|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...45&postcount=8
<h3>What makes him [Bush] a colossal failure?</h3> Interest rates? Stock market values?
Home values? The economy? Unemployment rates?
I know what it is, its Iraq, the AG, and what happens in Washington.
No matter how bad you think he looks, just look up Carter and he seems great.
Since you only commented on this one I guess Hellery works, I get busy on a better one for Obama. 
|
....to further answer your question, reconmike:
Quote:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...314583333.html
U.S. calls 40,000 Iraqi troops combat-ready
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
<h3>Monday, February 7, 2005</h3>
........The Defense Department also released a chart that said more than 79,000 Iraqi police officers and nearly 57,000 Iraqi military personnel have undergone training, Middle East Newsline reported. This included 74 Iraqi battalions, many of which were deployed during elections on Jan. 30.
Later, Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided different figures on the number of trained Iraqi troops. Pace told a Pentagon briefing that 136,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and equipped.
For his part, Myers said Iraqi units unprepared for combat missions could still conduct patrols. He said the coalition planned to accelerate training of Iraqis in 2005.
"The coalition must focus our efforts on reaching the point where we can shift our mission to fighting the counterinsurgency ourselves to developing Iraqi capacity to conduct those operations," Myers said. "Since this past July, the coalition has accomplished a great deal in improving the quality of the Iraqi security forces on duty."
Myers said the U.S. military has begun to embed trainers into Iraqi military and security units. He said the U.S. units have trained Iraqi military personnel and then conducted combat operations with them.
The general refused to provide an updated estimate of the size of the Iraqi insurgency. He said the estimate was classified, adding that "accurate estimates are just very, very difficult in this type of insurgency."
Members of the Senate committee expressed skepticism over the Pentagon figures, particularly regarding the number of combat-ready Iraqi forces.
Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, read an e-mail message from a Marine colonel who asserted that Iraqi commanders were inflating the size of their units.
"They have been lying about their numbers in order to get more money," the colonel was quoted as saying in the e-mail sent in 2005. "They say they have 150 when there are only 100. The senior officers take a cut from the top. We've caught soldiers in houses stealing property, and the commander won't react to it. They have no interest in learning the job, because right now the Marines are doing all of that."
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who cited numerous setbacks, said the United States must increase formation, training, equipping and mentoring of Iraqi forces. Wolfowitz cited a Bush administration request of $80 billion, much of which would be used to train Iraq's military, police and security forces.
"Iraqi security forces lack many of the capabilities that our forces demonstrate so superbly," Wolfowitz said. "However, Iraqi forces bring to the fight skills that our soldiers will never possess, particularly their understandings of the languages and cultures of Iraq."
Wolfowitz told the Senate committee that on June 28, 2004 only one Iraqi battalion was regarded as combat-ready and capable of deployment. He said that today there are 45 such units, but acknowledged absentee rates of up to 40 percent in Iraqi military units.
The deputy defense secretary also said the Pentagon has decided to withdraw 15,000 troops from Iraq in March 2005, which would result in 135,000 American soldiers in that Middle East country. Wolfowitz said the withdrawal would return the U.S. military presence to the level of that before the Iraqi elections last month.
Officials said the administration has seen a steady increase in Iraqi combat capability. They cited a turning point in August 2004 when Iraqi National Guard and military forces joined in the stabilization of Najaf.
"We have seen a steady increase in capability as measured by success in fighting on the ground." Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ronald Schlicher said.
|
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/...d-mccain-iraq/
General Abizaid Smacks Down McCain’s Plan To Send More U.S. Troops To Iraq
November 15, 2006
Today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and <b>they all said ‘no.’” Watch it:</b>
MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.
ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? <h3>And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010901872.html
With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals
By Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.
Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."
But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.
Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.
Bush's decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.
....There is little question that more troops for Iraq seemed far from the conventional wisdom in Washington after the beating Bush and the Republican Party took in the midterm elections Nov. 7. Indeed, when Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 30, Maliki did not ask for more American troops as part of a new Baghdad security plan he presented to Bush, U.S. officials said.
Maliki's idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it. "The message in Amman was that he wanted to take the lead and put an Iraqi face on it. He wanted to control his own forces," said a U.S. official familiar with the visit.
Another problem for the administration was the Iraq Study Group, the prestigious bipartisan panel headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). Soon after Bush returned from Jordan, the group delivered its recommendations, including proposing a high-level dialogue with Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq and setting a goal of early 2008 for the removal of almost all U.S. combat troops.
Although the president was publicly polite, few of the key Baker-Hamilton recommendations appealed to the administration, which intensified its own deliberations over a new "way forward" in Iraq. How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.
As described by participants in the administration review, some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton. One senior administration official disputed that, arguing that staff members were attracted to the "surge" option to address long-standing concern that earlier efforts failed because of insufficient security forces.......
|
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289303,00.html
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
Top Republican Senators Propose Own Iraq Bill
Saturday, July 14, 2007
....Through top aides and in private meetings and phone calls, Bush has repeatedly asked Congress to hold off on demanding a change in the course of the war until September, when the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, deliver a fresh assessment of progress.
But many Republicans, most of whom will face voters next year, say they are tired of the war, which is in its fifth year and has killed more than 3,600 troops.
In a report to Congress this week, the White House conceded that not enough progress was being made in training Iraqi security forces — the linchpin in Bush's exit strategy for U.S. troops.
At a news conference Friday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of battle-ready <h3>Iraqi battalions able to fight independently has dropped from 10 to six in recent months despite an increase in U.S. training efforts.</h3>
Pace said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be "overly concerned" about because the problem was partly attributable to losses in the field.
"As units operate in the field, they have casualties, they consume vehicles and equipment," Pace said.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092902085.html
Decline in Iraqi Troops' Readiness Cited
Generals Tell Lawmakers They Cannot Predict When U.S. Forces Can Withdraw
By Josh White and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
<h3>Friday, September 30, 2005; Page A12</h3>
The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help <h3>has dropped from three to one</h3>, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon....
....Officials did not say specifically why two battalions are no longer rated at Level 1 and thus unable to operate on their own. They said generally readiness ratings can change for numerous reasons, such as if a commander resigns, or if more training is needed. Casey also said that the "Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time."
|
In another development Friday, Bush's top spokesman appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress on military, political and other benchmarks designated by the United States.
However, Tony Snow said, "Let's also see what happens because quite often when parliaments do not meet, they are also continuing meetings on the side. And there will be progress, I'm sure on a number of fronts."....
|
<h3>Has Bush really traded the lives of nearly 2000 additional US troops, and countless more wounded, since General Casey testified before a senate committee, on September 28, 2005, that one Iraqi combat battalion was able to "operate independently".....traded the lives, in exchange for 5 more independent Iraqi battalions, now? Even if these Iraqi battalions are manned to full strength.....800 troops....isn't it true that Bush has ordered 2000 additional US troops to their deaths, in the last 22 months, for a result of, at most, 4000 more independently operating, Iraqi troops....</h3>
...and you describe the Iraqis as "savages", reconmike? What word do you reserve to describe a president so deceitful and incompetent, and for the folks who have back him....all this way.....through so much avoidable killing, in a "war of choice", founded on a conspiracy of deliberate deceit?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
I am kind of hoping this is it also, let's get our stuff out, move it on the borders, <h3>let those savages kill each other for a few years, then go back in to mop up the place.</h3>
|
reconmike, isn't combat training about being taught to dehumanize the enemy, or, anyone? Who commands these troops, who is their commander in chief...who are "those savages" of whom you speak?
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4830782.stm
Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 March 2006, 12:30 GMT
Iraqi civilian deaths shrouded in secrecy
By David Gritten
BBC News website
.....A US statement at the time said the civilians, including seven women and three children, died in a roadside bomb explosion that also killed a marine in the western town of Haditha.
But survivors and those who saw the bodies said the account was not true.
"Their bodies were riddled with bullets, there was evidence that there had been gunfire inside their homes, there were blood spatters inside their homes," Bobby Ghosh, a journalist who took up the case for Time magazine, told the BBC.
"It was quite clear that these people were killed indoors, which couldn't possibly have happened if they'd been involved in a roadside blast."
An initial military inquiry found the two families had indeed been shot dead in their homes by the marines, but it described the deaths as "collateral damage".
