Petraeus' approach to counterinsurgency is a cure worse than the disease

i think that it’s a good idea to cast our present actions in order to meet possible future occurances. Especially those way out a decade or so into the future.

In the affairs of nations I think the only course that makes sense is to do what is expedient and cross future bridges when to come to them.

We have no way of knowing whether or not our situation will be better or worse vsi-à-vis terrorism. Nor do we have the slightest idea what the world will be like that far into the future.

We should do what seems best now and I think what seems best now is to withdraw from Iraq as expeditiously as possible. Yes, we cause the mess but it seems quite apparent that we can’t unring the bell. The Iraqis are settling their ethnic and religious problems as we speak and appear to be dividing into separate domains.

We claim to be trying to establish a national government. Yet our leaders point to Al Anbar as a model example of success. Al Anbar is run by a bunch of tribal chiefs. I don’t even know if there is a provincial, central government for Al Anbar. Is that the model “national” government we are aiming for?

As I said before, it doesn’t make any difference what Petraeus says or does. GW is determined to stay there until he leaves office and there is no way for Congress to do anything with the Senate divided 50-50 as far as the war is concerned.

Petraeus was asked if our activities in Iraq are making the US safer. If he though they were he would have said so. Instead he dissembled saying essentially that his job was to conduct military operations to be best of his ability and he hadn’t even considered the larger value to the US of those operations.

Leaving aside your other rants I have a serious question here: Did you actually read that article?

-XT

You’d rather gamble on things being “acceptable” after we leave?
Or is it that you have no hope in Iraq’s “improvability” left?
We weren’t really “there” six years ago either, but that didn’t stop the effects of Afghanistan etc from finding “our people”.

Not that curious at all really.
The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But he won’t sit upon a cold stove lid, either.
~Clemens

Things won’t be acceptable after we leave. They aren’t acceptable now.

The present gamble is that continued expediture of lives and resources will somehow make things better. I would prefer that we save the lives and resources to meet future challenges that we will be much better able to asses when they threaten.

Right now we are gambling that throwing good money after bad will somehow work out.

I certainly agree that there’s a point when you have to say that all that can be done has been done. I think we are very, very near that point.

Of course not. I just link to “Anti-American” headlines without knowing what the hell they are saying.

And no, you can’t possibly be serious in your query if you’ve actually read the article yourself.

Hablamos, Latino-traidor-pseudo-americano.

Yeah, right, near it. I suppose we haven’t nuked it from orbit yet. That might bring a little certainty and predictability to the country.

It is, after all, the only way to be sure.
.

Lily-gilder!

Oops, sorry, I forgot this isn’t the Pit. Excuse, please.

.
No, it’s a fair cop. Forgive me.
.