Military To President Bush: Blow Off The ISG
President Bush met with a few military experts yesterday, who told him that the ISG report's recommendations on troop withdrawal should be ignored:
President Bush heard a blunt and dismal assessment of his handling of Iraq from a group of military experts yesterday, but the advisers shared the White House's skeptical view of the recommendations made last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, sources said.
The three retired generals and two academics disagreed in particular with the study group's plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and to reach out for help to Iran and Syria, according to sources familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was private.
The White House gathering was part of a series of high-profile meetings Bush is holding to search for "a new way forward" amid the increasing chaos and carnage in Iraq. Earlier in the day, Bush met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other high-ranking officials at the State Department, where he was briefed on reconstruction and regional diplomatic efforts in Iraq.
The military experts met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and about a dozen aides for more than an hour. The visitors told the officials that the situation in Iraq is as dire as the study group had indicated but that alternative approaches must be considered, said one participant in the meeting. In addition, the experts agreed that the president should review his national security team, which several characterized as part of the problem.
Sometimes you have to slap someone in the face if you want to get their attention, and a blunt assessment of anything is a surefire way to get it. I would love to see here and paint a rosy picture about Iraq, but that's not possible. And while the best laid plans of a war tedn to go awry, this is a bit bigger than a couple of blown ideas. But as Marcie and I have both commented on this more than once, we agree with the military. A pull-out, as advised by the Neville Chamberlain Memorial Commission, would be disastrous right now. And those same experts are 100% correct regarding speaking with Syria or Iran. James Baker may trust them, but he's a dunce to begin with.
The "best" suggestions (and boy, am I use "best" loosely here) the commission gave were in the political arena, and even then they weren't too good. There are other areas of concern that need to be addressed, and the president is working on those. But the miliutary is making it pretty damn clear that is we pull out, as per their recommendations, setting a hard timetable, then the enemy is simply going to lay back, and wait. That's not a talking point: That's a solid fact. Care for an example?
South Waziristan. Yesterday Marcie posted a story regarding Pakistan,/li> and their not-so-public admission that it was a mistake to broker a deal with the militants and tribal leaders there. Why? Because their active idea of disengagement has only emboldened the militants. The deal was that they'd stay put, and quit causing problems. Thgey haven't. They've still performed cross-border attacks, and the miltants are now spreading to North Waziristan.
When we disengage from our enemies--when you let up off of their throats, and give them a chance to get back in the fight--they'll burn you on your decision. That is happening right now in Pakistan. Things are getting a lot worse there, and the Pakistanis don't know what to do. And the same thing could easily happen in Iraq. No, we need to remain there until they are ready. The Ieraqi military is close, as is their security forces, and both have actively participated in engagements with coalition troops. And while that's going on, we're working with them on the political front, as well, to ensure a stable government.
And we still believe it would be best if we did send a few more troops over to Iraq, provided the goal of the increase is to take on and take out the private militias there, including the Mahdi Army. See, they're not "militias" as the dead-tree industry, and the ratings-challenged networks, continue to profess. These are terrorists. They are supplied by terrorists, and terror states. They are financed by the same. They need to either be killed or be captured. I'd prefer the permanent removal as one of God's "precious little creatures," but I'm not the guy on the ground, anbd I'm not calling the shots. But the militias there remain our biggest problem, and that problem grows daily from the new recruits they do manage to get amongst the populace, and the influx from foreign sources. It is time they go.
And I hope that in taking the military's advice on this, the president moves forward with a new strategy that is for victory instead of simply maintaining the status quo. That's what's killing us right now, and that's what needs to be changed. The troop levels are fine, but we could use some more. The ISG's report is bunk; it's worthless. So much so, I'd rather use a copy of the NY Times or LA Times to line the bird cage with. I doubt the bird would want to take a dump on something that already stinks to high heaven the way the ISG report does. And I'm pretty sure the military experts told the president exactly that.
