The Shotgun Blog
« He's still looking great | Main | NDP are demanding that Stephane Dion take action against David Pretlove and Suzan Pawlak »
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Gen. Petraeus on Iraq, the surge & war on terror
Is The Surge Working? An Interview With General Petraeus:
HH: Now stepping back a little bit from the day to day, General Petraeus, how would you explain to the civilians listening, and hundreds of thousands of them at this moment, the strategic interest of the United States at stake in Iraq?
DP: Well, I think just first of all, we have an enormous responsibility, because of course, we did liberate this country........ So there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region.
Posted by Winston on July 18, 2007 in Current Affairs, Military | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gen. Petraeus on Iraq, the surge & war on terror:
A very interesting and revealing interview, especially Petraeus's analogy to Northern Ireland. It took the British decades to effectively neutralize at most a couple of thousand IRA militants. Does he really believe the American public has the stomach to stay in Iraq that long. Another issue is the role of al Qaeda, which Petraeus suggests is the main cause of violence, something which not even the White House believes.
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-18 8:41:56 PM
The war was lost when the US failed to rig the 2005 election to ensure a secular party won. As soon as the Shia sectarian block won control of the government the US aim of a pro-US government in Iraq to counter Iran was doomed.
With the exception of the Kurds, who are preparing for independence, there is currently no pro-US faction with any power in Iraq (although the Sunnis Nationalists and tribes could be brought on side if the US dumped the Shia). The true threat to the US aim is the Shia government not the Sunni insurgents in Anbar. There are however increasing numbers of Sunni tribes signing up for US guns, cash and training supposedly to fight AQ but more importantly to get ready for an all out go at the Shia. The US is now preparing both sides for an expanded civil war with themselves stuck in the middle. It's time to partition Iraq and have good relations with the Kurdish and Sunni Arab states.
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-07-19 8:50:25 AM
The reason this has failed, is in part due to the monopoly that was won by a section of the islamists,--and not really because sectarian did not get in.
With two major groups of people there, who are divided into tribes--tribalism is the real source of the problems and why there has been a failure.
Fact is, there are the two main groupings, with little Kurds on the side (no cheese-pun intended) and al qaeda mixing the soup and stirring up religiosity to the point where everyone is paranoid.
Put in the mix the fact that they like amphetamines, and voila-an sever anxiety triangle! alqaeda keeps feeding us BS that it is all about being against the west, when in fact it is a struggle in the islamist societies, for control by the extremists islamofacists.
What we are seeing is a similar process as what occurred in Germany pre WWII, except the US jumped in with little support--which gave fuel to the enemy. Fuel in terms of generating propaganda and the brain candy that the left is so excellent at making--"excellent" not being a compliment in this context.
What ought to have happenned, is that after US had been in there for awhile, the UN ought to have gone in to clean up the mess and establish a sectarian society--but the UN walked away, leaving the US holding the bag--so to speak. So, unless the UN steps in and cleans up the mess, the anxiety triangle will continue to suck more people in, and this thing will not end until every single last building has been destroyed--at which point the US will clean up, and once again, those nations that did not get in and help in the first place, or along the way, will be complaining that once again, the US has full control and all the contracts. So, it is the fault of the UN that this war has protracted.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-19 9:57:05 AM
What ought to have happenned, is that after US had been in there for awhile, the UN ought to have gone in to clean up the mess and establish a sectarian society-
Establish a sectarian society?
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-19 10:04:10 AM
OK, mistake, it ought to have read secular.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-19 10:38:35 AM
Lady, that is the most inane commentary I have yet read on the Iraq situation. The Americans play cowboy and form a so-called "coalition of the willing" to illegally invade a sovereign nation. They sought and did not receive UN sanction. The Americans were warned of the probable consequence of their misadventure. They invade anyways and all the educated predictions come true.
Now its everyone elses fault? Give me a break.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-19 11:19:21 AM
I say set up a giant cage-match that pits the coalition of the willing Sunnis and Shi'ites in an Extreme Fighting type spectacle.
No hold barred.
No cars blown up is suicides (bad for the environment, dontcha know).
They could go at n'er, beheading each other to their heart's content until nobody is left standing.
Then we would sent in the garbage trucks to clean up.
Munroe, if you drop some acid during this final matchup of a 1400-year conflice, it will seem so grooooovy.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-07-19 11:23:21 AM
The UN passed 14 resolution (the last being 1441) asking Saddam to reveal the location of his weapons of mass destruction.
How many more ‘pretty please' resolutions would you have recommended?
We need an answer. Any jerk can be a critic, but since you're not apparently not a jerk, I'd like you to go on record about what your solution to the 1991 Gulf War would have been.
In other words, when is talk enough and action necessary?
Posted by: set you free | 2007-07-19 11:27:53 AM
To a Leftoid? NEVER!
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-19 11:58:05 AM
I would guess even the fact the flagrant corruption within the UN sanctioned Oil-For-Food program and the suffering of the Iraqi citizenry while several new palaces were being built for Saddam and his family would not be enough to convince our doped-up friend.
Oh, well. Kumbaya, munroe.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-07-19 12:07:10 PM
Anyone notice there has been a marked decline in both warmongers and American apologists lately?
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-19 1:35:40 PM
The big picture result of the Iraq war is that the Shi'ites are empowered in Mesopotamia for the first time in the 1400 year history of Islam. Iran is the obvious regional beneficiary of this historic development, whether the US likes it or not.
General Petraeus and the coalition troops are doing an excellent job but the US can't impose a westernized democracy in Iraq. And it's not in America's national interest to occupy a hostile nation with 150,000+ troops more than 4 years after the overthrow of Saddam in April 2003.
The US has to face two realities about the new Iraq: Shia Arabs make up 60-65% of the population and Iran is the worldwide leader of the Shias. To establish stability in Iraq means dealing with Iran, and empowering a Shia regime friendly with Iran, puppet-like even. Many Iraqi Sunnis could be ethnically cleansed or worse in this scenario.
This is the price for peace in Iraq, as disgusting and demeaning as it is. But hey, look at the bright side, Saddam and his sons are still dead.
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-19 3:33:37 PM
Well Monroe, this person is not one of those.
I fully support the efforts of the American People
in this war against Islamofascism, and happen to think that George W. Bush is one of the best Presidents the American people have elected in our time. After Ronald Reagan, of course.
God Bless America!
Posted by: atric | 2007-07-19 4:37:18 PM
atric wrote: I fully support the efforts of the American People in this war against Islamofascism,
Interesting choice of words as the the American people were sold the war as liberating Iraq from Saddam.
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-19 5:19:08 PM
The UN Security Council had a member who was in a conflict of Interest, and decided to play their VETO card and stop anyone going in--then the truth came out that they, and their neighbor, were so deep in oil for medicine money, that they could not plough themselves outta it--nnnnaaaawwww, they sinply muffled their voices, and have hoped that the truth would go away.
And this was the money that was geared for food and medicine.
I suppose the leftists here do not recall that fact, because it would not go with their leftist void brains.
Anyone remember when the leftists were shouting about the fact that so many people had died in Iraq, due to medical shortage and food shortage. Well, the money that was suppossed to go for that, for oil that was sold for that, never made it back to where it was suppossed to. And then what little did, went into making all those lux Saddam palaces.
I knew that as soon as this war would break out, the very leftoids who criticized the US for not going in and saving people from themselves, would be all over the US for going in, in the first place.
Anyone recall the oil refinery at Joe Bats Arm? That was the one that was also processing oil for food and medicine--part of a deal made by the Lieberals with the ones who were dealing with the Saddam regime. No wonder the Liebrals did not want to go in--and no wonder they pretended they were just neutral--they too were in a conflict of interest.
They, them, those idiots, need to be kept out of power!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-19 5:19:48 PM
I wanted to see heads roll after 9/11. However, I would never have voted for the US to go in militarily. I would have built up the intelligence service from hell and enlisted the help of my good friends the Israelis, who have fluent arab speakers that could have infiltrated these pricks, and then I would have had the cancer surgically removed by selective killings.
Posted by: DCM | 2007-07-19 5:23:30 PM
"Interesting choice of words as the the American people were sold the war as liberating Iraq from Saddam. "
Is this your way of saying that Bush didn't lie about WMDs?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-19 7:00:22 PM
"Anyone notice there has been a marked decline in both warmongers and American apologists lately?"
Why no. Not at all. I haven't ever met an American apologist and the only warmongers I regularly see call themselvses, ironically, "peace activists".
Hence, no decline.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-19 7:03:28 PM
H2, only in Alberta, eh, is the world viewed through a looking glass.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-19 8:15:57 PM
Hint...I'm not in Alberta. Never even visited that wonderful province...to my detriment...and your biased assumptions.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-19 8:41:24 PM
"H2, only in Alberta, eh, is the world viewed through a looking glass."
Another faulty conclusion on your part. Obviously, other parts of Canada feel the same way.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-19 8:47:55 PM
I really wish I were able to read a retrospective on this whole "war on terror" 150 years henceforth, alongside an honest appraisal of George W. After all, the left savaged Abraham Lincoln for years while he was president, accusing him of being ugly (they may have had a point there, still not nice though), stupid, trying to tear the country apart, being an idealogue, bad for the country, etc, etc, etc.
Not many people would speak of Linoln, the great emanicipator, in such terms these days would they? In light of this, it would be intersting to see how history treats dubya. Guess it depends on how Iraq turns out.
Posted by: Hoser | 2007-07-19 9:05:53 PM
. . . and remember - Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, deported anti-war congressmen to Canada, and threatened others with execution for treason.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-19 9:11:39 PM
Some random thoughts. Don't know if there were WMD in Iraq but if there were they were likely spirited to Syria or Iran. Same thing happened to the Iraqui war planes in the first gulf war. The US congress passed a law stopping the selective assassination of national leaders and other bigwigs. The only way to clean out terrorists is to cordon off whole neighborhoods and do house to house searches and clean ups. Do they have the troops and the capacity for secrecy to do that? The free press can be free no more in the battle areas and that is a draconian move I don't like.
If you expect the UN to do anything worthwhile in the Middle East or anywhere there is conflict, I think we will have to exchange our rose coloured glasses for clear vision. Does Rwanda mean anything to anyone out there?
Posted by: DML | 2007-07-19 9:35:42 PM
"Does Rwanda mean anything to anyone out there?"
It didn't to Clinton - the first black President.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-19 9:40:33 PM
... an soon to your screen for OBC's viewing pleasure, "Clinton II, the second black president".
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-19 10:38:00 PM
Nah - the first lesbian President.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-19 10:56:58 PM
Again with munroe and the nonsense blather?
Why do you bother? If you are lonely join a teen chat line.
Posted by: missing link | 2007-07-19 11:16:19 PM
My inside information is that OBC owns a teen chat line.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-19 11:36:12 PM
. . . from which you have been banned for obvious reasons.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-20 1:52:19 AM
I just listened to the interview. (Which I recommend. Information on the war fronts is so superficial and ill-informed. Gen. Pretaeus is obviously neither.)
Ironically, this comment is the one part I objected to. The US has no duty to rebuild Iraq. The mission to rebuild is a separate mission - worthwhile on humanitarian grounds and national security - but separate.
Posted by: pete e | 2007-07-20 2:05:11 AM
I'm not in Alberta either. As a matter of fact I'm within smelling distance of Tranna The Perverted. I stand foursquare behind Bush and his
invasion of Iraq, as any right-thinking educated person would. Bush had the 'nads to call these savages out and take them to task.
God Bless George W. Bush and God Bless America!
Posted by: atric | 2007-07-20 8:02:02 AM
Another random thought; you gotta love this General Preteus' name; it is so Roman Legion, eh? He does seem to have has his shyte together too.
We should get him and Hillier together here and there.....
Posted by: Hoser | 2007-07-20 4:44:56 PM
Some analysis by Engram on some leftist feed back on Petraeus' interview:
"The Democrats are being maneuvered into openly endorsing their natural anti-military attitudes. Right now, their base appears to be rabidly anti-military, reflexively accusing General Petraeus of being a liar (even though all evidence clearly supports his position). I can't help but think this is a good thing. The Democrats are at their best when they are out of power, standing on the sidelines, constantly carping and saying "you're doing it wrong." If they embrace the anti-military stance of their rabid base, it seems reasonable to think that they might once again assume that role after the elections of 2008. Time will tell."
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-07-22 7:30:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.