Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on May 19, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics
This appeared in the New York Times and shows that the Bush policy in Iraq is not working! Only 40 % of Americans now say this war was worth the cost. We still do not know what the real cost of this war will be to America!



May 19, 2005
Generals Offer Sober Outlook on Iraqi War
By JOHN F. BURNS and ERIC SCHMITT

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 18 - American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.

In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting. General Abizaid, who speaks with President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld regularly, was in Washington this week for a meeting of regional commanders.

In Baghdad, a senior officer said Wednesday in a background briefing that the 21 car bombings in Baghdad so far this month almost matched the total of 25 in all of last year.

Against this, he said, there has been a lull in insurgents' activity in Baghdad in recent days after months of some of the bloodiest attacks, a trend that suggested that American pressure, including the capture of important bomb makers, had left the insurgents incapable of mounting protracted offensives. But the officer said that despite Americans' recent successes in disrupting insurgent cells, which have resulted in the arrest of 1,100 suspects in Baghdad alone in the past 80 days, the success of American goals in Iraq was not assured.

"I think that this could still fail," the officer said at the briefing, referring to the American enterprise in Iraq. "It's much more likely to succeed, but it could still fail."

The officer said much depended on the new government's success in bolstering public confidence among Iraqis. He said recent polls conducted by Baghdad University had shown confidence flagging sharply, to 45 percent, down from an 85 percent rating immediately after the election. "For the insurgency to be successful, people have to believe the government can't survive," he said. "When you're in the middle of a conflict, you're trying to find pillars of strength to lean on." Another problem cited by the senior officer in Baghdad was the new government's ban on raids on mosques, announced on Monday, which the American officer said he expected to be revised after high-level discussions on Wednesday between American commanders and Iraqi officials.

The officer said the ban appeared to have been announced by the new defense minister, Sadoun al-Dulaimi, without wider government approval, and would be replaced by a "more moderate" policy. To raise the level of public confidence, the officer said, the new government would need success in cutting insurgent attacks and meeting popular impatience for improvements in public services like electricity that are worse, for many Iraqis, than they were last year. But he emphasized the need for caution - and the time it may take to complete the American mission here - notes that recur often in the private conversations of American officers in Iraq.

"I think it's going to succeed in the long run, even if it takes years, many years," he said. On a personal note, he added that he, like many American soldiers, had spent long periods of duty related to Iraq, and he said: "We believe in the mission that we've got. We believe in it because we're in it, and if we let go of the insurgency and take our foot off its throat, then this country could fail and go back into civil war and chaos."

Only weeks ago, in the aftermath of the elections, American generals offered a more upbeat view, one that was tied to a surge of Iraqi confidence that one commander in Baghdad now describes as euphoria. But this week, five high-ranking officers, speaking separately at the Pentagon and in Baghdad, and through an e-mail exchange from Baghdad with a reporter in Washington, ranged with unusual candor and detail over problems confronting the war effort.

By insisting that they not be identified, the three officers based in Baghdad were following a Pentagon policy requiring American commanders in Baghdad to put "an Iraqi face" on the war, meaning that Iraqi commanders should be the ones talking to reporters, not Americans. That policy has been questioned recently by senior Americans in Iraq, who say Iraqi commanders have failed to step forward, leaving a news vacuum that has allowed the insurgents' successful attacks, not their failures, to dominate news coverage.

The generals' remarks, emphasizing the insurgency's resilience but also American and Iraqi successes in disrupting them, suggested that American commanders may have seen an opportunity after Secretary Rice's trip to inject their own note of realism into public debate. In talks with Iraq's new Shiite leaders, she urged a more convincing effort to reach out to the dispossessed Sunni Arab minority, warning that success in the war required a political strategy that encouraged at least some Sunni insurgent groups to turn toward peace.

