Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Cricket Alert - Jumping on the Surge Bandwagon
swhitebull    12/8/2007 6:34:53 PM
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016252.php http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016252.php First Brookings Institute, then the anti-war Democratic congressman from Washington state, then the WashPost, then ABC News, then the Head Fake by Murtha (until whiplashed by Stretch so he backtracked), when will the jumping on board stop? Now this by General Batiste? From captain Ed: Batiste Switches To Pro-War Stance General John Batiste has spent the last few years speaking out against the continuing efforts of the US in Iraq. Today, in the Washington Post, the former commander has decided that the surge strategy has succeeded in rescuing the US mission, and that Iraq really is the center of the war on terror. Batiste writes a joint op-ed column with Pete Hegseth announcing that he now supports the Bush administration's pursuit of stability in Iraq (via Worldwide Standard): First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option. Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis. Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery -- tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq -- while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation -- will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy. General Batiste has received a lot of attention over the past two years from the Left. His broadsides against the Bush administration, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, has helped fuel the momentum for retreat. Pete Hegseth has tried to fight that momentum as part of Vets for Freedom, formed to contest spokesmen like Batiste. His change of heart -- and change of affiliation from VoteVets to Vets for Freedom -- leaves the Left with a much smaller fig leaf for their defeatism. Michael Goldfarb wonders whether the Left will find itself compelled to turn on Batiste. Given that they've put him forth as an expert on the subject, they will either have to do that or acknowledge that Batiste has it right, and they had it wrong since 2003. Which do you suppose they will choose? swhitebull - waiting for the crickets on these boards to say NO NO NO.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Plutarch       12/9/2007 4:42:18 PM

link http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016252.php" target="_blank">link

First Brookings Institute, then the anti-war Democratic congressman from Washington state, then the WashPost, then ABC News, then the Head Fake by Murtha (until whiplashed by Stretch so he backtracked), when will the jumping on board stop? Now this by General Batiste?

From captain Ed:


Batiste Switches To Pro-War Stance
General John Batiste has spent the last few years speaking out against the continuing efforts of the US in Iraq. Today, in the Washington Post, the former commander has decided that the surge strategy has succeeded in rescuing the US mission, and that Iraq really is the center of the war on terror. Batiste writes a joint op-ed column with Pete Hegseth announcing that he now supports the Bush administration's pursuit of stability in Iraq (via Worldwide Standard):

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.
Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery -- tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq -- while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation -- will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.


General Batiste has received a lot of attention over the past two years from the Left. His broadsides against the Bush administration, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, has helped fuel the momentum for retreat. Pete Hegseth has tried to fight that momentum as part of Vets for Freedom, formed to contest spokesmen like Batiste. His change of heart -- and change of affiliation from VoteVets to Vets for Freedom -- leaves the Left with a much smaller fig leaf for their defeatism.

Michael Goldfarb wonders whether the Left will find itself compelled to turn on Batiste. Given that they've put him forth as an expert on the subject, they will either have to do that or acknowledge that Batiste has it right, and they had it wrong since 2003. Which do you suppose they will choose?


swhitebull - waiting for the crickets on these boards to say NO NO NO.





The troop surge ended last month:
>

Yet there is still violence in Iraq:
>

And if Iraq cannot meet political benchmarks:
>

what's to stop violence from increasing once more refugees return to Iraq---lulled by a false sense of security.
>

It means more targets for the bad guys, none of whom were really defeated, just co-opted, or driven underground.  It's well and good that violence is down, I'm not really complaining about that.  But the underlying causes of the violence have not been addressed, so I fear that the surge is a temporary "success", in which case it is ultimately a failure.  At any rate I've already discussed my feelings on the surge in other threads, you disagree and that's fine and dandy.  I post, you criticize, I don't post, you mock, but if Iraqis continue to make progress toward ending their conflict(s), and you can attribute this progress directly to the temporary increase of US military forces between the periods of June-November 2007, then I am wrong about the surge. However if they do not reconcile or regress how is the surge a success?
 
Quote    Reply

Bob       12/10/2007 4:47:31 AM
I like Herodotarch. He always gives us something to talk about.

 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Who Ya Gonna Believe? Dingy Reid or the Generals?    12/20/2007 1:15:32 PM
When severe war critic General Barry McCaffrey turns positive on the effects of the surge,  game over. The surge has - and continues - to have worked, despite the naysaying (still) of the the harry reids of the world.
 
 
 
 
swhitebull -  mostly good news, some criticisms and words of advice.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       12/21/2007 4:26:19 AM
 
well the surge appears to have worked... but...    :-)
there could be many factors that make it appear to be the surge at work....
 
the bad guys may be taking a break, waiting for the US to drawback before starting up again... they can pick and choose their fight.
they are fighting internally and not focusing on coalition or civilian targets.
a lot of trouble was being stirred up by AlQ and they have been seriously batterred by coalition, shia and sunni as nobody likes them.
the bad guy sponsors may be pulling strings in the background and trading off action in Iraq for other considerations. (as some have alluded to with recent US/Iran troubles seeming to calm down a lot.)
 
 
but in the end violence is down and that is what we should all want.
 
Paul
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull       12/22/2007 9:31:32 AM
How long will it take for Dingy to rewrite history and claim he was for the Surge all along?
 
 
 
 
 
swhitebull - and waiting for 'Stretch Pelosi' to start chirping the same song soon, now that the temperature is reaching the correct point in the polls.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics