In the past few months, conservatives such as Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have been quick to declare victory in Iraq. In November, McCain said that “we’ve succeeded militarily.” A day later, Lieberman declared that “we are winning” because “we have made progress” in “one of the most remarkable turnarounds in modern military history.”
Gen. David Petraeus, however, appeared on NBC this morning and rebutted the declarations of mission accomplished and said that he’ll need at least another Friedman Unit before he can make a judgment:
We think we won’t know that we’ve reached a turning point until we’re six months past it. We have repeatedly said that there ARE no lights at the end of the tunnel that we’re seeing. We’re certainly not dancing in the end zone or anything like that.
These six months appear to be never-ending, and are used by the right wing to constantly beg more time for the war.
TOM FRIEDMAN: It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what’s the rush? Can we let this play out, please? [NPR, 6/3/04]
DICK CHENEY: I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. [Larry King Live, 5/30/05]
JOE LIEBERMAN (I-CT): By the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops. [Washington Post, 7/7/06]
JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): If you talk to most military experts, we’re in a critical and crucial time. We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months. [Meet The Press, 11/12/06]
ZALMAY KHALILZAD: Iraq Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki "has a window of a couple months. … If the perception is that this unity government is not able to deal with this issue, then a big opportunity would have been lost. [Washington Post, 9/30/06]
Gen. DAVID PETRAEUS: The top American commander in Iraq, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday." –"Delay Decision on Cuts, General Says," [The New York Times, Sept. 10, 2007]
With timelines like these, U.S. troops might actually be stuck in Iraq for a million years.
Story Here
[tags]Iraq, War, Surge, Petraeus, Friedman Unit [/tags]
9 responses so far ↓
1
Chas
// Jan 25, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Bring the troops and they will be closely followed by Al Qaeda. Why can’t people understand that or do they just rationalize everything in their lives?
2
couchmouse
// Jan 25, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Thank you for visiting and taking the time to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome.
AlQaeda of any kind did not exist in Iraq until Bush created them there.
Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan not Iraq. “AlQaeda in Iraq” is called that because they are only loosely affiliated with AlQaeda and mostly made up of Iraqis who for some unknown reason don’t like that we invaded their country.
Pakistan and Afghanistan are where the real threat is. Our own intelligence has told us that.
U.S. Warns Of Stronger Al-Qaeda
Over 90% of the violence and attacks in Iraq are by Iraqis them selves.
3
Sam Freedoms Internet Marketing Controversy Blog
// Jan 26, 2008 at 3:20 am
Hi Couchmouse,
First of all, what little I’ve yet seen, I like your writing. It’s even-toned and readable. But I have some differences with the information presented.
In short, you’ve understandably presented your case rather than as an objective case as possible. War is not something you really can put to a timetable. It’s not one of those things that should be argued at the high-school courtyard level where people point fingers and yell, “But you said…!”
If something comes up… or happens or doesn’t happen that changes the situation, then THAT is what needs to be dealt with… and not the pacification of a bunch of angry people back home.
But anyways, you failed to mention the very same kind of behavior on the opposite side of the spectrum while mistakenly referring to McCain and Lieberman as conservatives… if anything, they’re moderates who show more ability to compromise than any politicians I know.
But what about all the liberal Democrats who run around screaming gloom and doom? Why don’t you point out that it’s not going as badly as Harry Reid made it out to be with his “We’ve lost the war” statement? Or with Dick Durban referring to the soldiers as Nazis or Pol Pot-types… or countless Democrats continually referring to a “civil war” that never manifested… Sunni fighting Shia doesn’t automatically equate to an actual civil war.
Why not mention the constant cries by people like Murtha as they refer to Iraq as another Vietnam? Why not discuss the delicacy of sending troops into the tribal regions of Pakistan? You want another Vietnam, that would be it… the mountainous regions in Waziristan are no paradise and there are ways to fight such wars that require more time and deep thinkers… not Monday morning quarterbacking from Code Pink back home.
This is why, in a way, I’ve been glad to hear the kinds of statements that you selectively quoted above. They’re the kinds of things that overly-emotional, non-analytical naysayers point to as lies and feel vindicated when, in reality, it’s the very thing that needs to be done to keep morale high in a time when a lot of people who know nothing about war are deeply disturbed and making fools of themselves because of it.
So what… another 6 months. This type of war is never going to go away. That’s what you don’t get… this one is either for forever or a very long time. It’s like managing cancer once its metastasized so, please, start speaking in terms that embolden your country rather than emboldening their enemies.
Thanks,
Sam
4
Sam Freedom
// Jan 26, 2008 at 3:24 am
ps. It might not be immediately evident but I’m perfectly aware of the military industrial complex and that it needs to be reigned in amongst other things. I’m not saying liberal Democrats are completely and totally wrong about everything but I’ve not like what I perceive as their weakening of America.
5
Carol
// Jan 27, 2008 at 9:30 am
You know I don’t see how we can ‘win’ this war. What does it even meant to win a war? Does it go by which side gets the most kills or the most deaths? I hat the whole idea of this war as I think it has nothing to do with trying to bring Democracy to Iraq and more to do with lining the pockets of the rich oil industry.
Al-Qaeda is and always will be an extremist Muslim group and no matter what the US does they will continue to stand on their principles.
6
couchmouse
// Jan 28, 2008 at 10:42 am
Iraq has nothing to do with the “war on terror” but all to do with Bush’s ego to get back for Saddam’s plot to kill his daddy.
Bush calls Saddam ‘the guy who tried to kill my dad’
Our focus for the “war on terror” should be Afghanistan and Pakistan and not wasting lives and money assuaging the Bush ego.
7
David Weisman
// Jan 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm
While I disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, I still think victory wasn’t impossible if Bush hadn’t made so many other mistakes. We were very lucky when Arabic speaking Al Qaeda messed up so badly dealing with Arabic speaking Sunni’s - as we were very lucky when the original invasion of Bagdad was much less bloody than many generals expected. If Bush had taken advantage of this luck he had no right to expect, we might have been OK.
8
Work From Home Jobs
// Jan 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Is this a comedy blog? LOL this is one of the funniest blogs I have ever come across.
9
Chas
// Jan 29, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Not concerned about Al Qaeda in Iraq, They’re all over the Middle East. I don’t care where they come from, just don’t want them around here.
Gravatars Are Enabled
cforms contact form by delicious:days
Comments with opposing political views will be allowed if well written. Comments that are disparaging to race or religion will be deleted.