is increasing -- we are not getting anywhere militarily. It is foolhardy and we will have the same result.”
The troop surge -- an increase of about 21,000 US troops into the Baghdad area -- isn’t scheduled to be fully manned until the end of May when the last of the 21,000 will arrive.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | BushLied! — Comments (1) »
Reid Gathers Generals to Blast Bush's Troops Surge 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I know that the military can't avoid creating egotistical idiots by promoting political kiss butts past their competency, but we really shouldn't have to put up with has beens undermining the guys on the frontline. Talk about props.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
What a complete farce. News flash from some of my friends in country, almost no soldier believes that.
Secondarily; Petraeus as a prop? Now that is really laughable. Anyone that does a little research on the General knows he would step down before being used as a prop. Perhaps one day Reid will attempt to educate instead of insidiously insinuate.
Once again, Reid comes to the fore with no plan and seemingly no real understanding of the mission’s goals. The attempt to play on a public who fails to understand the geopolitical importance of succeeding in Iraq is insulting.
Instead of explaining the situation in understandable terms, he uses the two Generals as “props” (gee, where was their outrage on active duty?). Truth be told, there is no substantial opposition to the surge amongst active duty military folks who matter. It is more a situation of “what took so long”.
For anyone who pays attention, the surge and stabilization will be followed by turnover to the Iraqi’s; a smart policy that will not leave any voids as we draw back. That is the way to make a credible drawdown, something we have said will occur as results are achieved.
Read this latest interview with Petraeus regarding the mission. It sounds to me like they are just trying to fulfill their mission without getting stabbed in the back. No calls for timelines or talk about props.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Who are these jokesters. They stepped into the politcal arena. Now they are fair game. I hope they are ready for the backlash. Tools.
"Petraeus is the main architect behind the surge strategy" is just plain false.
to support this?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
a link to support the claim first. Everything I've read so far has pointed to folks not named David Petraeus.
and in the day. Don't screw with me. You made the claim of error, it is up to you to prove it.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I'm supposed to prove a negative assertion? How about The Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007 ) that doesn't ever mention him for starters. Then there's this article ( http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/041107Parry.shtml ) that states Jack Keane is the architect. More importantly, I haven't found anyone stating that Petraeus was the one who came up with the idea. And again, since you guys are the ones reporting 'facts' it is up to you to demonstrate that they are true to begin with. Don't make claims that you can't back up.
error you can provide 2 links, one of which is not even germane, I think we can conclusively say you've publicly beclowned yourself.
And no, you're not being asked to prove a negative, you're being asked to substantiate your claim. We apparently made the mistake of assuming there was something substantive there.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You made the claim that Petraeus was the architect. Back it up. I say its false and as the below poster notes, it's been pretty well established that Keane and Kagan have at the very least, taken credit for the plan. Petraeus hasn't stated anywhere that it is his plan. Bush hasn't stated that this is Petraeus' plan. I'm just wondering where you're getting your information.
Back up your claim, troll. If this is not Petraeus' plan then it belongs to someone else. Who? Prove it.
My reply disproves the assertion you were making.
If you read; FM 3-24 (all 240 plus pages, then digest it), Petraeus’ Congressional testimony, Choosing Victory and the plan itself. Then prepare a timeline on whose ideas appeared first, it is fairly evident who the architect is. That is after all, the point isn’t it?
You made a fairly strong assertion it was not Petraeus, which you have yet to back up.
After a few days reading and intellectual evaluation, I believe you will see that, to borrow Streiff’s characterization, you beclowned yourself. Knowledge is the key to insuring that does not happen again.
Admit your error, less you become further labeled a troll.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I asked for a link. Twice so far. Now this is the third time.
And no, it doesn't dissolve my assertion. Nobody in the media or the White House has ever pinned "The Surge" as Petraeus' plan. That's a fact. I've demonstrated that. It's also been demonstrated that "The Surge" has been attributed to 2 other people. Again, this is a fact. I am not trolling here, I'm trying to keep the posters and the debate honest, while also keeping myself informed. Note the 2 previous times I've asked for the "Petraeus Doctrine" text. I haven't been able to dig it up and am asking again and again for a link.
You don't get things your way here.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Don't think you will get that link. Here are the "facts";
It appears much credit has been given to Keane and Kagan for the “surge” strategy based on their “Choosing Victory” paper. Nonetheless, my take is the overall strategy was a conglomeration of many different participants’ ideas.
The one common thread I took away from the Generals testimony before Congress was that it was in no small part based on his Counterinsurgency Doctrine (i.e. The Petraeus Doctrine) developed with General Mattis. If you read that document (which, I did) it appears this recent strategy eerily follows all the principals of that doctrine. Hardly, coincidence.
