British to Withdraw from Iraq

He says clearly we shoud "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear."

The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

"That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

This from the top commander of the United Kingdom's armed forces.

More from The Daily Mail of 12 Oct 2006

Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon'
"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."

"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

Both George Jr and Blair have insisted

that British troops must stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to take charge - a forlorn hope as the country has slipped to the brink of civil war.

Iraqi forces are now as competent as they can be expected to be - after almost four years. Hell, US with no military built armies and won battles everywhere in the world in this same time. After all these years, this is the best that the Iraqi military is going to get. Continued American presence with too few troops now guarantees Iraqi civil war. One must be as dumb as George Jr to not see that.

Meanwhile,

General Dannatt says he has "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

But he condemned the treatment of injured British soldiers, who have been forced to share wards with civilians in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.

Sir Richard said he confronted Mr Browne about the "covenant" between a nation and its armed forces.

"I said to the Secretary of State the army wont let the nation down but I don’t want the nation to let the army down."

"It is not acceptable for our casualties to be in mixed wards with civilians. I was outraged at the story of someone saying ‘take your uniform off’. Our people need the privacy of recovering in a military environment …"

"I am going to stand up for what is right for the army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "When I was in Iraq, soldiers told me the same thing."

"They said the reaction had gone from welcome, to consent to mere tolerance and they said that this meant we didn't have an indefinite licence to be there."

"To have one of our senior military figures speaking out on behalf of those under his commenad is a refreshing change."

An honest Cellar Dweller long ago admitted that both the "Mission Accomplished" war and a justified war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Meanwhile, every patriot was asking this question repeatedly, “When do we go after bin Laden?” Only those with a political agenda don’t ask that question.

Military Science 101 - we only had six month - one year max - to win the peace. But a mental midget insisted that "Americans don't do nation building". So when do we go after bin Laden? After we torture how many? No wonder this is the same political party that would even protect a sexual predator and endorse intelligent design be imposed in Dover PA - even by lying under oath.

Gen Dannatt will probably lose his job only for being honest.

A larger question of every Cellar dweller. How honest have you been? Facts stated by Gen Dannatt have been obvious for a terribly long time. Publically available are all the facts. A lesson even from Vietnam. The facts don't get any more obvious - welcome to reality. This is when you learn about yourself - if you can even stand up for yourself - or act like an indecisive ostrich. How true can you be to yourself? Gen Dannatt was bluntly honest. Can you be?

Australia is heading towards a federal election early next year and the labor party are in front according to the polls, largely because they've promised to withdraw troops from Iraq if they're elected. Presently labor is the opposition party to the liberal party who are conservative right(ish) wing and who've been in power for 12 yrs.

It seems to me, neither the police nor insurgents can be successful without the support of the population. As long as we're there, they really don't have to make the choice.

That said, I would hope we would announce our intentions, complete with a time line, and respond to any attacks on our troops, with massive deadly force.

You can argue the semantics of cut and run vs turning the country over to the natives, but the fact remains that Bush's plan (plan?) didn't happen and never will. Time for a (new) plan.

Bush can always shake his head and say the Iraqis were given the opportunity and refused to be helped. So now they can do what ever the hell they want, the ingrates......since truth has never entered into it. :rolleyes:

Bin Ladin? The only way is to start a new war in Pakistan..... armed to the teeth, nuclear, Pakistan. No thanks, he ain't worth it.
Just keep in mind the Pakis aren't friends or family....just business partners looking out for their own.

I hope this teaches us that it's never a good idea to intervene anywhere in the world for whatever reason. Just ain't worth it.

We never seem to learn. Many Americans today were around at the time of the Vietnam conflict. There are some here on the Cellar, as well. Its like we're a nation of Mayflies with short little ephemeral memories. And Bush is such a nut case that he'll probably declare the Brit's and the Aussies "unlawful enemy combatants" against the States if they withdraw their troops. Nothing would surprise me, anymore. (sigh)

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

The only way is to start a new war in Pakistan..... armed to the teeth, nuclear, Pakistan. No thanks, he ain't worth it.
Just keep in mind the Pakis aren't friends or family....just business partners looking out for their own.

Not Pakis, pretty please? Won't labour the point, we've raised this before.

In this country, there are MANY Brits of Pakistani origin, from recent immigrants to 3rd generation. Pakistan is one of the last places Britain would want to start a war against because there are family and friends there (although the old nuclear deterrant helps).

