Generals will always find a way forward, but they shouldn't be the ones who decide to continue on

[bigtree]

Petraeus Says Conditions Won't Justify Troop Decrease

Challenges' in Iraq Will Not Be Resolved in One or Two Years, Top Commander Says

Both Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, his diplomatic counterpart in Baghdad, said a key report they will deliver to Washington in September will also include what Crocker called "an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions." Noting the "unhelpful roles" being played by Iran and Syria in Iraq, Crocker said, "We've got to consider what could happen."

Separate comments by Petraeus on "Fox News Sunday" and Crocker on NBC's "Meet the Press," were an indication of the administration's evolving strategy for confronting rising congressional demands to begin planning troop withdrawals. In addition to warning about the possible regional consequences of withdrawal, both men emphasized a "mixed" picture on the ground that cited successes while acknowledging the difficulty of the task ahead.

Claiming steady, albeit slow, military and political progress, Petraeus said the "many, many challenges" would not be resolved "in a year or even two years." Similar counterinsurgency operations, he said, citing Britain's experience in Northern Ireland, "have gone at least nine or 10 years."

Petraeus said he and Crocker would be making "some recommendations on the way ahead" to Congress, and that it was "realistic" to assume "some form of long-term security arrangement" with Iraq.

Democrats failed last month to impose a withdrawal timetable in war-funding legislation. But the enacted measure mandated assessments of military, political and economic progress from Petraeus and Crocker--rather than from Washington-based administration and military officials--by Sept. 15. Much will depend on their personal credibility.

In announcing his new strategy last January, Bush said the troop increase would diminish sectarian violence in Baghdad and break Sunni insurgent control in Anbar province, a stronghold of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The ensuing calm, the administration said, would give the Shiite-dominated Maliki government time and space to reconcile with the minority Sunni and Kurdish communities and build a unified administration that all Iraqis--including many now involved in violence--would support.

But since the deployment of five new U.S. combat brigades began in early spring, the overall level of violence has not abated and in some respects has increased, according to a Pentagon report issued last week. Little progress has been reported in achieving the political benchmarks spelled out in the funding legislations--those mentioned by McConnell as well as an overall revision of the Iraqi constitution to provide a better balance of regional and sectarian factions in the government.

article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700830_pf.html

[northzax]

1. that's their job

their job is to fight wars, and all the associated things that go with that. It is not their job to decide when a war, or in this case, an occupation, is worth continuing, that is for the civilians to decide.

the military is a very expensive, very competant, tool of policy makers. a tool that should be used sparingly and with respect, but a tool non the less.

[bigtree]

3. these generals aren't as apolitical as some assume

and they should be held to account if they in fact are the ones Bush is relying on to decide whether to "go forward" or decide to end the occupation.

Congress doesn't need to wait now until Sept. to tell Bush and his generals they've had enough.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Dear Gen. Petraeus, if you think the American people are going to put up with 9 or 10 years more

of this shit, then you've been out in the sun for too long.

If you're so fucking smart how is it that you can't read election results? Even Republicans, who are your natural ally in seeking prolonged slaughter and misery (for furriners), want out of this war.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Years? YEARS for the Surge to work? Is it really a "surge" when it goes on for years,

or more like, say, a permanent escalation? I knew the Surge was a "hail-mary pass" marketing gimmick to buy time, but I didn't realize how blatantly dishonest Petraeus would be about it.

[bigtree]

5. the surge ws supposed to intimidate Iraqis into recognizing the false authority

of their junta.

Petraeus never said we should back off of the occupation if things got worse. In fact, he believes we should escalate further because he's convinced that 'al-Qaeda' is going to 'follow us home' as Bush has been claiming. He has no intention at all in recommending a withdrawal or pull-back of troops if he doesn't get the 'success' he's claimed would come from his 'surge.' Never did. He's all for pushing on, despite the cost in American lives.

But, that's not his decision to make.

[TwilightGardener]

6. When you say "that's not his (Petraeus's) decision to make",

that's very true, and yet look at how sacrosanct the military leadership is--no one DARES question their motives or competence (as Reid found out), and the GOP/Bush keeps saying that if Petraeus asks for things, he'll get them--that whole "commanders on the ground will make the decisions" bullshit (as long as they decide what Bush/Cheney want). They've elevated him to the point that whatever he says will be held as the truth, and no doubt he'll say the right things for BushCo's purposes.