Publius II
President Bush met with a few military experts yesterday, who told him that the ISG report's recommendations on troop withdrawal should be ignored:
President Bush heard a blunt and dismal assessment of his handling of Iraq from a group of military experts yesterday, but the advisers shared the White House's skeptical view of the recommendations made last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, sources said.
The three retired generals and two academics disagreed in particular with the study group's plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and to reach out for help to Iran and Syria, according to sources familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was private.
The White House gathering was part of a series of high-profile meetings Bush is holding to search for "a new way forward" amid the increasing chaos and carnage in Iraq. Earlier in the day, Bush met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other high-ranking officials at the State Department, where he was briefed on reconstruction and regional diplomatic efforts in Iraq.
The military experts met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and about a dozen aides for more than an hour. The visitors told the officials that the situation in Iraq is as dire as the study group had indicated but that alternative approaches must be considered, said one participant in the meeting. In addition, the experts agreed that the president should review his national security team, which several characterized as part of the problem.
Sometimes you have to slap someone in the face if you want to get their attention, and a blunt assessment of anything is a surefire way to get it. I would love to see here and paint a rosy picture about Iraq, but that's not possible. And while the best laid plans of a war tedn to go awry, this is a bit bigger than a couple of blown ideas. But as Marcie and I have both commented on this more than once, we agree with the military. A pull-out, as advised by the Neville Chamberlain Memorial Commission, would be disastrous right now. And those same experts are 100% correct regarding speaking with Syria or Iran. James Baker may trust them, but he's a dunce to begin with.
The "best" suggestions (and boy, am I use "best" loosely here) the commission gave were in the political arena, and even then they weren't too good. There are other areas of concern that need to be addressed, and the president is working on those. But the miliutary is making it pretty damn clear that is we pull out, as per their recommendations, setting a hard timetable, then the enemy is simply going to lay back, and wait. That's not a talking point: That's a solid fact. Care for an example?
South Waziristan. Yesterday Marcie posted a story regarding Pakistan,/li> and their not-so-public admission that it was a mistake to broker a deal with the militants and tribal leaders there. Why? Because their active idea of disengagement has only emboldened the militants. The deal was that they'd stay put, and quit causing problems. Thgey haven't. They've still performed cross-border attacks, and the miltants are now spreading to North Waziristan.
When we disengage from our enemies--when you let up off of their throats, and give them a chance to get back in the fight--they'll burn you on your decision. That is happening right now in Pakistan. Things are getting a lot worse there, and the Pakistanis don't know what to do. And the same thing could easily happen in Iraq. No, we need to remain there until they are ready. The Ieraqi military is close, as is their security forces, and both have actively participated in engagements with coalition troops. And while that's going on, we're working with them on the political front, as well, to ensure a stable government.
And we still believe it would be best if we did send a few more troops over to Iraq, provided the goal of the increase is to take on and take out the private militias there, including the Mahdi Army. See, they're not "militias" as the dead-tree industry, and the ratings-challenged networks, continue to profess. These are terrorists. They are supplied by terrorists, and terror states. They are financed by the same. They need to either be killed or be captured. I'd prefer the permanent removal as one of God's "precious little creatures," but I'm not the guy on the ground, anbd I'm not calling the shots. But the militias there remain our biggest problem, and that problem grows daily from the new recruits they do manage to get amongst the populace, and the influx from foreign sources. It is time they go.
And I hope that in taking the military's advice on this, the president moves forward with a new strategy that is for victory instead of simply maintaining the status quo. That's what's killing us right now, and that's what needs to be changed. The troop levels are fine, but we could use some more. The ISG's report is bunk; it's worthless. So much so, I'd rather use a copy of the NY Times or LA Times to line the bird cage with. I doubt the bird would want to take a dump on something that already stinks to high heaven the way the ISG report does. And I'm pretty sure the military experts told the president exactly that.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home