General Petraeus reports there is no military solution in Iraq from Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2007/March/focusoniraq_March62.xml§ion=focusoniraq

No military solution for Iraq: new US commander
(AFP)

8 March 2007

BAGHDAD - The new US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said on Thursday reinforcements pouring into Baghdad have a long task ahead of them and warned there is no military solution to the conflict.

The general also said that Iraqi leaders would eventually have to sit down and talk with some of the violent factions tearing the country apart. snip

But the general cautioned against expecting too much from the military and warned the security plan would take months to complete.

“There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq,” the general told massed ranks of reporters in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone. “Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient.”

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. How long before Cheney/Bush shitcans him?

This is unacceptable.

[peacebird]

2. setting the stage so the failure isn't HIS fault, eh? And it only took a month...

Wow - so war isn't really peace?

you spray them with bullets and bombs and they don't greet you with flowers and candy? Really? Who woulda thunk it?

:eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

3. Why does Petraeus hate America?

Looks like the RW noise machine will need to scratch him off their list...we must be running out of gung-ho generals to run interference for the Boy-king.

[Justice Is Comin]

4. Yah, now that the new kids

with targets on their backs are already flying over there, NOW you start backtracking. What a surprise.

Petraeus, you're just as much a slime dweller as Bush.

[xchrom]

5. i'm betting petraeus was writing this speech before he went to iraq.

it's not like these tapeworms don't the truth -- they are merely doing what they want A) because they can, for a whole host of reasons -- and B) because the stability of iraq isn't something they really care about -- and C) petraeus has to cover the magnificent failure of the pentagon's inability to conceive of and fight a war like this.

[global1]

6. Is Petraeus Saying The Surge Won't Work?........

If so - why are we sending 21,500 + additional troops to Iraq?

Who writes his speeches? Are they coming directly from him?

[magellan]

7. Nice timing, I'm sure the troops feel well supported

...by the latest Bush**-appointed weasel putting them in harm's way only to backtrack when it's too late.

[MissMarple]

8. That is not all Petraeus could report. He knows we don't have enough combat soldiers in Iraq to win.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_01_07.php#011851

We don't even have enough to bring order to Baghdad.

"He spent last year co-authoring the Army's new counterinsurgency field manual. But look at what the manual says. Counter-insurgency operations require at least 20 combat troops per 1000 people in a given area. And look closely. That's not just military personnel, but combat troops.

Kaplan runs through the numbers. But the key points are that you'd need 120,000 combat troops to mount real counter-insurgency operations just in Baghdad. We currently have 70,000 combat troops in the whole country. So concentrate all US combat personnel in Iraq into Baghdad. Then add 20,000 more 'surge' combat troops. That leaves you 30,000 short of the number the Army thinks you'd need just in Baghdad.

Needless to say, Iraq isn't just Baghdad. And if you know anything about how insurgencies work you know that if we actually had enough troops in Baghdad (remember, to even get in shooting distance of that you need to evacuate the rest of the country) the insurgents would just fan out and start literal or figurative fires where we're not.

What this all amounts to is that 20,000 or even 50,000 new combat troops don't even get you close to what the Army says you need to do what President Bush says he's now going to try to do. To get that many troops into the country you'd need to put this country on a serious war-footing and begin drawing troops down from deployments around the globe. All of which, just isn't going to happen, setting aside for the moment of what should happen. And that tells you this whole thing is just a joke at the expense of the American public and our troops on the ground in Iraq.

What's sad about this (and it's hard to know where to start on that count) is that a few years ago, much, much more would have been possible with more troops on the ground. Alternatively, if the president and his key advisors hadn't lied to the country about the number of troops required to stabilize and police Iraq (then-Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said 400k+, I think) we might not have pulled the trigger in the first place."