News & Politics - Soldiers in Iraq Back Petraeus Testimony

elisheva · 09-12-2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Soldiers in Iraq Back Petraeus Testimony

By KIM GAMEL – 4 hours ago

FORWARD OPERATING BASE DELTA, Iraq (AP) — At this wind-swept base near the Iranian border, the main points of Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress were met with widespread agreement among soldiers: The American troop buildup is working, but the military needs more time.

Most of the soldiers at FOB Delta, some 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, were out on patrol or sleeping when Petraeus' comments were broadcast late Monday and Tuesday in Iraq.

But some heard it and others have read about it, and say they agree with their commander's assessment.

Staff Sgt. Matthew Nicholls of the 71st Medical Detachment, visiting FOB Delta from his post in southern Iraq to do an assessment, said the military still needs time to clean up mistakes made after the 2003 invasion, including the need to build an Iraqi army from scratch and to secure the borders.

"I think our initial assessment was too rosy," he said after reading about the hearings while sitting in the library at the recreation center. "It takes time to build an army and I think we should've secured the borders right away."

The 36-year-old from Mobile, Ala., also said American politicians need to be more understanding.

"They can be critical because they are politicians and their main goal is to be re-elected, but they see a much more limited piece than the troops on the ground," he said.

"What happens in Washington D.C. when somebody signs a piece of paper doesn't necessarily make it here in the desert," he said. "You can't make everybody come together. Sometimes the best you can do is find intermediaries and that takes time."

The U.S. has added 30,000 troops to Iraq since the start of the year in an effort to crack down on the sectarian violence that has been plaguing the country.

Petraeus told lawmakers that the plan has worked, "bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December," but that civilian deaths were still at "troubling levels."

Petraeus recommended scaling back the U.S. troop levels by July 2008 to some 130,000-135,000, down from about 168,000 now. He said he foresaw even deeper troop cuts beyond July, but he recommended that President Bush wait until at least March to decide when to go below 130,000 — and at what pace.

Sgt. Nathaniel Killip, 24, of Indianapolis, caught part of the general's presentation on TV and said he agreed that withdrawing all U.S. troops or setting a date to do so before Iraqi security forces have proven themselves ready to take over would open the doors for insurgents to attack.

"They're just going to lay back and wait until it's a softer target," he said.

Killip said the troop buildup had made a noticeable difference since more forces arrived at FOB Delta in June, pointing to a dramatic drop in rocket and mortar attacks against the base in the past two weeks.

Col. Peter Baker, the commander of the Fort Sill, Okla.-based 214th Fires Brigade, said the U.S. strategy was working but needs more time.

"It takes time to build relationships with the Iraqis. It's gotta be just a very deliberate process," he said.

Baker also pointed out that Petraeus had sent a letter to troops before going before Congress in which he gave them a preview of what he had to say. "It was a recognition that there's still a ways to go," he said.

Obviously not every single soldier will agree with the ones quoted in this article, but I think this is still some very encouraging news

I think there are some really solid truths in this article - that this is never going to be a speedy process, and that comfortable politicians (whether pro- or anti-war!) can very easily debate and argue and make all sorts of declarations while still being so far removed from the war that they actually have no idea what they're talking about.

*Ledi* · 09-12-2007, 06:53 AM

Are soldiers even allowed to speak against the war publicly (while they are still part of the army)?

elisheva · 09-12-2007, 07:15 AM

Uh...plenty of them do.

If they hadn't agreed, they would have said no comment. Obviously the attitudes of a few aren't necessarily representative of every single soldier, but I think it's still a useful article.

*Ledi* · 09-12-2007, 07:27 AM

I would have guessed that it's risky for them to speak out against it, but who knows?

ceilirose · 09-12-2007, 08:23 AM

If you're in a military uniform you are not supposed to be political. The President is their Commander in Chief - they're not allowed to speak publically against him. Privately though it's another matter.

I'd bet anything these soldiers were hand-picked by their superiors to give these statements - those that are supportive of the policy.

Besides the reduction in troops is just a reduction in the troops that constituted the surge from what I've read. In fact yesterday Petraeus when asked if the occupation was making the US safer this was his reply:

Quote:

Senator Warner: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here,this strategy. do you feel that that is making America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Warner: Does that make America safer?

General Petraeus: Sir I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind what i have focued on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq. [Testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to the Senate Armed Services Committee, 9/11/07]

Democratic Caucus's Senate Journal - Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader

This testimony has all been political theater staged right down to the time it was being presented - the week of 9/11.

Jacob1983 · 09-12-2007, 08:26 AM

What's wrong with some soldiers backing Petraeus? It's a good thing in my opinion and a lot better than what that NY Times said about Petraeus. I've heard that the military doesn't like the soldiers to speak against the war because they think it's bad for morale. I don't see anything wrong with some soldiers being confident and optimistic about Iraq. I also don't see why people are busting that Petraeus guy's balls. I mean there is going to be a withdrawal next summer. Shouldn't that make some people happy that some troops are coming home? I thought that America wanted the troops to withdrawal.

elisheva · 09-12-2007, 08:36 AM

The thing is, the AP is not Fox News or some other conservative media organization. If anything, the AP is moderately leftish, IMO (at least from what I've seen of them). So I have a hard time thinking that they'd be willing to run a story that was just a few soldiers parroting propaganda.

Also, I mean, Petraeus is a military guy, right? So if his mission is "fix Iraq" or whatever, then that's not really asking him to make all sorts of strategic thinking about what is safest for America in a broad geopolitical sense. "Accomplishing the mission of the multinational force in Iraq" is good enough for me. I (and you and everyone else) can then make up my own mind about whether that in turn will make America or Canada or the UK safer. Personally, for me it's not about making America safer. That's a side-effect. It's about making things right for the Iraqis and hopefully getting some good things done in the Middle East.

Jacob1983 · 09-12-2007, 08:47 AM

I just don't know why a newspaper is bashing a top military official. I mean Petraeus serves America, not the Republicans or conservatives. It's called the Unite States military, not the Republicans' military or Bush's military. I wish people would realize that.

ceilirose · 09-12-2007, 08:53 AM

We're coming from different poltical spectrums but to me there's nothing leftish about the mainstream media. They're middle of the road entities trying to keep their board/higher-ups/stock holders happy. Besides is this was a typical "soldier in street - getting their honest opinions" kind of story don't you think it's a little convenient that they all agreed in essence with the mission/Petreaus? The article would have had more credibility if they talked to someone who disagreed with the missions.

Also the US public was told that the occupation in Iraq was necessary for our safety. "Mushroom clouds over Los Angeles. DC. NYC etc." - doesn't anyone remember that?

Of course over the last four years we've heard plenty of revisionist theories about why the invasion did take place. It's not a safer place - in fact I thnk we've made the country worse and the area more dangerous. Sorry but this country has lost too many soldiers and too many Iraqis have been killed and displaced for me to buy this "improving scenario" that we are being force fed.

elisheva · 09-12-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post)

We're coming from different poltical spectrums but to me there's nothing leftish about the mainstream media. They're middle of the road entities trying to keep their board/higher-ups/stock holders happy. Besides is this was a typical "soldier in street - getting their honest opinions" kind of story don't you think it's a little convenient that they all agreed in essence with the mission/Petreaus? The article would have had more credibility if they talked to someone who disagreed with the missions.

It does mention that most of the soldiers were not even around, so I do agree with you that the article is flawed. For a quick little story on a few soldiers, though, I still think it has value.

And (although I think we would only disagree on a few specific foreign policy issues) while yes, we're coming from different perspectives, I've read quite a bit about the AP not being exactly unbiased. I'd argue it does have a slight left-wing bias. Unless the various departments of the AP are totally separate from one another...I don't see the AP running a story that was exaggeratedly favouring the right.

Quote:

Also the US public was told that the occupation in Iraq was necessary for our safety. "Mushroom clouds over Los Angeles. DC. NYC etc." - doesn't anyone remember that?

Of course over the last four years we've heard plenty of revisionist theories about why the invasion did take place. It's not a safer place - in fact I thnk we've made the country worse and the area more dangerous. Sorry but this country has lost too many soldiers and too many Iraqis have been killed and displaced for me to buy this "improving scenario" that we are being force fed.

I remember all that, yes.

I just never agreed with it as the right reason for deposing Saddam at all. There were a lot of reasons and a lot of theories and a lot of hot air being blown around, but despite all the fluff I think it was still possible to extract some solid motivations (even if following that a LOT of mistakes were made, which I think everyone accepts).

I don't buy that life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam, though. Yes, parts of Iraq are still incredibly dangerous and volatile and a lot of people (both Iraqi and Western) have lost their lives in the past years, but I don't think it compares to the number of people who were mercilessly killed by their own leader.

Maybe it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place - that's a definite possibility - but either way, now that we're there, I think a little potential good news is amazing. Withdrawal is just not a viable strategy (or maybe it is for America in terms of just bringing soldiers back, but it would be incredibly terrible for Iraq and I think an abandonment of Wilsonian internationalism and a regression into pre-WW1 isolationism).

ceilirose · 09-12-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elisheva (View Post)

I remember all that, yes.

I just never agreed with it as the right reason for deposing Saddam at all. There were a lot of reasons and a lot of theories and a lot of hot air being blown around, but despite all the fluff I think it was still possible to extract some solid motivations (even if following that a LOT of mistakes were made, which I think everyone accepts).

But it was the major reason we were told that an invasion, occupation and/or overthrow of Hussein was necessary. People bought it all and it was a lie.

You talk about "fluff" but remember that close to 4000 Americans are dead, thousands more injured and either physically and/or mentally damaged for life because of that "reason." I can't even tell you how many Iraqis are dead and have had their lives ruined and/or have become refugees from their own country because of this fiasco. Apparently our government can't quite keep up with those numbers. That doesn't even go into the billions of US taxpayer's dollars that has gone over to Iraq that can't be accounted for.

Quote:

I don't buy that life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam, though. Yes, parts of Iraq are still incredibly dangerous and volatile and a lot of people (both Iraqi and Western) have lost their lives in the past years, but I don't think it compares to the number of people who were mercilessly killed by their own leader.

There's an ongoing series this week on NPR. A young Iraqi dentist is talking about what he faces in his daily life. He had to leave the neighborhood he grew up in because of sectarian violence, his parents are worred sick if he comes home late because they think he's been killed by suicide bombers or the like, electricity is sparse so he sleeps on the roof of this apartment building to get some cool air, etc. etc.

We sit here in the West and somewhat smugly say - "your life is better without Hussein - please just deal with those other things." Like we do? Have you ever lost power in the summer and had to deal with high humidity, heat for days on end? I know that when we even have black outs for a few hours people are up in arms about it. I can't imagine what it's like to live with it day after day or be deathly afraid that you'll be killed just going to the market for bread and milk. I don't think it's better. I think it's a trade off - one fear has been replaced with another.

Quote:

Maybe it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place - that's a definite possibility - but either way, now that we're there, I think a little potential good news is amazing. Withdrawal is just not a viable strategy (or maybe it is for America in terms of just bringing soldiers back, but it would be incredibly terrible for Iraq and I think an abandonment of Wilsonian internationalism and a regression into pre-WW1 isolationism).

It was a mistake and I don't share your optimism about the current future. Honestly I think that the country would be better off being divided into three sections - the Kurds, Shia and Sunni. Also I think the US can help other countrires diplomatically and politically. The use of the military and force to nation build had been a huge disaster. We can't hide our heads in the sand but we can't deliver democracy at the end of a gun either.

Lexis · 09-12-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceilirose (View Post)

There's an ongoing series this week on NPR. A young Iraqi dentist is talking about what he faces in his daily life. He had to leave the neighborhood he grew up in because of sectarian violence, his parents are worred sick if he comes home late because they think he's been killed by suicide bombers or the like, electricity is sparse so he sleeps on the roof of this apartment building to get some cool air, etc. etc.

We sit here in the West and somewhat smugly say - "your life is better without Hussein - please just deal with those other things." Like we do? Have you ever lost power in the summer and had to deal with high humidity, heat for days on end? I know that when we even have black outs for a few hours people are up in arms about it. I can't imagine what it's like to live with it day after day or be deathly afraid that you'll be killed just going to the market for bread and milk. I don't think it's better. I think it's a trade off - one fear has been replaced with another.

ITA.

Quote:

It was a mistake and I don't share your optimism about the current future. Honestly I think that the country would be better off being divided into three sections - the Kurds, Shia and Sunni. Also I think the US can help other countrires diplomatically and politically. The use of the military and force to nation build had been a huge disaster. We can't hide our heads in the sand but we can't deliver democracy at the end of a gun either.

I don't agree about the split - it would create so many problems, with certain areas getting the oil wealth and others not. Plus, we wouldn't want sectarian states hanging round ready to battle with each other. I think a solution has to be one that keeps the country together.

ceilirose · 09-12-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis (View Post)

I don't agree about the split - it would create so many problems, with certain areas getting the oil wealth and others not. Plus, we wouldn't want sectarian states hanging round ready to battle with each other. I think a solution has to be one that keeps the country together.

I'm conflicted about it too but I don't see how in the near term all of these groups will live together in relative peace. Michael Ware on 360 last night was talking about the "success" in Anbar province. The Sunni tribes turned against Al Queda in the last six months or so. They're now the US allies or as our government calls them - concerned citizens. Anyway he said that privately he was told that they'd never accept the Shia dominated government.

If I remember correctly the current borders of Iraq were drawn up at the beginning of the last century by the British? Is that right? It's artificial in a sense to begin with. I don't know - I just don't see them ever living together in relative piece in the near term.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Soldiers in Iraq Back Petraeus Testimony