Straight from the horse's mouth

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Netfotoj, Jul 22, 2007.

  1. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Want to know what's really going on in the war in Iraq? How would you like to have a chat with the man with the plan, Gen. David Petraeus, the man in charge who actually wrote the Army manual on counter-terrorism.

    Hugh Hewitt conducts an interview with Patraeus that gives detail and substance you won't get from sound bites.

    http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=484182dc-bf7c-42a7-ac74-9e270a9ef0f2

    Here's a couple of quotes:

     
  2. 73sbVert

    73sbVert Member

    230
    1
    18
    Go-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o General!

    Don't let this weigh you down:
    [​IMG]
     

  3. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    The sooner we realize that Iraq is the Normandy of WWIII, the faster we will get it done.
     
  4. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Here's a report from one of my favorite military bloggers, a soldier in Iraq who calls himself "Teflon Don."

    http://acutepolitics.blogspot.com/

    He writes about one area where the neighborhood turned against Al Qaeda and took up the fight:

    I hope this is that "light at the end of the tunnel" we kept looking for in Vietnam but never found.
     
  5. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    "Here's a report from one of my favorite military bloggers, a soldier in Iraq who calls himself "Teflon Don."
    http://acutepolitics.blogspot.com/
    He writes about one area where the neighborhood turned against Al Qaeda and took up the fight.."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is the central reason why we will win if we don't quit. The terrorists are killing members of the local populations. A long-term untenable position for them.
     
  6. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Bill Roggio: Good news from Iraq

    Bill Roggio reports on two of the most encouraging developments in the Iraq war to date, with two days bringing two major Iraqi tribal groups pledging to join the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army alongside Iraqi and coalition troops. The “Mahdi Army” is the group of thugs assembled by Iraqi/Iranian cleric Moqtada al Sadr, unaffectionately known as “Mookie” to the troops. Mookie is currently hiding out in Iran, urging his troops on from afar.

    When Mookie’s thugs and al Qaeda in Iraq are “exterminated with extreme prejudice,” the war will be over and our boys will come home in victory.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/iraq_report_tribes_in_khalis_p.asp

    Roggio also reports more good news, that U.S. forces have cornered a chunk of the Mahdi Army, their other main adversary in addition to al Qaeda in Iraq, and are dealing with them. That’s good news because anytime Mookie’s troops stand and fight, our boys quickly clean their clocks.

     
  7. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    1,791
    10
    38
    i know that i may be in the minority in expressing this opinion but...


    get WHAT done? serious question!! what or when or how do we define "done"? if i knew what done was, we could talk about better ways to get it "done". but no one seems to know what "done" is. even cheney is admitting that the post war plan was lacking pertinent details.

    "done" has to be a political end. war is just killing people unless there is a potential resolution.

    our american revolution: we won't be british subjects anymore and we'll fight til we have out independence from britian. "done" is when the british leave us the hell alone.

    our civil war: being a native southerner i like to see the civil war as federalists vs. anti-federalists after 50 years of stalemate. "done" was the south becoming it's own country. we didn't lose that one... we just stopped fighting.

    world war I: germany!!! "done" is when germany gets the hell outta france!!! THAT we can do with rifles and tanks.

    in iraq we have no objective. not that i've heard at least. we need to focus on creating a functional government and opening up employment oppotunities. unfortunately, we're focused on training a military/police force. WHY? serious question!!

    are we the de facto police? there to protect iraqi citizens?

    i think it's great that locals are fighting al qaeda, but al qaeda wasn't in iraq until after we invaded and ousted saddam. therefore, i see us as responsible for those 12 children dying. i don't recall part of al qaeda's mission being to bomb local villages. they never would have mortared anything if the american's hadn't been there.

    i'm not sure we can aptly explain democracy and peace through majority rule by firing m-16s.

    i think that "DONE" will end up being the meanest, baddest warlord who finally unites iraq under his iron fist. he may start off preaching about social equality, but as castro did, will essentially become a monarch during the sure to ensue kurdish war for independence, because that system of rule is part of the culture.

    we've got a fistfight going on. as long as we're throwing punches, so will they.

    the IEDs don't blow up the humvees parked in hunt armory. they only blow up the ones in iraq.

    if they rolled around our streets in tanks and armored humvees and had authority to inspect basically anyone's home for any reason, don't you think you'd put up a little resistance? of course... when put in that situation.

    but when put in our current situation of having a decent life, doing what you want to do with a little privacy... for the most part we all have pretty stable jobs and places to come home to, we're all pretty good citizens who abide by the rules... BECAUSE WE HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE.

    when you have no job, your family died in the american bombings and al qeada blew your house up... how hard will you fight for democracy and the idea that all men are created equal?
     
  8. RiceCakes

    RiceCakes Guest

    287
    0
    0
    Agree completely BT. We're fighting to convince someone else of an idea. Didnt work in Vietnam, wont work in Iraq.
     
  9. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    Actually it did work in Vietnam.
    1. Walter Cronkite, who we did not know at the time was a typical media lefty, lied to us about Tet. The VC were eliminated as a battlefield force (as was the S. Vietnamese Army which fought instead of running as the U.S. media and the VC said they would), and the NVA had been beaten to a pulp and were also not a significant battlefield force. That left the U.S. forces astride the battlefield as victor.
    2. 1n 1975, when there were zero U.S. combat forces in S. Vietnam, we had worked a truce with the North that threatened full U.S. air retaliation if they invaded the South again. After the effects of our previous bombings on the North, this was sufficient deterrent for Ho. However, the Democrat-controlled Congrees went ahead and defunded all U.S. activities and took the threat away from the North. Then the North invaded and took over the South, with the resulting slaughter of millions. (Sounds like what they are trying to do now in Iraq/Afghan/Iran. Plus ce la change, plus se la meme chose).
     
  10. West01

    West01 New Member

    184
    0
    0
    Howdi Selfdefense,

    I'm not sure that the Vietnam war is a good comparison with the current conflict.

    Please, lets stop giving credit to the media about the outcome of the Vietnam War. They are way overrated....and self promoting. The Seven o'clock volley had nothing to do with what was happening in the battlefield.

    They were a bunch of poor farmers and young political fanatics....Again to much credits...

    How long did the war lasted? How many tons of bombs did we drop on them? How much money did we spent at this? And yet....How long did take for the NVA to invade Saigon? Humm!

    For some reason, I don't remember it like this. The withdrawal started in 1974 under President Richard Nixon. I'm sure, he was pretty happy to get rid of this albatross off his neck. The United States had no more solid interest in Vietnam and President Nixon had negotiated an historical diplomatic bridge with China. China was no friend of Vietnam at the time (how strange this is today). Remember 1979...Vietnam was contained even the Soviets did not speak to them.

    I agree with you Selfdefense, it is a shocker!.... We actually won the Vietnam War! But it was a bitter sweet victory. Its the results in the end that count. Vietnam was poor third world country when we came in, and still was when we left. Today Vietnam is begging to do business with us. And what happened to the great allied of North Vietnam?...the USSR?

    The tragedy was that the American people did not received their Heroes Sons and Daughters that served in Vietnam with open arms. We can all be blamed for this. The other tragedies to this minor conflict (in relative term) had far to many casualties, cost far to much, and lasted far to long. This was a failure of both our political and military leadership for their lack of ability to adapt to nature of the conflict. (Lets not repeat this mistake). Also...a gross underestimation of the ability of the Vietnamese people.

    The Vietnam war was the Democrats war. It was Lyndon. B quagmire... The Kennedy Administration had an opportunity to make a deal with Ho Chi Min before he became a hardcore communist but noooo...the Democrats Hawks did not want to here none of this??? They wanted a puppet government .....Fast forward 2007....What a strange irony.:lol:

    IMHO the French/Algerian war a better analogy. The historical similarity with the FLN and the present insurgency in Irak is astounding.

    That is why Gen. Petraeus is the right man. His background speak for itself.. .....But he has been dealt a pretty lousy poker hand.. How is it suppose to go again... After the war, you establish good relation with the Irak's people, provide security and then establish a democratic government.....but not...Destroy all Irak's institutions, Create a Democracies and then provide security???? Doh!

