Thread: President's plan pilloried for poor performance

Bush gets mounting reports of Iraq woes
By ROBERT BURNS and PAULINE JELINEK,
Associated Press Writers 40 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Awaiting a visit Friday by President Bush to discuss the war, the Pentagon defended its efforts to rid the Iraqi national police of sectarian bias and corruption, even as an independent review found the force too tainted to continue.

In a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a secure conference room dubbed "the Tank," Bush was expected to hear deep concerns from leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines about strains that are building on the force — and on troops' families — as a result of lengthy and repeated tours in Iraq.

In a fresh sign of U.S. frustration with the Iraqi government in Baghdad, a senior U.S. commander said in an Associated Press interview that he is aggravated by the slow pace of action by Iraq's central government to ensure that its security forces are properly led, supplied and equipped on the battlefield.

"I have not seen any improvement really in the year I've been here in that regard," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq. He said the Iraqi army is doing "pretty well" in fighting the insurgency alongside U.S. troops, but they are not getting sufficient support from Baghdad.

"Progress is slower than it should be inside the (Iraqi) army in particular" with regard to proper support and direction from national leaders in Baghdad, Mixon said by telephone, adding that the problem lies in a combination of bureaucratic obstacles and sectarian-based decisions about army leadership appointments.

Two independent assessments of the situation in Iraq already have been previewed this week — the latest finding that Iraq's national police are so corrupt and influenced by sectarianism that the corps should be scrapped and replaced with a smaller force.
Bush gets mounting reports of Iraq woes - Yahoo! News

Given these independent reviews, it would appear that General Patreus has his work cut out for him. If he reports overwhelming success his report will be subject to refutation and rejection by Congress. If he reports moderate success it will be less than the victory that President Bush was hoping for from the surge. Either way, the General appears caught between Iraq and a hard place.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Bush gets mounting reports of Iraq woes
By ROBERT BURNS and PAULINE JELINEK,
Associated Press Writers 40 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Awaiting a visit Friday by President Bush to discuss the war, the Pentagon defended its efforts to rid the Iraqi national police of sectarian bias and corruption, even as an independent review found the force too tainted to continue.

In a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a secure conference room dubbed "the Tank," Bush was expected to hear deep concerns from leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines about strains that are building on the force — and on troops' families — as a result of lengthy and repeated tours in Iraq.

In a fresh sign of U.S. frustration with the Iraqi government in Baghdad, a senior U.S. commander said in an Associated Press interview that he is aggravated by the slow pace of action by Iraq's central government to ensure that its security forces are properly led, supplied and equipped on the battlefield.

"I have not seen any improvement really in the year I've been here in that regard," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq. He said the Iraqi army is doing "pretty well" in fighting the insurgency alongside U.S. troops, but they are not getting sufficient support from Baghdad.

"Progress is slower than it should be inside the (Iraqi) army in particular" with regard to proper support and direction from national leaders in Baghdad, Mixon said by telephone, adding that the problem lies in a combination of bureaucratic obstacles and sectarian-based decisions about army leadership appointments.

Two independent assessments of the situation in Iraq already have been previewed this week — the latest finding that Iraq's national police are so corrupt and influenced by sectarianism that the corps should be scrapped and replaced with a smaller force.
Bush gets mounting reports of Iraq woes - Yahoo! News

Given these independent reviews, it would appear that General Patreus has his work cut out for him. If he reports overwhelming success his report will be subject to refutation and rejection by Congress. If he reports moderate success it will be less than the victory that President Bush was hoping for from the surge. Either way, the General appears caught between Iraq and a hard place.

