The great Iraq debate has begun...

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's a better link John, at least for those who don't feel like getting their hipwaders on in order to click on talkingpointsmemo.com:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pub...ony-Slides20070910.pdf

Damn "nebulous" charts.

Yep, no plan.

lol

To be fair, TLC, it does appear that the only "plan" in those charts is one where we all wait until next March to make any further decisions regarding the surge and our presence in Iraq.

That said, I'm personally fine with that because I do believe the surge is working. But, I don't think the anti-war folks will accept it as The Plan, because it certainly is a bit short on the details they would need in order to be happy or satisfied.

As a troop, I'm confident that my commanders will adapt and adjust fire, as necessary, to ultimately succeed in Iraq. That's probably not the case for our friends on the Left...

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's a better link John, at least for those who don't feel like getting their hipwaders on in order to click on talkingpointsmemo.com:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pub...ony-Slides20070910.pdf

Damn "nebulous" charts.

Yep, no plan.

lol

To be fair, TLC, it does appear that the only "plan" in those charts is one where we all wait until next March to make any further decisions regarding the surge and our presence in Iraq.

That said, I'm personally fine with that because I do believe the surge is working. But, I don't think the anti-war folks will accept it as The Plan, because it certainly is a bit short on the details they would need in order to be happy or satisfied.

As a troop, I'm confident that my commanders will adapt and adjust fire, as necessary, to ultimately succeed in Iraq. That's probably not the case for our friends on the Left...

hmmm....... and what do you believe "succeeding" in Iraq means?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's a better link John, at least for those who don't feel like getting their hipwaders on in order to click on talkingpointsmemo.com:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pub...ony-Slides20070910.pdf

Damn "nebulous" charts.

Yep, no plan.

lol

To be fair, TLC, it does appear that the only "plan" in those charts is one where we all wait until next March to make any further decisions regarding the surge and our presence in Iraq.

That said, I'm personally fine with that because I do believe the surge is working. But, I don't think the anti-war folks will accept it as The Plan, because it certainly is a bit short on the details they would need in order to be happy or satisfied.

As a troop, I'm confident that my commanders will adapt and adjust fire, as necessary, to ultimately succeed in Iraq. That's probably not the case for our friends on the Left...

I've already stated previously that the plan only provides dates until March and then another evaluation is required. I'm not sure why that would matter though? Jhhnn never made his claim about "No Exit Strategy" being contingent on having a full spectrum of dates to the very end. He simply made the matter of fact statement that we have no such plan at all. Obviously there is a plan. Whether he or others may find it wanting is not really the issue.

Nor do I have any doubt that there are far more details to this plan than a simple bar chart presents. Force reductions cannot be estimated without having a reason or benchmark for the reductions in the first place, unless someone wants to claim that Petraeus is BSing everyone and just making up these figures. Seeing Patraeus testify for the last 2 days, he doesn't seem at all like a BSer.

Edit: Crocker, otoh... He may not be a BSer, but I would rather push nails through my eyeballs than listen to that guy talk.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here's a better link John, at least for those who don't feel like getting their hipwaders on in order to click on talkingpointsmemo.com:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pub...ony-Slides20070910.pdf

Damn "nebulous" charts.

Yep, no plan.

lol

To be fair, TLC, it does appear that the only "plan" in those charts is one where we all wait until next March to make any further decisions regarding the surge and our presence in Iraq.

That said, I'm personally fine with that because I do believe the surge is working. But, I don't think the anti-war folks will accept it as The Plan, because it certainly is a bit short on the details they would need in order to be happy or satisfied.

As a troop, I'm confident that my commanders will adapt and adjust fire, as necessary, to ultimately succeed in Iraq. That's probably not the case for our friends on the Left...

hmmm....... and what do you believe "succeeding" in Iraq means?

