It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Generals: US Troops Presence is Part of the Problem

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
US Generals say that US presence in Iraq is part of the problem



WASHINGTON — The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.
...
A smaller U.S. presence could alleviate some of the anger feeding the insurgency, Casey suggested.


Woo-Hoo! While I do wish they'd get together on their story and make up their minds once and for all on this war, I see this as good news. Our presence is doing nothing now but causing 'the insurgency' to increase and fight harder.




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
We’ll see is a gradual decrees in numbers is helpful, I just hope the Generals are not too short sighted and or are not letting the media dictate their choices.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
BINGO!

I thought they might have figured it out sooner, but I was apparently overestimating their intelligence.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
There are other problems such as the pervading perception that Bush has no clue about what he is doing.



What would give them this idea is anyones guess, but many still believe it....



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
the politicians have a bad tendency of not listening to their highly trained military leaders. since vietnam (when the communications technology started becoming advanced enough), wars have been fought not by the military leaders trained to fight the battles (and incidentally, during wwII did a magnificent job of it on their own), but by orders of the politicians in washington. commanders on the ground are second guessed on a daily basis. during the first gulf war, we were not far enough removed from vietnam for this to be a factor. the generals and admirals of desert storm were the leiutenants and ensigns of vietnam....they knew the high price of letting the politicians run the war from washington, and made damn sure that they understood if the task was going to be done, it would be done right. but now, its back to the old "we cant hit that target because of the international implications...nevermind that it might be where the arms and manpower are coming from." therefore, i dont believe that just because the military leaders are declaring an inability to get the job done under the current circumstances, that the politicians are going to let them do things their way.

now let me stop at this point and say that i am a veteran who honorably and proudly served his country for four years. i also voted for bush in the last election. having said that, i dont believe we entered the war in iraq for the right reasons (i am an independent who only voted republican because the other guy couldnt seem to make a decision about anything....one minute he's for the iraq war, the next he's against...but he wouldnt say a damn thing about what he would do to rectify the situation...visions of somalia kept running through my head....one president starts the process, another f's it up royally and gets our boys slaughtered). however, now that we are there, i do believe that leaving at this time would send the wrong message to the insurgents...because regardless of the reasons why we are there, we are there. and our being there has caused every radical muslim with the balls to fight to chose to come in to iraq and confront us there. if we run away now, we will never be able to win this war on terrorism. the terrorists will look at us and say "they ran in 83 when we bombed beirut....they ran in 93 when we massacred them in somalia....they are running again.....if we keep it up, we will completely push them out of the middle east...then it will be ours to remake as we chose."

i would say let the military leaders make the decisions. they are the ones on the ground who know what is going on and what is best to help iraq be able to make it on its own. furthermore, if we want iraq to survive as an independent nation, we cant let the rest of the middle eastern world percieve it to be a puppet state of the united states. let them make their own decisions. believe me, they won't kick us completely out until they are confident that they can make it on their own.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
If this action in Iraq was really about spreading democracy or whatever, any decent president would listen to the military. But since he's got another agenda, he's just using the military to get his plan realized.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join