Home | Community | Message Board


Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Ranch Dressing

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineSquattingMarmot
Inquiring Mind
Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 418
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq
    #4745648 - 10/02/05 05:22 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

U.S. Generals Now See Virtues of a Smaller Troop Presence in Iraq

By Mark Mazzetti
Times Staff Writer

October 1, 2005

WASHINGTON ? The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.

American officials backtracked on their expectations of what the U.S. military can achieve in Iraq months ago. But this week's comments showed that commanders believe a large U.S. force in Iraq might in fact be creating problems as well as solutions.

"This has been hinted at before, but it's a big shift for them to be saying that publicly," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in Washington. "It means they recognize that there is a cost to staying just as there is a benefit to staying. And this has not really been factored in as a central part of the strategy before."

The generals' comments reflect an evolving outlook that senior military officials and even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have articulated in recent months. The battle against Iraqi insurgents will not be won by the U.S. military, they have said, and the insurgency will persist long after U.S. troops have left.

"If [the insurgency] does go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever ? it is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq," Rumsfeld said in June.

"They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time. They are ultimately going to be the ones who win over that insurgency."

The generals' words also represent a less ambitious definition of military success than what President Bush has put forth in recent statements.

At his ranch near Crawford, Texas, in August, Bush said that "when the mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will come home."

More recently, Bush has offered a more nuanced view of success, emphasizing the importance of training Iraqi troops as part of the U.S. mission to defeat the insurgents.

But the ground commanders told Congress on Thursday that the number of Iraqi units at the highest state of combat readiness had dropped from three to one since June. And they pointed this week to problems caused by the presence of U.S. troops.

During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that troop reductions were necessary to "take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force."

A smaller U.S. presence could alleviate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested.

The same approach may prove helpful across the Middle East, commanders said. The Central Command's Gen. John P. Abizaid, who supervises all U.S. troops in the region, said the broader fight against Islamic extremism required the United States to "reduce our military footprint" across the region and push governments in the Middle East to fight the extremists themselves.

Although Abizaid advocates a troop reduction, he does not favor total withdrawal. He envisions such an exit preceded by the establishment of stable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and accompanied by an assured flow of oil and enhanced regional security networks.

A smaller U.S. contingent would also encourage greater self-reliance among Iraqi forces in the face of an insurgency that could last a decade or more. A reduction in American forces is essential to push more Iraqi troops onto the front lines, Casey said.

"This is about dependency," he said.

Even among themselves, military officials have differed in their assessments of the number of Iraqi troops ready to take on the mission.

During a briefing Friday, Casey was asked whether there were enough Iraqi troops in Tall Afar to permanently keep insurgents out of the western town, where U.S. and government forces recently launched a major offensive.

"We do have enough force," Casey said.

Yet the U.S. commander of the Tall Afar operation, Army Col. H.R. McMaster, said Sept. 13 that it would be some time before the town had enough trained Iraqi troops to keep insurgents from filtering back.

"Is there enough force here right now to secure this area permanently? No. Are there opportunities for the enemy in other areas within our region? Yes," McMaster said.

Among Americans, support for the war continues to dwindle, as growing numbers conclude that U.S. troops should be partially or completely withdrawn. Only 32% of those surveyed for a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released last week approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, compared with 40% in August and 50% earlier this year.

The survey also showed that 59% considered it a mistake to have sent U.S. forces to Iraq, up from fewer than half during the summer. And 63% said the troops should be partially or completely withdrawn, up 10 percentage points from August. Just 21% of those surveyed believed U.S. forces would win the war, while 34% said they considered the conflict unwinnable.

Military officials and others familiar with Casey's strategy in Iraq say the U.S. plans a phased withdrawal, first pulling its troops out of the 14 provinces that commanders believe are most secure. Initially, they would maintain a presence in the predominantly Sunni provinces of central Iraq, where most of the violence is occurring and the U.S. military suffers most of its casualties.

"Withdrawing from the secure areas would be a good signal to the rest of Iraqis that this is coming for them eventually," said a Central Command advisor who has traveled frequently to Iraq and requested anonymity because he was speaking about a classified strategy.

The advisor said that U.S. commanders were concerned that Iraqi troops could become too dependent on the American presence, but that there were no plans for a hasty pullout from the violent provinces before the Iraqis were up to the task.

