Custom Search

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Generals Call Democrats in Congress "naive"


[UPDATES BELOW]

Once again the politicians seem to think they know more about the Iraq war than the experts and the Generals are saying that congressional Democrats are "naive" in their thinking. Could this be the politically correct way of calling them "stupid"? You decide.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly na├»ve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

Perhaps this general simply doesn't understand that the "some" Democrats in congress are not naive, they simply do not wish to "win" or have any "success" in Iraq. They (the "naive" politicians), being such experts on war and Iraq, have already determined that there can be no success.... god forbid.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

(SNIP)

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.

Some military experts said that while the American military is stretched thin, the number of American troops in Iraq could be increased temporarily — by perhaps 10,000 or more, in addition to the 150,000 or so already there — by prolonging combat tours.

Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, also argued that a push for troop reductions would backfire by contributing to the disorder in Iraq.

“If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”

Now this is the opinion of another war veteran, John McCain, another person who should know something about war, considering he was a POW and has actively fought in one.

Mr. McCain contends that the war in Iraq is worth fighting and is worth winning. He has said consistently from the start of the conflict that the only way to prevail is to send enough soldiers to do the job. His current proposal is to send 20,000 additional troops in hopes of bringing Baghdad and the restive western provinces under control.

The alternative, he said, is humiliation for the United States and disaster for Iraq.

“We’re paying a price for the failure of our policy in the past,” Mr. McCain said Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC, “and the question, then, before the American people is, are we ready to quit? And I believe the consequences of failure are chaos in the region, which will spread.”

Since when do the "American" public determine how military operations get played out? The last time we let that happen we abandoned the south Vietnamese and if history has taught us anything, it is that the American public who has no idea about the conditions on the ground in war, other than what their televisions show them, has no business making military decisions, unless they wish to be responsible for the hundreds of thousands of lives that will be lost if we withdraw.

Then we have Joe Lieberman, now an independent because his party turned against him, but still a Democrat on many issues, he is a wildcard in the senate where his vote on many items will be with the Democratic caucus, except on Iraq.... which he still admits there can be success.

Many Democrats remain angry with their former vice presidential nominee for not bowing out after his primary loss to the more liberal Lamont. Still, they recognize that he is crucial to their one-seat Senate majority.

Pro-war in an antiwar state, Lieberman is one of the few prominent war defenders to survive a tough challenge on Nov. 7, and with his victory comes a measure of validation.

Speaking in Hartford last Wednesday, Lieberman remained unwavering in his opposition to Democrats' calls for withdrawing troops from Iraq. "What we are doing now there is not working, but that doesn't mean in any sense that it is time for us to retreat," he said. "This is a test in a very difficult and dangerous hour in our history."

But his victory also was something of an aberration, and whatever the fate of Lieberman's proposed bipartisan group, which he pledges to introduce in January, his continued support of Bush's stay-the-course approach places him well outside the Democratic mainstream.

Now to put forth yet another argument about Iraq, which the left should absolutely love (sarcasm), lets take a look at the death rate in Iraq before Saddam was toppled.

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

In other words, even accepting the Iraqi's own numbers and the highly-suspect assertion that all were caused by US weapons, and discounting the numbers of humanitarian organizations, the civilian death toll has, in fact, fallen since the start of the war. Indeed, it has fallen precipitously.

You do the math... everyone is so anxious to quote how many deaths there have been since we took Saddam Hussein out of power... how many of you have calculated the amount of human lives that have been saved? Has anyone bothered? I doubt it, it would not fit into your anti-war idealogy.

For those of you that conveniently forget what a monster Saddam was, look here for just one small example. Try using your memory. Try using your humanity.

More to come.

[UPDATE]- Via AP:

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The assertion by Gen. John Abizaid seemed to put him at odds with some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq.

Abizaid spoke as the Senate Armed Services Committee began re-examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's Democratic election victory, which gave them control of Congress starting next year.

In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other U.S. commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

"Specific timetables limit that flexibility," the general said.

Those poor cut and run proponents simply cannot catch a break!!!!!

[UPDATE #2]- It is HYSTERICAL to watch the lefts reactions to the Generals. Even funnier seeing them claim to know more about war and warfare than the Military. Personally I think they are just having themselves a temper tantrum because the Military experts are telling them they are naive and haven't a clue to what they are talking about.

Example: Talk Left, and Taylor Marsh.

A riot seeing these "experts" claim to understand more than the soldiers and generals that are actually IN Iraq, spout off.

[UPDATE #3]- Amy Proctor has a MUST READ piece on the Iraq War and why there cannot be a timetable. Hot Air has updates also.

[UPDATE #4]- Jolting Joe makes his stand clear after hearing on Iraq. I guess Joe will only be voting with the Democratic caucus when he agrees with them. Refreshing, isn't it?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, may have agreed to caucus with the Democrats in the next congressional term, but the Connecticut independent made it clear Wednesday he would not hold the party line on a call for phased troop withdrawals.

"Both general Abizaid and Ambassador Satterfield were quite clear and to me convincing, that for congress to order the beginning of a phased redeployment, a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq within the next 4 to 6 months would be a very serious mistake and would endanger ultimate the United States," Lieberman told reporters after the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq.


Story here.


OPEN TRACKBACKS






Linkfest Haven.
Right Truth.
Conservative Cat.
Random Yak.
Third World County.
Bullwinkle Blog.
Dumb Ox News.
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns.
OTB.

Other interesting posts today:
Woman Honor Thyself with JooZ and GayS..go FigurE.
Sister Toldjah has also noticed the Generals speaking up against withdrawal.
Townhall with Cut and Run Time?
Macsmind with more about the new crooks in the Senate.
RedState has an Iraq war debate going on here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Don Surber with more on Murtha.
Check out the video at Hot Air. Also Hot Air is quoting the generals.
RightWing NutHouse has more about Iraq.
Captain's Quarters on how New York Times has JUST discovered withdrawal in Iraq is a bad idea.
FaultLine USA with the Active Democrats Revolution.
thinkinboutstuff has more discussion on Iraq.
Rightwing Guy has Retreatocrats the new Democratic Party.
Biga's Blog says things don't look good.
Iowa Voice with "Someones in denial, alright" and a quite amusing one showing the left in meltdown.
Good laugh over at Pirate's Cove.

Tracked back by:
Generals Call Democrats in Congress "Naive" from Freedoms Zone...
Europe is Finished from The Clash of Civilizations...
Michael Jackson Dead? from Planck's Constant...
Why the U.S. Cannot Timetable Iraq from Amy Proctor...
Bolton doomed, Israel in the cross-hairs, politics as usual and Open Trackbacks from Right Truth...
Long Wait for PS3s already started from Planck's Constant...
My Pledge to Liberals from Conservative Cat...