From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Crocker, the top U.S. diplomat, described progress as fragile and reversible. They asked for patience and a suspension of troop withdrawals that will leave 10,000 more American soldiers in Iraq through the end of the Bush presidency than before the surge of 30,000 was announced more than a year ago.
They will not be removing all of the additional troops by this summer, but will be leaving one third of them in country. Apparently the surge has not produced the stability that the administration wants us to think it has.
Perhaps the most appalling comment General Petraeus made was not specifically about the surge, but about the overall disaster that the war has been.
Warner of Virginia pressed Petraeus to answer whether the war has made the United States more secure.
"I've thought more than a bit about that, senator, since September," Petraeus replied, referring to the last time he testified before the congressional committees. The question is "perhaps best answered by folks with a broader view and ultimately will have to be answered by history."
The top commander of the war in Iraq can't tell us that it has made us more secure. Instead, he has decided to follow Bush down the path of dubious waffling and declare that only "history" will determine if the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives have been well spent. Perhaps the follow-up question should have been, "Then what the hell are we doing there?"
Petraeus also said, as quoted in the Daily News:
We haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel. The champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.
Five years. Five long years since the toppling of Saddam's regime. How close are we to any sort of end to the occupation? We can't even see the light at the end of the tunnel. The surge has been declared a success by the conservative media and yet "we haven't turned any corners."
So what now? Staying the course has failed. Surging the troops has failed. It's time to come up with a concrete plan for withdrawal.
6 comments:
You had me at San Francisco...Progress has been made is failure?? :)N
Hey, Nikki. The general's claims of progress notwithstanding, how much closer are we to getting out of Iraq, compared to a year ago? How much closer are the various factions within the Iraqi government to reaching consensus on anything? Maintaining a war without end is not progress, imo.
And what's wrong with San Francisco? :)
He didn't sound like there was no end in sight...that is why I thought Obama's question was so good...can we lower the bar a little... is a valid question and perhaps if the Iraqis start to pay for their own rebuilding then it will be quicker because they have an invested interest. I think these were valid and important points made by the dems.
San Franciso is not a city that is condusive to a nice (and naughty) conservative mormon girl...that is the nicest way I can think of to put it. you say conservative bias I say liberal bias. Perception is everything!! :)N
One can understand why the general wouldn't want to sound overy confident, as anything can happen in this world. If anything is humbling, it's war. And we should stay in it until we win. What ever happened to the idea of winning?
Freadom: I don't see how we can win the Iraq war. The conservative wet dream of a democratic state is not going to happen. Would the US allow Moqtada al Sadr to gain power, for the sadrists to become the majority party? What if the Iraqi parliament voted to have all US troops leave? Would we? I don't think so. Our goals in Iraq are based upon our own interests, not those of the Iraqis. Because of that, we cannot win.
But since you ask what happened to the idea of winning, I would ask what happened to the idea of not violating international law? What happened to not thumbing our nose at the Geneva conventions? What happened to not invading a country that posed no threat to us? What happened to the concept of not lying and doctoring intelligence to justify an unjustifiable invasion?
can I just comment on "wet dream"...LOL seriously I am using that one! But I am going to pose a question, what again is the purpose of Bush lying? what is his motive, no one will answer that question, what does he gain and do you really think he is that evil, I am sorry I don't een think Ted kennedy is that evil and I think he is a scumbag. :)N
Post a Comment