What a joke. Maybe General MacArthur or General Patton is overrated as well. You left wing knuckleheads at the Washington Post truly make me sick.

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

See the filth emanating from "old ranger" for examples of the aforementioned barrage of hate. One need not de-humanize and demean others to disagree with them. Until we evolve beyond that tactic, there is little chance of humanity winning in the long term.

re the QUESTION: "Is anyone able to supply any information as to how Gen Petraeus won the "V"-device he wears on his Bronze Star award in his picture on Wikipedia? We certainly don't need another Admiral Jeremy Boorda."

Jeremy Boorda was a stand-up professional and we certainly could have used many more like him. His death was a tragedy and sad commentary on the misplaced values of some of the press. It is wrong to perpetuate the slurs made against him; there was good reason for him to believe he was entitled to wear metal trinkets that he certainly deserved to wear.

I second the sentiments of Jas_John128 as to Gen. Petraeus. Iraq may not be winnable at this point, if it ever was. If it is not, there are plenty to share responsibility starting with the oval office. Given the that our highest medals have been handed out to some most culpable for creating this debacle, that responsibility likely will never be acknowledged.

Yet, if this thing is salvageable, Gen. Petraeus is the best choice to give us that shot. He'll deserve all the credit if he can pull it out and I hope for all our sakes that he can. Then we seriously need to concentrate on the environment, and find someone who cares, not a bunch of pretenders. Gore and Obama are looking very strong for what really matters. I hope they can be prevailed upon to serve, though I am sad that to do so they will have to face a barrage of hate from those who have lost their way.

I first me LTC Petraeus as a lst Lt in the 509th ABCT, Italy in 1978. At that time you could see he was several cuts above the "rest" of the officers. He was smart, innovative, and willing to let the men do their jobs, and provide input without fear.

I kept in touch with him thorough out the years. For those that find him ambitious ... isn't that a trait we admire in any of our leaders. But for him, I've seen him challenge the decisions of a Full Bull when he was a 1LT. He's willing to put his ass on the line, to support those who worked for him or to support an idea that he believed was right. Traits like that do not change over night.

I believe he has a very tough job and may be he will fail ... but it will not be for lack of putting forth the very best efforts of an extremely bright and capable senior officer ... but from the dynamics of a situation that is three years behind what should have been done before.

Like in the RANGERS and SF ... we pray for the best and prepare for the worst.

Pretraeus is already stepping to into the worst ... so we'll have to hope for the best to occur under his leadership.

Ex SFC P.

Mr. Arkin, i appreciate and enjoy your column but i don't agree with your assessment of General Petraeus. It's late and i'm all typed out so i'll just paste in what i wrote over at Rajiv's blog next door:

General Petraeus didn't send his Airborne troopers house to house in the cities kicking doors in, publicly humiliating Iraqi men, terrifying their women and children, and thus triggering the cycle of revenge and reprisals that soon began to plague some of the more macho units like, oh, for instance, those of the Fourth Infantry Division.

From all I've been able to learn, Dave Petraeus paid attention and did the best he could in a bad, bad situation - and the fact that it all turned to sh*t in the end cannot be laid at his door.

He didn't make policy, wasn't asked for his opinion on occupation strategy, and didn't get to vote on whether the war was even a good idea or not. It wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference if he'd resigned in 2004, but I do think it would've been smart of him to have turned in his papers before accepting this latest assignment.

I agree with other posters here who say he's as good as we've got in the military today, and the fact that the men who served under him hold him in such high regard speaks volumes about his character and his service.

But I also think that he and Ambassador Carney and others who are signing on for this "surge" are going to be the ones taking the heat and paying the price for its ultimate failure.

So let's save the rope for the architects and enablers of this unjust war, for the bloodthirsty macho types and the depraved torturers who disgrace their uniform and my country. Let's preserve the difference between honorable men and women in uniform and in office and the criminals who will soon be trying to hide among them. I wish General Petraeus all the best, and I have nothing but contempt for the men who are making his service necessary once again.

he is only a man

QUESTION: Is anyone able to supply any information as to how Gen Petraeus won the "V"-device he wears on his Bronze Star award in his picture on Wikipedia?
We certainly don't need another Admiral Jeremy Boorda.
Thanks

leadership matters
but so does the job being asked of the leadership
its not an exact science
since we are dealing with real people
we can make "educated" guess's
about a war leader
then what they DO
grant was dished as a hopeless drunk
till he won battles
sherman believed in total war
then made georgia howl
none of these generals or our soldiers in iraq have it in them to make bagdad howl
i for one am grateful
we could destroy bagdad but we cant.
because the leadership cant even think that might be needed
or the fear of losing too much of our big strong army
like a certain general named McClellan
why do i say that?
bush is ordering 21,000 not 210,000
says alot of his war of terror
doesnt it?
no need to fear cause the other side has no Giap
YET
or should i say a Saladin?

Thomas Ricks, in Fiasco, credits Gen. Petraeus for using the correct approach in Iraq in 2003-04. George Packer also writes well about him. This gives us some hope that he will manage the situation with insight and skill. It was the Administration that inflated the number of Iraqi troops trained; one cannot blame Petraeus for that. On the other hand, Gen. Raymond Odierno also received a promotion (though below Petraeus) in the recent reshuffle. Ricks contrasts Petraeus' intelligent command of the 101 Airborne with Odierno's rough and unsuccessful tactics with the 4th Infantry Division during the same period. Let's hope Odierno has changed since then.

"In the Company of Soldiers,' by Rick Atkinson was the account of his at elbow observation of LTG Petraeus as they entered Bagdad.Upon seeing Iraqis looting mattresses from a government building,he said,Oh well I guess they feel they are entitled to it."Then equipment and furniture were seen being taken from offices and hospitals.Petraeus was dumbfounded and immobilized.He had been formed in an era where the civil rights disorders became an accepted form of civil expression including looting,vandalism, and arson.Then Petraeus got the job of training Iraqis and then teaching American officers.Petraeus should have read "The Prince' by Niccolo Machiavelli to know how to deal with throwbacks to the eighth century.

Dr. Merhoff: You would be interested in following text re brain physiology/conversion methodology. Little doubt W is gone. He is especially vulnerable as an alcoholic - these obsessionals types seldom recover, they just go from one form to another. As you say, it is a personal disaster. See, Battle for the Mind, Dr. Wm Sargant. ISHK books.

I am curious about General Petraeus' recent promotions. Does anyone know the dates of his promotion to Major General, now Lt. General, and soon to be General? It appears that he may have been promoted very rapidly because he agrees with Bush.

Am I missing something? General Petraeus has been in charge of training the Iraq security forces since 2004; this is 2007. Two things (1) we really are training, equipment and paying the insurgents and (2) how much training do these Iraqs need. It has been close to three years. The bad guys just sign up, taken to a rifle range, given a weapon and taught which end shoots and then assigned to a cell. All within 60 days.

How is it that the Administration does not know this when everybody else in the world does?

Posted by: XMinusOne@gmail.com

"Several comments:
This is not about This is not Congress having the guts to "take on the Emperor" by moving for impeachment and cutting funds to the military; yes, it is about checks and balances, and Congress performing it's function and obligation as an equal branch of government.
Impeachment?"

The Dem leadership is not asking for impeachment at this time, just truth and open disclosure before any additional funding

"Because you disagree with the decision making of the President?"

The President still has to be within the law, like any other citizen.

"I may not agree with it but the President was fairly elected and is doing what he believes is best and what he was reelected to do (again, whether I agree or not). Would you be happy if there was an impeachment, or would you want impeachment and removal from office?"

The 2000 election was not fairly won, like it or not. Yes, I would be happy if be happy if it was the best course for the country, the country comes first, not Bush.

"Would you be more satisfied with Vice President Cheney taking the place of the President?"

Not really, let's impeach him too.

"Cutting funds to the military?"

Put them on a budget, transfer money from other area's of military spending.

"That's it? Just cut them off immediately? What happens next? They have no funding for day-to-day operations, maintenance, food or fuel? Let them just stay in place as targets until someone realizes that funding is needed to return from Iraq, and to provide security while that happens? At least if you're going to say "no funding", explain what can, should, or needs to be done to 1) stop funding, and 2) what happens with "no funding". Simply saying "no funding for the military" is like saying "health care for everyone", "no poverty", everyone should have an education"; sounds nice but I'm not exactly sure what it means or how it's achieved."

The money is there; close a few "pork barrel" bases in the middle of the country, which are not needed, keep a few ships in port longer.

"It's not a "rather stupid assessment of what is going on by a reporter who, by his own admission, doesn't know the players involved." I may not fully agree with Mr. Arkin's assessment of General Petraeus, but this isn't a normal transition to replace people in the military; it's part of the Administration's deliberate and well advertised change of military policy in Iraq; Mr. Arkin isn't alone in thinking LTG Petraeus is overrated; others, including those who have worked with LTG Petraeus believe he is arrogant and/or excessively ambitious (just as there are others who believe he may bring creative ideas to military operations in Iraq)."

You can play musical chairs with the generals all you want, nothing and I mean nothing is going to change till the man calling the shots is replaced, Bush. He is clueless on how to solve this problem he created and is only concerned about his egotistical legacy.

"As for "...doesn't evetyone think that Casey might be ready for a change?", not really. General Casey may be ready for a change, but he's being recalled (or reassigned, if you will) before the normal end of his tour of duty. And, the glorification of LTG Petraeus as the one and only person who can bring the whole Iraq situation to conclusion makes it appear that his predecessors and colleagues have been negligent in doing their job at best; or incompetent at worse; they haven't been negligent nor incompetent; his predecessor's constraints have been in part from the administration and Department of Defense leadership, limitations by and within the Iraqi government and military, and by an uncommon (and obviously uncooperative) enemy - Iraqis fighting Iraqis in sectarian violence. But, if his predecessors, and they have been numerous (consisting of staff as well as leadership) were negligent or incompetent, and/or if it was known that LTG Petraeus was "so" brilliant, then this move should have been made sooner; much sooner. Much of the talk seems to make LTG Petraeus another Eisenhower, Grant, Halsey, or Bradley, and all others John Doe, John Smith, or Tom, Dick or Harry."

Bush has made the call for more troops, because leaving or negotiation would send the message he was defeated in Iraq. Petraeus is merely another general saluting and carrying out the orders given by the commander and chief. If Petraeus fails, he will be blamed by the administration, not Bush.

"Mr. Arkin has every right to ask what successes justify the high esteem in which LTG Petraeus is now held. If the General's selection is the most important and final answer to our Iraq situation, as many are calling it, then our pundits have every right to ask why "this" general, and not a different "general". A better question, however, and one that will be discussed in military circles and classrooms for decades will be, "Were Generals Abazaid and Casey over-rated?""

None of the generals have been over rated, only Bush, the man in charge has been over rated.

"I agree with dutchintel that "As for Whether Petraeus is overrated I cannot say. I'll defer to you, Bill..." but I don't understand "What I do know without question is ADM Fallon is very overrated and is the wrong man for the CENTCOM job as Abizaid's replacement."
It would be nice if dutchintel gave some kind of reason why ADM Fallon is "without question" overrated" or why he is "the wrong man." Two very broad statements with no background or support.

Regarding outsourcing intelligence operations: That Mcconell was in charge of outsourcing such operations doesn't mean it was his idea or that there is no command and control, no security, or "no control over any idiocy that will occur to these private companies"; just because such operations are outsourced doesn't mean there's no control; it's up to the controllers to ensure that control is in place; just like there should be for operations that are not outsourced. Without control, even US military and USG intelligence operations can and will have idiocy."

Out sourcing and subcontracting, have you ever heard of Halliburton?

