General Resists Timetable for Withdrawal of Troops in Iraq

[FourScore]

Source: NYT

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, Washington’s ambassador there, that the administration’s goal of creating “breathing room” for political progress by sending five additional combat brigades last year “has not been achieved.”

“That reality leads many of us to once again challenge President Bush’s policies,” Mr. Levin said as the general and the ambassador sat motionless at the witness table. Senator Levin said the current Shiite-led government in Baghdad has shown “incompetence” and “excessive sectarian” policies.

In his opening statement, General Petraeus said that security progress has been “significant but uneven.”

He called for a continuing of the troop “surge” through July, the target date for drawing down five combat brigades who were sent to reinforce the contingent last year, and then a 45-day pause before reviewing once again whether there should be a further troop reduction.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/world/middleeast/08cnd-petraeus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[acmavm]

1. So? Anybody surprised?

[Javaman]

3. I'm just surprised that we still have to go through this stupid dog and pony

show when that statement could have been said in a press release.

[acmavm]

5. Nah. This way the can give us all the raspberry and broadcast

it all over the world.

[whistle]

2. Of course, $400 million per day is just too big of a military boondoggle

....to give up :wtf:

Bring our troops home now

[Sam Ervin jret]

4. I can do it! Just give me six more months.....again.

"But general are our actions in Iraq making us any more secure here at home?" asked the senator again repeating a question asked of the general during his last report before the committee.

"Ive been thinking about that question.." the general went on to try to explain.

He has been thinking about it. That's good because last time, his answer was a definitive "Uh....."

This time he was prepared with a list of rationalizations including: 1. our being in Iraq got rid of a bad guy like Saddam. Which is true enough, but there are "bad guys" all over the world in places that have no oil where we do not seem so interested in being superman, hero of the common man.

2. Our being in Iraq has planted a seed of Democracy. Well again, somewhat true but there are some people begging for help with their democracy in places like Tibet, and yet no superman for them.

3. Being in Iraq has kept the AL Qaeda numbers down in Iraq. Well that's just wrong. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we went there and if we stayed in Afghanistan we may have been able to stop them there.

You'd think with all that time to find an answer to such a basic question as "are we more secure because we are in Iraq?"the general could have come up with a better (list of excuses)sorry, I mean answer.

[Massachusetts]

6. When the few control the many, and the many have NO VOICE,

the result is usually a flustercluck for the many and a boondoggle for the few.

[bemildred]

7. Just one more half-Friedman unit ... nt

[humbled_opinion]

8. The spin...

Maliki (Shiite) is taking on Al-Sadr's militia (also shiite)... This is how the right is going to spin political progress.

[Acadia Blue]

9. Bush intentionally broke it so he could keep us there for 100 years

And that is a fact. If was about feeding the military corpoatist complex our hard earned tax dollars while he gave the riches a tax break so they would not whine about his greed war.

[chat_noir]

10. CNN Quick Vote

Do you agree with the top U.S. military commander in Iraq that things are better than before the surge?

http://www.cnn.com/


Yes 43% 26250

No 57% 34490

[ryanmuegge]

11. And somehow McCain is winning on this issue

What the hell is wrong with the American public?