Biden: "(The Administration) believes Iraq is lost!"

**Nitro Express** · 01-08-2007, 09:16 AM

If Cheney and Rumsfeld are so smart how come they ignored the basic war fundamentals taught in the book The Art of War?

These guys invaded a country without understanding it's religiouse, demographic, political, and cultural facts. To win a war you first need to understand who you are fighting. Anyone with half a brain saw that taking Saddam out would cause a free for all.

These guys thought they could take Saddam out, then the Iraqi people would dance around like the furry midgets at the end of that Star Wars movie having a big celebration. Then put in the puppet president and make lucrative oil deals.

It was using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and make some oil deals with a puppet govt. These people never even knew what a Sunni or Shite Muslim was or that they would start fighting each other in a civil war. Let's not forget the Kurds and hey, Iran would love to rush in as soon as we leave.

Iraq will be no better off and chances are good, it will be worse than when Saddam was in power.

**Guitar Shark** · 01-08-2007, 02:47 PM

Biden is running for president, and so these comments need to be taken with a grain of salt... BUT, I wouldn't be surprised if his suspicion is 100% accurate.

**FORD** · 01-08-2007, 03:19 PM

If the BCE had any brains, and we all know they don't, they would be encouraging moderates in Iran instead of bowing to Likud paranoia and preparing for another insane and illegal war there.

Once either the BCE or Israel drops the first bomb on Iran, you can consider it fucked forever. Those people will run backwards into the 12th century faster than you can say "Allahuah Akbar".

On the other hand, most of the people in Iran are just waiting for the old Mullahs to drop dead so they can get off the religious fundamentalism and join the 21st century. These are the people we should be encouraging, because, in all probablility, they will be the ones who end up running what is now the southern (Shia) portion of Iraq. And that means the oil fields.

Let the Jordanians annex the Sunni portion of Iraq. And the Kurds, of course, have pretty much been on their own since the "no fly zone" kicked Saddam's army out of the region.

No more Iraq, no more excuses for occupation.

**Guitar Shark** · 01-08-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by FORD
If the BCE had any brains, and we all know they don't,

Yet the "BCE" somehow managed to pull off a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, fooling the world's most respected engineers and physicists into believing it was caused by the impact of two passenger planes, right Dave?

**Warham** · 01-08-2007, 04:46 PM

FORD, are you talking out of your ass yet again?

Joe Biden's off the radar screen. Nobody cares if he runs for president. He's right after Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton on the list of 'hardly cares'.

**FORD** · 01-08-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Warham
FORD, are you talking out of your ass yet again?

Joe Biden's off the radar screen. Nobody cares if he runs for president. He's right after Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton on the list of 'hardly cares'.

Did I even mention Senator Hairplug (D - MBNA)? :confused:

**fe_lung** · 01-08-2007, 05:23 PM

Ok, I hate Bush as much as the next guy but he really can't win on this. First they criticized him for claiming that we were winning the war, now they're criticizing the administration for being defeatest.

**Lqskdiver** · 01-08-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by FORD
If the BCE had any brains, and we all know they don't, they would be encouraging moderates in Iran instead of bowing to Likud paranoia and preparing for another insane and illegal war there.

Once either the BCE or Israel drops the first bomb on Iran, you can consider it fucked forever. Those people will run backwards into the 12th century faster than you can say "Allahuah Akbar".

On the other hand, most of the people in Iran are just waiting for the old Mullahs to drop dead so they can get off the religious fundamentalism and join the 21st century. These are the people we should be encouraging, because, in all probablility, they will be the ones who end up running what is now the southern (Shia) portion of Iraq. And that means the oil fields.

Let the Jordanians annex the Sunni portion of Iraq. And the Kurds, of course, have pretty much been on their own since the "no fly zone" kicked Saddam's army out of the region.

No more Iraq, no more excuses for occupation.

This is all idealist thinking...but it's a lot easier said than done.

Too much opposition and "respect for elders" type of shit going on. I think you're right. Once the old farts in power start dying off then we can concentrate on building alliances and infrastructure in the region.

And please, the socalled No Fly Zone was such a joke...it was never really enforced and pot shots were a common yet unreported pastimes.

**Seshmeister** · 01-08-2007, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by FORD
Once either the BCE or Israel drops the first bomb on Iran, you can consider it fucked forever. Those people will run backwards into the 12th century faster than you can say "Allahuah Akbar".

On the other hand, most of the people in Iran are just waiting for the old Mullahs to drop dead so they can get off the religious fundamentalism and join the 21st century.

That WAS the case, I'm not so sure now.

Bush and his friends have radicalised a lot of the country. If some prick turns around and calls you part of the axis of evil, props up Israel no matter the atrocities she commits and then illegally invades your neighbor it's going to change attitudes a bit.

**Lqskdiver** · 01-08-2007, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Biden is running for president, and so these comments need to be taken with a grain of salt... BUT, I wouldn't be surprised if his suspicion is 100% accurate.

Retired US General On Why Troop Surge Needed

Ret. U.S. Gen. on Why Troop Surge Needed in Iraq

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/IraqCoverage/story?id=2778309&page=1

iraq, troop surge, democrats, bush plan, gen. keane, biden, pelosi iraq , Article, 2778309

Jan. 8, 2007 — President Bush is expected to face tough questions and skeptism this week from the new Democratic Congress when he announces a plan to send as many as 20,000 more American troops to Iraq.

More than a dozen hearings on the president's Iraq policy are planned, beginning this week, and some Democratic leaders are even talking about withholding funding to pay for the new troops.

"If the president wants to expand the mission, that's a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States," said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "But that's not a carte blanche, a blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there."

Troops Will Stay to Stabilize Neighborhoods

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a strong advocate of a troop surge, has advised the White House on the strategy. Keane told "Good Morning America" today that the majority of troops would go to Baghdad, where most of the sectarian violence has occurred, and go door-to-door clearing the area of insurgents.

Though the U.S.-led contingent has done that before in Baghdad and other cities, this time, Keane said, troops would stay in the neighborhoods to keep them safe.

"We've never had enough troops to hold those neighborhoods," he said. "But this time, the operation and the mission will be to secure the population…We will put a force in 24/7 that stays in the neighborhoods, does not go back to its bases, and it protects the people."

While Democrats are not united on withholding funding, there does seem to be general agreement that a surge is a mistake.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., called the troop surge plan a recipe for disaster.

"We're going to have our troops go door-to-door in 23 neighborhoods. This is a prescription for another tragedy, more troops in harm's way," Biden said.

However, Keane said Biden's statements were "based on ignorance."

"You're telling me that there's a capital city in the world that the foremost military in the world cannot secure the population in a given city?" Keane said on "GMA." "That's just rubbish."

Jan. 8, 2007 — President Bush is expected to face tough questions and skeptism this week from the new Democratic Congress when he announces a plan to send as many as 20,000 more American troops to Iraq.

More than a dozen hearings on the president's Iraq policy are planned, beginning this week, and some Democratic leaders are even talking about withholding funding to pay for the new troops.

"If the president wants to expand the mission, that's a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States," said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "But that's not a carte blanche, a blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there."

Troops Will Stay to Stabilize Neighborhoods

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a strong advocate of a troop surge, has advised the White House on the strategy. Keane told "Good Morning America" today that the majority of troops would go to Baghdad, where most of the sectarian violence has occurred, and go door-to-door clearing the area of insurgents.

Though the U.S.-led contingent has done that before in Baghdad and other cities, this time, Keane said, troops would stay in the neighborhoods to keep them safe.

"We've never had enough troops to hold those neighborhoods," he said. "But this time, the operation and the mission will be to secure the population…We will put a force in 24/7 that stays in the neighborhoods, does not go back to its bases, and it protects the people."

