Posted on 08/07/2007 5:32:22 AM PDT by bobsunshine
Your point of view is a rather Hobbesian one but sadly, it is probably accurate.
Or he is a career civil servant who doesn't agree with our involvement in Iraq and wants to torpedo the Bush administration by painting a bleak picture. People leak for a reason and it may not always be the "truth." How senior is this "official" and how knowledgeable is he about the current situation in Basra? And it hasn't been beyond the ability of the MSM to make up anonymous/unnamed sources.
Mr. Cole is the only directly quoted person in this entire article. “Senior intelligence official in Bagdhad” is not going to cut if for a report on the failure of the British troops. Plain old bad reporting, just rubbish. Oh well, anything to deflect the success of the Surge.
What happened in New Orleans should have been somewhat instructive to us. Further, the thought that the British were defeated in America and everyone rejoiced and succumbed to the Federal Gov’t is somewhat naive. People don’t talk much about Shay’s Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion but these had to be put down by the Central Gov’t. Fortunately there was plenty of land in young America and malcontents and those not wishing to submit to Federal or State Authority could keep escaping Gov’t by moving West.
‘So now, the British Military is going to throw away all achieved?
This is not the British Military, I remember, or ACTUALLY I should say the British Leadership, I remember.’
America chose to throw away all that it had achieved in Iraq by voting Democrat. America is in charge of Iraq - what do you expect Britain to do when the American govt has already decided to surrender and is just arguing over the date?
I don’t say this to upset anyone, but really - what are we supposed to think when you choose to vote an openly anti-war party into power in both houses? Both the Labour party and the Conservative party in Britain are in favour of the war, so it could not happen here, but I can’t see us staying when you go, can you?
Nowhere to run this time. The British Leadership running does not make sence. Sounds as though this British Leadership has joined the Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s of bizarro world, and have decided to surrender. I would bet Churchill is spinning so wildly in his grave the ground is shaking.
excuse me, I did NOT vote for these idiots in the surrender party. maybe you meant someone else....
Tom Ricks’ record on Iraq reporting has been pretty bad.
LLS
Yeah. We are now so short-term oriented. I often wonder will we ever have the patience/stamina/clarity of thought to accomplish any long term goals. We now commend ourselves for sticking with the Cold War these days but some were more than willing to throw in the towel. Any President who wants to accomplish anything better plan to have it completed in 4 years or less otherwise he/she will be labeled a "failure". And this is why we will end up with more and more "poll-driven" Presidents.
Talk to freeper David Osborne. He’s there now.
IMHO - Possibly, especially if Petraeus uses the political and military levers available to him, and I think he is doing so and will continue to do so. Petraeus is different from previous Commanders in Iraq. He is smarter. He's got the military thing down pat and is more political, more Machiavellian. My only question is whether the Sunni are smart enough to grasp his overall strategy and benefit from it; allowing the U.S. to benefit as well. It appears, admittedly from here, that the Sunni are finally starting to "get it", and the more they "get it", the more they see the benefit to them.
What do I mean by "get it"? I mean, 1) Sunni cooperation with Petraeus eliminates AQ violence and local and national political interference from AQ(the Sunni appear to prefer a more secular life). 2) Sunni cooperation with Petraeus is building Sunni military numbers and the organizational foundation which is so essential to application of power. It may also keep the Sunni from fighting each other, while the Shia do so. 3) Sunni cooperation with Petraeus in defeating AQ will lead to Sunni occupation of the moral high ground in US eyes, and will benefit US relations with neighboring Sunni nations, to the detriment of Iran. 4) Sunni cooperation with Petraus SHOULD put pressure (a "stop loss" situation) on Iraqi Shite leadership to come to some political agreement before they lose even more leverage.
I could expand on this, but I'm only an armchair general and so I naturally want to avoid getting too specific :-)
I'll leave it at that. Let me also say, Thank You! for your service. Also, having been in a similar position in another war, I agree that your view is different; that why I stated "IMHO" (emphasis on the H)
Exactly.
This article is nonsense - it seems some in the american pro war camp are happy to sit back and shout and Britain who has stood by you - at one point to the cost of the PM who sacrificed himself by staying put when he could have swallowed his pride and saved himself.
We are still there - out troops are still being killed - one died only yesterday.
It is an insult to suggest that our brave folks are pulling out knowing that they will leave chaos.
The overall picture is very different - just compare the ammount of attacks.
Also - some of these people like to harp on about our public when the majority of their public booted out the pro war party in an election fought largely on the war.
Gordon Brown could have handed himself the ultimate gift and pulled troops out right away.
He hasn’t - he praised George Bush (in my opinion as decently as Blair ever did - although his many media backers played it doww) and even let Bush (sadly a figure of hate over here) drive him around in a golf buggy.
We’re in Iraq - our guys are doing a fantastic job - taking the fight to the enemy.
We’ve seen some bloody awful stuff come out of iraq - the scenes of our troops being pelted by a bastard mob and fleeing their tank in flames springs to mind, but we’re still there and will be to finish the job we helped start.
We helped liberate these people too - and if we are going to be sholder to sholder - we could do well without the pathetic sniping from the american ‘blame the Brits’ crowds.
That all being said, I should stress that my love for America, my admiration for your president could not be any higher.
And I fully understand that these people are an extreme minority.
I often find comments from fellow freepers with regard my country really touching and makes me proud of the solidarity our great nations share.
Couldn't agree more and I don't need a tour (there) to know it. Thanks for your Service none-the-less. Blackbird.
I hope and pray you are correct...Leaving the job undone creates more chaos, from these terrorists. Witness the attacks in both of our nations.
Absolutely. If they are set on killing each other over their differences, as they have for centuries, we are not going to change that in a few years. They have to want the life and liberty we are trying to let them have.
Emphatically NO!!!
It's the Washintoon comPost. It is not to be believed. It may occasionally publish content which is at least partially true, but that can only be determined by corroboration by other, independant, reliable sources. WaPo content should be considered false, distorted, or incomplete unless proven otherwise.
I really hope you do not believe you are "fighting and dying" for Iraq. If you do, I can certainly understand your frustration; but that is not the case. Please read the below speech by the President. It should have been read to all of our military.[Bold is mine.]
President Bush Thanks Military On Independence Day At Fort Bragg, North Carolina 7-4-06
By achieving victory in Iraq, we will help Iraqis build a free nation in the heart of a troubled region, and inspire those who desire liberty -- those democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran. By achieving victory in Iraq, we will honor the sacrifice of the brave men and women who have risked their lives and given their lives for a just and noble cause.
Victory in Iraq will not, in itself, end the war on terror. We're engaged in a global struggle against the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom and crushes all dissent, and has territorial ambitions and pursues totalitarian aims. This enemy attacked us in our homeland on September the 11th, 2001. They're pursuing weapons of mass destruction that would allow them to deliver even more catastrophic destruction to our country and our friends and allies across the world. They're dangerous. And against such enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
We will keep the pressure on them. We will stay on the offense. We'll fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq and every battlefront in this struggle. Yet, in the long run, we will defeat the terrorists and their hateful ideology by spreading the hope of freedom across the world. Our strategy to protect America is based on a clear premise: The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations.
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. And we learned an important lesson: Decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make it safe. So long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place where terrorists foment resentment and threaten American security.
And so we pursue a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We ought to be confident in the pursuit of that strategy, because liberty is universal. And by standing with those who desire liberty, we will help extend freedom to millions who have not known it, and lay the foundations of peace for generations to come.
‘excuse me, I did NOT vote for these idiots in the surrender party. maybe you meant someone else....’
Despite it being a secret vote, I suspected those posting on here were unlikey to have put a cross next to a Democrat candidate! Sadly, a majority of those who could be bothered to vote did choose Democrat, thus I used ‘your’ in relation to your country, not your individual and evidently not Democratically inclined personage. I apologise for any sullying of your person! :)
‘I would bet Churchill is spinning so wildly in his grave the ground is shaking.’
If Churchill is spinning, it will be at America voting in the surrender-monkey Dems, not at the British leadership reducing troop numbers because of the inevitable pull-out of US troops soon.
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.