.

And if more troops had been sent you would have agreed with that? No matter what direction the president takes, you, and others like, you sit on the sidelines, and whine and complain. Your opinion is worthless.

right2bright on January 11, 2007 at 11:22 AM

I would have preferred we sent no troops; however, if Bush was determined to invade I wish he would have went all the way and sent enough troops to get the job done as quickly and painlessly as possible.

How was Shinseki wrong? We will never know if he was right or wrong because Bush decided not to listen to him. It seems like Bush is trying to implement Shinseki’s ideas now, problem is it’s about 100,000 troops to little and 3 years too late.

JaHerer22 on January 11, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Looks like Gwillie has already answered.

.

JaHerer22 on January 11, 2007 at 9:30 AM

And if more troops had been sent you would have agreed with that? No matter what direction the president takes, you, and others like, you sit on the sidelines, and whine and complain. Your opinion is worthless.

Yes, Shinseki offered his opinion in 2003. In 2006, Casey and Abizaid proved his opinion to be wrong.

GT on January 10, 2007 at 7:34 PM

How was Shinseki wrong? We will never know if he was right or wrong because Bush decided not to listen to him. It seems like Bush is trying to implement Shinseki’s ideas now, problem is it’s about 100,000 troops to little and 3 years too late.

How is there a discrepancy? The Generals wanted more troops from the beginning; they said based on our experience in Bosnia the counter-insurgency operation would take a force of around 300,000. The Bush administration disagreed and we went in with less than half that many troops and we all see how well that worked.

Please don’t just take parts of what was said… Shinseki also said it would take 6 months and cost 10,000 lives to reach bagdad. His remarks were used by the left not to say we need more troops but to say we cann’t win… He was wrong on 2 out of 3 of his predictions, so perhaps Bush did listen to the right Generals… Now as to your claim

Now many (not all, maybe not even a majority) Generals are saying that more troops won’t due any good; that the time for more troops was 3 years ago and that 20,000 troops now is too little too late. Bush decided once again not to listen to these Generals and instead to replace them and send in more troops anyway. Where is the discrepancy? The only discrepancy I see is that the Generals were right the first time and instead of learning from his mistakes Bush has chosen to ignore them again.

Wait, so he replaced the one he replaced because they say the same thing as the ones he replaced?

JaHerer22 on January 10, 2007 at 4:10 PM

More troops without a clear mission… The discrepancy comes when you look back to what was said prior to the election from the left… they were not talking about Bush not listening to his Generals 3 years ago as you seem to imply. He wasn’t listening then up to the time when it became clear that Bush was going to increase the troop level. Are you going to deny it?

Anyway. He’s all by his lonesome now.

No he’s not. I’m still standing right by his side and I’ll stand there until this is over or I am dead.

How many posters here have actually been to Iraq or talked to a soldier who has been there? We need to boot all the media out of any war zones, they are getting our soldiers killed. Let our military do the job they were trained for. Being politically correct and being at war is an oxi-moron. What my son replies to questions from moonbat liberal about the war in Iraq is “some information is on a need to know basis and you do not need to know that”
ChrisIansNana on January 10, 2007 at 8:56 PM

Just watching the press reporting on Pentagon briefings is bad enough. They are so lazy, they don’t even bother to learn the lexicon of the military. Forget about boning up on some basic military history so that their reporting has some depth. The journalism these days is no better than high school newspapers. Sorry, have seen better writing, research and analysis out of high school papers. J-schools just seem to serve the purpose of indoctrinating, “process” over content and sucking up vast quanitites of tuition money to make nice buildings for the faculty to huddle in. The distain they show for creative, hard-working, self-improving and brave soldiers is unbelievable.

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY: ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION…
Bush Warning to Iran: ‘I recently ordered deployment of additional carrier strike group’…
‘We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria’…

Had to turn to tube off. Diky Turbin is pissing and moaning. So What’s New Huh ! !

And what will 20,000 more troops get us?

The Captain’s Quarters has the latest rundown of the politics behind Bush’s speech and makes some good points. At this time, though, most of the politics surrounding this event doesn’t interest me. Even…

They said this in September 2006; Shinseki said we needed more troops wayyy back in Feb. 2003 before the war started.

Yes, Shinseki offered his opinion in 2003. In 2006, Casey and Abizaid proved his opinion to be wrong.

You are effectively proving my point for me: before the war the Generals said we needed more troops and Bush ignored them.

No. He ignored the generals you were listening to.

The U.S. military leadership has been divided on what to do. Some senior generals argue that a surge of American troops would provide the best chance to suppress the violence in Iraq. Others say that additional U.S. forces would discourage Iraqis from taking responsibility for the country’s security.