    Has much this unpopular and frustrating conflict is. It is not the time to pull the plug ....yet...We must untangle the war in Irak with the war against terror. Lets be honest here, this is about Oil and Iran influence in the middle east. The Terrorist are proxies of a global ideology and Irak is just an opportunities that we offering them to promote themself. Time is working in the favor of our enemy. The American must keep their collective eyes on the ball and not get confuse political distraction. Yes, its a thought world out there....And every time you put that gas nozzle in your truck or car, think...someone died somewhere for this...


    Cheers!

    West01

    :D
     
  11. RiceCakes

    RiceCakes Guest

    287
    0
    0
    While its noble to think that we will get the Iraq people on their feet, a democratic government, all that, are they really going to be able to establish a military to withstand assaults from Iran and insurgent terrorists? Or are we forever destined to keep soldiers there to keep the peace?

    Additionally, why are we in Iraq reforming their country? We did not have anyone come to our country telling s to overthrow England, we did it our damned selves. Why then are the Iraqi people not doing it themselves?
     
  12. West01

    West01 New Member

    184
    0
    0
    Howdi RiceCakes

    Thought questions. With the changing landscape of globalism, the oil market is changing in front of our Eye. China, Russia and India a big players now and....what a surprise! We are in Irak! Is it worth the investment? Hard to say...

    We are trying to teach the Babylonian how to make a civilization....That is Irony...
    In the early weeks after the end of the "Irak War" AKA "The Invasion of Irak"...despite the turmoil... the Irak stock market was still functioning. It took our government bureaucrat to make a stop. More we stay, more we risk to mess it up.....

    Many of our official on both party claims that the She'a and the Sunnies will get at each other throats if we leave. That is funny considering the fact that most of our politicians couldn't distinguish the difference between She'a and Sunnies not more than between the "Knights of Columbus" and "Jehovah Witnesses" before this conflict started.

    They have been at each other throats before and will be in the future...there nothing America can do about it. And for the one's that claims that if we leave Irak the terrorist will follow us???? The analogies between terrorist and a lost puppy dog following you home is bizarre indeed???? Hey guys! Do you think that terrorists needs an invitation to party in the USA??

    Like I said...Time is not in our favor...


    Cheers!

    :D

    West01
     
  13. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    "Please, lets stop giving credit to the media about the outcome of the Vietnam War. They are way overrated....and self promoting. "
    A better expert than I, Goebbels, would disagree with you. All war is a test of wills above all, and the fifth column is always the most effective. Why do you think they shoot unarmed spies and not uniformed soldiers? If propagana was not important, Procter & Gamble would not advertise so much.


    "They were a bunch of poor farmers and young political fanatics....Again to much credits..."
    "How long did the war lasted? How many tons of bombs did we drop on them? How much money did we spent at this? And yet....How long did take for the NVA to invade Saigon? Humm! "
    Both irrelevant regarding the point that we had won after 1968.

    "The Vietnam war was the Democrats war."
    I would only mildly agree in that it took a lot of non-Democrats to support it; and my recollection is that a greater proportion of Republicans/Conservatives supported it than Democrats (yes, I am that old too) :( .

    "For some reason, I don't remember it like this. The withdrawal started in 1974 under President Richard Nixon."
    The 1972 Paris Accord set forth the promised retaliation I spoke about. My recollection matches that of Sec. Def. Melvin Laird in the Washington Post, January 17, 2007; Page A19:
    "The brewing fight in Congress over continued funding of the war in Iraq will not be the country’s first. It is an ominous reminder of 1975, when Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War three years after our combat troops had left. With the assistance we promised South Vietnam in the 1972 Paris Accords — U.S. equipment, replacement parts and ammunition — it had won every major battle since we left. But Congress lost the will to keep our promise and killed the appropriation. The result was a bloodbath."
    Helle Dale, February 5, 2007, Heritage.com: "The year was 1974, and a Democratic Congress, upset with the Ford White House for pardoning Richard Nixon, decided that it was time to punish the new administration with all of the power that it had accumulated during the Watergate scandal. Beginning with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, after all U.S. troops had left Vietnam, Congress cut off all U.S. funding to the South Vietnamese government--cutting off its ability to buy the weapons it needed to protect itself. It would eventually succumb to the North Vietnamese Army in 1975, setting off a series of Communist victories around the world, as well as the slaughter of millions in neighboring Cambodia.
    In retrospect, many historians acknowledge that none of this needed to happen. In the years prior to 1975, the U.S. not only succeeded in bringing the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table to end the war, but South Vietnam remained a free, democratic state, able to defend itself thanks to a steady supply of U.S. foreign aid and the successful strategy of Vietnamization--not unlike what the U.S. intends to foster in Iraq.
    In other words, Vietnam was not solely a casualty of the North Vietnamese, but rather also the victim of political expediency on the part of antiwar Members of Congress."