There have been a bunch of activist groups here on campus trying to raise support for US intervention in Darfur, except when you look at the situation it's pretty well the same thing we haven't been able to do shit about in Iraq. What makes them think us marching in there is going to do anything except get us picked apart be local guerilla militias until, once again, we start screaming that too many of our soldiers are dying and we pack up for home. Iraq is the proof that we cannot stop local tribes from killing each other off for any reasonable length of time. Of course if I stopped to say that to any groups here you'd be hearing about the student beaten to death with peace protest signs...

[SIZE="7"][/SIZE]Ah, my favorite protest sign quote, written by an old friend years ago, when peace protesting meant something:

[COLOR="Red"]"Give me peace, or I'll kill you..."[/COLOR]

Sundae Girl wrote:

Not Pakis, pretty please? Won't labour the point, we've raised this before.

In this country, there are MANY Brits of Pakistani origin, from recent immigrants to 3rd generation. Pakistan is one of the last places Britain would want to start a war against because there are family and friends there (although the old nuclear deterrant helps).

We have plenty of them here also. They are, however, neither family nor friends. At least I don't think so...they won't get off the phone long enough to answer a question when they're suppose to be waiting on me in the store, so I really don't know. ;)

I think SG's point was "Please don't use the perjorative phrase "Pakis", not "Oh no, don't go to war with them because...". I could be wrong...

Is there something in the original post that justifies titling this thread "British to Withdraw from Iraq"? I wouldn't want to think that "an honest Cellar Dwellar" would post a lie as a subject line just to draw attention to his thread.

9th Engineer wrote:

I hope this teaches us that it's never a good idea to intervene anywhere in the world for whatever reason. Just ain't worth it.

Such simplistic Rush Limbaugh logic that gets us into trouble. Are you saying that intervention in Kuwait was wrong? Are you saying that intervention in the Balkan was wrong? Of course those interventions were necessary and were justified. But again, each American is required to first learn from history. Americans don’t have the option to ‘don’t care’.

Whereas I clearly identified Iraq as a "Pearl Harbor" action well before Iraq was invaded ... I also was furious with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc for not advocating a Kuwait rescue. In both cases, I was clearly in the minority because I was advocating based upon facts – not on Rush Limbaugh logic. Don't fool yourself for one minute. On 2 Aug 1990, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were saying we could do nothing for Kuwait. And most Americans were saying we should do nothing. Today, many conveniently forget what they were saying then – therefore don’t learn from history.

Intervention is a necessary function of nations. Intervention, when successful, was obvious because (in part) the UN said it was justified. Amazing how often the UN is right and American ‘big dics’ get it wrong. Again, learn from history.

Whereas an invasion of Iraq was clearly and obviously wrong even in 2002 - a full year before Iraq was invaded. The Kuwait rescue was clearly a smoking gun that justified war. Today, can you say why; did you learn from history? Darfur is a worldwide disaster for reasons I will not even begin to discuss. Answers are found by having learned from WWII, Vietnam, Somalia, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Facts have been obvious for so long that even Britain’s #1 soldier publicly defined Iraq. Facts of the Iraq war are obvious - don’t get any more obvious. So obvious that those who learned from history can easily answer this simple question – 500,000 troops now or get out. And yet so many will not even touch that question – and will not speak out against George Jr’s S3930 bill to make secret prisons, kidnapping, and torture legal.

Where a solution is 'no interventions', then one’s historical grasp is little different from those ‘big dics’ who advocate ‘axis of evil’ lies. Kuwait and Balkan were clearly justified. Iraq was clearly wrong long before 'shock and awe'. It demands one learn from history - not just watch it. It demands that one make a decision - as Britian's #1 General has done - and learn from those mistakes. So many here do not have balls to conclude as 9th Engineer just did - take a risk - and therefore remain the most ignorant. Shocking still are the so many Cellar dwellers who promote torture by their silience and who don't routinely ask, "Did George Jr lie today?" Learn from history. He usually does.

General Sir Richard Dannatt has taken a major risk - told a truth that should have long ago been obvious to all in The Cellar. He is also demanding you to learn from history. Why are his words so new to so many? Why are so many still unable to see the obvious?

Careful..when the cheering throngs raise you up on their shouders....you never know where they'll put you down. :D

MaggieL wrote:

Is there something in the original post that justifies titling this thread "British to Withdraw from Iraq"? I wouldn't want to think that "an honest Cellar Dwellar" would post a lie as a subject line just to draw attention to his thread.

I'll take that as a "no".

MaggieL wrote:

I'll take that as a "no".

Title says wackos promoted the "Pearl Harboring" of Iraq in 2002 and now support a lying president using gospels from Rush Limbaugh. New Cellar dwellers may not appreciate repeated references to "Pearl Harboring". It was cited specifically in a post to MaggieL in 2002 when she advocated a 'big dic' agenda - the "Mission Accomplished" war. The Iraq war was defined as the “Pearl Harboring of a sovereign nation”. Guess what. That is exactly what it is complete with nothing but lies to justify it – just like in 1941.

The title is correct. Facts say that title is inevitable. Title reminds us how 'big dics' got US and UK into two quagmires – deja vue Vietnam. Title reminds us how wacko extremists even now refuse to admit both wars are being lost.

Gen Dannatt specifically cites why an Australian patrol was attacked. They left; so why did they come back? Patriotic Iraqis attacked that Australian patrol only because Australians were there. This is what Iraqis want from a US and UK military occupation.

What has happened in Iraq was predicted by those who confronted MaggieL back in 2002. She now takes offense of what is inevitable? Victory in Iraq is no longer possible - no matter how the 'big dics' lie about it. British to withdraw from Iraq is inevitable because victory is no longer possible.

MaggieL - I was just taking to another ex-Marine. He now records a running daily total of America soldier killed in Iraq. At least someone here has been standing up for American troops. You don't. Now wonder you only post sound byte insults. What you advocate for American troops is shameful - because your political agenda is more important than America.

tw wrote:

The title is correct. Facts say that title is inevitable.

Erm...no. A headline that says "British to Withdraw from Iraq" means that they've announced that that's what they are about to do, not that tw thinks it's "inevitable".

Facts don't "say" anything--are they talking to you? If you're hearing voices when examining facts, at best you're interpreting them. which wouldn't be "facts"; we call that "opinion"....a distinction I encourage you to work at making in the future. Worst case, you're halluicinating.

The facts in the case (as reported) are that a British officer made a public statement, a big splash of interpretation was made over it in the media, and now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

None of which justifies your subject line.

MaggieL wrote:

The facts in the case (as reported) are that a British officer made a public statement, a big splash of interpretation was made over it in the media, and now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

Maggie would have you believe Gen Sir Dannatt no longer calls for leaving Iraq. His statements did not change. He even said he is still preparing "force packages for 2007 and 2008". But as long as we are there, Iraq will only get worse. US and UK are attacked only because we are there. This contradicts MaggieL who says we are welcome by most Iraqis and are winning the "Mission Accomplished" war.

Dannatt says we need an exit strategy. Obviously none exists for same reason that we even disbanded the army and police and did no nation building for seven months. Anyone at this point knows either "500,000+ troops in-country now" or a "withdrawal" are the viable options.

Why would MaggieL misrepresent reality? Remember her reasoning:

MaggieL wrote:

You do know that "preemptive strike" and "surprise attack" are not the same thing, right?

More rationalizations justified by a political agenda. Meanwhile Dannatt does not withdraw from his statements.

BBC News wrote:

General Sir Richard Dannatt said troops should come home within two years - flatly contradicting the Prime Minister's policy that the military will stay "as long as it takes".

Tony Blair later said he agreed with Gen Dannatt causing the White House to demand a clarification. Meanwhile, since we will not deploy 500,000 troops for one year, then Gen Dannatt is only saying the obvious - to anyone without a political agenda.

BBC News wrote:

He later told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that when he talked about pulling out of Iraq "sometime soon", he meant "when the mission is substantially done, we should leave". ...
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Sir Richard's remarks were little different from what other officers had been saying in private.

His original comments:

Daily Mail wrote:

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."

"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

I don't see MaggieL posting anything to support her accusations. I see Dannatt saying same things he originally said. MaggieL would spin confusion since this "Mission Accomplished" war demonstrates why MaggieL's political agenda even justified 'Pearl Harboring'.

MaggieL wrote:

When there' s been long escalating warnings and statements that a given situation is unacceptable, and that the ultimate recourse will be to the use of miltary force, an attack can't can't possibly be a surprise.

There were no escalating warnings. There were nothing but lies from George Jr - who even denied what he was told by UN Weapons Inspector David Kay long before the invasion - that WMDs did not exist. MaggieL will not even admit George Jr lied repeatedly. She cannot. It would prove fallacies in a political agenda.

So MaggieL now says

... a British officer ... now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

Well that is what MaggieL says. Facts? I don't see any. I just see her posting a Rush Limbaugh type speculation. Ironic that tw posts facts and MaggieL repeatedly calls them rants. Well, tw has been correct about Iraq and MaggieL's extremist political agenda - even before the expression "Pearl Harboring" was first used. MaggieL still denies the "Mission Accomplished" mess by hiding behind a political agenda. Even misrepresents what Gen Dannatt says to protect a political agenda that condones torture.

She may post in a sane tone. But what she advocates even approves of secret prisons and violations of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. That is scary. Trying to claim Dannatt has changed his statements - false. But necessary to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" can be won - we must stay the course. Vietnam rhetoric complete with misrepresenting what Gen Dannatt says. Well back in Vietnam, extremists still denies facts in the Pentagon Papers - also called them rants.

Isn't it lovely the way the left and right agree that American troops need to die all over the planet.

tw, when several top generals over here called for the resignation of Rumsfeld, your thread title was (roughly), "Top US Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation."

It was not "Rumsfeld to Resign." Do you see the difference? That's all Maggie's saying. The success or failure of the war has nothing to do with it. The British are not withdrawing or even committing to withdraw--one general has called for withdrawal.

tw wrote:

New Cellar dwellers may not appreciate repeated references to "Pearl Harboring". It was cited specifically in a post to MaggieL in 2002 when she advocated a 'big dic' agenda - the "Mission Accomplished" war. The Iraq war was defined as the “Pearl Harboring of a sovereign nation”. Guess what. That is exactly what it is complete with nothing but lies to justify it – just like in 1941.

I'm betting new readers have the same problem I do, with "Pearl Harboring". To me, and everyone I've talked to in the last 50 years, 'Pearl Harboring" brings sneak attack to mind. tw is the only one I've ever heard, use it as an unjustified or unwarranted, attack. Even after him explaining his interpretation and seeing it on my screen, what?...50 million times?.... it still sounds wrong, to me. Carry on.:2cents:

Clodfobble wrote:

It was not "Rumsfeld to Resign." Do you see the difference?

I do not see the difference. MaggieL posts to confuse – to diffuse a reality that confronts her biases; that exposes more than four years of her war mongering posts as wrong. Like PA’s Senator Rick Santorum, MaggieL has been promoting things that are bad for American soldiers – to promote a failed political agenda.

Britain’s number one General calls for "British to Withdraw from Iraq". Where is that title wrong? It is not. It clearly defines the topic. MaggieL is posting deception - including errors about the General's backtracking – so that you will ignore reality. She complains about the title so that you don’t ask, “MaggieL, when do we find Saddam’s WMDs?” So that you ignore her guilty advocations for more war and for torture.

MaggieL hopes you also forget that all American Generals who served in Iraq and are now retired have been calling for the same thing. Iraq is not winnable. It was lost in the first six months when Tobias was there. See how Iraq was being lost even in his 2003 posts.

MaggieL cannot even admit that Saddam did not have WMDs. Her contrarian claims were based only in myths and lies. Proof for WMDs did not exist. MaggieL cannot even admit that fact. She cannot admit a "Mission Accomplished" war was advocated only by and for a political agenda. So she nitpicks.

The title is 100% correct. General Sir Richard Dannatt calls for "British to Withdraw from Iraq". Rather than admit reality, MaggieL attacks the title using Rush Limbaugh spin; so that reality will be ignored. When relevant facts are push right back at her, then she promotes more myths such as Gen Dannatt backtracking. He is not. But this same MaggieL cannot admit to an only reason Saddam had WMDs – lies promoted for a political agenda.

The title is 100% correct. MaggieL will argue irrelevant – just like Rush – to avoid admitting realities such as attacks on Americans every 15 minutes will only increase. Such realities say her political agenda was a lie.

Since we will not deploy 500,000 troops now, then General Dannatt notes that “British to Withdraw from Iraq” is necessary. Again, the title is 100% correct. MaggieL is wrong - again arguing semantics to ignore how wrong “Mission Accomplished” always was. Maybe you will also forget that she advocates torture, secret prisons, suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus, violation of principles upon which America was founded… Maybe you will forget that she still sees no difference between Tojo in Pearl Harbor and "Pearl Harboring of Iraq". So she nitpicks about a title. Nitpickings and credibility are not same. But MaggieL nitipicks anyway.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

To me, and everyone I've talked to in the last 50 years, 'Pearl Harboring" brings sneak attack to mind.

Pearl Harbor was a unilateral, unjustified attack; without any acceptable reason and based only upon fears and lies. Pearl Harbor was rationalized because a "preemptive strike" and "surprise attack" somehow are not the same thing. Of course they are same - militarily. Yes, they appear different in an emotional perspective. But they are same AND both occurred for same 'big dic' political reasons. We "Pearl Harbored" Iraq without even being attacked, by hyping fears and lies, and without even declaring war. UN refused to approve this "Pearl Harboring of Iraq". Even Mexico and Canada and other close American allies in S America and Africa condemned it.

We know that Saddam had no WMDs and had no interest in attacking or threatening the US. She claims a 'preemptive strike' is justified by fear. Therefore "Pearl Harboring" is OK? No wonder she must then argue about the title. Otherwise 'big dic' rationalizations that created Pearl Harbor would be exposed. Same 'big dic' rationalizations created Gulf of Tonkin and the Vietnam war. So instead complain about the irrelevant.

tw wrote:

...She may post in a sane tone....

Yes, I do try. You should try it sometime yourself...assuming you know in which direction "sane" lies from your present location.

But despite several screenfulls of your usual bluster, namecalling, baiting, straw men, red herrings and claims that I said things that I didn't, your subject line in this thread is still total BS.

"General calls for British to do ${x}" is light-years away from "British to do ${x}". And indeed, the British will withdraw from Iraq....someday. The US will also withdraw from Iraq. Also, the Sun will become a red giant and after that a white dwarf. But a thread headed "Sun to become Red Giant" implies that we should all run out and buy sunblock tomorrow.

and now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

MaggieL lives in her own world, as usual.

"A Downing Street damage-limitation exercise had seen Dannatt endure a 14-minute radio interview on Radio 4's Today programme. Designed to play down his comments to Sands, the general actually chose to go one step further. Dannatt suggested Iraq might ultimately 'break' his beloved British army. 'I want an army in five years' time,' he said quietly to the nation. Leaving Blair little option but to claim last Friday that he agreed with 'every' word Dannatt had told Radio 4 in his interview."

To me, and everyone I've talked to in the last 50 years, 'Pearl Harboring" brings sneak attack to mind.

It was a sneak attack for the US people. FDR was well aware of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened. But that's worth a new thread all together, doesn't it? ;)

Hippikos wrote:

It was a sneak attack for the US people. FDR was well aware of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened. But that's worth a new thread all together, doesn't it? ;)

Actually its an old thread... not that I can find it.:)

Hippikos wrote:

MaggieL lives in her own world, as usual.

If you don't think he's distancing himself from the interpretations, you're the one intellectually isolated. Even tw's favorite "unbiased" (hoo-boy!) media, the BBC, say "Britain's most senior soldier has backed away from his remarks that the British Army's presence in Iraq 'exacerbates the security problems.'" So take your pick: either he didn't mean it the way it's interpreted, and he's distancing himself from the interpretations, or he did, and he's backing off his own opinion. Either way, he's no longer tw's "hero".

See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1921968,00.html

Of course, that's a red herring from my original point, which still stands: The subject line of this thread is total BS, so ironic coming from the guy who's always foaming at the mouth to claim others are lying.

MaggieL, I'd rather believe what Bannett said in his own words on Radio 4 (later backed by Bliar) than what the "biased" BBC is writing. (Have you actually read what he said or did you only looked at it?).

All the rest is only political claptrap on which you are so fond of and swallow like an innocent baby. I wonder do you actually believe what all these politicians say?

BTW Dannett is getting a lot of positive response from his own men from Iraq and currently is da man in Basra. He said what everybody knows, except those lost from reality between the White House and Downing St.10. And you of course.

The title is more than adequate.

Iraq might break the British army!

If that's the case it's not Iraq's fault.

400,000 of you dead in WW2, Brits... I say again, you may need to do heavy lifting, the time is never inappropriate to toughen up in case it becomes necessary.

Iraq is no comparising to WW2, neither in casualties nor causes.

It's not only the Brits who might break: US military stretched to breaking point

BigV wrote:

I think SG's point was "Please don't use the perjorative phrase "Pakis", not "Oh no, don't go to war with them because...". I could be wrong...

Oops, not being very clear there I guess.

Two separate points in a short post
1) Bear in mind some posters find the abbreviation Paki offensive
2) Britain's Pakistanis in general are friends and family. At least the ones I know. The local shops and restaurants in my area are run by Indians, so I can't comment on heinous Pakistani crimes of retail discourtesy :)

It's not only the Brits who might break: US military stretched to breaking point

Says some guy at a think tank, not a General.

Wishful thinking in the Guardian.

Undertoad wrote:

Says some guy at a think tank, not a General.

Wishful thinking in the Guardian.

UT, like MaggieL and Bush (and Rumsfled) youre in a "State of Denial".

Another report by a retired Army officer under contract of the Pentagon.

I'm afraid no wishful thinking here, just hard reality... The wishful thinking is from your side.

PS: What wrong with The Graudian? Even MaggieL quotes from it...

Same report as the Guardian, dude.

Ooh they found someone to say bad things! (Good things are never reported.) Was it a recently retired General? No. An ex-officer- i.e., not high-ranking, not current, and not likely to have a great deal of special information. Working at a D.C. think tank. I'm so unimpressed!

And his report is not the headline, either. "If things don't change it's gonna get bad" is a more accurate headline. Problem is, that makes it too clear, it's not newsworthy. "If we don't stop for fuel we will run out." Yeah, so we'll stop for fuel. Duh!

Hippikos wrote:

PS: What wrong with The Graudian? Even MaggieL quotes from it...

I used the Guardian simply because they had the full text of the general's statement. No room to spin there. Otherwise the Guardian's at least as bad as BBC.

Hippikos wrote:

The title is more than adequate.

Must be some secret meaning of "adequate" that includes "false". Now who's dispensing "claptrap"?

Ooh they found someone to say bad things! (Good things are never reported.) Was it a recently retired General? No. An ex-officer- i.e., not high-ranking, not current, and not likely to have a great deal of special information. Working at a D.C. think tank. I'm so unimpressed!

Maybe you weren't impressed, but the top US commander in Iraq Gen.Casey acknowledged the result. Guess which opinion carries more weight here? "The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that".

Here's another report.

And another, recent one... May be you believe the US Army veterans from Iraq?

It isn't really a surprise if you remember Rummy the Great's estimate that US forces would be out of Iraq within a year.

UT, you and MaggieL reminds me so much of Bush. Don't bring the news I don't wanna hear...

Reading for comprehension: it's a pretty grand piano!

What did Casey say?

[SIZE=2]"The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey said of U.S. armed forces deployed in large numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq. "But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]

Ah, that word "but". It's a conjunction meant to indicate that there is a condition on the first part of the statement it joins. Let's construct it this way. If we don't stop for fuel, we will run out, but we are going to stop for fuel.

Stretched yes, breaking point no.

[/SIZE]

conjunction-junction, what's your function?!

UT, the difference is, that Casey's answer is purely political. He would never admit it, even if it was a fact. Dannett's statement was non-political, widely supported by his own troops in Basra.

Many reports of US Army stretched too thin are already from 2004. Current situation is even worse, don't you agree?

Riiiight, when you thought Casey was confirming your point, it was damning; when it turns out he confirms mine, it's meaninglessly political. Clearly I can't "win" this one, but one last point:

Follow:

If 2004 reports said it was stretched to the breaking point;

And it is worse now than it was in 2004;

And in the 2006 reports, the military is still "stretched to the breaking point" but not described as "broken", ever;

That would tell you the 2004 "stretched to the breaking point" reports were a bunch of bullshit; and

The same media is driving reports in 2006, and the similarity to 2004 is that they are both election years.

Undertoad wrote:

...still "stretched to the breaking point" but not described as "broken", ever;...

One thing, though. We aren't talking about a rubberband (a static capacity); this is a dynamic capacity, it's manipulable.

Hippikos wrote:

UT, you and MaggieL reminds me so much of Bush. Don't bring the news I don't wanna hear...

I read the same news you do...I just apply my own credibilty matrix to it, as I'm sure you do too. Look, I don't expect you to share my values; obviously that will never happen. But I know what the Genera said originally, what he said after that, and what various media wrote about it.

"Don't bring me news I don't want to hear" would include not adjusting your own credibilty matrix on the basis of how this story was reported by various media...including our own tw. (I'd tell you what my own credibilty matrix entry for tw on political topics is at this point, but IEEE floating point can't represent numbers that small. :-) )

When a thread is titled "British to Withdraw From Iraq" when in fact the British *aren't* about to withdraw from Iraq and in fact have announced no such intention, that's just bogus propagandizing. What was that word you used again? Ah yes..."claptrap".

You can wave around all the red herrings you like, but it's still BS.

Flint wrote:

One thing, though. We aren't talking about a rubberband (a static capacity); this is a dynamic capacity, it's manipulable.

Good point, The US Military was stretched 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, but bigger and stronger each of those years.