1) a tolerable level of crime that is policed, fairly and justly, by Iraqis themselves.
2) an elected, stable, and representative government, that is capable of holding civil debates and passing fair/humane laws.
3) an Iraqi military that is somewhat capable of fending off outside influences and terrorists, with very little active operational support from the U.S.
4) an Iraq wherein the economy grows steadily, and oil revenues are divided equally.
5) an Iraq wherein the infrastructure is at least 80% functional (water,power, etc).
6) an Iraq wherein every child, male and female, receives a decent education.
7) an Iraq that can maintain all of the above with less than 15,000 U.S. troops on their soil.

my prediction: We may succeed around the year 2015... at the earliest!

I'll be helping out, with these goals in mind, for as long as it takes, or until I'm dead. That's my commitment...what's yours? (<--- not aimed at anyone specifically)

 

[Lemon law]

I do not per say quibble with the palehorse74 definitions of success but I do quibble with the conclusions of-------------my prediction: We may succeed around the year 2015... at the earliest!

I'll be helping out, with these goals in mind, for as long as it takes, or until I'm dead. That's my commitment...what's yours? (<--- not aimed at anyone specifically)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My prediction palehorse74 is that the American people will not wait until 2015. Either some dramatic progress that in turn will require much smarter strategy is going to have to be shown and by say 2010, or its far more likely America will totally give up in disgust regarding Iraq.

Please note my prediction is based on my gut opinion which may or may not prove to be what happens. Nor does my gut feelings make any statements on the wisdom of a withdrawal. And in fact I think abrupt withdrawal will be more dangerous.

But the problem is we seldom get wise public policy. Getting into Iraq sure has not proved wise or right. Why should we assume wisdom will guide us in getting out?

So I have one recommendation to you if you wish to be an American patriot. Be big part of implementing a much much much smarter strategy than what we have now. And realize you have to show dramatic results real real quick. Or expect to get called home well short of starting to accomplish your goals. And watch the world get more dangerous in the process.

You may have the resolve to stick it out----I very much doubt the American people do!

 

[Jhhnn]

According to the chart, TLC, there will be ~50K US troops in Iraq at the end of whatever timeframe he's talking about... decades, maybe, at least according to Palehorse's POV...

That's not an exit strategy, at all, no matter what kind of spin is put on it. It's stay the course, spreading and maintaining US hegemony by military means.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Maybe it's because we're still working on that exit strategy for Germany and Japan, Jhhnn? After all we still have ten's of thousands of troops in those countries so I guess we never really had an exit strategy for them either.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe it's because we're still working on that exit strategy for Germany and Japan, Jhhnn? After all we still have ten's of thousands of troops in those countries so I guess we never really had an exit strategy for them either.

Blood and treasure TLC, blood and treasure is the means by which military exit strategies are measured. How much blood is it costing our young people in Germany as compared to Iraq? How much Treasure?

You have failed to make your case that we have an exit strategy for Iraq.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe it's because we're still working on that exit strategy for Germany and Japan, Jhhnn? After all we still have ten's of thousands of troops in those countries so I guess we never really had an exit strategy for them either.

Blood and treasure TLC, blood and treasure is the means by which military exit strategies are measured. How much blood is it costing our young people in Germany as compared to Iraq? How much Treasure?

You have failed to make your case that we have an exit strategy for Iraq.

Sometimes "strategic value" is all the treasure we need in return... ie. keeping troops in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea.

Iraq has a higher strategic value than the other two combined.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe it's because we're still working on that exit strategy for Germany and Japan, Jhhnn? After all we still have ten's of thousands of troops in those countries so I guess we never really had an exit strategy for them either.

Blood and treasure TLC, blood and treasure is the means by which military exit strategies are measured. How much blood is it costing our young people in Germany as compared to Iraq? How much Treasure?

You have failed to make your case that we have an exit strategy for Iraq.

Sometimes "strategic value" is all the treasure we need in return... ie. keeping troops in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea.

Iraq has a higher strategic value than the other two combined.

Iraq's costing us how much in BLOOD and Treasure.... and for what? Patraeus doesn't even think it's making us safer??

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe it's because we're still working on that exit strategy for Germany and Japan, Jhhnn? After all we still have ten's of thousands of troops in those countries so I guess we never really had an exit strategy for them either.

Blood and treasure TLC, blood and treasure is the means by which military exit strategies are measured. How much blood is it costing our young people in Germany as compared to Iraq? How much Treasure?

You have failed to make your case that we have an exit strategy for Iraq.

No I haven't failed, your assessment has. The basic "strategy" is there in full color for everyone to see. Not having dates doesn't make it any less of a "strategy."

What you are seeking is an Exit PLAN. A plan would have projected dates for completion of the tasks at hand and would tie into the strategy. A strategy defines HOW. A plan defines WHEN. See the difference?

I don't and never have claimed that we have an Exit Plan.

You may now commence with the cry of "FOUL! You're arguing semantics."

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Iraq's costing us how much in BLOOD and Treasure.... and for what? Patraeus doesn't even think it's making us safer??

actually, Patraeus' response was that he hadn't given the question any thought while he remained entirely focused on the mission at hand.

So claiming that he answered one way or the other is just plain wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Iraq's costing us how much in BLOOD and Treasure.... and for what? Patraeus doesn't even think it's making us safer??

actually, Patraeus' response was that he hadn't given the question any thought while he remained entirely focused on the mission at hand.

So claiming that he answered one way or the other is just plain wrong.

Their spin on that remark of Petraeus is mind-boggling. It demonstrates completely irrational thinking but somehow it's people like you and me who are the ones "out of touch with reality" in this forum.

Astounding. Just astounding.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Proof we are "out of troops?"

The incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

He states that the surge cannot be sustained beyond April of next year without changes in our "force structure". That means adding more troops to the Army/Marines (where do we get those?) or lengthening deployments to 18 months, which they have already said is off the table due to wear and tear on the units/training requirements/etc.

Thus, we are out of troops.

In addition we are in no way working on an exit strategy for Germany or Japan. The definition of exit strategy necessitates an unfavorable situation from which we must extricate ourselves. The situation in Germany and Japan is neither by any reasonable estimate. Again though, you are taking as an exit strategy goals so nebulous that it is simply impossible to take them seriously.

The only positive thing I can see out of this is that things are getting progressively tougher for the Bush administration to push for more Friedman units. They won another few months back in June at the cost of blowing their last chance with the surge. Now the surge has failed to provide for any improvement in the political situation which was both its goal, and the widely accepted requirement for success in Iraq. The largely surge unrelated developments in Anbar provided enough good news however that they will get another 6 months of funding.

What's good about this is that the general who everyone is holding up as the Foremost Expert On Our Plan In Iraq has said that he would have difficulty justifying our continued level of deployment if things have not improved by March. I think most rational people at this point know that it is unlikely that they will have improved by then... and so I'll be glad to see either the actual support for troop reductions, or the even more hysterical flailing by the war enablers. I suspect both will be forthcoming.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe it's because we're still working on that exit strategy for Germany and Japan, Jhhnn? After all we still have ten's of thousands of troops in those countries so I guess we never really had an exit strategy for them either.

Blood and treasure TLC, blood and treasure is the means by which military exit strategies are measured. How much blood is it costing our young people in Germany as compared to Iraq? How much Treasure?

You have failed to make your case that we have an exit strategy for Iraq.

No I haven't failed, your assessment has. The basic "strategy" is there in full color for everyone to see. Not having dates doesn't make it any less of a "strategy."

What you are seeking is an Exit PLAN. A plan would have projected dates for completion of the tasks at hand and would tie into the strategy. A strategy defines HOW. A plan defines WHEN. See the difference?

I don't and never have claimed that we have an Exit Plan.

You may now commence with the cry of "FOUL! You're arguing semantics."

strategy: a plan, method, or series of maneuvers for achieving a specific goal or result.

Please point me to what has changed, substanially or otherwise in our plan or goal, or even define those goals? I have asked for you to do this before but instead you want to play your little games and talk around circles. Sorry, but I'm smarter then that and the more we talk the more I'm convinced that I'm smarter then you.

You may think you are convincing somebody but you are only fooling yourself if you really believe anything has changed.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Iraq's costing us how much in BLOOD and Treasure.... and for what? Patraeus doesn't even think it's making us safer??

actually, Patraeus' response was that he hadn't given the question any thought while he remained entirely focused on the mission at hand.

So claiming that he answered one way or the other is just plain wrong.

If you look at the question he was asked if he thought following HIS reccomendations for Iraq would make America safer and he couldn't say he thought it did. If you believe his song and dance act that he hadn't give it any thought then your dumber then I thought.

He's the general in charge, it's his fricking job to think about those things. DUHHH! It's what he's paid to do for cryin out loud. If he doesn't believe in his own plan enough to say yes then don't expect the American public to have any confidence in it.

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Well what do you know, for all the claims of making us safer nobody seems to be willing to put their neck on the chopping block. Now go ahead and play your little Defeatocrats game with each other, but there is the truth. We can extend this with no exit strategy for years, even decades and the general in charge can't say it's making us safer???

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Astounding. Just astounding.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Iraq's costing us how much in BLOOD and Treasure.... and for what? Patraeus doesn't even think it's making us safer??

actually, Patraeus' response was that he hadn't given the question any thought while he remained entirely focused on the mission at hand.

So claiming that he answered one way or the other is just plain wrong.

If you look at the question he was asked if he thought following HIS reccomendations for Iraq would make America safer and he couldn't say he thought it did. If you believe his song and dance act that he hadn't give it any thought then your dumber then I thought.

He's the general in charge, it's his fricking job to think about those things. DUHHH! It's what he's paid to do for cryin out loud. If he doesn't believe in his own plan enough to say yes then don't expect the American public to have any confidence in it.

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Well what do you know, for all the claims of making us safer nobody seems to be willing to put their neck on the chopping block. Now go ahead and play your little Defeatocrats game with each other, but there is the truth. We can extend this with no exit strategy for years, even decades and the general in charge can't say it's making us safer???

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Astounding. Just astounding.

spin much?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Proof we are "out of troops?"

The incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

He states that the surge cannot be sustained beyond April of next year without changes in our "force structure". That means adding more troops to the Army/Marines (where do we get those?) or lengthening deployments to 18 months, which they have already said is off the table due to wear and tear on the units/training requirements/etc.

Thus, we are out of troops.

In addition we are in no way working on an exit strategy for Germany or Japan. The definition of exit strategy necessitates an unfavorable situation from which we must extricate ourselves. The situation in Germany and Japan is neither by any reasonable estimate. Again though, you are taking as an exit strategy goals so nebulous that it is simply impossible to take them seriously.

The only positive thing I can see out of this is that things are getting progressively tougher for the Bush administration to push for more Friedman units. They won another few months back in June at the cost of blowing their last chance with the surge. Now the surge has failed to provide for any improvement in the political situation which was both its goal, and the widely accepted requirement for success in Iraq. The largely surge unrelated developments in Anbar provided enough good news however that they will get another 6 months of funding.

What's good about this is that the general who everyone is holding up as the Foremost Expert On Our Plan In Iraq has said that he would have difficulty justifying our continued level of deployment if things have not improved by March. I think most rational people at this point know that it is unlikely that they will have improved by then... and so I'll be glad to see either the actual support for troop reductions, or the even more hysterical flailing by the war enablers. I suspect both will be forthcoming.

The comment allegedly made by Adm. Mullen is a paraphrase by the reporter writing the story. I've serached through various archives in an attempt to find out precisely what he stated. I'm not saying that the journalist is reporting BS or making stuff up, but I'd like to know the exact statement made by Mullen.

btw, here's his opening statement, if you're interested:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/c..._Confirmation_0731.pdf

 

[Lemon law]

Rather than state it as a fact, I will state what I am saying as my opinion.

Basically the Patraeus report is a draw with both sides coming out even more convinced they are right. The report will probably buy GWB&co. funding well short of next spring with Thanksgiving or Xmas more likely. Especially given the 11/2008 elections will be getting ever closer, unless the occupation shows dramatically better results, the pressure to get out of Iraq will become very compelling. Which basically tells GWB&co and our military that they had better really start thinking out of the box because their strategy is too slow to retain support.

And like in Vietnam, the military will unfairly catch the blame and spend a decade or two in the dog house. If our military leaders don't want that outcome, they are going to have to do something to change it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Iraq's costing us how much in BLOOD and Treasure.... and for what? Patraeus doesn't even think it's making us safer??

actually, Patraeus' response was that he hadn't given the question any thought while he remained entirely focused on the mission at hand.

So claiming that he answered one way or the other is just plain wrong.

If you look at the question he was asked if he thought following HIS reccomendations for Iraq would make America safer and he couldn't say he thought it did. If you believe his song and dance act that he hadn't give it any thought then your dumber then I thought.

He's the general in charge, it's his fricking job to think about those things. DUHHH! It's what he's paid to do for cryin out loud. If he doesn't believe in his own plan enough to say yes then don't expect the American public to have any confidence in it.

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Well what do you know, for all the claims of making us safer nobody seems to be willing to put their neck on the chopping block. Now go ahead and play your little Defeatocrats game with each other, but there is the truth. We can extend this with no exit strategy for years, even decades and the general in charge can't say it's making us safer???

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Astounding. Just astounding.

spin much?

Just laying out the facts the way I see them. Patraeus's silence speaks louder then his words.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Iraq's costing us how much in BLOOD and Treasure.... and for what? Patraeus doesn't even think it's making us safer??

actually, Patraeus' response was that he hadn't given the question any thought while he remained entirely focused on the mission at hand.

So claiming that he answered one way or the other is just plain wrong.

If you look at the question he was asked if he thought following HIS reccomendations for Iraq would make America safer and he couldn't say he thought it did. If you believe his song and dance act that he hadn't give it any thought then your dumber then I thought.

He's the general in charge, it's his fricking job to think about those things. DUHHH! It's what he's paid to do for cryin out loud. If he doesn't believe in his own plan enough to say yes then don't expect the American public to have any confidence in it.

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Well what do you know, for all the claims of making us safer nobody seems to be willing to put their neck on the chopping block. Now go ahead and play your little Defeatocrats game with each other, but there is the truth. We can extend this with no exit strategy for years, even decades and the general in charge can't say it's making us safer???

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Astounding. Just astounding.

spin much?

Like a top.

 

[fskimospy]

Here is a link to a document with the entire transcript on it.

The reason it is paraphrased is because there wasn't a specific quote from it that would work in a news story. He makes it very clear numerous times throughout the testimony however that come April we will have to begin drawing down to 15 brigades (the pre surge levels) from 20 because with the current structure of 15 month deployments we cannot sustain these levels... we don't have any more troops.

He briefly raises the idea of again extending deployments beyond that level in order to keep our numbers there up, but that idea has been repeatedly shot down.

 

[1EZduzit]

No, I don't spin, it's not in my pay grade.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Here is a link to a document with the entire transcript on it.

The reason it is paraphrased is because there wasn't a specific quote from it that would work in a news story. He makes it very clear numerous times throughout the testimony however that come April we will have to begin drawing down to 15 brigades (the pre surge levels) from 20 because with the current structure of 15 month deployments we cannot sustain these levels... we don't have any more troops.

He briefly raises the idea of again extending deployments beyond that level in order to keep our numbers there up, but that idea has been repeatedly shot down.

Thanks for the link. I'll read it later when I have a bit more time.