"My bottom line:
I think Mr. Arkin raises some valid questions as to what makes LTG Petraeus so uniquely qualified, and if he is so qualified, why wasn't this move made earlier?
And, if you disagree with Mr. Arkin so much, so viciously (and I don't always agree with him but I respect his views), then why bother to read his columns, why bother complaining or criticizing his opinions? Why not just read something else and not get so upset. After all, the reason Mr. Arkin is able to write from his platform is because WashingtonPost.com knows that people are reading his material and expressing an interest."

My bottom line is this, for Petraeus to have a chance to succeed, a double or tripling of troops in Iraq would be required and this will require a draft and a draft will not happen for Iraq.

These are the troops needed to conquer and hold territory, to disarm all the militias (Peshmerga, Shia, and Sunni), and to close down the borders where arms and foreign fighters are being smuggled in. Increasing troops by only 20,000 will only increase casualties. Additionally Bush would have to talk with Syria and Iran for a political solution. Once again, until Bush is out of office, nothing will change in Iraq, because he can only think in terms of victory and defeat. The Korean War was not a victory or a defeat, just a long uneasy truce, Iraq will be the same.

Several comments:
This is not about This is not Congress having the guts to "take on the Emperor" by moving for impeachment and cutting funds to the military; yes, it is about checks and balances, and Congress performing it's function and obligation as an equal branch of government.
Impeachment? Because you disagree with the decision making of the President? I may not agree with it but the President was fairly elected and is doing what he believes is best and what he was reelected to do (again, whether I agree or not). Would you be happy if there was an impeachment, or would you want impeachment and removal from office? Would you be more satisfied with Vice President Cheney taking the place of the President?
Cutting funds to the military? That's it? Just cut them off immediately? What happens next? They have no funding for day-to-day operations, maintenance, food or fuel? Let them just stay in place as targets until someone realizes that funding is needed to return from Iraq, and to provide security while that happens? At least if you're going to say "no funding", explain what can, should, or needs to be done to 1) stop funding, and 2) what happens with "no funding". Simply saying "no funding for the military" is like saying "health care for everyone", "no poverty", everyone should have an education"; sounds nice but I'm not exactly sure what it means or how it's achieved.

It's not a "rather stupid assessment of what is going on by a reporter who, by his own admission, doesn't know the players involved." I may not fully agree with Mr. Arkin's assessment of General Petraeus, but this isn't a normal transition to replace people in the military; it's part of the Administration's deliberate and well advertised change of military policy in Iraq; Mr. Arkin isn't alone in thinking LTG Petraeus is overrated; others, including those who have worked with LTG Petraeus believe he is arrogant and/or excessively ambitious (just as there are others who believe he may bring creative ideas to military operations in Iraq).

As for "...donesn't evetyone think that Casey might be ready for a change?", not really. General Casey may be ready for a change, but he's being recalled (or reassigned, if you will) before the normal end of his tour of duty. And, the glorification of LTG Petraeus as the one and only person who can bring the whole Iraq situation to conclusion makes it appear that his predecessors and colleagues have been negligent in doing their job at best; or incompetent at worse; they haven't been neglignet nor incompetent; his predecessor's constraints have been in part from the administration and Department of Defense leadership, limitations by and within the Iraqi government and military, and by an uncommon (and obviously uncooperative) enemy - Iraqis fighting Iraqis in sectarian violence. But, if his predecessors, and they have been numerous (consisting of staff as well as leadership) were neglignet or incompetent, and/or if it was known that LTG Petraeus was "so" brilliant, then this move should have been made sooner; much sooner. Much of the talk seems to make LTG Petraeus another Eisenhower, Grant, Halsey, or Bradley, and all others John Doe, John Smith, or Tom, Dick or Harry.

Mr. Arkin has every right to ask what successes justify the high esteem in which LTG Petraeus is now held. If the General's selection is the most important and final answer to our Iraq situation, as many are calling it, then our pundits have every right to ask why "this" general, and not a different "general". A better question, however, and one that will be discussed in military circles and classrooms for decades will be, "Were Generals Abazaid and Casey over-rated?"

I agree with dutchintel that "As for Whether Petraeus is overrated I cannot say. I'll defer to you, Bill..." but I don't understand "What I do know without question is ADM Fallon is very overrated and is the wrong man for the CENTCOM job as Abizaid's replacement."
It would be nice if dutchintel gave some kind of reason why ADM Fallon is "without question" overrated" or why he is "the wrong man." Two very broad statements with no background or support.

Regarding outsourcing intelligence operations: That Mcconell was in charge of outsourcing such operations doesn't mean it was his idea or that there is no command and control, no security, or "no control over any idiocy that will occur to these private companies"; just because such operations are outsourced doesn't mean there's no control; it's up to the controllers to ensure that control is in place; just like there should be for operations that are not outsourced. Without control, even US military and USG intelligence operations can and will have idiocy.

My bottom line:
I think Mr. Arkin raises some valid questions as to what makes LTG Petraeus so uniquely qualified, and if he is so qualified, why wasn't this move made earlier?

And, if you disagree with Mr. Arkin so much, so viciously (and I don't always agree with him but I respect his views), then why bother to read his columns, why bother complaining or criticizing his opinions? Why not just read something else and not get so upset. After all, the reason Mr. Arkin is able to write from his platform is because WashingtonPost.com knows that people are reading his material and expressing an interest.

The [Depublicans]....

After hearing all sides of the argument over the weekend, it would appear that General Petraeus won't matter that much.

What really matters is what the Depublicans, or if you will, the Democratic-Republicans are going to do.

I am more concenred about them, than I am about Petraeus or George Bush. I was hoping that they were going to step up, however, more and more it sounds like they are going to retreat!

I wonder if Bush isn't so much trying to best his father but show that Jeb really isn't the smartest kid. Everyone talks about the fact that it was really Jeb that the family and friends expected to be president.

I think Junior's supporters expected him to be a figurehead and then 9/11 came and George screwed everything up by taking control. Before that Cheney openly admitted to running things on MTP.

Now junior will play musical chairs with Generals in the hopes that something works rather than listening to the advice to de-escalate that proves he's once again a failure.

Below is the link to Kagan's paper at the AEI that reportedly is the plan, or close to it, for the surge.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25396,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

I wonder what Arkin's thoughts are on the detail in the report.

We will know in a few weeks if the 82 Airborne troops are assaulting the Mahdi Army or the sunni insurgents. If they go to Baghdad get ready for war with Iran. Petraeus will have the job of blunting the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Do they have the Merkava killing missiles the Hezbolla used to fry those IDF tanker crews? If they do there will be hell to pay on the ground in Iraq as the insurgency spreading over the lands of Islam perfect the tactics of IED and sniper teams. PREPARE TO RETREAT AND LEAVE ISRAEL TO ITS FATE.

The question is whether the 82 Airbourne
troops leading the escalation are there to attack the Mahdi Army or continue the assault on the Sunni insurgency. If they
go into Bagdad, it is to blunt the Mahdi
Army and the Badr Brigades capability to
cut off the US gunman when the carrier
strike forces lead the attack on Iran to continue a war planned by and for Zionist interests. We will know the answer in a few weeks. If the Mahdi Army is in the gun sights you better not be short oil or gold.
Read William Lind for a critique of the incompetence of the US Army in Iraq. This so called worlds greatest military can't even control a few thousand rag tag insurgents who will soon become an unbeatable force understanding the iron law of war. Prepare to retreat america. Prepare to die Israel. This war won't be over until Islam controls its lands and destiny. Check out Vietnam and the US eventual ignominious defeat at the hands of an insurgent army. This is what we saw in Lebanon last summer. The IDF may be good at killing unarmed women and children but the got their ass kicked and their tankers burned. Do the Iraq insurgents have the missles Hezbolla used to such devastating effect against the
Merkavas. If they do, their will be hell to pay for the boots on the ground with no armor and the insurgents perfecting their sniper and IED tactics. ITS TIME TO RETREAT AND LEAVE ISRAEL TO ITS FATE.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE BLOOD OF 700,000 IRAQIS ON OUR HANDS.

Dear Guy Fox,

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Yours,
Che

GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN FRAT-RAT CORP-RAT FASCIST, AN ARROGANT DRY DRUNK $OCIOPATH, A NITWIT NAKED EMPEROR WITH THE INSIGHT OF A JACKASS.

AS KING GEORGE JR. RIDES AROUND HIS TEXASS RANCH ON HIS LITTLE BOY BICYCLE... ROME BURNS IT'S WAY INTO BANKRUPTCY AND CIVIL UNREST LEADING TO CIVIL WAR. PEOPLE WHO'VE SUPPORTED GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE IRAQ-NAM WAR ARE SIMPLISTIC UNSOPHISTICATED HICKS; THEY ARE FOOLS AND TRAITORS TO AMERICAN TRADITIONS AND AMERICAN IDEALS.

HUGH R. MERHOFF M.D. HAS POSTED SOME SHARP AND ACCURATE COMMENTARY HERE THAT REALLY HITS THE MARK ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH. AND HE EVEN HAD THE COURAGE TO PUT HIS ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER BELOW HIS POSTINGS... UNLIKE THE COWARDS WHO DISAGREE WITH DR. MERHOFF.

I SHALL DO THE SAME HERE! UNLIKE THE MILKTOAST EDITORS IN THE ALLEGED FREE PRESS, MY PEN CAN $HAK-ESP-EAR. SO BEWARE!

I AM...

GUY FOX (wanting a pound of flesh)
P.O. BOX 2001
CLEARWATER, FL. 33757-2001
e-mail: oldcoyoteknose@yahoo.com

Well said, I have often thought that myself and I agree. It would make an excellent op-ed subject.

Posted by: HUGH R. MERHOFF, M.D.

"I HAVE LONG THOUGHT THAT BUSH'S ACTIONS HAVE BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO BEST HIS FATHER. HE HAS FAILED IN MOST OF HIS EFFORTS------NOT A GOOD STUDENT, NOT AN ATHLETE, NOT A WAR HERO, COULDN'T FIND OIL IN WEST TEXAS, HAD TO RELY ON WEALTHY FRIENDS OF HIS FATHER FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT, ETC. HE WAS GOING TO GO TO WAR AGAINST HUSSEIN TO PROVE THAT HERE, AT THE VERY LEAST, HE COULD OUTDO HIS FATHER IN SOMETHING. THEREFORE, THE PLUNGING OF THIS COUNTRY INTO A CHAOTIC AND SEEMINGLY ENDLESS CONFLICT FOR WHICH NOBODY HAS AN ANSWER.

AS TO HIS STUBBORNNESS IN THE FACE OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL DISGRACE, I THINK I HAVE AN EVEN MORE FRIGHTENING ANSWER.

WHEN HE WAS ASKED IF HE SPOKE TO HIS FATHER FOR ADVICE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HIS ANSWER WAS TO THE EFFECT, "I CONSULT WITH A HIGHER FATHER". AT FIRST, I THOUGHT THAT HE WAS SIMPLY KISSING UP TO THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT ON WHOM HE COUNTED FOR SUPPORT. THEN, HE TOLD A GROUP FROM THIS SECTOR THAT HE BELIEVED THAT GOD WANTED HIM TO BE PRESIDENT. AGAIN, I THOUGHT HE WAS JUST SUCKING UP TO THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT. NOW, HOWEVER, HIS STAND IN THE FACE OF THE OPPOSITION OF MOST OF THE WORLD NATIONS, OVER HALF THE AMERICAN POPULATION, MANY OF HIS OWN PARTY, VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS AND, LATELY, EVEN THE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF, HINTS AT SOMETHING MORE DEEPLY SEATED IN HIS DRIVE. I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT HE SPEAKS TO GOD AND THAT GOD HAS REASSURED HIM THAT HIS PATH IS CORRECT AND THAT HE ONLY NEEDS TO "STAY THE COURSE". THIS IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ASPECT OF THIS GUY'S DELUSIONAL PERSONA."

For over three years I've been hearing from Bush how it's the commanders on the ground making the decisions in Iraq, I think it's Bush. And every time the situation worsens or fails to improve, another General bites the dust and the commander and chief find another General that agrees with his next decision to become the next scapegoat for his incompetence. I wonder if Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus had any choice in this assignment.

Here are a few reasons why Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus will not succeed:

1. Disarming the Shia militias. These militias are not going to willingly disarm. The US military is primarily staffed to fight the Sunni Militias. To fight and disarm the Shia would warrant a doubling or tripling of US troops. Shia's will not be left with out their own protection, the US failed to protect them in the first Gulf War. It appears the Shia are going to purge all Sunni's out of Baghdad and now are pushing toward the towns west of Baghdad.
2. How is Iran's influence going to be curbed? Bush refuses to talk to them and forget any military action. Iran is geographically twice as large as Iraq with almost double the population.
3. Bush is against partitioning the country. This doesn't really matter, the country is partitioning itself.
4. Produce a stable Iraqi government. Not one that has to hide in the Green Zone and caters to the Shia militias.
5. The Sunni Saudi's have this administration over a barrel of oil, and will not allow Bush to pull out and allow Shiite's to control the country. Or let their fellow Iraqi Sunni's become second class citizens.
6. The Iraqi National Police and Military are so heavily infiltrated by Shia Militia, that Moqtada Al-Sadr has more control over them than the President of the country.

Old ranger,

Are you Dick Cheney?

""But still I ask, why the optimism? Though Petraeus may be an intellectual and promotional wizard, I have a hard time seeing any true success and product from his early work in or on Iraq.""

Why rkin ? Your eyes busted ?
What account of his leadership and its successes in pacifying Mosul have you ever read if you cannot see "any true success" from his early work in Iraq which consisted of this.

Clearly you are being deliberately misleading Arkin since you fail to refer to this aspect of his early command at any later point in your article.

What an achievement you've made here. You make no mention of one's peerless, stand out successes and then opine about how you have seen none while focussing on failures under his command.

The same method can be applied uequally to any public figure. Hell, even Hitchens attacks on Mother Teresa's failures made reference to her positive contributions.
He wasn't so underhnded that he left them out and hoped nobody would notice.

What do you call throwing the very last of your military's manpower into a raging bonfire? Is that a surge, or suicide?

Bush, the neocons and their NWO masters have one goal only- the destruction of America as a free country and world power. In every respect - the two ongoing imoral and hopeless wars, the massive US debt and failing economy, the fascist legal developments, the moral acid of detention and torture without trial, 'homeland insecurity' insanity, encouraged illegal immigration and other forms of national identity erasure, total failure of the Media to pursue Truth, not to mention the continuing 911 saga of murder, deceit and betrayal, the Bushies are succeeding brilliantly.

America, you face a simple choice. IMPEACH, and sent the entire criminal, lying, mass-murdering crew to gaol, or cease to exist as a nation.

OH, and for the rest of you doodling dems:

go sniff Hillary's slit, that's as close as any of you will get FROM NOW ON to satisfaction from that hellborn harridan.

Q: How may Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: WHY? is it dark in here?

H. R. MERHOFF, M.D.
BLOW ME you medically hyperinflated egoschnozzer
you USED TO BE EDUCATED, now you are just a pompous twit.

AND, what a swell set of WRONG opinions, William M. Arkin.
you and Doc Merhoff should set up a weeny wanker clinic in Harlem.

You weaseldick commie twinks.

It has always amazed me how a dufus like Arkin who spent a few years in the military essentially pushing paper and who is now in bed with the lefties at Human Rights Watch can summon the hubris to demean a great General like Petraeus.

Arkin's bona fides are nonexistent and his judgment is of no import.

Not just impeachment!
Send the quackes to the penitentiary Now!
Only way to save America!

I HAVE LONG THOUGHT THAT BUSH'S ACTIONS HAVE BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO BEST HIS FATHER. HE HAS FAILED IN MOST OF HIS EFFORTS------NOT A GOOD STUDENT, NOT AN ATHLETE, NOT A WAR HERO, COULDN'T FIND OIL IN WEST TEXAS, HAD TO RELY ON WEALTHY FRIENDS OF HIS FATHER FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT, ETC. HE WAS GOING TO GO TO WAR AGAINST HUSSEIN TO PROVE THAT HERE, AT THE VERY LEAST, HE COULD OUTDO HIS FATHER IN SOMETHING. THEREFORE, THE PLUNGING OF THIS COUNTRY INTO A CHAOTIC AND SEEMINGLY ENDLESS CONFLICT FOR WHICH NOBODY HAS AN ANSWER.

AS TO HIS STUBBORNNESS IN THE FACE OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL DISGRACE, I THINK I HAVE AN EVEN MORE FRIGHTENING ANSWER.

WHEN HE WAS ASKED IF HE SPOKE TO HIS FATHER FOR ADVICE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HIS ANSWER WAS TO THE EFFECT, "I CONSULT WITH A HIGHER FATHER". AT FIRST, I THOUGHT THAT HE WAS SIMPLY KISSING UP TO THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT ON WHOM HE COUNTED FOR SUPPORT. THEN, HE TOLD A GROUP FROM THIS SECTOR THAT HE BELIEVED THAT GOD WANTED HIM TO BE PRESIDENT. AGAIN, I THOUGHT HE WAS JUST SUCKING UP TO THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT. NOW, HOWEVER, HIS STAND IN THE FACE OF THE OPPOSITION OF MOST OF THE WORLD NATIONS, OVER HALF THE AMERICAN POPULATION, MANY OF HIS OWN PARTY, VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS AND, LATELY, EVEN THE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF, HINTS AT SOMETHING MORE DEEPLY SEATED IN HIS DRIVE. I HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT HE SPEAKS TO GOD AND THAT GOD HAS REASSURED HIM THAT HIS PATH IS CORRECT AND THAT HE ONLY NEEDS TO "STAY THE COURSE". THIS IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ASPECT OF THIS GUY'S DELUSIONAL PERSONA.

H. R. MERHOFF, M.D.
14210 ADOBE COURT
RED BLUFF, CA 96080
(530) 527-1937

Come to think of it. What happens to our free oil ! Without oil, our tanks and planes will become rusted iron. We need oil to stay as the only superpower of the world. Do we have any choice but to stay in Iraq ?

Come to think of it.

Who have been dying in Iraq fighting for our freedom ? But, who ordered these people to "die" ?
Who have been paying for all the bombs and equipments destroyed in Iraq ?
Who have been benefited from replacing all the destroyed equipments and bombs ?
Who will pay to rebuild Iraq ?
Who will be benefited in rebuilding Iraq ?

How come I can't buy the the stocks of the some of these companies who have been and will benefit from the war in Iraq ?

Let's feel sorry for those who have died in Iraq.
Let's feel bad for those who have been paying for the war in Iraq including you and I.
Let's congradulate those who have been making a huge sum from our pockets in fighting in Iraq and rebuilding Iraq.

From a bonda fide Republican.

The Reverend Brief.........Advice for President Bush!

After listening to a battery of talking-heads last week, the overwhelming majority concluded that late President Gerald Ford was correct after all in pardoning his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for his misbehaviors, and for all of the reasons that President Ford cited.

Mr. Ford indicated that the most important thing was for the nation to have the ability to move on. He also said that in order for him to be able to do anything other than be preoccupied with the Nixon affair, he had to give Nixon clemency back to San Clemente (-:. In other words, he placed the nation's interests and national security above the Nixon fray!

Mr. Bush should utilize a similar strategy by announcing his plans to pull out of Iraq. He should say that I am doing so in order for the nation to heal, and in consideration of America's national security. What will be accomplished by doing so?

1). America will have its exit strategy out of Iraq.

2) The nation can move on and begin to heal.

3). Bush will have given himself an unofficial pardon, given that his supporters and those who abandoned him will begin to rally around him again. (Most of those who abandoned him did so as a result of the failed war in Iraq). It would have been totally different if his mission had been accomplished.

3). The Iraq mess will be put swiftly behind him, and that will have dividends for the Bush legacy, the Bush Presidential Library and the 2008 Election; when Democrats will be trounced (appearing to be obstructionists again) and Republicans will be returned to power.

When he makes the announcement, however, will be key! Why? He will have to wait for the Democrats to approve more funding for the war, which will put them at odds with the public for betraying their trust. And as a result, the onus will be placed back on the Democrats, Bush and Cheney will retire and live happily ever after, and the next Administration will be handed the diminutive Iraq problem!

See, I can think like a Republic-rat. Are there any Republic-rat think tanks, looking for a strategist? If so, I can be in Washington this evening.

For any of you folks who remember a place called Vietnam - this is a move right out of LBJ's play book. For all their across the aisle talk, the Dems and Repubs are really presenting a Coke Pepsi aterantive. Its shocking what sheep the American public are - $500 billion down the drain for regime change - maybe another $500 billion or so o clean upo the mes ove rhte next ten years (my guess on how long 200k troops will be there). Someday we will know the whole background of this adventure - by then the progeny of Prescott Bush will be living on an island clipping coupons (isnt this what its all about - Halliburton, Chevron, etc)?

This column and comment section is laughable. Frustrated wonks that know all the answers, but none of the questions. I am sure that Petraeus will do a fine job. This entire Iraq scenario has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with having troops on the ground in the center of the storm. Wise up and look at the global picture. As the only remaining superpower, we got tapped for duty.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejoural.com

Bush purges Iraq command to prepare military escalation

By Bill Van Auken
6 January 2007

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The Bush administration is making sweeping personnel changes in the top leadership of the US military, intelligence and diplomatic establishment in preparation for a major escalation of the war in Iraq.

On Friday, the White House announced it was removing both Gen. George Casey, the senior commander in Iraq, and Gen. John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, which has overall responsibility for US forces in the region.

Both of the Army generals had repeatedly expressed reservations about the plan--to be announced next week by Bush--to carry out a "surge" of tens of thousands of additional troops in an effort to break Iraqi resistance to US occupation and domination.

Casey is to be replaced by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who served two tours in Iraq, first as commander of the 101st Airborne Division and then as the officer in charge of efforts to train Iraqi security forces. In his latest assignment, Petraeus has headed the Combined Armed Center in Leavenworth, Kansas, the Army's main training center for senior officers. There he oversaw the drafting of a new field manual on counterinsurgency operations.

Petraeus has reportedly expressed support for an escalation of the US military presence in Iraq, and the field manual that he issued calls for redeploying troops from secure bases to population centers--a tactic that will inevitably lead to a major increase in casualties among both Iraqi civilians and American soldiers.

Replacing Abizaid is Admiral William Fallon, the US commander in the Pacific. The appointment of Fallon, a senior naval officer, is widely viewed as an indication that the administration intends to accelerate its preparations for a military attack on Iran, in which the Navy's cruise missiles and aircraft carrier-based warplanes are expected to play a central role.

The administration is also said to be planning the replacement of Zalmay Khalilzad as US ambassador to Iraq, bringing in Ryan Crocker, an Arabic-speaking State Department veteran who is currently Washington's ambassador to Pakistan. Khalilzad has apparently fallen out of favor with those seeking a military escalation, in part because of his support for talks with Iran. He is being sent to replace John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

John Negroponte is being shifted from his post as director of national intelligence to the number-two spot at the State Department, with retired Navy admiral John McConnel, a former director of the National Security Agency, being brought in to replace him.

McConnel's appointment will place all of the major US spy agencies--the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency--under the leadership of military figures. The Pentagon controls 80 percent of Washington's estimated $42 billion intelligence budget and has vastly expanded its own intelligence operations.

Citing widespread misgivings over the increasing domination of

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/iraq-j06.shtml

I agree with the signee 'marine',this war has no solution especially one that we will like .
The pattern is cleaing out, leaving, then returning to clean it out again ,etc.. .

A war without end .

criticism is healthy. censorship is evil. Amen

The simple answer to your question of why there is so much optimism is because that is the Post's front page and that is where the most aggressively pro-admin 'spin' gets the by-line.

The better, more factual stories by folks that won't toady up to the admin line can (occassionally) be found in the middle pages of the paper or on the website.

So what's with the 'new' 'plan' that Bush will announce next week.
- is it really a plan or only a 'plan'? It looks like more of the same except perhaps with a new name attached.
I am still waiting for the 'plan' to be appropriately described either by Bush or by any reporter -- 'debacle' anyone?

I agree with the one who simply posted, "Repeat after me, IMPEACHMENT". In light of not only this week's revelations (the White House closing its visitor records, the "signing statement" asserting the non-existant right of the government to open our mail at its whim), but in light of all the high crimes of this administration, it is our constitutional duty now to demand that President Bush be impeached. I've contacted my representative. I encourage all who read this to do the same.

I was in Iraq under Casey and Petraeus. A change in leadership will not win this war. The military war in Iraq will not win. Battles will be won, the war will be lost. Pulling the troops out is not a viable solution either. Saddam ruled the country through fear and intimidation. We can not do that. So what is the answer? There is none. Democrat, republican, does it really matter? Neither will get it right. Maybe, what is best for the country is to seperate it into three different countries. Kuridstan, Shia Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq. Couldn't be any worse than the current plans.

Repeat after me kiddies--I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T!! Nothing less.

Repeat after me kiddies--I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T!! Nothing less.

P. J. Casey wrote "Are they going to put a General in charge of the Pacific fleet? Fallon is the wrong man to command ground forces."

Admiral Fallon is not the head of the Pacific Fleet - that is Admiral Roughhead. Admiral Fallon is the head of Pacific Command and is thus in charge of all of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in the Pacific Theater. Incidentally, as the leader of Pacific Command he commands all the Soldiers deployed in the Republic of Korea (the correct name for what we commonly call South Korea).

Pacific Command, being a joint command (just as CENTCOM is), means that any flag officer (Admiral or General) is eligible to head this command. Pacific Fleet is not a joint command and only Navy Admirals may command it. There are various US Laws and requlations that define these requirements.

While Arkin may be right about Petraeus being overrated, it is also true that no soldier (or general) can do but so much in support of a mistaken policy. When the now-obvious error was made to disband the Iraqi army and start from scratch in the middle of chaos, Petraeus and others were given a near-impossible task. It is hard to judge his success or lack thereof at that time, and it will most likely be hard to judge his efforts in his new position, as once again he will be faced with unachievable policy goals.

There is only one change to be made. Throw the Republican cabal in prison where they all belong!

It is time for total war, no more being nice. Sunnis et al., understand one thing and that is power and force. It is time to carry the big stick and use it. Overwhelming force like we used with the Germans and Japanese is the only way.

Lets hope the new commander understands that is the way.

Bush is assigning a Navy Admiral to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Perhaps the most tragic thing is that the new Democratic congress will react in polite "bipartisan spirit". Right now, I'm thinking of innocent Sunni and Shia families, shivering in their hovels, waiting for the assassins from the other side. And the Shia assassins are now US funded. Immediate withdrawal may seem irresponsible, but there is really nothing in Iraq to build on now.

Oh ye of little faith! Rearranging the deck chairs is a clear and obvious path to victory*! It's always worked before, hasn't it?

*"Victory" being defined as avoiding consequences (a Dubya life-long trait).

"Symbolically, the Fallon assignment is most interesting, not just because he would be the first naval officer to command U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and a naval aviator in charge of a command that is engaged in two ground wars, but also what it says about the Army and Marine Corps leadership that there was no one selected from either of those two services."

There is no Army leadership today. Fourth point of contact kissers, yes. Leaders, no.

For a true look on how the US Army treats former soldiers..a 100% service connected disabled veteran that went back to work at the Ft Richardson Command Center to help with this war check out MakeTheArmyHonest.Com.

At least one general BG James Hirai was fired from his command over this (8 months into a three year gig). A three star LTG John Brown was part of the violations of this man's civil rights. Either thru participation or total imcompetence. He has so far not been punished. A two star MG Charles Jacoby was brought in fresh from his job as cover-up specialist of the Afghanistan Prision Scandal to cover up this scandal.

Read real histories (of guys still in uniform) on how they are running this war. It's not the liberal medias fault, it's not the Democrats fault, it's the utter inability to act like honorable men that have brought us to where we are.

Robin Boerner

With all due respect, THE REV sounds like a throw back from the Vietnam War. "Blame the soldiers." What's next? Do you plan to go to the airport and spit on the troops. Yes, I am attacking you and have nothing indepth to say. However, It is the idiotic thinking of our "Civilian" leadership that have come up with this "ill conceived" Expedition. Please read "Fiasco". Our soldiers are at the wrong end of the gun that was Perpetrated by civilian incompetence. I don't like your tone and I support the troops. War ain't pretty REV. Rangers Lead the Way. Godspeed 1SG.

We do not live in a military junta...,

It would appear that some Americans and some of our servicemen have a similar misconception about the country that they serve in, as are our President does!

It is not up to our serviceman or our President to simply decide that they can pursue their own peculiar objectives, (especially those objectives that have arisen from agreements that they have forged with people on the other side of the world or as a result of outright lies).

Well, of course we know that the President and some servicemen (Abu Gharib and elsewhere), believe that they can do what they want to once they are outside of America's borders.

Saddam, the Bathe Party, the Republican Guard and a couple of Saddam's late sons, had similar ideas.

So why were they slaughtered for engaging in a manner that some of our own, including the President, wish to engage in!

Calm down...!

I served under General Petraeus and am confident that he will do a fine job. Overrated? History will be the judge, not the columnist.

Please sign the petition.

It is very important for the future of our country.

http://pol.moveon.org/100hours/

Pass the 100 Hours Agenda

Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic leadership are launching a bold "100 Hours Agenda" that would take real steps towards kicking the oil addiction, fighting poverty, improving public health and cleaning up government. Click here for more details.

But big oil, drug companies, and other right wing special interests are spending millions of dollars to shoot it down. We must speak up now.

The total signature count and some of the comments from this petition will be read aloud on the floor of Congress-- the more signers, the bigger the impact. Please add your name to following statement:

http://pol.moveon.org/100hours/

General Petraeus is one of our best Generals.

General Petraeus is one of our best Generals, period.

My fellow Soldiers and I are the ones risking our lives while you whine and pout about how many of "US" are being killed "for nothing" or "for the oil."

1SG C.

Well 1SG C., we all make our own choices don't we. There is a reason for civilians retaining control over the American military, and thank God that we do. And at the end of the day, you are serving at the will of the American people. So show some respect soldier!

I know that there are some soldiers who voted for President Bush during both elections, and some fully supported and still support the war in Iraq regardless of the facts; those soldiers got what they wanted, war. For others, it does not matter if they kill innocent people or not, because they have drunk the Bush kool-aid.

However, justice matters to some of us. I am against the people who support the unust war in Iraq, and those who are willing to kill innocent people who have not done anything to America or to Americans.

And it does not matter to me if it is a solider or not.

I for one will keep praying for sobriety, sensibility and justice to prevail, even when we have citizens who are willing to fight and kill innocent people, who haven't bothered them!

I served under Petraeus in 2003. I found him to be a smart no-nonsense good guy. I was a civilian volunteer who went over there to help out with some high-tech Intel equipment. I am about to go back over again as a "Volunteer" for my 3rd tour. The Iraqi people mostly love us, and I won't give up on them. I wish people who haven't been there would quit talking like they "know" something!

Are we all missing something here? Adm. Fallon: by background, a naval aviator, now to be in charge on CentCom. And wouldn't CentCom be in charge of the next operation, the bombing of Iran?

Wow, as I prepare for my second deployment in the war on terror, I find it demoralizing having to listen to people who seem to speak as if they were in the military themselves. My fellow Soldiers and I are the ones risking our lives while you whine and pout about how many of "US" are being killed "for nothing" or "for the oil." For those of us who have looked into the eyes of the people of Iraq or Afghanistan...we can not abandon them...AGAIN! If we do, we will truly have lost friends in the Middle East and probably the war on terrorism.

I suggest contacting Dr. Larry Goodson, Director and Associate Professor of Middle East Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College in Carlisle, PA and Research Affiliate with the Center for Middle East Studies at Harvard University, if you really want to know what is at stake for us in the Middle East.

As far as Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus' new assignment...he's not a politician and I don't think he will be looking for oil or your votes in while serving our country...he will be trying to lead the great Soldiers of this country in our mission to help our friends in the Middle East.

Politicians and the media can't win wars...but they sure can loose them!

Are they going to put a General in charge of the Pacific fleet? Fallon is the wrong man to command ground forces. I also read in USA Today that McConell was in charge of OUTSOURCING intelligence operations to private companies. Do these people have any brain at all? No command and control, no security, and no control over any idiocy that will occur to these private companies.
I'm with Juarez, the country cannot stand two more years of these fools.

Well, regarding Petraeus, there definitely is a tension in the Washington Post report that Mr. Arkin linked. The article credits Petraeus with early training success but then we find out the Iraqis couldnt even muster 6 batallions for the operation to secure Baghdad. Some success.

The article does credit him for securing a volatile city, which I assume was Tal Afar. The New Yorker wrote an article about Tal Afar in April found here http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060410fa_fact2 The writer of the New Yorker article, George Packer, wrote positive things about Petraeus, and even more positive things about Col. McMaster of the 3rd Air Cavalry Regiment. Petraeus will apply what he learned in northern Iraq to all of Iraq and and maybe it will work or maybe it's simply too late---I have no idea. I do know that no matter what I want US troops out of Iraq and a new US foreign policy.

Whether Petraeus is overrated I cannot say. I'll defer to you, Bill. What I do know without question is ADM Fallon is very overrated and is the wrong man for the CENTCOM job as Abizaid's replacement. Buckle up for a wild ride.

Patristic Americans and American leaders...,

neither seem to realize that realism is superior to patriotism.

In fact patriotism, of the kind that most Americans have always exhibited, can and often does unfortunately cancel out realism. President Bush suffers from this disease!

Subsituting new leaders, I don't believe will change anything. In fact I believe that if we could ressurrect Washington, Lee, Grant, Westmoreland and others, their apotheosis would not make any difference in the 'whatever it is' that America is doing in Iraq. Ooos, I forget, America is spreading Democracy in Iraq in the same manner that Christians were spreading Christianity doing during the Crusades. Ah, we kept trying don't we?

Back to the solidiers, and what would their options be to tell their men to institute 'martial law' in Iraq and kill more Iraqi's in a free and democratic society (-:, or would they order the men to continue to circle the wagons, until more help arrives.

It is time for the American President and the American people to sober up, and imbibe on a healthy does of realism. No matter what America does from this day on, more has already been lost than America could ever hope to regain.

Ah whose next, Iran?

A rather stupid assessment of what is going on by a reporter who, by his own admission, doesn't know the players involved and probably not much about the military either. It is a normal transition to replace people (and even Generals) in the military. Why does the author think that Petraeus is overrated? And donesn't evetyone think that Casey might be ready for a change?

This is not about "military musical chairs", this is about getting real and removing the "Commander- in- Chief", and having a Congress that has the guts to take on the "Emperor" and move for impeachment, cut off funds to the military and exercises it power as part of the system of checks and balances - none of which has been evident in any real way since the war began. The danger is that this next class of Congress Members will wimp out once they are romanced and seduced by the "military industral complex lobby" who will happily finance their next campaigns.