The generals said the buildup of Iraqi forces has been more disappointing than previously acknowledged, contributing to the absence of any Iraqi forces when a 1,000-member Marine battle group mounted an offensive last week against insurgent strongholds in the northwestern desert, along the border with Syria.

American officers said that 125 insurgents had been killed, with the loss of about 14 Americans, but acknowledged that lack of sufficient troops may have helped many insurgents to flee across the border or back into the interior of Iraq. The border offensive was wrapped up over the weekend, with an air of disappointment that some of wider goals had not been achieved - possibly including the capture of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Islamic militant who is the American forces' most-wanted man in Iraq.

General Abizaid, whose Central Command headquarters exercises oversight of the war, said the Iraqi police - accounting for 65,000 of the 160,000 Iraqis now trained and equipped in the $5.7 billion American effort to build up security forces - are "behind" in their ability to shoulder a major part of the war effort. He blamed a tendency among Iraqi police to operate as individuals rather than in cohesive units, and said this made them more vulnerable to insurgents' intimidation.

Another American officer, in an e-mail message from Baghdad, suggested a wider problem in preparing Iraqi forces capable of taking over much of the fighting, which was the Pentagon's goal when it ordered a top-to-bottom shakeout last year in the retraining effort. He said the numbers of Iraqi troops and police officers graduating from training were only one measure of success.

"Everyone looks at the number of Iraqi forces and scratches their heads, but it is more complex than that," he said. "We certainly don't want to put forces into the fight before they can stand up, as in Falluja," the battle last November that gave American commanders their first experience of Iraqi units, mostly highly trained special forces' units, that could contribute significantly to an American offensive.

One of starkest revelations by the commanders involved the surge in car bombings, the principal insurgent weapon in attacks over the past three weeks that have killed nearly 500 people across central and northern Iraq, about half of them Iraqi soldiers, police officers and recruits.

Last week, Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American trainer in Iraq, defended the Iraqi security forces, saying in an e-mail message, "They are operating effectively with coalition forces - and, in some cases, are operating independently - in the effort to find the locations at which vehicles are rigged with explosives."

The senior officer who met with reporters in Baghdad said there had been 21 car bombings in the capital in May, and 126 in the past 80 days. All last year, he said, there were only about 25 car bombings in Baghdad.

[On Thursday, gunmen shot and killed a senior Iraqi Oil Ministry official, Ali Hameed, in Baghdad, The Associated Press reported, citing a police official.]

The officer said American military intelligence had information that the car-bombing offensive had been ordered by a high-level meeting of insurgents in Syria within the past 30 days, and that reports indicated that one of those at the meeting may have been Mr. Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born militant who was named by Osama bin Laden earlier this year as Al Qaeda's chief in Iraq. In statements on Islamic Web sites, groups loyal to Mr. Zarqawi have claimed responsibility for many of the car bombings.

The officer said that in two of the recent Baghdad bombings, investigators had found indications that the men driving the cars had been bound with duct tape before the attacks. He said the foot of one of the attackers, in a marketplace bombing last week that killed 22 people in south Baghdad, had been found taped to his vehicle's accelerator. In another case, the officer said, the attacker's hands were taped to the vehicle's wheel.

The implication was that those planning the attacks wanted to be sure that the vehicles would continue to their targets even if the drivers were killed by American or Iraqi gunfire as they approached.

Arriving at a lunch with reporters from a meeting with Iraqi cabinet ministers and military commanders, the officer said he expected the government to make an early move to revise the defense minister's announcement of a ban on raids on mosques and religious schools. The revised policy, the American officer implied, would allow Iraqi forces, backed by Americans, to raid mosques when they are used as insurgent strongholds.