    Text of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/byagency/dos2314.htm
     
  14. West01

    West01 New Member

    184
    0
    0
    Excellent research Selfdefense. Boy this brings memories. You are right about this. But I do remember also about this era (and yes I do remember this since I was a square :wink: ) that Americans were pretty feed up about the whole affair. I did not matter if you were Republican or Democrats....Conservative or a Hippie, it was getting old. The economy was stagnating and our government was in knots... everything was just like molasses...Also I believe the American public overall realize that we were being dupe by this game the Communists were playing with us. All these small conflicts around the world...Middle East, Africa, Asia, South America. The world economy was growing...Japan..Europe..Canada..Australia and we were just sitting there policing all the bad boys for everyone else..

    Huh! what victories are you talking about? Nicaragua? Hah! ...C'mon man! I hope you are not talking about Norway!:lol:

    Cambodia! Ah ! The Khmer Rouge "L'enfant terrible" of the communist ideology. Even the Soviets and the Chinese are embarrassed about this one. The United Nations maybe,,,, I dono! I think you will find Cambodia just aside Rwanda in the dictionary. We almost lost Thailand,,,,no we were a little busy with South America and Indonesia at this time...

    Everybody love to use Cambodia as a scarecrow. The fact is, and this I remember very well and I was traveling a lot during this period, nobody a gave flying hoot about the fate of these poor people...Not the far right a neither the communist :shock: . The Khmer Rouge were freaks and it took the the North Vietnamese to dislocate them. And that's irony... The sad reality was that there were a lot of genocides around the world during that period. Some were just more popular than others with the media.

    Sorry my friend. This is in the realm of alternative history and I just don't waltz this way. The alternative could had been a nuclear winter....also,

    Pleasure to chat and Cheers!

    West01

    :D [/quote:1rxro339][/quote:1rxro339]
     
  15. West01

    West01 New Member

    184
    0
    0
    Sorry for the messy post... got problem with the quote thingy..

    :oops:

    West01
     
  16. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    West: "Touche Selfdefense... can't argue with this. But it was way after the fact that the medias realized their impact on the Vietnam conflict. IMHO I don't believe in this case it was truly intentional but more accidental.."
    Deesn't make a difference if they realized it or it was accidental, they had the stated effect.

    "The historical context of that period doesn't put the United State in positive light and that is pretty difficult to change at the end... "
    The public opinion situation was not the point; at the end of 1968 we had in fact won militarily, and we were told we had been defeated militarily.

    "Americans were pretty feed up about the whole affair. I did not matter if you were Republican or Democrats....Conservative or a Hippie, it was getting old. "
    Goes back to the first point. Like now, we were "tired" because we were lied to and told we wer not winning and could not win, when in fact we had already won. The role of left wing U.S. media propaganda as pivotal in their winning a political victory was mentioned by Gen. Giap and Ho.

    "..nobody a gave flying hoot about the fate of these poor people...Not the far right a neither the communist.."
    Doesn't make any difference who cared or didn't care, or who was embarrased or not. The point is that the bloodbath (and the genocide and rights violations inside Vietnam) happened because the liberal Congress of the time surrendered after a militarily successful war was won and a workable peace treaty had been in place for 3 years.

    "Sorry my friend. This is in the realm of alternative history and I just don't waltz this way. The alternative could had been a nuclear winter...."
    But it is the alternative that has the facts (including the post-war information we did not have at the time from N. Vietnamese, Soviet, and Chinese archives) behind it. Both sides of the super-power table knew thru ongoing diplomacy that the other side did not view this conflict as being on the nuclear priority list.

