Quote :

"‘US Troops Exacerbate Iraq Campaign’ Mark Mazzetti, LA Times WASHINGTON, 2 October 2005 — The US 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 US troops in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem. During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of US forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East. For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of US troops is imperative. US officials months ago dialed back their expectations of what the US military can achieve in Iraq. But the comments this week showed that commanders believe a large US 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 US military, and that the insurgency will go on long after US troops have left Iraq. “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 definition of military success in Iraq less ambitious than President Bush has given in recent statements. At his ranch last month in Crawford, Texas, 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 modest definition of success, emphasizing the importance of training Iraqi troops as part of the US 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 since June from three to one. And they pointed this week to ways in which the US troop presence is causing problems. During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, said that troop reductions were required to “take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force.” A smaller US presence could deflate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested. The same approach might have value across the Middle East, commanders said. Gen. John P. Abizaid of Central Command, who supervises all US troops in the region, said that the broader fight against extremism requires the United States to “reduce our military footprint” across the region, and to push governments in the Middle East to fight the extremists themselves. While Abizaid advocates a troop reduction, he does not favor a total withdrawal. He envisions the withdrawal preceded by the establishment of stable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accompanied by an assured flow of oil and enhanced regional security networks. Among Americans, support for the war continues to dwindle, while growing numbers conclude that troops should be withdrawn partially or completely. Only 32 percent of people surveyed for a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released last week approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq, compared with 40 percent last month and 50 percent earlier this year. The survey also showed that 59 percent now consider it a mistake to have sent US forces to Iraq, up from less than half earlier this summer. And 63 percent believe troops should be withdrawn partially or completely, up 10 points from August."

10/2/2005 6:46:08 PM

LIBERAL BIAS! I WILL NOT BELIVE ANYTHING FROM A NEWSPAPER OR CNN! I GET MY NEWS FROM SENSIBLE BLOGS

10/2/2005 7:19:40 PM

HOOOOOOOOOOOOLYSHIT

WHY DO U.S. GENERALS HATE AMERICA? THEY'RE TRYING TO DISPARAGE OUR TROOPS?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001220138
BTW that's the article

10/3/2005 9:10:23 AM

So it only took 2 years this time instead of 11 to realize that a US armed occupancy can't end a native insurgency.

Goodbye Baghdad, hello al-Zarqawi City.

10/3/2005 10:51:05 AM

Lets see:

We learned this lesson in:

Latin America
Southeast Asia
Middle East


Now we need to invade Europe and Africa to finish the world wide domination rule.

10/3/2005 11:15:57 AM

good thing we didnt fight in those pointless and unjust WW1 or WW2 wars

10/3/2005 11:27:22 AM

riight

10/3/2005 11:32:35 AM

Aside from WWI and WWII, you will find very few within a long list of just wars that the US has engaged in.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

10/3/2005 11:34:09 AM

yeah maybe we shouldnt have gotten involved in that revolutionary war either...that was unjust...we just stole land from the British! fucking american terrorists

10/3/2005 11:38:13 AM

Any other wars of "Freedom" you can think of?

Because your list is getting awfuly short.

10/3/2005 11:40:28 AM

any way you want to say America was just in the revolutionary war, or just ignore that point?

10/3/2005 11:42:05 AM

Hey I've got an idea

How about you relate the Revolutionary war to anything that was said in this thread.

10/3/2005 11:47:41 AM

ok sure heres how it relates to one note

Quote :

"Aside from WWI and WWII, you will find very few within a long list of just wars that the US has engaged in."

so are you admitting that the Revolutionary War is within the few just wars th US has been involved in, or are you aware that we basically stole colonial land from Britain?

10/3/2005 11:50:29 AM

The British stole land from the Native American's who happened to live here before colonization if you want to go down THAT road. I wouldn't consider our revolutionary war more just then any other revolutionary war over a distant Monarchy.

10/3/2005 11:56:11 AM

^ exactly. we were fighting for "our land," which was actually the native americans' land, so really, no, it wasn't just

10/3/2005 12:05:27 PM

Really why bring up WWII in this thread? Yes, it is an easily justifiable war, but how many aren't? Also remember that the US didn't jump head first into WWII, we really didn't even want to get involved. We have been the aggressor in every war since then. There's always a "cause" to rally support, in the past typically communism; that has been recently replaced with terrorism.


Oh and really don't get into the Revolutionary War. That's pointless because it's all a matter of perspective. In today's world, the actions at the Boston Tea Party would be viewed as terrorism. The British were just dealing with an insurgency after all. The Iraqi insurgents probably view themselves in a similar light as many view our forefathers - freedom fighters willing to die to liberate their country from the occupancy of a nation overseas and mold it how they wish.

10/3/2005 12:08:17 PM

the point is, many would consider the Iraq war justifyable

10/3/2005 12:17:49 PM

If by "many" you mean a minority in the United States.

10/3/2005 12:26:21 PM

there are still people who consider slavery justifiable too.

also, that wasn't your point at all. your point was destroyed about half a thread ago

10/3/2005 12:30:04 PM

but how are we going to build a walmart and sell more coca cola if we leave?

10/3/2005 1:00:03 PM

theres even people who voted for Bush

matter of fact they're a minority majority

deal with it

10/3/2005 3:04:14 PM

O rly?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17209568.htm

10/3/2005 3:52:06 PM

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2005 4:02:40 PM