The report has now prompted the US Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) to determine the motives behind the killing.
The NCIS will have to decide whether the civilians were killed by accident or were targeted by the marines as an act of revenge in a potential war crime.
Several American veterans of the war in Iraq have told the BBC's Newsnight programme that the marines' reaction to the roadside bomb attack in Haditha was not an isolated incident.
Specialist Michael Blake, who served in Balad, said it was <h3>common practice to "shoot up the landscape or anything that moved" after an explosion</h3>.
'Common practice'
Another veteran, Specialist Jody Casey, who was a scout sniper in Baquba, said he had also seen innocent civilians being killed.
Bombs "go off and you just zap any farmer that's close to you", he said.
<h3>At that time, when we first got down there, you could basically kill anyone you wanted
Specialist Jody Casey</h3>
Mr Casey said he did not take part in any atrocities himself, but was advised to always carry a shovel. He could then plant this on any civilian victims to make it look as though they were digging roadside bombs.
The US and British governments say the fact the allegations are being investigated at all shows that progress has been made in Iraq.
UK International Development Minister Hilary Benn welcomed the inquiry and said it was important that the perpetrators were being brought to justice.
"The big difference between now and the 30 years that people endured under Saddam is that when things happened nobody was called to account, there was no due process," he said. .....
|
Quote:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...626870,00.html
Over 2 000 killed in Fallujah
25/11/2004 22:17
Baghdad - More than 2000 people have been killed so far in the operation against the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, an Iraqi official said on Thursday.
He gave no breakdown of deaths among US troops, Iraqi forces, insurgents and civilians.
Qassem Dawoud, the government's national security adviser, told reporters that as of Thursday, the death toll stood at "more than 2 085" with "more than 1 600 arrested".
US officials had said 54 US soldiers and marine were killed in the operation, which began on November 8.....
|
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...638829,00.html
A name that lives in infamy
The destruction of Falluja was an act of barbarism that ranks alongside My Lai, Guernica and Halabja
Mike Marqusee
Thursday November 10, 2005
The Guardian
One year ago this week, US-led occupying forces launched a devastating assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja. The mood was set by Lt Col Gary Brandl: "The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He's in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him."
The assault was preceded by eight weeks of aerial bombardment. US troops cut off the city's water, power and food supplies, condemned as a violation of the Geneva convention by a UN special rapporteur, who accused occupying forces of "using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population". Two-thirds of the city's 300,000 residents fled, many to squatters' camps without basic facilities.
As the siege tightened, the Red Cross, Red Crescent and the media were kept out, while males between the ages of 15 and 55 were kept in. US sources claimed between 600 and 6,000 insurgents were holed up inside the city - which means that the vast majority of the remaining inhabitants were non-combatants.
On November 8, 10,000 US troops, supported by 2,000 Iraqi recruits, equipped with artillery and tanks, supported from the air by bombers and helicopter gunships, blasted their way into a city the size of Leicester. It took a week to establish control of the main roads; another two before victory was claimed.
The city's main hospital was selected as the first target, the New York Times reported, "because the US military believed it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties". An AP photographer described US helicopters killing a family of five trying to ford a river to safety. "There were American snipers on top of the hospital shooting everyone," said Burhan Fasa'am, a photographer with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. "With no medical supplies, people died from their wounds. Everyone in the street was a target for the Americans."
The US also deployed incendiary weapons, including white phosphorous. "Usually we keep the gloves on," Captain Erik Krivda said, but "for this operation, we took the gloves off". By the end of operations, the city lay in ruins. Falluja's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines.
The US claims that 2,000 died, most of them fighters. Other sources disagree. When medical teams arrived in January they collected more than 700 bodies in only one third of the city. Iraqi NGOs and medical workers estimate between 4,000 and 6,000 dead, mostly civilians - a proportionately higher death rate than in Coventry and London during the blitz.
The collective punishment inflicted on Falluja - with logistical and political support from Britain - was largely masked by the US and British media, which relied on reporters embedded with US troops. The BBC, in particular, offered a sanitised version of the assault: civilian suffering was minimised and the ethics and strategic logic of the attack largely unscrutinised.....
|
Last edited by host; 07-14-2007 at 11:36 AM..
|