SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (198304)8/20/2006 3:40:17 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Same show I think, on Russert this morning. The delusional and the rational. Excuse me General old boy, if 42 year old grandmothers want to become grunts in the army --- why stop them? Geez. It sure beats the Army trying to get old soldiers --- yep, dead ones ---- back in.

msnbc.msn.com

GEN. BARRY McCAFFREY: Well, first of all, I’m not sure I know. You know, we’ve got some terrific leadership on the ground. Khalilzad, the ambassador, is brilliant. George Casey’s a very effective commander. We’ve got 135,000 troops, a lot of power on the ground. Having said that, there’s 27 million people. Dr. Nasr, I think, accurately articulated the political problem we’re facing.

It’s not going to be solved—the battle of Baghdad won’t be solved by the United States Army. We’ve had 22,000 killed and wounded, two-thirds of our brigades, the ones that aren’t deployed, in the United States Army National Guard now, are not ready to fight. So the surge capability to deal with this from a military perspective is not there.

GEN. McCAFFREY: I’m not sure it’s the right question. First of all, they’re not available. The National Guard brigades—you know, we just had Lieutenant General Blum testifying, we had the chief staff of the Army testifying. The Army is $23 billion short, our equipment’s coming apart, we’re drafting 42-year-old grandmothers to be privates in the Army. I shouldn’t have said draft, asking for volunteers. So I don’t think the combat power is there in the Army and the Marine Corps to solve this problem militarily. We are a safety valve, we’re a peacekeeping mechanism, but the Iraqi security forces are going to have to pull this one together.


MR. GREGORY: And we talk about Iraqi security forces, and I mentioned earlier in the program Michael Gordon with The New York Times has just returned from Anbar Province being embedded with troops, and he writes the following about Iraqi troops: “Even at its best, the Iraqi military faces severe constraints. It has no helicopter-assault capability, indeed no air force to speak of. It mostly relies on the Americans for medical care and reconnaissance. And it has no tradition of entrusting its sergeants and other noncommissioned officers with important responsibilities. ...

“What I saw in more than three weeks in Anbar Province,” western Iraq, “was not reassuring. Dogged efforts were being undercut by a dysfunctional Iraqi bureaucracy in Baghdad. ... Iraq’s Ministry of Defense has been slow to issue promotions for the new soldiers and to distribute proper pay. A goodly number of the Iraqi soldiers have voted with their feet and gone AWOL. ...

“What kind of exit strategy is this when Iraqi soldiers in some of Iraq’s most contested areas have been leaving faster than the Americans?” What kind of exit strategy?

GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, first of all, it’s miserably underresourced, which—a shortcoming I’ve articulated over on the Hill now and to the administration. These Iraqi security battalions have 20, 30 light trucks, light automatic weapons. There’s no plan to build a force which would be capable of, of replacing us. So I think our strategy is flawed. Lieutenant General Marty Dempsey and Joe Peterson, the people on the ground, are doing a great job recruiting, training, fielding, but—and so far the Iraqi security forces have not come apart. We haven’t seen them go to the streets and battle with each other. But I think this is, this is an inadequate strategy right now to prepare the Iraqis to defend themselves.

MR. GREGORY: And yet, John Harwood, politically speaking, an exit strategy is critical for this White House and indeed, for Republicans this year. And yet that exit strategy may not be available to them in terms of getting troops back in sizeable numbers.

MR. JOHN HARWOOD: You know, a lot of Republicans at the beginning of the year counted on some of these benchmarks being met and then troops being able to come home, the elections earlier this year. That simply hasn’t happened. Hasn’t changed public opinion, hasn’t, evidently, changed the situation on the ground in a positive way. Neither has the death of Zarqawi.

And what we’ve seen over the last few weeks is as this sectarian violence has increased in Baghdad, caused the president to change his strategy, we’ve seen some subtle shifts within the two parties. Democrats becoming more united. You saw Ned Lamont’s victory in Connecticut. That has, you know, Republicans are using that as an emblem of division among Democrats, but actually there’s increasing division among Republicans, and it really turns on this question of are we moving into a civil war?

That statement that you read earlier in the program from Senator Warner, very, very significant. If this war becomes perceived as a civil conflict, that’s when you see, according to some of the experts who look at public opinion, that’s when you could see the bottom drop out in terms of public support.
It hasn’t happened yet. You know, the public is pessimistic, David, but they—if you ask them should we get out in an immediate and orderly way, in our Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, two-thirds of the American people say no. They’re still hanging in. They’re taking the attitude that we can’t just leave...."



To: bentway who wrote (198304)8/20/2006 3:46:35 PM
From: geode00  Respond to of 281500
 
Kristol, the great Neocon military commander shooting at imagined enemies from the safety of Georgetown, thinks that a mere 30,000 more troops --- undefined as to what troops and where they're going to come from --- would fix the security problem.

His rationale is that 30,000 extra troops enabled a whole day or a couple of days of voting activities so 30,000 troops should be enough to bring security to a country of 27 million. Yep.

When did Neocons become this utterly stupid? Hey Kristol you dunce, that's a couple of days of martial law and police state thuggish tactics that included no activity except maybe walking to the polls. What about actual movement and things like, you know, CARS?

What about supply lines and fresh troops and barracks and concrete blast walls? Eh? Huh?

Geez Loueeze, small wonder that the Neocon war in Iraq is going so badly. The Neocons should go over to the other side and mess up their countries.