Military `surge' not enough to save Iraq, U.S. commander says

[sabra]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16405879.htm

Military `surge' not enough to save Iraq, U.S. commander says

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In his first wide-ranging interview, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq conceded Sunday that a military "surge" escalation would not be enough to rescue Iraq, advocating economic and political changes as well, as top Democratic lawmakers in Washington stiffened their opposition to any escalation of U.S. troop strength.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he believed that a combination of jobs, provincial elections, anti-militia legislation and stronger Iraqi security forces could stop the nation's plunge toward all-out civil war. Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, his predecessor, spelled out the same approach before his departure one month ago.

By echoing his predecessor, Odierno's comments raised concerns in both Washington and Iraq that the U.S. war effort is exhausting old tactics that haven't worked. Indeed, many Iraqis do not trust that a new Baghdad security plan can change their circumstances because the U.S. and Iraqi government have touted at least five such plans before, all of which failed to stop the violence.

The commander's statements came days before President Bush is to announce a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq, probably Wednesday. It's expected to include an escalation "surge" of between 9,000 and 30,000 U.S. troops, an increase in civilian advisers to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and perhaps $1 billion in new aid for reconstruction efforts.

[lithiumbomb]

1. Time to spend more time with his family.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno will be retiring in 3...2...1...

[JohnnyLib2]

2. Adios, amigo--

Karl Rove has more stars.

[Tellurian]

3. Anyone know how many Commanders/Generals have

been through the Iraqi revolving door when they do not agree with Bush's plan?

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Someone is going to get an early pension...............

[NI4NI]

5. A billion more in new aid for reconstruction?

IMHO, I don't think Dems should or will cut funding for our miltary personnel, because even if they did, Commander ChuckleNuts would still keep them there just to satisfy his perverted ego, and to use them as political pawns, even without adequate funding to fully protect themselves. He sent them there without proper protection in the first place, didn't he?
However, because there can't be reconstruction there without military security first, I don't think the Dems should give him a dime to throw blown up money after burned.

[ShockediSay]

6. They'd have to reinitialize The Draft for any such escalation

to work. And that's exactly what we'd get w/ McCain.

[Heidi]

7. Kick. (nt)

[Contrite]

8. New U.S. Iraq commander says may need three years

By Alastair Macdonald

BAGHDAD, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The new commander of U.S. combat forces in Iraq said on Sunday it may take two to three years to meet American goals but that an increasingly independent Iraqi government may change the U.S. role there within a year.

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who took up the second ranking U.S. military post in Iraq a month ago, told reporters the American public would need patience to see a stable Iraq but also said he hoped Iraqi troops could be in control of Baghdad within months after a new operation mounted with U.S. help.

Speaking ahead of Washington's expected announcement of a new approach in Iraq, Odierno said: "The mission now is to defeat the ... insurgency and to train Iraqi security forces.

"Over time we can accomplish the mission. That time I put two or three years from now. The issue becomes are we willing to wait two or three years or do we want to speed it up?"


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC751711.htm

[TexasLawyer]

9. Then, after three years

they will need another three years, and then another and another...

The US didn't build all those permanent bases for nothing.

[BeHereNow]

12. Ah yes, the permanent bases and the Taj Mahal embassy...

Funny how those things are never mentioned.
BHN

[IndianaGreen]

10. "The mission now is to defeat the insurgency?" Iraq is in civil war!

These idiots are about to make a FUBAR situation more FUBAR. They are totally clueless as to what is going on in Iraq, as evidenced by Bush trusting that Iranian puppet Maliki.

[LynnTheDem]

11. Heard that. 3 years ago. But shhhh! Don't say this is just like 'Nam!

Coz it's WORSE THAN VIETNAM.

VIETRAQ.

[saigon68]

14. I call it Iraq-Nam

Same fucked up place

[LynnTheDem]

15. Welcome back to Vietraq.

Don't give a damn, it's back to Iraqnam.

Hey, Hey, bush & blair; how many kids will you kill over there?

[saigon68]

16. Catchy tune I've heard it before

You can be the first one on the block

To have your boy come home in a box

[Vinca]

13. There are few troops available for any kind of meaningful "surge"

and putting a few thousand in is just creating more targets. This escapade was blown at the beginning. It shouldn't have happened at all, but since it did they should have followed the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force. They didn't. They had no plan whatsoever for the aftermath and our troops are paying the price. It's time for the Iraqi troops to take over.