Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Bob Gates: "We're Not Winning"Follow

#1 Dec 05 2006 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Gosh darnit, could have fooled me.

Quote:
Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded Tuesday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration."

At the outset of his Senate confirmation hearing, Gates said he is open to new ideas about correcting the U.S. course in Iraq, which he said would be his highest priority if confirmed as expected.

Gates, 63, said he believes President Bush wants to see Iraq improve to the point where it can govern and defend itself, while seeking a new approach. "What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said.

"In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq," he added.

Asked point-blank by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir." He later said he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, "at this point."


At least he's open to suggestions. I wish I had some.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2 Dec 05 2006 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Don't be silly, it was a war we had to fight to prevent the hurtling comet of the Iraqi nuclear program from destroying a US city in 2721.

There was no choice. See, really, we win every day there isn't a nulear explosion in NYC.

IT's all about the victory conditions, baby.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Dec 05 2006 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Listened to him on the radio in the car home from work.

I was stunned by the frankness of his answers, and kept smirking as I pictured Dubya reaching, Linus-Like, for a comfort blankie.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#4 Dec 05 2006 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
At least he's open to suggestions. I wish I had some.
Donald Rumsfeld wrote:
Nov. 6, 2006

SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action

The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:

ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS

Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)

  • Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).

  • Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

  • Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.

  • Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)

  • Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.

  • Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.

  • Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.

  • Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.

  • Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

  • Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

  • Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

  • Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

  • Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.

  • Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”

  • Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.

  • Below the Line (less attractive options):

  • Continue on the current path.

  • Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

  • Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.

  • Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.

  • Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.

  • Try a Dayton-like process.
  • You're welcome!
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #5 Dec 05 2006 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    Edit: The forums are *** today.

    Edited, Dec 5th 2006 2:53pm by Jophiel
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #6 Dec 05 2006 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
    Will swallow your soul
    ******
    29,360 posts
    I was thinking more along the lines of "how to get the hell out of there without making a religious civil war any worse than it already is," but those are nice, too.
    ____________________________
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    #7 Dec 05 2006 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    C'mon!
    Rummy wrote:
    Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist
    "Stop talking about it." -- That's tactical GOLD!

    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #8 Dec 05 2006 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
    Will swallow your soul
    ******
    29,360 posts
    You and Don are cooking up an off-Broadway revue entitled "Sheikhs on a Plane", aren't you?

    C'mon, you can tell us.
    ____________________________
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    #9 Dec 05 2006 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
    ***
    3,339 posts
    Samira wrote:
    You and Don are cooking up an off-Broadway revue entitled "Sheikhs on a Plane", aren't you?

    C'mon, you can tell us.


    Right now they're working on a scene where something goes wrong with the engines leading to massive turban failure.

    #10 Dec 05 2006 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
    Will swallow your soul
    ******
    29,360 posts
    Does Boy George get to reprise his hit single, "Camel Chameleon"?
    ____________________________
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    #11 Dec 05 2006 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
    Wait wait wait wait. Didn't we put up banners and stuff saying that we did in fact win? Who the heck does this Gates person think he is?
    #12 Dec 05 2006 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    It's not too late to take you off the list, Samira Smiley: mad
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #13 Dec 06 2006 at 3:51 AM Rating: Decent
    Other quotes:

    Colin Powell said the presentation he made at the UN in 2003 had claims which were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberatly misleading.

    Jack Straw: "The current situation is dire. I think many mistakes were made after the military action - there is no question about it - by the US administration."

    Colonel Tim Collins: "History might notice the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruitment sergeant for Al-Qaida ever."

    Paul Bremer: It [the invasion] was a much tougher job then I think I expected it to be. We really didn't see the insurgency coming."

    Ken Adelman: "The national security team tunred out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly.

    And all these people supported the invasion. They are not pinkos, or liberals, or French.

    I guess it's a step forward that even the most hawkish members of the neo-cons are coming to terms with reality.