While Democrats are not united on withholding funding, there does seem to be general agreement that a surge is a mistake.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., called the troop surge plan a recipe for disaster.

"We're going to have our troops go door-to-door in 23 neighborhoods. This is a prescription for another tragedy, more troops in harm's way," Biden said.

However, Keane said Biden's statements were "based on ignorance."

"You're telling me that there's a capital city in the world that the foremost military in the world cannot secure the population in a given city?" Keane said on "GMA." "That's just rubbish."

Keane said stabilizing Iraq so it could be turned over to the Iraqi government could take 18 months to two years.

Rice Will Testify on Plan This Week

The solution, many Democrats say, has be a political one from within Iraq, not a military one imposed by the United States.

Surge supporters, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., say that a political solution cannot happen without an escalation in troops

"By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis and their partners the best possible chances to succeed," McCain said.

But even some Republicans are expressing serious doubts about the proposed surge. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., told Fox News that President Bush can no longer count on his party to support his plans.

Political pressure will come to bear this week, particularly when Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is called before the House and Senate to testify about the administration's new plan.

This guy made a whole lot sense. We keep kicking the insurgents out but do nothing to keep them out. 2-3 years of holding them off and not letting them in the free zone while building up the Iraqi militia will help stabilize these hot zones.

**Nickdfresh** · 01-08-2007, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Nitro Express
If Cheney and Rumsfeld are so smart how come they ignored the basic war fundamentals taught in the book The Art of War?

...

The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to w in or lose.

-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

**Nickdfresh** · 01-08-2007, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Retired US General On Why Troop Surge Needed

Ret. U.S. Gen. on Why Troop Surge Needed in Iraq

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/IraqCoverage/story?id=2778309&page=1

iraq, troop surge, democrats, bush plan, gen. keane, biden, pelosi iraq , Article, 2778309

Jan. 8, 2007 — ...

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a strong advocate of a troop surge, has advised the White House on the strategy.... [/i]

So your basing your opinion on a Neo Con shill for the Administration? ANd Biden is far from the only "ignorant" person that believes this is a bad idea, in fact, Gen Casey was sacked because he opposed the surge...

The troop surge that isn't

By Kevin Ryan | January 6, 2007

WHEN IS a surge not a surge? The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, issued a report yesterday calling for a "sustained surge of US troops to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad." The report, presented by professor Frederick Kagan and retired Army vice chief of staff Jack Keane, purports to give ground commanders a new strategy for deploying 30,000 more troops and winning the war in Iraq.

The American Enterprise Institute report matters because its authors are influential within the current administration, and because it appears to capture the thinking of the most prominent politicians who favor a surge. (Senators John McCain of Arizona and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut were scheduled panelists at the report's release.) Unfortunately, the proposal only provides a temporary bump in troops while jeopardizing the readiness of an American Army that is already stretched too thin.

The report calls for accelerating the arrival of four Army brigades and two Marine regiments that are already preparing to go to Iraq in early 2007 and delaying the departure of the 15 brigades now in Iraq by three months each. That is not a surge of new troops. That is a three-month overlap of scheduled troop departures and arrivals.

The report details this overlap strategy for the 2007 rotation but has no concrete plan for 2008 and beyond. Only then will the real damage from the American Enterprise Institute proposal surface. To sustain the deployments, units that have been accelerated in 2007 will have to stay longer than their one-year rotations, and units whose deployments were extended will go back to Iraq in 2008 and 2009 with less than one year of rest.

Kagan and Keane are banking that either the extra brigades will not have to be replaced or that the National Guard and Army Reserve can equip and deploy additional combat units -- dangerous assumptions that have proven false before with respect to Iraq.

The balance of deployment and recovery is already tenuous. That's why President Bush agreed in December to enlarge the Army and Marine Corps. If the American Enterprise Institute's recommendations become reality, the balance will tip, readiness will spiral downward, and the cost and time to reset units will spiral upward. In exchange for one last rush at the objective, this proposal risks our ability to fight the long war necessary for success in the region. The report suffers from the same casual dismissal of undesirable outcomes that characterized post-combat, reconstruction planning in Iraq.

Notably, the report comes from Washington-based military observers, not from the generals in Iraq who are charged with strategy. Those commanders have overlapped units to increase troops before; during Iraqi elections in 2005 and this past fall in Baghdad. They also have 15 US brigades in Iraq, only five of which are in Baghdad. If the commanders thought that three or four extra US brigades in Baghdad would turn the tide, they could have arranged that. The fact is that the generals in charge of Iraq, George Casey and John Abizaid, have said they do not want more US troops. They want more Iraqi troops, and they know the Army and Marines cannot sustain 30,000 additional troops in Iraq.

Kagan, who has advocated troop increases in Iraq of up to 75,000, claims that the additional troops needed can be replenished with the increased Army end strength that the president and Congress are likely to authorize this year. But the Army still has not recruited all the 20,000 additional troops Congress authorized in 2004 and cannot grow as rapidly as Kagan wishes.

In a November Weekly Standard article, Kagan said he understood the surge would be difficult for the Army and explained that one solution would be to "send forces that are not as well trained as one would like." Such comments begin to reveal the risks associated with this idea -- and should give Americans pause about its chances for success.

Kevin Ryan, a retired Army brigadier general, is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

**Lqskdiver** · 01-08-2007, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[B]So your basing your opinion on a Neo Con shill for the Administration? ANd Biden is far from the only "ignorant" person that believes this is a bad idea, in fact, Gen Casey was sacked because he opposed the surge...

So your basing YOUR opinion on a liberal based rag's op ed?

I don't get the point of the article. If it's to dispute the whole concept of surge, than it's totally irrelavent to the current conversation.

Still, for you claim that Casey's departure was due to opposition to a surge in military might is bold statement. I'd like to see THAT pink slip.

It's no secret that his position was always on training the Iraqi people. But with the SURGE in insurgent violence, that made it impossible when your trainees kept getting blown up on the way to boot camp or registration. He eventually became open to the idea that an increase in military force would help control this WHILE aptly training the Iraqi force to stand on their own.

That is the conept that makes a whole lot of sense.

**Nickdfresh** · 01-08-2007, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
So your basing YOUR opinion on a liberal based rag's op ed?

What a totally pussy, cop-out retort!

"Liberal rag?" Pul-fucking-leeze!! The Boston Globe? Hardly...

Is that the best you have? An ex-general calling out the conventional wisdom of bumping US troops so Bush can kill another year of his reign using troops as human shields to his "legacy."

I don't get the point of the article. If it's to dispute the whole concept of surge, than it's totally irrelavent to the current conversation.

It's not really that tough. I thinks it's about the "surge" being too-little too late, and not really being an option since there are no more troops left in reserve.

Still, for you claim that Casey's departure was due to opposition to a surge in military might is bold statement. I'd like to see THAT pink slip.

Oh gee, I guess maybe it's because he's on record as opposing the call for "more troops" as an option because it is not really practical nor effective. And he just happens to resign right when the pResident gets around to calling for more troops...

It's no secret that his position was always on training the Iraqi people. But with the SURGE in insurgent violence, that made it impossible when your trainees kept getting blown up on the way to boot camp or registration. He eventually became open to the idea that an increase in military force would help control this WHILE aptly training the Iraqi force to stand on their own.

That is the conept that makes a whole lot of sense.

Maybe his position is that we're supporting a Shiite gov't, with a hollow-force mostly Shiite Army, a brutally corrupt police force, and a few competing Shia militias; all of which are engaged in state-terrorism of there own via death squads....

And putting more US troops in only gives the Shiites a bigger shield from the Sunnis, so they don't have to cut deals with them

Biden: "(The Administration) believes Iraq is lost!"

Biden: "(The Administration) believes Iraq is lost!"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment