[UPDATE] 7:45pm- The Military Does Not Focus on Retreat Part #2--- shows re-enlistment figures. Poll THAT.
Bush hears a blunt assessment of Iraq, from his military advisers which matches the ISG's assessment. The difference? The military advisers, those that know the conditions on the ground, are focused on recommendations for victory instead of defeat.
The three retired generals and two academics disagreed in particular with the study group's plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and to reach out for help to Iran and Syria, according to sources familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was private.
The White House gathering was part of a series of high-profile meetings Bush is holding to search for "a new way forward" amid the increasing chaos and carnage in Iraq. Earlier in the day, Bush met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other high-ranking officials at the State Department, where he was briefed on reconstruction and regional diplomatic efforts in Iraq.
The military experts met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and about a dozen aides for more than an hour. The visitors told the officials that the situation in Iraq is as dire as the study group had indicated but that alternative approaches must be considered, said one participant in the meeting. In addition, the experts agreed that the president should review his national security team, which several characterized as part of the problem.
This whole thing begs the question: Why weren't there military advisers in the ISG goup? Why was there no military experience utilized for the group and the recommendations?
The military advisers understand that you cannot deal with Syria and Iran, you do not deal with those that are responsible for a quite a bit of the chaos in Iraq. You do not make a deal with a lunatic and expect him to keep his word. That is nothing short of of a recipe for more disaster.
All one has to do is look back at North Korea and the Framework Agreement that was hailed as such a success, until it was realized that North Korea took the money, took the aide and continued right along with their nuclear ambitions, because the agreement was not one that could be verified.
The Agreed Framework signed by the United States and North Korea on October 21, 1994 in Geneva agreed that:
- North Korea would freeze its existing nuclear program and agree to enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards
- Both sides would cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors for related facilities with light-water (LWR) power plants.
- Both countries would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
- Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.
- And that both sides would work to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Jump back to 2006, North Korea had a nuclear test. So much for trusting a madman.
This is where we are at with North Korea.
Now does anyone truly believe Iran is going to help with Iraq from the "goodness" of Ahmadinejad's heart? If you do, you live in a dreamworld. Anything else would be appeasement, we cannot offer him anything because as il-Jong SHOULD have taught us, you cannot trust a homicidal lunatic.
So, back to the ISG's recommendations, number 9, dealing with Iran and Syria is ridiculous and the military advisers know it... very strange that this group from the ISG didn't have the collective brains between them to figure that out for themselves. Simply shows how much of that ISG report was fantasy with no actual plan for implementation.
Working in a bipartisan manner is wonderful, more power to them, but to completely ignore the realities on the ground, the conditions in Iraq JUST to reach a "bipartisan" agreement is not an honest attempt to deal with Iraq, it is more of an attempt to show that Republicans and Democrats can get along. Good work on that, but I believe the 1.3 million that congress appropriated for the Iraq Study Groups report was to help in Iraq, not to make a political statement.
White House officials emphasized that although the experts gave a bleak assessment, they still believe the situation in Iraq is "winnable."
"I appreciate the advice I got from those folks in the field," Bush said after emerging from the morning session. "And that advice is . . . an important component of putting together a new way forward in Iraq."
And that is the crux of it folks, there are people in America that believe in victory, in success, and there are those that refuse to consider that as an option.
Now, if these Americans that believed Iraq could not see success were actually the ones there fighting, were actually there on the ground to make this determination, I would agree with them. But they are not. These people that wish to cut and run, are people sitting on there asses watching the news and deciding that they know better than our military who is IN Iraq, fighting and seeing the conditions, the successes and the failures.
Honestly, who would you listen to? The reporters that do not leave the green zone? Or the soldiers that tell us this CAN be won? Ask yourself that and try to be honest when answering.
If you think you know better than the soldiers who are there? Where do you get off? What expert experience do you have? What expert opinion do you go by? Why would anyone who is NOT in Iraq, who has no military experience, who knows nothing more than what the television or papers tell them, have the audacity to think they are a better judge of whether Iraq can see victory than those that ARE there, that ARE fighting, that ARE on the ground speaking with their boots, not just their mouths?
Even the ISG only visited Iraq once and never left the green zone.
I really do not understand that mindset.
The first to speak was Eliot A. Cohen, an expert in military strategy at Johns Hopkins University, who has criticized the study group's findings, particularly on engaging Iran and Syria and on decreasing combat troops. He was followed by Keane, McCaffrey and Wayne A. Downing, all retired four-star Army generals. Two have told friends they are skeptical of the study group's recommendation to cut U.S. combat forces over the next year while quadrupling the size of the training and advisory effort, which currently numbers around 4,000.
Bottomline, despite the elections, we are at war, and many are against it. Tough. We are there. The American people have all the power in elections and they made their choices. They do NOT have the power to make military decisions and that is a fact they need to understand. They are not in the military, they are not part of those debates, they are not in a position to know what they are talking about. The military is. Our soldiers are.
One last point here: If everyone that is so against this war, "claims" they are against it because our military are losing their lives over in Iraq, wouldn't it behoove those same people to actually LISTEN to the military they "claim" to be speaking for? The words do not match what the soldiers are saying. So what is the real reason people are making such a fuss about the war? Could it be politically motivated? Bet your ass it is.
Victory in Iraq can and will be had if our military has anything to say about it. Since it is our military laying their lives on the line, they damn well better have their say.
Others discussing this:
On another front, Right Truth has an awesome piece on Moderate Muslims releasing a manifesto. It is a must read.
We, the moderate Muslims of the world have sat by for far too long and watched as our great religion has been hijacked by those who have committed horrendous acts in Islam's name. Rapes, murders, and worse have been committed by those purporting to do Allah's will. But no more. From this day forth, the following commandments shall be the guidelines that all true, peaceful Muslims live by:
Continue reading at Right Truth.