The next six months will be critical.

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not going to cite something you both know damn well is true.
[/quote]
No, we do not. All reported evidence is, in fact, to the contrary, and easily citable, and has been heavily discussed in this very forum, in threads you yourself have participated in. :rolleyes:

If you do have a fact to present that is describable in more detail than “Bullshit”, let’s have it. That’s what debate here is, ya know.

Now it’s just “cases” for you, not a *general * assessment as would be appropriate to the thread topic? Please. :rolleyes:

That last comment is something I’d expect from a fourth-grader, or perhaps in the recent Liberal/PRR silliness in the Pit. But not from someone interested in exploring a topic in good faith.

But you won’t tell us what you think it should be, or why a number only slightly higher than zero would matter anyway. Nor, it seems, can you.

This is beneath you. Or, at least, it should be. :rolleyes:

22

[QUOTE=treis]
What conditions in Iraq make it possible for roughly half of the recommended minimum soldiers to successfully combat the insurgents?
[/QUOTE]

Because this time Dubya told them that they had to succeed. It was in a bunch of news reports.

-Joe

23

Does anyone have any figures on how many trained and ready troops there are in the ISF these days? We used to get regular updates, but I haven’t seen any numbers in a couple years now.

24

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
The next six months will be critical.
[/QUOTE]

Critical? They’ll be positively insulting!

25

Regarding the effectiveness of the Iraqi army:

Ex-Senator Al Simpson was a member of the Iraq Study Group. He spoke recently at the University of Wyoming. Among other things, he said that the Iraqi Police and the militias are various flavors of Very Despicable People, but the Iraqi Army “is making significant progress.”

http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/more.asp?StoryID=106281

An interesting read from a man who has carried water for the Republican party as few others have, but who sees little hope for Iraq.

26

[QUOTE=Squink]
Does anyone have any figures on how many trained and ready troops there are in the ISF these days? We used to get regular updates, but I haven’t seen any numbers in a couple years now.
[/QUOTE]

From Wiki:

If you read through the article, note the timeline of when divisions have come online and been certified as combat ready. Most of them have only recently become available. At the bottom of the article they go into some of the problems facing the ISF.

I’d say that John Mace is right…currently the Iraqi military is having a non-zero impact (and for RTFirefly’s benifit, its not negative either :)). Thus far they have had only a very marginal positive impact, to be sure…but it hasn’t been zero or negative. Looking at the time line/time table for when divisions are coming on line and becoming certified, and looking at the problems they face, its not really a surprise that this is so. The real question is…how effective they will become in the next year or so…and how this growing insurgency/civil war will effect the official military.

I would have to say that the next 6 months will be critical…

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

27

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I would have to say that the next 6 months will be critical…

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT
[/QUOTE]
If not the next six months, then the six months after for sure.

I don’t think GW has any plans to get out of Iraq. As he said quite some time ago, that’s for his successor. Everyone knows he’s a man of his word and doesn’t change his mind easily.

28

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
If not the next six months, then the six months after for sure.
[/QUOTE]

Oh…most certainly. And if not THAT 6 months…

:wink:

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I don’t think GW has any plans to get out of Iraq. As he said quite some time ago, that’s for his successor. Everyone knows he’s a man of his word and doesn’t change his mind easily.
[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree. And its not like he hasn’t said all along that this is exactly his plan. Whats funny is how few people believed him.

-XT

29

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
He was the right guy to put in charge 4 years ago. Now it’s too late to matter.
[/QUOTE]

You may be right.

In a recent article it was noted that some someone whose sayings get noted said it was a losing hand that Petraeus picked up to play.

However, Petraeus has the sheepskins and actual hands-on live experience that make his opinion the expert opinion in this matter.
I know of no reason to doubt his earnestness.
If he says there’s a chance unlikely though it may be, then he is prob’ly right.

[QUOTE=Marley23]
But it’s also not refuted by what Petraeus wrote.
[/quote]

You’re citing counter insurgency field manual that he wrote as evidence. This means you’re calling it a relatively authoritative work. Otherwise why would it matter what the field manual says?
In doing so you tacitly acknowledge the expertise of the folks responsible for the field manual.
Why should we take a generic formula with disclaimers from a text over the real world assessment of the expert who wrote the text?

[QUOTE=Marley23]
In other words, it’s generally believed to require a minimum of 1 per 25, but that might not be the case here. Has he said why that might not be the case in Iraq?
[/quote]

Perhaps. He’s said that he thinks there’s a chance. I don’t know yet if he’s expounded.

[QUOTE=Marley23]
And what about the other 20 million people in Iraq?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not actually privy to too much of his plans. I really don’t know how much of what he’s said about his plans.

But the point is he is the expert here. He’s not some trumped tool from a think-tank saying that Iraq is coming up roses and the Disney World will be opening sooner than later as we’ve come to expect from the Bush Admin. He’s the real deal.

Who is as authoritative of an expert? And what is his/her opinion on the matter?

Cause you can’t cite the guy’s work as evidence w/o acknowledging that his judgment in such matters in general is expert. Further, his knowledge of such matters in specific comes from actual experience.

If you ask us not to accept the judgment of Petraeus in this you should appeal to something or someone other than Petraeus.
According to the OP article, the thing that really makes the next six-months critical is that Petraeus will be the guy who calls it one way or another.

Actually, NOT according to the OP article, according to a different Guardian article on the same subject by the same author that I though was identical to the one in the OP, :smack: it mentions that:

“Many of Petraeus’s strongest supporters fear that his new assignment is a no-win mission,” said Sewall. If that proves to be the case, she noted, Petraeus has promised to say so by late summer, not just to Bush but in public to the American people through the medium of Congress.
quoted from here: Petraeus In The Field He Wrote the Book. Can He Follow It?

30

Petraeus is merely the current tool selected for the purpose of continuing GW’s policy in Iraq. That policy consists of attmepting to establish an elected government in Iraq that is friendly to the US. That “elected government” and “friendly to the US” pair seem contradictory to me. An elected Iraq government will be elected by the Shia and I don’t think most of them are particularly friendly to the US.

In any case, banking on Petraeus seems to me to be falling for make-believe. Petraeus doesn’t have a policy apart from that of GW. What he has is a tactic, a method for trying to carry out GW’s wishes and those wishes, I believe, are still a version of “stay the course.” Whatever that “course” might be.

The voters already have told GW to change course and he paid no attention. The Democrats in Congress are unwilling to bear down. As for me I would be perfectly content with an appropirations bill that stated that the money could only be spent for the purpose of engineering a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

This adventure was wrong from the start and enough is enough already.

31

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Why should we take a generic formula with disclaimers from a text over the real world assessment of the expert who wrote the text?
[/quote]

Because Petraeus is coming to this war four years late, and I don’t really think he’ll get whatever he thinks is necessary. Not to call the guy a liar, but if Bush gives him inadequate support, I don’t expect him to say so.

You said it’s a “propaganda” that 100,000 U.S. soldiers would be required. If 90,000 are needed for Baghdad, how can we not need well over 100,000 for the country? Even with the Iraqi forces? We don’t have enough combat troops in Iraq to meet the “cookie cutter” numbers, and it’s not even close. I’m not sure how even an expert is supposed to succeed when he doesn’t have the right tools.
If Petraeus would explain “I don’t need anything like the numbers I gave in the manual, and here’s why,” then I wouldn’t cite the manual. He hasn’t done that as far as I know. Despite his honesty pledge, I think he’s mostly going to keep quiet and semi-optimistic, and do the best he can with a bad situation.

That’s great. I think it’s too late to matter, but it’s very nice

You’ve misunderstood why I cited his owrk. I wasn’t questioning his expertise, I was saying that he’s not even going to get the support he has said he needs.