Considering that Iraqi civilian deaths have DOUBLED despite the so called "surge" I'd say most claims of progress from this whitehouse are flat out lies:

http://www.politicalhotwire.com/1247...ite-troop.html

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Considering that Iraqi civilian deaths have DOUBLED despite the so called "surge" I'd say most claims of progress from this whitehouse are flat out lies:

http://www.politicalhotwire.com/1247...ite-troop.html

Okay, but let's take a step back (for a minute). I did not support the idea of a "surge" because it failed to acknowledge a fundamental truth: You can't GIVE people their government, and that's what we're trying to do. They have to want it, and want it so badly that THEY are willing to root out and suppress the inusrgents. Them, NOT US. Their government has to be willing to work to resolve the issues that factionalize them- and it appears that they are NOT.

All that being said, once the "surge" was in place I have argued that we should let General Patreus have his shot. The question is, now, can we actually be impartial about this issue? Will anyone actually listen to what the General has to say, because it doesn't meet the expectations of Congress, and disappoints the President? Will the report, itself have ANY probative value, or will we just jump from one poorly conceived partisan agenda to its polar opposite?

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Okay, but let's take a step back (for a minute). I did not support the idea of a "surge" because it failed to acknowledge a fundamental truth: You can't GIVE people their government, and that's what we're trying to do. They have to want it, and want it so badly that THEY are willing to root out and suppress the inusrgents. Them, NOT US. Their government has to be willing to work to resolve the issues that factionalize them- and it appears that they are NOT.

All that being said, once the "surge" was in place I have argued that we should let General Patreus have his shot. The question is, now, can we actually be impartial about this issue? Will anyone actually listen to what the General has to say, because it doesn't meet the expectations of Congress, and disappoints the President? Will the report, itself have ANY probative value, or will we just jump from one poorly conceived partisan agenda to its polar opposite?

I have no faith that the report will be anything but administration spin with Patraeus' more respected face on it. It will say things are getting better. It will say they just need some more time.

It will not acknowledge that Iraqi civilian deaths have actually doubled. It will mention the failure to make political progress but put the best spin they can think of on the situation and of course ask for more time and more soldiers to die.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

I have no faith that the report will be anything but administration spin with Patraeus' more respected face on it. It will say things are getting better. It will say they just need some more time.

It will not acknowledge that Iraqi civilian deaths have actually doubled. It will mention the failure to make political progress but put the best spin they can think of on the situation and of course ask for more time and more soldiers to die.

Let's assume all this is true. Now what? Congress isn't going to grow a pair, and the President isn't going to change his plans.

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Considering that Iraqi civilian deaths have DOUBLED despite the so called "surge" I'd say most claims of progress from this whitehouse are flat out lies:

http://www.politicalhotwire.com/1247...ite-troop.html

You might be right, but how are we defining civilian here?

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Let's assume all this is true. Now what? Congress isn't going to grow a pair, and the President isn't going to change his plans.

Now we wait till 1/20/09.

Although General Peter Pace said today that the military cannot sustain the surge past spring '08. So we'll see a drawdown if only because we don't have enough troops. And god forbid we need our military elsewhere. Right now, we don't have a military available for ANYTHING else.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Let's assume all this is true. Now what? Congress isn't going to grow a pair, and the President isn't going to change his plans.

Now we get more of the same impotent leadership. Bush has no support. But, will keep doing just what he wants until the day he leaves office.

The hard left keeps pushing Dems in Congress to do something. But, they can't do shit because they haven't the numbers. So, they keep ignoring that pressure and hoping that it does not hurt them come the next election. Which it won't as no one is going to vote Republican to end the war.

Come the next election however, Republicans slip even further as moderate Republicans and conservative dems abandon them. In the end, the war continues at least until we have a new president.

If that new president is a dem, they MAY end the war. If it is a Republican, we get more war unless the Republicans lose enough seats that they become veto proof.

All the while peole keep dying for no good reason.

Did I mention how much I hate this disasterous fucking war by the way?

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

You might be right, but how are we defining civilian here?

Iraqi citizen who is not part of their military.

Those numbers are facts. The surge has not brought about the security or political gains that were promised. However, it has greatly increased US troops deaths. It is an utter failure. This whole war is an utter failure.