QUOTE:"In the past few weeks Bush has been telling us that his Generals tell him more troops would just make the insurrection in Iraq worse."

Please show me where he says this. I can't find it anywhere in your link you provided and I have not heard him say this.

QUOTE:"From the very first day after Saddam fell, we began loosing control in Iraq."
I say we are in control of 99% of Iraq. Its only the Terrorist we are not in control of, the Iraqi's and us are in control of the rest.

You can not place a soldier in every single house, or building, or on every corner. Its impossible no matter how many you may have had. If we do not have enough how do you explain we are now going to reduce troop numbers?? As the President said today.

Nice try, but your old arguements have run out of steam. No longer can you try and fool anyone with the ability to read for themselves. The facts are out there, not opinions or the bias press but from the sources themselves. Sorry nice try.

Running out of material I see!

Shadow said watch this one, for the comments.  The article is severally retarded!

These are the comments Bush has referred to in his various speeches.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0510/01/natio-333738.htm

This is the text from the above

Generals conclude U.S. troops foster insurgency in Iraq

By Mark Mazzetti / Los Angeles Times
Image
Haraz N. Ghanbari / Associated Press

U.S. Army Gen. George Casey answers a reporter's question during a press conference Friday at the Pentagon in Arlington, Va.

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi military, and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops is imperative.

U.S. officials months ago dialed back their expectations of what the U.S. military can achieve in Iraq. But the comments this week showed that commanders believe a large U.S. force in Iraq might in fact be creating problems as well as solutions.

"This has been hinted at before, but its a big shift for them to be saying that publicly," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in Washington. "It means they recognize that there is a cost to staying just as there is a benefit to staying. And this has not really been factored in as a central part of the strategy before."

The generals' comments reflect an evolving outlook that senior military officials and even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have articulated in recent months: The battle against Iraqi insurgents will not be won by the U.S. military, and that the insurgency will go on long after U.S. troops have left Iraq.

"If (the insurgency) does go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever ... it is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq," Rumsfeld said in June. "They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time. They are ultimately going to be the ones who win over that insurgency."

The generals' words also represent a definition of military success in Iraq less ambitious than President Bush has given in recent statements.

At his ranch last month in Crawford, Texas, Bush said that, "When the mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will come home."

More recently, Bush has offered a more modest definition of success, emphasizing the importance of training Iraqi troops as part of the U.S. mission to defeat the insurgents.

But the ground commanders told Congress on Thursday that the number of Iraqi units at the highest state of combat readiness had dropped since June from three to one. And they pointed this week to ways in which the U.S. troop presence is causing problems.

During his congressional testimony, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that troop reductions were required to "take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency, that of the coalition forces as an occupying force."

A smaller U.S. presence could deflate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested.

The same approach might have value across the Middle East, commanders said. Gen. John P. Abizaid of Central Command, who supervises all U.S. troops in the region, said that the broader fight against Islamic extremism requires the United States to "reduce our military footprint" across the region, and to push governments in the Middle East to fight the extremists themselves.

While Abizaid advocates a troop reduction, he does not favor a total withdrawal. He envisions the withdrawal preceded by the establishment of stable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accompanied by an assured flow of oil and enhanced regional security networks.

Fewer U.S. troops also would encourage Iraqi forces to rely more on themselves in the face of an insurgency that could last a decade or more. A reduction in American forces is essential to push more Iraqi troops onto the front lines, Casey said.

"This is about dependency," he said.

Among Americans, support for the war continues to dwindle, while growing numbers conclude that troops should be withdrawn partially or completely. Only 32 percent of people surveyed for a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released last week approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, compared with 40 percent last month and 50 percent earlier this year.

The survey also showed that 59 percent now consider it a mistake to have sent U.S. forces to Iraq, up from less than half earlier this summer. And 63 percent believe troops should be withdrawn partially or completely, up 10 points from August. Just 21 percent of those surveyed believed U.S. forces would win the war, while 34 percent said it they consider the war unwinnable.

Military officials and others familiar with Casey's strategy in Iraq say that the United States plans a phased withdrawal, first pulling U.S. troops out of the 14 provinces that commanders believe are most secure. Initially, their presence would continue in the predominantly Sunni provinces of central Iraq, where most of the violence is taking place and the U.S. military suffers most of its casualties.