John F. Burns reported from Baghdad for this article and Eric Schmitt from Washington. Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 19, 2005
I often wonder how it's possible ordinary citizens can be so ignorant not only about other cultures, but also to their own recent past. How is it possible so many people can be so easily and gullibly led by their own foreign a policy planners who regard the world map as an unsupervised giant toy box that they own? Apparently very easily. Let me tell you something that will shed light on what it is you all are predictably misinformed about, and it's something US planners certainly know but will never come out and talk about. But it's also easy common logic which is why you all collectively have to share some of the blame. While you all argue and debate the issues such as troop levels, what more is needed to win, what meaningless operations the GI's are conducting, all that stuff, the planners make their moves under cover of diversion. Do you're country a favor and don't stand for their condecention.
The illusion most all of you get fooled by is the thought anything the US does in Iraq is going to stop the insurgency. Common sense dictates it. There is no way the Americans are going to stop the insurgency, and with all the talk of the US withdrawing some troops (they're not), there will be even less chance of being included in a peaceful Iraq. Don't you get it folks? You read about "75 suspected insurgents" being caught and you think the tide may be turning in your favor. No matter how many suspects they detain, no matter how many supposed insurgents they kill, no matter what tactics and what military operations the GI's go out out on, they're never going to stop the insurgency. The US goes out on some operation, catches some suspects, then some general or colonel is telling the media they're winning and how important their actions were and how the tide is turning....all bullshit from the Vietnam era. Idiots, because they are stupid, must argue there's no similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. To their credit, they're only partially correct. That's because the differences they refer to are the mundane and meaningless ones. They say Iraq's a desert and Vietnam's a jungle. They're right. They say Vietnam had monsoons and Iraq has sandstorms. Correct again. That Vietnam has a wet hot climate and Iraq has a dry hot climate. Nice. Three in a row for their side.
The vital similarities, you know, the ones that are the important components of warfare, are identical. As a fingerprint they're a total match. And here's how:

*the light at the end of the tunnel*

That term grew to be a sinful term after the Vietnam War. Statements of victory and a hopeful future for South Vietnam. Talk of US withdrawal from Iraq has grown in the past few weeks. All smoke to be sure.

*We had to destroy the village to save it*

Some unknown US officer's comment describing their policy in South Vietnam. The US destroyed Fallujah, the city of Mosques, while claiming a) they will break the backbone of the insurgency if they clear the city out and b)catch the phantom-of-convenience Zarquawi.

Shit gotta go my wife's just gone into labor. I'll try finish this at a later time. As if anyone cares. ha. peace
on May 20, 2005
Things are not looking up in Iraq, that's for sure. There are reports out now that the majority of the muslim world hates the US. No shit, Sherlock! We've got a blustering fool in the white house who declares that his faith in his christian god helped him decided that saddam should be toppled. Doesn't matter that the "toppling" is causing thousands and thousands of deaths in the process. Sure smacks of a religious crusade to me, and to many others. No wonder they hate us.

Also, we pretty much destroyed their country to make it "better", fashioned after an american concept of democracy. Given this borderline fascist administration, that's truly a joke. The iraqis who pushed for the US invasion were shysters and crooks who duped the us into doing their dirty work so they could gain the power. Ahmed Chalabi? Come on, people. This guy never had anyone but his own self interest at heart. US paid him millions for his unsubstantiated lies.

Another point is that anyone who thinks that americans are honestly looking for an exit strategy is in lala land. If we are looking for an exit strategy, then why are we building fourteen permanent military bases in iraq? We're not looking for an exit strategy; we're looking to quell an insurgency. That's all. And, the iraqis are not going to allow that to happen quietly. How many more have to die before the insurgency is crushed, if ever?

I heard on the radio yesterday that the number of days between the bombing of pearl harbor and the end of WWII and the "bombing" of the twin towers and yesterday were the same. I don't remember exactly how many days that is, but I find this to be a rather significant factoid. It took americans that many days from the bombing of pearl harbor to winning the war on two fronts, japan and europe. But, iraq is still a quagmire, and they are predicting that it will take many more years of american troops to quell the insurgency. This a not a good thing. That adds up to thousands and thousand more dead and maimed.

Such a horrific price to pay to topple one bad guy. Dubya fiddles while iraq burns.
on May 20, 2005
RH, good luck and congrats on your new baby.
on May 20, 2005
Where are all the Bushies defending their "BOY". America had two very SAD days - One when the Supreme Court appointed GWB and last November when the American Voters allowed Gay marriage, and abortion to cloud their judgement. The devastating results of George W. Bush as president will be upon us for a VERY long time. GOD save America !
on May 20, 2005
This appeared in the New York Times and shows that the Bush policy in Iraq is not working! Only 40 % of Americans now say this war was worth the cost. We still do not know what the real cost of this war will be to America!


Here you go with your polls again. Bush was re-elected, so they agreed enough with him to vote him back in.


America had two very SAD days - One when the Supreme Court appointed GWB and last November when the American Voters allowed Gay marriage, and abortion to cloud their judgement. The devastating results of George W. Bush as president will be upon us for a VERY long time. GOD save America !


Col you are a wacko. I thought you at least tried to make some points, but I see by your far left accusations that you are nothing less than an left wing wacko. The Supreme Court did not appoint Bush. That is just a fact and there is nothing you can say to prove your accusation.


Things are not looking up in Iraq, that's for sure. There are reports out now that the majority of the muslim world hates the US


Muslims have hated us for decades. Muslims don't hate the U.S. because of Bush, they hate us because of their so-called religion. Where were you screaming how muslims hate us when they bombed the WTC the first time. How about when they bombed our soldiers in Saudi Arabia? I guess they liked us then and those were just mistakes, right?

But, iraq is still a quagmire, and they are predicting that it will take many more years of american troops to quell the insurgency. This a not a good thing. That adds up to thousands and thousand more dead and maimed.


You can't be a left wing wacko without putting the word "quarmire" in there. Where was your concern when Saddam was killing thousands of people per month? Can you tell me when the last anti-Saddam protest you attended? Were you "outraged" when Clinton bombed Iraq and killed people in the process?
on May 20, 2005
This appeared in the New York Times and shows that the Bush policy in Iraq is not working! Only 40 % of Americans now say this war was worth the cost. We still do not know what the real cost of this war will be to America!


Here you go with your polls again. Bush was re-elected, so they agreed enough with him to vote him back in.


America had two very SAD days - One when the Supreme Court appointed GWB and last November when the American Voters allowed Gay marriage, and abortion to cloud their judgement. The devastating results of George W. Bush as president will be upon us for a VERY long time. GOD save America !


Col you are a wacko. I thought you at least tried to make some points, but I see by your far left accusations that you are nothing less than an left wing wacko. The Supreme Court did not appoint Bush. That is just a fact and there is nothing you can say to prove your accusation.


Things are not looking up in Iraq, that's for sure. There are reports out now that the majority of the muslim world hates the US


Muslims have hated us for decades. Muslims don't hate the U.S. because of Bush, they hate us because of their so-called religion. Where were you screaming how muslims hate us when they bombed the WTC the first time. How about when they bombed our soldiers in Saudi Arabia? I guess they liked us then and those were just mistakes, right?

But, iraq is still a quagmire, and they are predicting that it will take many more years of american troops to quell the insurgency. This a not a good thing. That adds up to thousands and thousand more dead and maimed.


You can't be a left wing wacko without putting the word "quarmire" in there. Where was your concern when Saddam was killing thousands of people per month? Can you tell me when the last anti-Saddam protest you attended? Were you "outraged" when Clinton bombed Iraq and killed people in the process?