Certainly, based on testimony and reading it appears he may very well be the “architect”.
Am I wrong here?
BTW, did I say "All the way".
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
have a link to this work? I would like to read it as well. From what I remember hearing/reading, we'd need 3x as many troops in Iraq to be even close to reflecting the strategies that he outlined in his writings.
opine, not Petraeus. Since the latter is running this show and his Counterinsurgency Manual predates "Choosing Victory", I will trust his judgment. It's simple, if Petraeus needs more troops, he will ask.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
what is victory?
Be specific because after 4 years, I still don't know what "victory" we are going for....
after four years, you still have your .....
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
I have no desire to discuss anything with the likes of you. You freaking wusses that always have to be told stuff, "why did we go in", "what does victory look like". "when are we coming home", and all the other stupid questions.
For me to explain victory to you would be futile...see, victory implies you stood for something, and even had courage...you and any other nitwit that has to be explained what is going are not worth the effort.
Get off the computer, and go play outside. It's a nice day.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
lack of interest in the subject, outside toss of non sequiturs, that the fact that isn't hasn't been articulated.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Why should he, me or anyone tell you what victory looks like. If you've got brains enough to figure out how to post a comment - you should have brains enough to think through what victory in Iraq will look like.
Did you get Mom or Dad to do your high school home work too?
Basically, victory is Sunni and Shiite living together in peaceful democracy that is a beacon of light that illuminates the rest of the middle east?
Next you will tell me there really IS an Easter bunny.
Victory is any situation more conducive to US interests than the one existing before the invasion.
Contrary to your disingenuous statements, the US has a clear objective: a stable, functional government that fairly represents both Sunni and Shia interests. This objective is entirely achievable with the right strategy.
But you didn't really want an answer, your question was rhetorical, wasn't it?
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
retired generals who delve into the political arena. I found this post over at 'American Thinker', (Whatever Happened to "Duty, Honor, Country"? By Gerd Schroeder) that maybe all officers ought to read. It reminds us that duty, honor and country are not values that we can put to rest when we take off the uniform.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/whatever_happened_to_duty_hono.ht...
"Generals, officers, and enlisted are looked at as men dedicated to "Duty", "Honor", "Country", above the ulcers. Willing to give a full, honest effort, or die trying. When the President calls, we answer the call. These generals that withhold their advice from the President and retire, and then instead, put forth a full effort to ridicule the President, have, in my view, retired like General MacArthur: in disgrace. Notwithstanding their brilliant careers they throw their reputation to the dogs of journalism. The words are used as a weapon against the just war we are fighting.
The words of these retired generals are used abroad, by our enemies, to support their fight against us; and at home, against the American people to demoralize them, and so, cause them to slowly withdraw their support from the military. A media induced hopelessness fed by the words of the very men and women that were trusted with the defense of this country."
I hope I did this right (as far as referencing another blog.) I'm new at this so if I messed it up I apologize.
To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.--Disraeli
All in Washington agree that the keys to any semblance of success in Iraq (i.e., at least the avoidance of complete catastrophe for Iraqis and American interests) are political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis (meeting benchmarks for sharing oil revenue, partly reversing de-Baathification, etc.) and the creation of effective, nonsectarian military and security forces, yet the debate in Washington is reduced to an artificial, bipolar dichotomy.
Many/most Democrats' desired message to Iraqi's (mainly Shiite) leaders: "We're leaving at a specified time whether or not you meet benchmarks toward political reconciliation and self-sufficiency on security for citizens of all ethnicities." This sends the message to our friends there that they can't count on us, so they better focus on winning the civil war and maintaining alliances with extremist militias, and sends the message to our enemies that they can wait us out.
Many/most Republicans' desired message to Iraqi leaders: "We're staying in full force whether or not you meet these benchmarks." This sends the message that the Shiite leaders can continue resisting making any concessions to Sunnis or progress on military/security benchmarks, and they can continue using us to fight the Sunnis indefinitely.
My suggested message: "We're staying in full force as long as you start & continue meeting key benchmarks, but we're leaving (or at least substantially reducing our force and role) if you don't." In particular, we will stop policing your civil war in Baghdad and focus on al Qaeda targets in Anbar province and perhaps patrolling the borders to reduce infiltration of foreign fighters and arms.
It would be irresponsible to abandon an Iraqi effort that has a chance of preventing catastrophe (including potential genocide, regional war that could destabilize the Saudi regime among others, strenghthened al Qaeda and Iran, general loss of U.S. credibility that will be needed to confront future threats, and much higher oil prices), but maintaining a policy that does not force Iraqi leaders to act in ways that give that effort a chance to succeed is equally irresponsible, if not more so, since it only delays the inevitable all-out civil war and wastes American lives and resources in the meantime. It seems that both parties are too committed to political posturing to come to agreement on the policy I am suggesting.
"the keys to any semblance of success in Iraq (i.e., at least the avoidance of complete catastrophe for Iraqis and American interests) are political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis"
Even forgetting the non-sectarian & secular state clause, it would seem that this definition of victory is not possible. The bloody rivalry set up is ready to last 50 years or more, whether The US stays or goes.
Regional stability - hmmmm. Actuatly Saddam looked like a safe and coerceable preferrence. Surely by now, it must be clear to all that Iraq is a failed venture - It's not "how can it be won" but " how and we best contain consequences to locality.
I'm non-partizan on party politics, but surely, no-one thinks Iraq is actually beginning to "work itself out" ...
...and stopping attacks on the authority, which would be the Iraqi military and police.
It's a tough battle that every day seems more unattainable. Today 85 innocent Iraqis were killed or found massacred as a result of sectarian violence.
I hope something is done to end this bloodshed.
which indicate every day it's more unattainable?
Also, do you include AQ as part of the sectarian violence? Just asking because it appears they are doing most of the killing.
Furthermore, since our forces are keeping more violence from happening, I suppose you will agree our presence is necessary.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
You assert without support that Al Qaeda seems to be responsible for most of the killing even though the last NIE tells you that most of the killing is the result of sectarian violence. The link that I provided also states that Sunni and Al Qaeda are fighting each other in Al Anbar, and that the Shia militia is on the move again. How does this make you believe that Al Qaeda is responsible for most the damage?
And it seems more unatainable because the recent surge of thousands of soldiers was supposed to make things better. Violence is supposed to be dwindling, yet since February, which was a month in which sectarian violence was low, we are back at the chaos existing before the surge.
... but they are clearly responsible for most of it.
The basic mechanism of sectarian violence is clear. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQIZ) attacks Shia civilian and religious targets. After enough suicide bombers in market places, the Shia militia get fed up and retaliate against Sunni civilians. Sunni insurgent groups retaliate in turn. In a tribal society where revenge is mandatory, this fuels a self-sustaining cycle of violence. Every time the cycle starts to spin down, Al Qaeda stokes the furnace with a few more suicide bombs.
The media has done a terrible job explaining this basic mechanism. As a result, the US people do not comprehend exactly what we are up against. We captured documents from Abu Musab al Zarqawi 3 years ago laying out this basic strategy. They have unwaveringly executed it since then.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
Knowing full well this is probably an exercise in futility.
A few brief points from my experience;
- This is not KOS. If you make an assertion be prepared to back it up with facts. Various statements here have been proven fallacious. Non sequitors, distractive straw men and other assorted attempts to not directly respond will probably get you labeled as a troll, but I suspect you already know that. (exempli gratia – if you say Amanda made a false statement, it helps to be fairly sure your armed with facts or say if you want to assert that the battle in Iraq is more unattainable each day it may help to be acquainted with sundry statistics such as those coming from CENTCOM)
- People such as Streiff and ED54 have probably forgotten more about the military than most will ever know. You can pretty much bank on their responses as almost beyond repudiation and based on fact or experience. You choice, but I would tread real carefully less the flame thrower may come out
- If you’re not deep in facts, you may want to lurk or ask questions; not embarrass yourself. There is generally enough information that a Fifth grader could keyword search Google and find the information being discussed. If you are looking for folks to provide links, it may be better for you to find a gaming discussion forum or read back issues of “Surfing Today”. Furthermore, if you think a few hundred pages of information can be read and digested in an hour, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously
- Last suggestion. DOn't hijack the threads with this nonsense. The chains are longer this day in the kinder, gentler version of RS. However, do not mistake kindness for weakness; if you are a constant curmudgeon it appears they will still flame your account
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
"that puts the Iraq War into the context of an overall Mideast policy."
I'm sorry, but did Gen Johns simply read the talking points Markos or Jane handed him?
He may not have read (or, more likely, can't be bothered to read) The Plan For Victory In Iraq. A few points:
1) Here is what the Plan has to say about the importance of the Iraq War in the greater context of the Middle East:
Failure is Not an Option:
• Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
• Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region – a historic opportunity lost.
• The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
2) I'll admit, the Plan is not a detailed treatise on exactly how a peaceful and friendly Iraq will fit into a grand Bush policy for the Mideast. (Perhaps General Johns imagines American presidents to be viceroys, whose mission is to develop grand plans for the futures of the lands in their empire.) But, it does discuss in great detail the threat to American security interests, and those of our allies, if Iraq becomes a failed state.
Hey, I thought generals were supposed to care about that sort of thing. Silly me...
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Gen. Petraeus is commanding troops in a war while these kooks act like bookends to Ried. And they have the nerve to call him a prop!