"There's a line between what constitutes casual dependence and what constitutes not being ready to fight," he said. "For the most part, [Iraqi troops] are not ready to do the job. And stepping back is just going to leave them vulnerable to a battle-tested army of insurgents."


Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times


--------------------
"In the United States anybody can be president. Thats the problem."

"The gray-haired douche bag, Barbara Bush, has a slogan: "Encourage your child to read every day." What she should be is encouraging children to question what they read every day."

- George Carlin


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,423
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: SquattingMarmot]
    #4745775 - 10/02/05 06:10 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

:lol:

Shit, they finally figured this out?


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: trendal]
    #4745812 - 10/02/05 06:22 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

:lol:

Shit, they finally figured this out?




You strategized that a smaller infantry force would better handle the insurgents?

At what point should we have downsized the amount of soldiers?


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 10 days
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: looner2]
    #4745872 - 10/02/05 06:44 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

looner2 said:
Quote:

trendal said:
During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

:lol:

Shit, they finally figured this out?





You strategized that a smaller infantry force would better handle the insurgents?

At what point should we have downsized the amount of soldiers?



Believe it or not, he's referring to the quote he included in his post -- sacred cows die hard, eh?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe14thWarrior
The Shootist

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 491
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: SquattingMarmot]
    #4745994 - 10/02/05 07:18 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

I've always thought that fighting insurgents with uniformed infantrymen is foolish. We need intelligence operatives over there that can find out who the ne'er-do-wells are, kick in their door at night and mow them down. Or put a chunk of C4 under their gas tank, or whatever methods would work best. We need to have a LARGE, or a few large, training camps that are US guarded and the actual US military should never leave there. Then we'd have special forces, CIA "wet operations", and other groups like that out finding the bad guys and dealing with them.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,423
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: looner2]
    #4746060 - 10/02/05 07:34 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
Believe it or not, he's referring to the quote he included in his post




--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: trendal]
    #4749504 - 10/03/05 03:53 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

Yea, we should have had enough regular troops to protect the bases and then just have large numbers of special forces to wipe out the insurgents with guerilla tactics.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,423
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: downforpot]
    #4750052 - 10/03/05 05:46 PM (11 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
Yea, we should have had enough regular troops to protect the bases and then just have large numbers of special forces to wipe out the insurgents with guerilla tactics.




I suspect if they had performed it this way since 'mission accomplished' there never would have been a large or organized insurgency. Fight guerrillas with guerrilla tactics...not A-10s and Apaches, those will always result in too much civilian damage. That collateral damage has fueled the insurgency so without it there wouldn't have been as large of one. Special forces would have been able to pinpoint the insurgents themselves.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Generals: GIs 'Part of Problem' in Iraq [Re: trendal]
    #4766527 - 10/07/05 12:17 AM (11 years, 4 months ago)

Yea, the generals wouldn't even have to prepare huge offensives. Just tell special forces to wipe them out and do anything you want. Those mofos are resourcefull and smart as fuck, they could prolly have ended this by now if they were let free to roam around without any rules.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Ranch Dressing

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How GIs in Iraq are Used to Spread Bush Propaganda Zahid 343 0 10/17/03 02:13 AM
by Zahid
* An Open Letter to GIs in Iraq: Hold on to your Humanity
( 1 2 all )
FrenchSocialist 1,755 20 08/14/06 07:01 AM
by beatnicknick
* American Soldiers Desperate to Leave Iraq
( 1 2 all )
SquattingMarmot 1,598 31 10/10/03 04:52 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* NYC Cabbie Who Runs Anti-American Islamic Web Site Mocks GI Deaths, Calls for Shariah Law
( 1 2 all )
Luddite 2,251 22 04/07/08 10:47 PM
by dill705
* Iraq in civil war, says former PM bukkake 364 1 03/20/06 04:19 AM
by Alex213
* 'Debating' the Iraq War
( 1 2 all )
Ancalagon 2,986 23 06/20/06 12:51 PM
by zappaisgod
* Interesting Read on Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there vintage_gonzo 476 0 07/07/07 12:43 PM
by vintage_gonzo
* Halliburton sent contaminated water to GIs 1stimer 865 10 01/24/06 12:26 PM
by lonestar2004

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
687 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.052 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 14 queries.