Politics > Politics-USA > New No-Spin Military Thinking - NOW the good Generals have figured it out - DUH
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"plonk" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2005 12:10:03 PM |
| Object: |
New No-Spin Military Thinking - NOW the good Generals have figured it out - DUH |
Is Anthony Zinni the only ***** General with enough class
to question not only the chances for success but the motives and
methods of operation safer Tel Aviv, loud enough to be heard by
anyone BEFORE we go to war. I didn't hear enough from either
Scowcroft (Did those Carlyle investments get to you Scowcroft?)
or any of those political Kissasses that sign off on neocon thinktank
propaganda and show up on tabloid TV to ***** us all !!
Col. David Hackworth and Anthony Zinni seem to have a monopoly
on class in Military hierarchy...That's what it looks like from the
outside...Way to go good political Generals.
___________
U.S. Generals Now See Virtues of a Smaller Troop Presence in Iraq
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes863.html
By Mark Mazzetti
Times Staff Writer
October 1, 2005
WASHINGTON : The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new
assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn
testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are
increasingly part of the problem.
During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S.
forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency
on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing
terrorists across the Middle East.
For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops
was imperative.
American officials backtracked on their expectations of what the U.S.
military can achieve in Iraq months ago. But this week's comments
showed that commanders believe a large U.S. force in Iraq might in
fact be creating problems as well as solutions.
"This has been hinted at before, but it's a big shift for them to be
saying that publicly," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings
Institution in Washington. "It means they recognize that there is a
cost to staying just as there is a benefit to staying. And this has
not really been factored in as a central part of the strategy before."
The generals' comments reflect an evolving outlook that senior
military officials and even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have
articulated in recent months. The battle against Iraqi insurgents will
not be won by the U.S. military, they have said, and the insurgency
will persist long after U.S. troops have left.
"If [the insurgency] does go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years,
whatever … it is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq,"
Rumsfeld said in June.
"They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time. They
are ultimately going to be the ones who win over that insurgency."
The generals' words also represent a less ambitious definition of
military success than what President Bush has put forth in recent
statements.
At his ranch near Crawford, Texas, in August, Bush said that "when the
mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops
will come home."
More recently, Bush has offered a more nuanced view of success,
emphasizing the importance of training Iraqi troops as part of the
U.S. mission to defeat the insurgents.
But the ground commanders told Congress on Thursday that the number of
Iraqi units at the highest state of combat readiness had dropped from
three to one since June. And they pointed this week to problems caused
by the presence of U.S. troops.
During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top
U.S. commander in Iraq, said that troop reductions were necessary to
"take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the
coalition forces as an occupying force."
A smaller U.S. presence could alleviate some of the anger feeding the
insurgency, Casey suggested.
The same approach may prove helpful across the Middle East, commanders
said. The Central Command's Gen. John P. Abizaid, who supervises all
U.S. troops in the region, said the broader fight against Islamic
extremism required the United States to "reduce our military
footprint" across the region and push governments in the Middle East
to fight the extremists themselves.
Although Abizaid advocates a troop reduction, he does not favor total
withdrawal. He envisions such an exit preceded by the establishment of
stable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and accompanied by an
assured flow of oil and enhanced regional security networks.
A smaller U.S. contingent would also encourage greater self-reliance
among Iraqi forces in the face of an insurgency that could last a
decade or more. A reduction in American forces is essential to push
more Iraqi troops onto the front lines, Casey said.
"This is about dependency," he said.
Even among themselves, military officials have differed in their
assessments of the number of Iraqi troops ready to take on the
mission.
During a briefing Friday, Casey was asked whether there were enough
Iraqi troops in Tall Afar to permanently keep insurgents out of the
western town, where U.S. and government forces recently launched a
major offensive.
"We do have enough force," Casey said.
Yet the U.S. commander of the Tall Afar operation, Army Col. H.R.
McMaster, said Sept. 13 that it would be some time before the town had
enough trained Iraqi troops to keep insurgents from filtering back.
"Is there enough force here right now to secure this area permanently?
No. Are there opportunities for the enemy in other areas within our
region? Yes," McMaster said.
Among Americans, support for the war continues to dwindle, as growing
numbers conclude that U.S. troops should be partially or completely
withdrawn. Only 32% of those surveyed for a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
released last week approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, compared with
40% in August and 50% earlier this year.
The survey also showed that 59% considered it a mistake to have sent
U.S. forces to Iraq, up from fewer than half during the summer. And
63% said the troops should be partially or completely withdrawn, up 10
percentage points from August. Just 21% of those surveyed believed
U.S. forces would win the war, while 34% said they considered the
conflict unwinnable.
Military officials and others familiar with Casey's strategy in Iraq
say the U.S. plans a phased withdrawal, first pulling its troops out
of the 14 provinces that commanders believe are most secure.
Initially, they would maintain a presence in the predominantly Sunni
provinces of central Iraq, where most of the violence is occurring and
the U.S. military suffers most of its casualties.
"Withdrawing from the secure areas would be a good signal to the rest
of Iraqis that this is coming for them eventually," said a Central
Command advisor who has traveled frequently to Iraq and requested
anonymity because he was speaking about a classified strategy.
The advisor said that U.S. commanders were concerned that Iraqi troops
could become too dependent on the American presence, but that there
were no plans for a hasty pullout from the violent provinces before
the Iraqis were up to the task.
"There's a line between what constitutes casual dependence and what
constitutes not being ready to fight," he said. "For the most part,
[Iraqi troops] are not ready to do the job. And stepping back is just
going to leave them vulnerable to a battle-tested army of insurgents."
This article linked from: http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/bush-joke.jpg
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