Link

I would dare say that Bush has a better idea of what the Generals are saying than the MSM, Kennedy, you or I do.

.

The only surprise will be if he mentions Saddam.

and/or Somalia of the last few weeks…

fogw, you have a 2nd family :)

They said this in September 2006; Shinseki said we needed more troops wayyy back in Feb. 2003 before the war started.

Very good. Looks like Shinseki was wrong, too.

You are effectively proving my point for me: before the war the Generals said we needed more troops and Bush ignored them.

No, the only thing proved is that you don’t pay attention very well.

Look back at what McCain and Abizaid had to say to each other……

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? 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.

Well, that is precisely what Bush as been doing. Yet you want to claim that Bush didn’t listen to his generals. Here Bush is doing the very thing you said he wasn’t doing, meanwhile we have Ted Kennedy and Company telling us that we’re losing in Iraq and need to bring the troops home now.

Now we have Bush deciding to send in more troops and the Left goes nuts and intentionally mischaracterizes Bush’s decision.

Are the Generals opposed to sending in more troops? No.

Are the Generals opposed to sending in more troops without a clear purpose? Yes.

Do you see the difference? Do you?

And what has Bush said? He said he agrees with the Generals.

So what’s the problem?

.

The problem is that a lot of RW cannot admit the folly of the strategy. They would rather see the whole thing go down in flames. They appear to be getting their wish.

Good post

honora on January 10, 2007 at 2:43 PM

The strategy was just fine. The problem is that the tactics used thus far have not enabled us to achieve the strategic objective.

The only ones who want to see it go down in flames (besides the islamofascists) are lefties like you so that you can say “I told you so”. The fact that you attack the strategy in the first place is proof positive of that.

S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican presidential contender who has served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee for the past four years, adamantly defended the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq yesterday. It’s too soon to….

They said this in September 2006; Shinseki said we needed more troops wayyy back in Feb. 2003 before the war started.

Very good. Looks like Shinseki was wrong, too.

You are effectively proving my point for me: before the war the Generals said we needed more troops and Bush ignored them.

No, the only thing proved is that you don’t pay attention very well.

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? 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.

The reality is that 15 of the 18 provinces are under control. Only 3 provinces are problematic. More troops as defined by Zinni and Shinseki is that they ignore the principles of counterinsurgency warfare. The US and others have attempted overwhelming force on insurgencies. It has never worked. We attempted to fight by trying to replay WW2 and Korea in Vietnam and failed. Even the South Vietnamese generals knew we were screwed up. I suggest you and Ted Kennedy read The Army in Vietnam by Andrew F. Krepinevich.

…now the Generals say a troop increase would do little good and it looks like Bush is going to ignore them. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

All I see is a pattern of selective reading and comprehension on your part. You and Kennedy are putting the cart before the horse by reading into what passes for reporting these days…..

At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush said he agrees with generals “that there’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished” before he decides to dispatch an additional 15,000 to 30,000 troops to the war zone.

*snip*

The tension between the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the proposed troop increase has come to dominate the administration’s post-election search for a new strategy in Iraq. The uniformed leadership has opposed sending additional forces without a clear mission, seeing the idea as ill-formed and driven by a desire in the White House to do something different even without a defined purpose.

You say that the Generals are against it. But, that isn’t what they said. They said they were against it if the troops were increased without a specific purpose.

The problem is when you and Kennedy glom onto the next sentence put in by the writer….

But he declined to repeat his usual formulation that he will heed his commanders on the ground when it comes to troop levels.

Then further down the same article…..

By yesterday, however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide, ducking a question about whether he would overrule them. “The opinion of my commanders is very important,” he said. “They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot.” He added: “I agree with them that there’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy.”

The writer has done his work and you fall for it. You ignore what Bush said and instead accept the writer’s assertions as Gospel Truth.

Meanwhile………

On his first tour of Iraq yesterday, Gates said “we’re just beginning that process” of figuring out how much to expand ground forces overall. But he cautioned that the long-term project was not related to the immediate question of what to do in Iraq. “An increase in the size of the Army today really won’t show up for some period of time,” Gates said.

Link

You’re convinced that Bush is going to send more troops without a clear reason. Bush had said he won’t without one. But that’s not good enough for you. It has to be a reason you can agree to based on what the MSM and Ted Kennedy tell you.

.

.

When it comes to the War in Iraq, I’ve always felt that a flexible policy in the region would be the only way to secure the state and for the Iraqi government to assert total control over their country.  Of course, it’s easy to say in hin…

Bush speech pre-game. It’s like ESPN Gameday, but with a disappointing lack of Kirk Herbstreit. Tonight at 9 p.m., the President will admit mistakes in Iraq or lay out a plan for victory, depending on which side of the aisle……