    As for what we should do now, i think these two things would be a good start:

    - Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

    - Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.

    80% of the population is unemployed. And Iraq has a very young population. So all those young people need something else to do than blowing things up.

    I agree the presence of US armed forces is not helping the situation. but at the same time, Iraq needs US training and money. The focus should really move the military to the economy. Training, funding, programmes for young people, a sort of Marshall plan for Iraq.

    I think iraq still needs the US desperatly. Not its military might, but its expertise and money.

    And then maybe, some sort of big diplomatic push to get the UN and other Muslim countries invloved in the process. And yes, talking to Iran and Syria, as partners, not ennemies, might go a long way to. Iran definately doesn't want to see Iraq break-up, so there must be room for leverage there.
    ____________________________
    My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
    #14 Dec 06 2006 at 7:02 AM Rating: Excellent
    Will swallow your soul
    ******
    29,360 posts
    And we get the usual cognitive dissonance from the White House.

    Quote:
    Here's Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates at this morning's confirmation hearing:

    Senator Levin: "Do you believe we are currently winning in Iraq?''

    Gates: "No, sir.''

    Here's President Bush at a White House news conference on October 25:

    Reporter: "Are we winning?"

    Bush: "Absolutely, we're winning."

    A point blank contradiction? Not at the White House, where press secretary Tony Snow assured reporters this afternoon that "What you saw is somebody who clearly shares the president's view on this.''


    I just don't know what to say about this. I feel so trapped in my reality-based paradigm.
    ____________________________
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    #15 Dec 06 2006 at 7:13 AM Rating: Decent
    They're "winning", just like the "mission was accomplished".

    Words can mean anything if you change their meaning. Just look at Gbaji's posts.

    So yes, they're "winning" and "not winning" and both agree that's it the same thing, or not, depending on what you mean, or not.

    Making sense yet?

    And on these meaningful words, I'm off to win some accomplished toilet mission.

    ____________________________
    My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
    #16 Dec 06 2006 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
    Nexa
    *****
    12,065 posts
    RedPhoenixxxxxx the Braindead wrote:

    Words can mean anything if you change their meaning. Just look at Gbaji's posts.

    So yes, they're "winning" and "not winning" and both agree that's it the same thing, or not, depending on what you mean, or not.


    You stop that right now or I'm retracting any previous approval of your posts in general. One Gbaji is more than enough. You're making me grouchy.

    /frown

    Nexa
    ____________________________
    “It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
    ― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
    #17 Dec 06 2006 at 7:26 AM Rating: Decent
    Nexa wrote:
    You stop that right now or I'm retracting any previous approval of your posts in general. One Gbaji is more than enough. You're making me grouchy.

    /frown

    Nexa


    Smiley: frown

    I was just being silly!! I didn't think a word of it, I swear, it was just to highlight the stupidity of these statements about "winning" and "not-winning" not-contradicting each other when they blatantly do.



    So... Smiley: flowers
    ____________________________
    My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
    #18 Dec 06 2006 at 7:26 AM Rating: Decent
    Quote:
    And yes, talking to Iran and Syria, as partners,



    Are you insane?

    Quote:
    Iran definately doesn't want to see Iraq break-up



    You sure? They are the ones funding a great deal of these " death squads", they seem to be quite happy with destabilizing Iraq in any way possible.

    Edited, Dec 6th 2006 9:36am by Abadd
    #19 Dec 06 2006 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
    Nexa
    *****
    12,065 posts
    RedPhoenixxxxxx the Braindead wrote:

    I was just being silly!! I didn't think a word of it, I swear, it was just to highlight the stupidity of these statements about "winning" and "not-winning" not-contradicting each other when they blatantly do.



    So... Smiley: flowers


    hrmph...well that's ok then. I'm all out of patience this morning. Clearly I need another donut.

    Nexa
    ____________________________
    “It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
    ― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
    #20 Dec 06 2006 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
    Will swallow your soul
    ******
    29,360 posts
    Not at all.