Maybe were doing a rope-a-dope? :boxers:

So...Bush is all like :ninja: and Terrorism is all like :eek: but the Liberal media is all like :cry: and the American public is all like :zzz: ???

Flint wrote:

So...Bush is all like :ninja: and Terrorism is all like :eek: but the Liberal media is all like :cry: and the American public is all like :zzz: ???

No, Bush is the dope. Who is the rope?

Undertoad wrote:

Riiiight, when you thought Casey was confirming your point, it was damning; when it turns out he confirms mine, it's meaninglessly political. Clearly I can't "win" this one, but one last point:

Follow:

If 2004 reports said it was stretched to the breaking point;

And it is worse now than it was in 2004;

And in the 2006 reports, the military is still "stretched to the breaking point" but not described as "broken", ever;

That would tell you the 2004 "stretched to the breaking point" reports were a bunch of bullshit; and

The same media is driving reports in 2006, and the similarity to 2004 is that they are both election years.

To remind you, your point was "wishful thinking" and the difference between 2004 and 2006 is approx. 2000 US death troops and ten if not hundred thousands Iraqi casualties.

These 2006 reports were from January, I believe you se black helicopters.

MaggieL wrote:

I read the same news you do...I just apply my own credibilty matrix to it, as I'm sure you do too. Look, I don't expect you to share my values; obviously that will never happen. But I know what the Genera said originally, what he said after that, and what various media wrote about it.

"Don't bring me news I don't want to hear" would include not adjusting your own credibilty matrix on the basis of how this story was reported by various media...including our own tw. (I'd tell you what my own credibilty matrix entry for tw on political topics is at this point, but IEEE floating point can't represent numbers that small. :-) )

When a thread is titled "British to Withdraw From Iraq" when in fact the British *aren't* about to withdraw from Iraq and in fact have announced no such intention, that's just bogus propagandizing. What was that word you used again? Ah yes..."claptrap".

You can wave around all the red herrings you like, but it's still BS.

Look, Brits will withdraw from Iraq, as soon as Bliar has left the building. Until then more unneccessary casualties will follow. The only red herring here, or claptrap as you wish, is you pathetically arguing about the thread title instead of the subject.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Good point, The US Military was stretched 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, but bigger and stronger each of those years.

Maybe were doing a rope-a-dope? :boxers:

The difference between then and now is the draft.

Boy, I hate these WW2 metaphors :thepain:

Flint wrote:

So...Bush is all like :ninja: and Terrorism is all like :eek: but the Liberal media is all like :cry: and the American public is all like :zzz: ???

You read too much comics...:rolleyes:

The Brits are withdrawing because we can't match the $300 billion 'invested' in Iraq by the US thus far. Thirty years experience stomping on people's faces in Northern Ireland also has shown us how overstaying one's welcome can exacerbate the political and social problems in a divided country.

If I was a US tax payer, I would be pretty pissed off by now and wondering why the fuck nothing is being done.

sproglet wrote:

The Brits are withdrawing...

No, they aren't. You prove the point that the thread title is misleading.

I don't remember if I've mentioned this....CRS, ya know.:blush:

The Netherlands just ordered a bunch of new J model helicopters and an upgrade on a bunch of older D models. I figure it'll be 3 or 4 years before they get their first delivery.

Because it's a foreign sale of military equipment, the Pentagon has to approve (which they have) and get the ok from Congress. The deal was presented to Congress, by the Pentagon, as being ok because the Netherlands would then use them to help us out in Afghanistan and Iraq. :eyebrow:

Even James Baker thinks the US should withdraw "come what may", or in his words "Redeploy and Contain".

Bombshell report will urge Bush to withdraw from Iraq


AN INFLUENTIAL United States commission is set to recommend a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq when it delivers its report early next year.

The Iraq Study Group (ISG), headed by James Baker, a former Secretary of State in president George H Bush's government, is expected to advise the current president to change his policy.

The recommendations are understood to include a new strategy of "Redeploy and Contain," which would see US forces gradually withdrawn from Iraq to bases elsewhere in the region.

Although the report will not advocate a hasty withdrawal, it confirms the emerging consensus in Washington that George W Bush's determination to "stay the course" regardless of mounting casualties, increased violence in Iraq and public dissatisfaction with the war, is no longer a seriously tenable option.

The group is also considering another option, called "Stability First", which would advise securing Baghdad, while bringing Iran and Syria to the table to use their influence to end the insurgency crippling efforts to bring peace to Iraq.

"The bottom line is, [the current policy] isn't working... There's got to be another way," one participant in the ISG meetings said. "You can't come out of those briefings and not have a sense that things are in real bad shape.

"The bottom line is, it's not working. They know that. And they know that time is not on their side."

The report will deal a fresh blow to Tony Blair, who has insisted that British forces would stay the course in Iraq.

At a Downing Street briefing, Mr Blair said he would be "absolutely astonished" if Mr Baker's commission called for troops to pull out of Iraq "come what may". The Prime Minister's case for staying the course suffered a massive setback last week when General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, warned that the presence of British troops was exacerbating the problems. However, Mr Blair stressed that Sir Richard was not calling for the immediate withdrawal of British troops.

British forces would not "walk away" from Iraq or Afghanistan until their job was complete.

Leaving either country now would leave the extremist enemies - both in the UK and abroad "heartened and emboldened".

"It is our policy to come out of Iraq when the job is done. What is very dangerous is any suggestion we get out before the job is done," Mr Blair said.

Mr Baker's previous role in US administrations will make his recommendations difficult to dismiss. He headed Mr Bush's legal team during the crucial and decisive Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election.

The White House has not commented on the Baker groups' proposals, but an official said: "If an independent group like the Baker panel can come up with some good ideas, we're all for it."

Source

"Leaving either country now would leave the extremist enemies - both in the UK and abroad "heartened and emboldened", is of course another blatant misleading by Bliar as documents showed that al-Qaeda fights against US and UK troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are a showcase.

Step by bloody step the Iraq War moves toward its denouement. Having set this tragedy in motion, the United States today finds itself consigned to the role of bystander, the world’s only superpower having long since lost control of events. As things unravel, the president—the most powerful man in the world—is demonstrably powerless to affect the outcome. Meanwhile, American soldiers fight on, even as it becomes increasingly apparent that the Army only recently thought all but invincible will not win this war.

For the Bush White House, September 2006 will be remembered as the month when the roof caved in. Bad news came in successive waves: the Marine intelligence report declaring Iraq’s critical Anbar Province all but lost; the failure of an all-out effort to win “the Battle of Baghdad”; the warnings from senior military officers that the Army, its readiness in free-fall, is nearing the end of its rope; opinion polls showing that a large majority of Iraqis simply want the Americans out of their country; above all, the leak of the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) declaring, “the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terror leaders and operatives.” In response to all of this, the administration has had little to offer other than to repeat President Bush’s conviction that “the only way to protect this country is to stay on the offense.”

Although not especially adept at using the English language, the president manages in this short sentence to capture the fundamental error of judgment that has mired his administration in a crisis from which it cannot extricate itself.

Meanwhile, the once crack Third Infantry Division, preparing for its third Iraq tour, has two of its four brigades without tanks or other heavy equipment. The Army’s chief of staff complains that army depots are clogged with 600 battle-damaged and worn-out Abrams tanks and 1,000 Bradley Fighting Vehicles awaiting repair. The Army lacks the money to fix them—this despite the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have now cost an estimated $500 billion.

From The American Conservative.

Well MaggieL, seems the thread title was adequate. Which red herrings are you going to use now?

Tony Blair will put pressure on the Iraqi government today to demonstrate that its security forces will be ready to take over from the British army in southern provinces within roughly a year.

Amid mounting international concern over escalating violence, Mr Blair is expected to use today's Downing Street talks with Iraq's deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, to discuss plans for an exit strategy for British troops, with some ministers openly contemplating withdrawal inside a year.

Source

Hippikos wrote:

From The American Conservative.

Hippikos has quotes a 23 Oct 2006 article entitled:
"On the Offense
No matter what the facts say, President Bush insists that we stay the course."

The article only confirms reality published by the NY Times on 25 Sept 2006 and quoted in The Cellar at:
Unit Makes Do as Army Strives to Plug Gaps
in a discussion entitled "Has the Bush Doctrine failed?"

As Sir General Richard Dannatt implied; from ABC News of 20 Feb 2007:

British P.M. Blair to Announce Timetable for Iraq Withdrawal
Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance before it that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

The announcement comes even as President Bush implements a surge of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.

Dannatt accurately noted:

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope.

"Whether that was a sensible or naive hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

Obviously this is contrary to what George Jr says. In previous statements, George Jr suggested Americans will be in Iraq even in 2010. With so little public protest, George Jr's legacy is protected.

The US has privately admonished Britain claiming it is interested only in Basra

What.....as opposed to only being intrested in its oil?

I think the exit flight has a 6-month stopover in Afghanistan...