    Best,
    SD
     
  17. West01

    West01 New Member

    184
    0
    0
    I think we are closer on this point than its seems. But my nuance is that people are not that stupid...no not everyone believes what is on TV. The problem was that the American people were not living in a vacuum. The world was moving forward and we were not. Remember this was the period of massive welfare programs and America was at crossroad of becoming a welfare state or getting back to work. The Vietnam War was becoming just an irrelevant ideological distraction. We had problems at home. That is why many Republicans representative turned their thumbs down on the war. But for them it was to late.... :cry:

    Not to defend the liberals here (holding my nose here :wink: )...This is more Monday Night Quarterbacking than anything else. Like I said, some genocides were more populars than other.

    :lol: :lol: Sorry Selfdefense, that is funny. Boy I don't remember the Cold War little this at all!. :D When we were stuck in the middle of this ...its was quite a different perspective. These diplomatics games were just that..games (remember better safe than sorry). Trusting the Soviets...you got to be kidding :lol: Hey my friend, the Cuban crisis was still fresh in our mind during these times. USSR was spending millions of equivalent dollars to arm countries like Egypt, Irak, countless of South-American and Asian Subversive tugs. And the Russian people were starving...

    The only diplomatic agreement between us and the Soviets was fear! The challenge for the USA was not to put all its eggs in the same basket! Thus that why Vietnam became irrelevant. China came in the picture during that period and it was major shift in the geopolitical equation. For a rare occasion our politicians played their cards right and put China's position to our advantage. Vietnam was done. It was becoming crazy to invest more money and people in this. Many people on both side of the political spectrum just could not understand this at the time. When the barn is burning...you get horses out immediately. You just don't wait so can prove an ideological philosophy. Lets not make this mistake in Irak. Give it time as long as it is relevant.


    Cheers!

    West01
    :D
     
  18. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Took a day off from my computer and you guys, SD and West, have burned up your keyboards again!

    As for the Vietnam War analogy, the comparison works best with Iraq if you look at what Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha and Harry Reid want to do, pull the plug on Iraq just like the Democrats did on South Vietnam in 1975.

    Nixon had "declared victory and went home" as some described his pullout plan and the South Vietnamese were defending themselves adequately from the North as long as they got help from American air and sea power.

    But once Congress cut off the funding, the north attacked, the south couldn't hold them off and there was that sad last-helicopter-lifting-off-the-embassy-roof scene, with desperate South Vietnamese hanging on the skids.

    I was in Vietnam in 1969, but got out of the Navy in 1971. I was glad I did because my Navy buddies I contacted after the Vietnam "defeat" told me about the drastic defense cuts and "hollow military" that followed that debacle. Not until Reagan took office in 1980 did that begin to turn around militarily and in some sense you could still say America is suffering diplomatically and in other ways for the sorry end of the Vietnam War.

    Gen. Patraeus may well win in Iraq, only to see his throat cut by Congress in September. And when we yank our forces out, the bloodbath in Iraq will make South Vietnam's fall look like a garden party. And emboldened by their "victory" Osama and his nutjobs, plus Iran, Syria, whoever, will all see America as their "paper tiger" target.

    P.S. I saw an article a day or two ago in the New York Post (shoulda saved a link to post it but didn't) that answered BigTaco's question about what victory in Iraq would look like. Here's the short version:

    1. Osama's boys lose (preferably by dying for Allah and/or Osama, either as long as they're dead, my addition)
    2. Iran and Syria get run out of country (preferably riding on a rail with tar and feathers applied, or they can die, too, if they prefer; my addition).
    3. Sectarian violence ends.

    One and two are doable by our troops. Getting Iraqis to quit killing each other might be beyond our reach. But if our troops can do one and two, we can "declare victory and go home" and let the Iraqis kill each other off.
     
  19. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Michael Yon reports

    Michael Yon, the best Iraq war correspondent bar none, has a new report out on the campaign after al Qaeda was run out of Baqubah. The troops he's with are trying to get some food to feed the residents of Baqubah and find dealing with the bureaucrats in Baghdad is at least as tough as fighting al Qaeda, maybe harder.

    http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/bread-and-a-circus-part-ii-of-ii.htm

    But during long-winded arguments over food delivery, a telling comment is made by an Iraqi official on the war.

     
  20. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Michael Yon, my favorite war correspondent, has been in Iraq since the beginning of this war, reporting on the troops. He writes about the horrors and sums up recent events in Iraq in a report in the New York Daily News.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/05/2007-08-05_i_have_seen_the_horror-2.html