No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus

[-Cp]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".
When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable".
In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.

This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan
Gen David Petraeus

He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed".

[Yurt]

interesting, so will he ever declare it a loss or will it forever be in limbo

[Gaffer]

iraq is part of the long war. It will not be won with a clear victory. The area is being pacified, but it will always have an element of islamists there. The victory comes in establishing a government there that will fight the islamists and prevent them from using the country as a staging area and income source.

If we pull out of iraq and afghanistan we will still be at war. It's going to be a very long war as this countries defensive mind set won't allow us to fight it the way we should.

[retiredman]

One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq.

[Kathianne]

One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq.

Isn't that what Pakistan is complaining about?

[retiredman]

Isn't that what Pakistan is complaining about?

isn't that where the perpetrators of 9/11 have always been?

When was the last time Osama bin Laden was in Iraq? Or Iran?

[Kathianne]

isn't that where the perpetrators of 9/11 have always been?

When was the last time Osama bin Laden was in Iraq? Or Iran?

Thank you for making it clear why honest folks should not take you seriously. Mind you, not saying on ignore, just recognizing you for the fake you are. One who tries to portray himself as a serious person, but is only a hateful, vile, partisan, fake.

[retiredman]

Thank you for making it clear why honest folks should not take you seriously. Mind you, not saying on ignore, just recognizing you for the fake you are. One who tries to portray himself as a serious person, but is only a hateful, vile, partisan, fake.

my initial question stands.


"One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq."

We didn't seem to worry about what the people of Iraq were worried about when we invaded, conquered and occupied them for no good reason. Osama bin Laden has not moved more than a hundred miles from where he was the day his forces attacked us seven years ago... and we cannot put enough troops into THAT area to stabilize it, let alone find the man who attacked us, but we can sent 150K troops and $10B a month to Iraq that had abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Now..try being a big girl and address that point instead of just insulting me.

[retiredman]

and I am furious at George Bush for completely squandering a one-of-a-kind window of opprotunity that existed in the wake of 9/11 to rally the majority of the world behind us and against islamic extremism with his boneheaded invasion of Iraq. That is a moment that has passed and will never come again...and it is HIS fault that we missed it. His and his alone.

[Kathianne]

my initial question stands.


"One wonders where the trends in Afghanistan would have gone if we had "surged" troops there instead of Iraq."

We didn't seem to worry about what the people of Iraq were worried about when we invaded, conquered and occupied them for no good reason. Osama bin Laden has not moved more than a hundred miles from where he was the day his forces attacked us seven years ago... and we cannot put enough troops into THAT area to stabilize it, let alone find the man who attacked us, but we can sent 150K troops and $10B a month to Iraq that had abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Now..try being a big girl and address that point instead of just insulting me.

One wonders where it would have been if those that were quoted in the links I gave, stayed true to what was in the best interests of the US. They didn't, because they thought the people of the US would bug out.

However, they didn't, as evidenced by Palin.

Face it MFM, unless Obama throws Biden willingly under the bus, not a hope. Granted Biden seems to be willing to happily be road kill. Now your party has to convince nearly 50% of the Americans it's a good thing. LOL! Luck with that.

[retiredman]

One wonders where it would have been if those that were quoted in the links I gave, stayed true to what was in the best interests of the US. They didn't, because they thought the people of the US would bug out.

However, they didn't, as evidenced by Palin.

Face it MFM, unless Obama throws Biden willingly under the bus, not a hope. Granted Biden seems to be willing to happily be road kill. Now your party has to convince nearly 50% of the Americans it's a good thing. LOL! Luck with that.

mnice avoidance of the topic of my post.

coward.

[Kathianne]

mnice avoidance of the topic of my post.

coward.

What was that? Couldn't read, in English.

[retiredman]

do you think that we might have been able to keep Afghanistan from turning into a bucket of shit if we had "surged" the additional troops there, instead of into Iraq? That was the question which you avoided.... care to address it now?

[Gaffer]

do you think that we might have been able to keep Afghanistan from turning into a bucket of shit if we had "surged" the additional troops there, instead of into Iraq? That was the question which you avoided.... care to address it now?

We could surge in one or the other. Bush chose iraq to start with. I haven't seen any calls for a surge in afghan. If we are going to get laden we will need to go into pakistan. pakistan doesn't like that idea.

As usual you never answer any questions, you just ask questions and demand everyone answer yours. You want answers try answering other peoples questions and then ask yours.

[retiredman]

We could surge in one or the other. Bush chose iraq to start with. I haven't seen any calls for a surge in afghan. If we are going to get laden we will need to go into pakistan. pakistan doesn't like that idea.

As usual you never answer any questions, you just ask questions and demand everyone answer yours. You want answers try answering other peoples questions and then ask yours.

what question would you like me to answer?

and are you saying that you haven't heard the CJCS state that he would love to have more troops in Afghanistan but was limited by the operations in Iraq from putting them in?