You "get em" dog! tear them up!
on May 20, 2005
Interesting how they never post in the threads I and others start showing the appreciation Iraqis are showing, and about good things happening in Iraq.
on May 20, 2005
IslandDog

There you and drmiler go again. This article is not a poll it is the assessment of the TOP US Generals. They are saying the War in Iraq is not going well. Whenever you have no good answer you attack the messenger. Face it, this war was a mistake both in concept and execution. It is time for the United States to say to Iraq, you have a government without Saddam and if you will not safeguard your own country so be it. But to pore more lives and money down a rat hole to help people, many of whom hate our guts, is just NUTS. I think there's going to be a big surprise in congressional elections of 2006
on May 20, 2005
COPENHAGEN, Denmark May 18, 2005 — Former President Clinton said Wednesday the political changes in Iraq, including parliamentary elections in January, will help bring stability to the region.

Clinton met with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and a number of Danish lawmakers during his visit. The former president spoke with reporters before flying to Jordan for a poverty conference.


Link
on May 20, 2005
This article is not a poll it is the assessment of the TOP US Generals. They are saying the War in Iraq is not going well. Whenever you have no good answer you attack the messenger.


I didn't say the article was a poll. I quoted your comment about 40% of Americans. Surely someone of your intelligence could figure that out.



Face it, this war was a mistake both in concept and execution. It is time for the United States to say to Iraq, you have a government without Saddam and if you will not safeguard your own country so be it. But to pore more lives and money down a rat hole to help people, many of whom hate our guts, is just NUTS. I think there's going to be a big surprise in congressional elections of 2006


This just shows how far out of reality you are. I have shown many articles that show how the Iraqi people are helping stop the insurgency. Also articles showing how Iraqis appreciate the sacrifices Americans have made for them. The insurgency/terrorists are a very small part of the Iraqi population. Many parts of the country are stable and their local governments are accomplishing great things. Ever wonder why the media doesn't show stories about that?

As far as your "big surprise" in the elections is more proof you have no idea about what's going on. Both Bush and Blair, the two biggest people in this war were both recently re-elected. The democratic party has gone so far left it's almost to the point where it will ever be the party it once was. Democrats can't even decide if they are for the war or against it. It really depends on what poll is out that day. Do you make that connection? Democrats base their policies and support on a media poll, which is usually wrong in the first place. Do you need more reasons on why the democrats keep losing elections?
on May 20, 2005
my blog was not about polls it was about the report from the general's on the scene. My mention of the 40% was a parenthetical statement and you choose to ignore the point of the blog. The issue is what this war is costing the American people in the lives, injuries and money. I for one would never agree to have our forces in Iraq for "years" to come. I am sorry the Democrats didn't outright opposed the war because it was a drastic mistake for this country. We were told it was to defend us from terrorism which it is not true. We were told it would be a quick and clean War and paid for out of Iraq oil revenues. Another lie. There is no way to defend this war and if you believe that either Bush or Blair were reelected because of them going to war in Iraq you are living in a DREAM world.
on May 20, 2005
I liked this quote:

"I think that this could still fail," the officer said at the briefing, referring to the American enterprise in Iraq. "It's much more likely to succeed, but it could still fail."

It looks much more likely that we're going to win, but we could stil lose...very insightful, and very ominous. I'm scared.
on May 20, 2005
Even if we win, what ever that means, the cost was too high!
on May 20, 2005
Even if we win, what ever that means, the cost was too high!


Thats typical for you liberals. If it isn't perfect, then it just wasn't worth it. Let the people go back to living under Saddam, you guys would be much happier.


There is no way to defend this war and if you believe that either Bush or Blair were reelected because of them going to war in Iraq you are living in a DREAM world.


You miss the point entirely. The democrats were on tv everyday with their rhetorical nonsense about the war, and Bush was still elected. You just don't understand that you and your far left friends are in the minority in this country.
on May 20, 2005
is usually doesn't understand the consequences of what George Bush is doing to this country. Its economy its workers its military. He's putting us in closing our industries on protecting our borders in the people are so stupid as to defend actions such as this which are directly in opposition to what is best the majority of people in this country. The Iraq war was a mistake mistake that cost us dearly by a man who doesn't know what the hell he doing and doesn't listen to the people to know what they're doing.
2 Pages1 2