Posted on 03/14/2008 5:27:27 PM PDT by KantianBurke
BAGHDAD, March 13 -- Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.
Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.
The general's comments appeared to be his sternest to date on Iraqis' failure to achieve political reconciliation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He is pointing out who needs to get motivated.
He is sending them a message.
This place was run by the Turks for 1000 years. They never tried for some unified entity called “Iraq”, but just as a series of little regions run by sheiks.
The Brits and the French drew the lines after WW1, and drew them according to oil and the best interests of the Europeans.
In other words, before Saddam, they were barely a country, and Saddam’s the best leader they’ve had as an independent country. We’ve come to a grudging admiration of Saddam’s ability to keep the peace and keep things running as well as they did.
According to Fox News Petraeus says he was misquoted...
Those axel Iraqis keep thinking one side will win over the other. Can’t they all just get along.
As Woofie indicated, General Patreus’ remarks were (purposely) mischaracterized and misquoted!
If you read the transcripts, he never used the word “failed”. This is another translation provided to you by WaPo
with regards to what? You have a link to what he claims the press miscontrued?
BTTT
The point is, yes, we are providing cover. But why in the hell would anyone expect the Iraqis---who do NOT come from a tradition of openness and civil rights and political freedom---to do this FASTER than we did, than the Brits did, and than the French did?
I cant find a link yet but it was stated on Fox news...I bet there is a big deal made of this if its a misquote.
Alot of Dems went out on a limb with it
Here is Andrew Sullivan saying :
Petraeus: The Surge Has Failed
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/petraeus-the-su.html
When I read this article it was clear that Barr used quotation marks very carefully. I had the impression he wasn’t quoting Gen. Petraeus correctly.
Im not sure but I think Fox said it was a matter of context ...I assume if you hear the full statement he was saying Iraqis have come a long way but they still have a way to go..(a very innocuous statement)
The liberals from Pelosi on down are desperately spinning this as a failure of the surge.
More like ... an assessment that the Iraqi govt is just slow at getting things done: "The spokesman for the Iraqi government, Ali al-Dabbagh, told VOA Friday he agreed with critics that political reforms were too slow in coming."
In other words, Iraqi Congress only a twice more competent than the incompetent Democratic Congress.
“Petraeus: The Surge Has Failed” ... which is an utter distortion.
Disgraceful.
A huge and unjustified leap from “The government hasnt done enough on reconciliation” to “The Surge has failed.” ...
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_z1Tg381_yJfNuHAs6wPF0HRcpw
“Iraqi leaders have failed to make enough progress in settling their political differences despite a drop in violence, the top US commander in Iraq said in an interview published Friday.
General David Petraeus, set to testify on the Iraq war to the US Congress next month, told the Washington Post “no one” in the US and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation,” or in the provision of basic public services.”
Could you please list the battles between the states for the years from 1789 until the civil war? I can only think of a few raids in Missou and Kansas.
“I’m a firm believer that the United States needs to stress in the strongest of terms that the Iraqi governmental reforms not only take place, but take place along a time line set by us. Failure to meet these reforms within the given time frame should entail economic repercussions.”
We cant even get our own Congress to frickin drill in ANWR where we have $1.5 TRILLION in oil and the only thing in the way are mosquitos and caribou. and for 20 YEARS we cant even get the Congress, becaue the Democrats are bought and paid for by eco-extremist loons, to open up ANWR.
Now I ask you, with Iraqis new to democrat rule, with all the uncertainty and violence and different sects and immaturity of the institutions, does it surprise you or anyone that they cant get a complext oil policy reconciliation done for their country ... in a mere 1/10th the time that our Congress spent failing to even get drilling in ANWR done?
Get real. The Iraqi govt could do better, but compared to Pelosi Reid and the other bozos running our Congress, they arent that bad.
Here’s a timeline I can agree to: The US Congress makes the tax cuts that Bush passed fully permanent this year, or every stinkin’ last one of them against it is held fully responsible for the weak economy and is fired in November.
Iraq will have new elections soons themselves. If they cant do it by 2009, they get fired and the new guys (the secular parties) get to try.
LS is probably the expert on this, but it reminded me of the fact that Ohio and Michigan had a war. True! 1820s or so.
Shay’s rebellion, the whiskey rebellion,
fighting barbary pirates.
war of 1812 (which lasted until 1815).
Andrew Jackson fighting both English and Spanish. Then sending the indiands on a trail fo tears.
Fights with england over boundaries. Constant indian wars. Fighting the Mormons.
Then here in Texas, the small matter of the Alamo, then the war with Mexico.
John Brown and Harper’s Ferry.
Lots of wars external and internal.
But I think the civil war pretty much makes up for any lack of organized violence between states per se prior.
Hardly 80 years of civil war.
The MNF-I PAO has sent notice that they have misquoted the General and that they are requesting a correction. The notice included a full transcript of the interview.
The story is pure BS...
Battles? I consider all the struggles about federalism to be battles: Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Federalist near-secession in 1814, Tariff of Abominations near-secession, and most of all, the 80-year struggle over whether we would be a slave or free country, culminating in the Civil War. Most historians, I think, pretty much agree that the Tariff of Abominations was really about slavery; that virtually all the political “battles,” including Mo. Comp., Texas Annexation, Comp. of 1850, Ka/Neb. Act were about slavery first and foremost. So, yeah, that’s an 80-year Civil War interrupted by long periods of peace.
Uh, pretty close. The French had constant civil war interrupted by dictators, as did the English.
What is MNF-I PAO ?
well you have a unique definition of civil war. By your definition we still have one going on.
England, France, and the U.S. all settled their critical internal differences, but it took, as I said, between 400 years and 80 years to work it out. I'm amused that people look at five years of struggle in Iraq and think they should be "ahead" of either the English, the French, or us.
Seems that way to me. We just haven't been using guns in the conflict.(yet)
It is not just the bombings it is the long history of tirbalism in the area, religious sects, and so on. There are three criticisms I have of Bush’s Iraq startegy that the general’s comments relate to. For at least 3.5 years not enough boots on the ground to maintain peace. Dismissal of the possibility of three countries. And I believe we should have invaded Iran instead, based upon information at the time the decision was made to go into Iraq.
MNF-I PAO =
Multi-National Force-Iraq Public Affairs Office.
The Generals spokesmen.
They shotgunned an e-mail to their press list (including bloggers like me) disputing the story and provided the transcript...
Bush has done a phenomenal job of "softening up the battlefield," surrounding Iran with hostile (to them) powers and our air and army bases. To have tried to invade Iran in 2003 would have been an utter debacle, as most of the military people I talk to seem to agree.
I agree, lots of tribalism. You could say the same thing about Scotland (which had its own wars for about 400 years). Different religions, too. I disagree with the "boots on the ground," and always have. In hindsight, maybe. But based on past experience, there was no reason whatsoever to think Saddam's forces would fight as they did. Every war is different. The Zulus who slaughtered a 1,400-man British army at Isandlwana, with its cannons and rockets, was smashed by 80 riflemen the next day at Rorke's Drift. The same George Crook who proved Geronimo's worst foe was easily blunted by a small force under Crazy Horse.
War plans NEVER work out. They always have to be modified. What Petraeus has done is magnificent, but I think several other generals could have done it too. And I think Iraq is showing REMARKABLE progress compared to us, the Brits, and the French over a comparative period of time.
The Secretary of the DOD had a vision of the type of military we needed for the job and the president went along with it. Many said so at the time and history proved them correct.
Silly. There is no army in history that can “seal” a border. Even the Soviets couldn’t do it after they controlled countries. Certainly the U.S. military couldn’t have “sealed” the Iranian and Syrian borders without a massive draft, which would have ended the war immediately. Rummy was brilliant. Many people will, unfortunately, pick up on that way too late.
Yeah, we’re still paying for his brilliance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.