"Withdrawing from the secure areas would be a good signal to the rest of Iraqis that this is coming for them eventually," said an adviser to U.S. Central Command who has traveled frequently to Iraq, and who requested anonymity because he was speaking about a classified strategy.

While the adviser said that there was a concern among U.S. commanders that Iraqi troops do not become too dependent on the American presence, there are no plans for a hasty pullout in the violent provinces before the Iraqi troops are up to the job.

"There's a line between what constitutes casual dependence, and what constitutes not being ready to fight," he said. For the most part, (Iraqi troops) are not ready to do the job. And stepping back is just going to leave them vulnerable to a battle tested army of insurgents."

Ironically, Gene is preaching to the choir, as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, I think that Bush's Iraq policy and its implementation leaves a lot to be desired. I think that he made some mistakes, some out of ignorance, some out of inexperience, and some out of that tendency we all have to make mistakes from time to time, in big, complex, difficult enterprises.

I just don't think his mistakes are deal-breakers. Nor do I disagree with the general policy that took us into Iraq in the first place.

And most importantly, I don't think Gene has ever made any effort to find out how much of what he thinks of as "mistakes" are actually instances of experienced and well-informed people making good decisions based on unfortunate and uncontrollable conditions in the real world.

It'd be nice if we could withdraw from the region before we wear out our welcome (or wear it out more, if you buy into Gene's worldview). It'd also be nice if we could stay long enough to train up a solid Iraqi security force. But what if those two ideals are incompatible? What if our only options are to sacrifice one for the other, or compromise between the two?

There's plenty of room there for competent people to make the best of a bad situation, but also plenty of room for their political opponents to make it look like they're not competent and are only making a bad situation worse.

I see no evidence that Gene ever argues in good faith or is open to the possibility that his analysis and interpetation is incomplete and possibly wrong.

Hey Col. I regret to inform you that your comment "In the past few weeks Bush has been telling us that his Generals" is from back in Oct of 2005.

The article you are pointing out is exactly what is being done. The Iraqi's are taking more of the burden of the military and police and the US military is reducing its size. So where is the "cover up" and what is the big problem you see? We are doing exactly what we said we were going to do. Reduce our troop numbers as the Iraqi's set up and take over. That is what that article says also. It just so happens the reporter tries to put a left spin on it by making sound negative, when in reality, it turned out to be positive.

Oh and by the way, if our troops are fueling the terrorist attacks, why are attacks down by 72% since the first Iraqi election? And "In just 12 months, we have seen the Iraqi security forces increase 77 percent to a total now that numbers more than 223,000," Air Force Brig. Gen. C.D. Alston said. More than 105,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen have been trained and equipped in Iraq's armed forces, and 118,000 Iraqis serve in the country's "highly professional police forces dedicated to defending the Iraq of today and tomorrow," the general said.

The Iraqi security forces are conducting more independent operations throughout the country and are increasingly becoming the object of insurgent attacks. However, these attacks are down from about 90 per day to about 75 per day over the past few months, Alston said.

So wheres the negative in all this??

COL Gene, you are not going to win any friends or influence any people with articles that are re-flingings of old poo.

And while I appreciate the link(s) showing me where you get your information, the links also show me where you get your information.

How reliable and impartial is "howbushoperates.info", anyway?
Here's the mission statement and bio from its anonymous author:

This website is not written lightly. I am a computer scientist. I have been teaching and researching for over 35 years. I generally have little to do with politics, and I do not belong to a political party. No one is paying me to do this. I have no agenda except to see the people of the U.S. work together, in harmony, for the good of everyone in the country and the world.

I believe that the statements in this website are based on facts.

I've taken my name off the site for now.

So this guy who writes his palaver doesn't even have the cojones to take responsibility? He doesn't want his name associated with his blithering drone? I give you props, COL Gene. At least you, ParaTed2k, myself, and several others use our first names. This guy won't even extend us that privilege...

Now on to the content of the site you linked... do you really think it is a source of unvarnished, unbiased information? If you're going to post propaganda, at least make it your own propaganda. Don't just re-fling the poo of others. I'd like to hear your poo!

Now on to the content of the site you linked... do you really think it is a source of unvarnished, unbiased information?

It is basically a blog site, and that is his basis in facts!  Hey Col, link to my web site as FACTS!

What if our only options are to sacrifice one for the other, or compromise between the two?

Yup, I agree with this.

I think its inevitable actually especially if we get a Dem in the white house next election.

That's reality. Compromise is rarely pretty in these kinds of situations....

I'm all for finishing what we started, but I wonder if it will work out that way since we certainly have more time to go than Bush has left.

Hmmmmm

I agree with the statement there are two options, Leave NOW or stay longer to further train more Iraqi police and military. However, the most important issue is what happens when we finally depart. Will what we leave behind be able to control the violence or will Iraq fall into civil war? What will the ultimate government be like after we depart, whether or not a civil war is part of forming that ultimate country?

If the Iraq that emerges in the future is a country that we can deal with and that DOES NOT allow or support the more radical Moslem factions, some good will have resulted from the War. If we have spawned another Iran or Syria, this war will be a MAJOR policy failure. Only time can answer that question!

First you say this:

In the past few weeks Bush has been telling us that his Generals tell him more troops would just make the insurrection in Iraq worse.

Which no one has been able to find proof of. Then you say this:

They may be correct and all that is the way Bush is trying to deflect criticism from the way he conducted the war.

This is, with no doubt, nitpicking. I mean even you admit right here that the Generals may be correct yet you are trying to make Bush look bad by something that I can't find in the second article you linked.

No where in that link, #3 and #4, does it say that we did not have enough troops in Iraq. What is said is that the large force is what caused the insurgency in Iraq, that bringing down the levels of US troops might help control the situation. Ironically nowhere in the article does it say that the Iraqis Forces are helping out and doing more of the work themselves.

But the ground commanders told Congress on Thursday that the number of Iraqi units at the highest state of combat readiness had dropped since June from three to one. And they pointed this week to ways in which the U.S. troop presence is causing problems.

That's kinda funny considering that Iraqi Forces have almost doubled. I'm not too sure this article is putting all the information, only what they want people to see.

Get a clue Col, first you linked a site that is obviously biased then you link an article that does not define hardly anything you claim in your own article. No cover-ups, no Bush telling stories in the past few weeks, no "we didn't have enough soldier" accounts, etc.

If we had the forces needed, we would have established control from day one and never allowed the carnage we see day after day in Iraq.

I would like to know what makes you believe this so strongly. It's not like you could see into the future that could have been. This is impossible to predict cause we didn't know the level of insurgency there could have been. Even if we had twice as many, lives would have still been lost (hello we are at war here, people die at wars, its the definition of war), control would have still been lost and maybe it would have been worse according to those Generals you point out in the link you provided.

Next time read the articles better and get your facts straight before you go posting an article that you will later contradict yourself. And please learn that repetition is not the key to success in this website.

If the Iraq that emerges in the future is a country that we can deal with and that DOES NOT allow or support the more radical Moslem factions, some good will have resulted from the War. If we have spawned another Iran or Syria, this war will be a MAJOR policy failure. Only time can answer that question!

You could at least have hope for latter. Try being positive for once, you just might like it. People like you who think negative about everything just to spite those you hate are the reason this world is going to hell.

Bush's incompetence is in no way limited to Iraq; it's been a constant in his life. His business dealings before he got into politics were all failures until he used his father's political power to bail him out. His political campaigns were failures until he hooked up with Karl Rove and his bag of dirty tricks. Bush has no intellectual curiosity. He forms an opinion, then tries to find facts to support that support that opinion. This is exactly the same as the sheep who support him. Any criticism of Bush is met with contempt by these sheep, and rather than look at the criticism and facts objectively, bush sheep attempt to find a loophole that would exonerate him.

In the past two days 234 people died in Iraq including 5 Americans while Bush is telling us that we are making progress in Iraq. With 150,000 U S Military and over 200,000 Iraqi's we have trained, the security situation is such that 234 people died because of the insurrection. When will Bush wake up and acknowledge the situation in Iraq is NOT GETING BETTER!!!

Know what I find ironic, though?
For the whole time I've been on JU, all I've heard from this poster has been an endless litany of bitching, moaning and half-witted "reasons" why we shouldn't be there at all, and that the troops there now should come home! RIGHT NOW!

Now Col. Green is bitching because we have too few troops already and Bush doesn't want to send more. In fact, he wants to bring some home! How stupid of him!

The president is giving Col. Green exactly what he's wanted all along.
Careful what you wish for, Col.....it may just take away your reasons for griping.