    Even during the Cold War, we talked to Russia. During those times when we weren't speaking directly to Russia, we talked to them via intermediaries (thank you, France and Britain).

    We need to talk to the people with whom we disagree more than we need to talk to the people with whom we agree. We need to recognize that they have a stake in what happens in their back yards.

    Edit: that was in answer to Abadd; Nexa, please stop being cute and go get another donut. And get me one too, k?


    Edited, Dec 6th 2006 10:35am by Samira
    ____________________________
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    #21 Dec 06 2006 at 7:33 AM Rating: Decent
    Oh, good old Abadd and your witty one-liners...

    Let's face it. How much worse can it get? Seriously, how can talking to Iran and Syria make anything worse in Iraq?

    I'm going to try to make it simple.

    The planet is like a ship. It's like a ship on an endless voyage. Lots of people are on this ship, all very different. The only thing is that you can't throw people overboard or kill them. Like the Roman slave ships, and we're all slaves.

    Iran and Syria are not going to be bullied into non-existance. They are not going to be bullied into being US poodles either. Especially after the Iraq debacle, or "victory" depending on who you listen to, countries in the ME are not that scared of the US anymore.

    So the US, and the EU, are going to have to learn with Iran and Syria. They can ignore them, they can put up sanctions, whatever, they still have to live with them.

    And funnily enough, the US, Syria and Iran all want a stable Iraq. It's in all those countries' interest.

    Hence talking to them, about this specific topic, can only be a good thing. For Iraq, and for the US.
    ____________________________
    My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
    #22 Dec 06 2006 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
    Nexa wrote:
    hrmph...well that's ok then. I'm all out of patience this morning. Clearly I need another donut.

    Nexa


    I'm hooked to KK's donuts these days. They are soooo unhealthy I can almost hear my teeth falling as I eat them.

    Yummy.
    ____________________________
    My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
    #23 Dec 06 2006 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
    Almost every time I see this thread title, I keep reading "we're not whining" instead of winning.
    #24 Dec 06 2006 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
    Drama Nerdvana
    ******
    20,674 posts
    "Engage them, don't insult them." - John Chretien

    Chances of sucess in Iraq without having its neighbours on board are slim to none. A childish and immature policy of not talking to 'the enemy' only ensure failure.
    ____________________________
    Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
    #25 Dec 06 2006 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
    Nexa
    *****
    12,065 posts
    Samira wrote:
    Not at all.

    Even during the Cold War, we talked to Russia. During those times when we weren't speaking directly to Russia, we talked to them via intermediaries (thank you, France and Britain).

    We need to talk to the people with whom we disagree more than we need to talk to the people with whom we agree. We need to recognize that they have a stake in what happens in their back yards.


    Agreed, goes right back to keep your friends close and your enemies closer...

    Quote:

    Edit: that was in answer to Abadd; Nexa, please stop being cute and go get another donut. And get me one too, k?


    Yes ma'am! They are chocolate and coconut!

    Nexa
    ____________________________
    “It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
    ― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
    #26 Dec 06 2006 at 7:44 AM Rating: Decent
    Lunatic
    ******
    30,086 posts

    You sure? They are the ones funding a great deal of these " death squads", they seem to be quite happy with destabilizing Iraq in any way possible.


    Actually they're quite happy with Iraq destabalizing the way it is now so that everything south of Baghdad becomes "Western Iran" in about 10 years. Not negoiating with them leads down the path of essentially setting up a nuclear, ideally tactically situated coalition state controlling most of the middle east, much of the worlds oil reserves, and access to transportation of those reserves in the gulf or the meditertarinian. The potential of an Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon Islamic Fundementalist superstate is in no way out of the question. The US are big losers in theis conflict, as are the Iraqis. Iran is the big winner.

    Sorry.


    ____________________________
    Disclaimer:

    To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

    « Previous 1 2
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 348 All times are in CST
    Anonymous Guests (348)