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.

 

Commanders plan military operations for Iraq through 2009?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Commanders plan military operations for Iraq through 2009?


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The senior U.S. commander in Iraq is preparing a plan for military operations that sets summer 2009 as the goal for achieving a sustainable level of security throughout the country, his spokesman said on Tuesday.

The draft, developed by Gen. David Petraeus' staff, lays out a series of security-related goals over two years, envisioning U.S. troops in the war zone through 2009.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Stories like this basically insinuate IMO that they want the world to know that they will stay and fight, no matter. So, what exactly does no matter mean? This is post Bush Presidency isn't it? Are they that confident that the new president won't pull the troops?

Any thoughts?

AAC

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Since in all likelihood we will have the continuation of the Bush-Clinton dynasty, the US will not leave Iraq for quite a long time (unless every last soldier dies and a revolution breaks at home).

These Neo-Con Fascists do not care what anyone else thinks or does as long as an insane amount of profit fills their 'constituents' and in turn, lines their pockets with gold.

AAC,

We are so far off the deep end I don't know how we'll ever catch our breathe.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

"Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led large by foreign terrorists and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden," the president said. "They know they're al Qaeda. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaeda. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaeda.

"And there's a good reason they are called al Qaeda in Iraq. They are al Qaeda. In Iraq."


GWB is an absolute blundering idiot. I truely cannot believe that a President, who was a cheerleading, D-Student Coke-Head, and a vice president who has had two DUI's can be controlling the free world. Wait, they aren't, they are destroying the free world.

Who'd a thunk it? :shk:

AAC



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
It is General Petraeus job to come up with contingency plans .
IMO after the 08 election we will see an US withdrawl from Iraq it would be political suicide for an candidate to be an elected on an anti Iraq war platform and then continue the war indefinitely.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
expert, I would usually agree, but then look what happened when the dems won congress, they folded too. :shk:

Hell, what ever happened to fist fights?
I'd really just like to kick the # out of all these evil-doers.


I know I'm not supposed to hit an old man, but heck, I believe we could make a few dozens exceptions to this rule.


I just don't know anymore...


AAC



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
expert, I would usually agree, but then look what happened when the dems won congress, they folded too. :shk:


You have to understand that the dems are playing there political cards smartly it is in there best political interests for the war to continue for as long as Bush is in office. The dems want to use the Iraq issue to win the White House in 08 in the mean time they will continue to make shallow attempts to end the war in order to appease there supporters.

The sad thing is that the right guy is finally in charge and that the right strategy is finally in place in Iraq but it is to little to late the US public is feed up with the war. Mind you even if more people supported the war the US military still doesn't have enough manpower to win the war military.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
xpert, I want to believe what you say soooo much. I'll keep my cynical fingers crossed.


AAC



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The sad thing is that the right guy is finally in charge and that the right strategy is finally in place in Iraq but it is to little to late the US public is feed up with the war. Mind you even if more people supported the war the US military still doesn't have enough manpower to win the war military.


I don't think you can ever win a war where basically the whole country wants foreign troops out...Whether that be 'insurgents' or Western troops.

The Iraqis have inherited a great mess...Does that mean we should stand by and watch it spin further into a chaotic state?

We can save lives (American and Iraqi) if we leave now and let the Middle Easterners decide their own fate...No matter what that means, pseudo-democracy as they have now or another dictatorship (They'd probably be better off sadly enough).

We will never have enough manpower or arms. How can you fight an enemy that 'grows' by the day? And which is primarily fueled by our own actions and inactions in their country.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
I don't think you can ever win a war where basically the whole country wants foreign troops out...Whether that be 'insurgents' or Western troops.


IMO that makes the situation out to be to simple in order to ones political beliefs. There are a lot of factors at work including how willing Iraqis are willing to support there leaders , how corrupt the Iraqi government is e.t.c .


The Iraqis have inherited a great mess...Does that mean we should stand by and watch it spin further into a chaotic state?


Since the coalition had an big hand in creating this mess they have an responsibilitie to provide security or find answers to the problems in Iraq.
An withdrawl from Iraq would only save coalition lives.





We will never have enough manpower or arms. How can you fight an enemy that 'grows' by the day? And which is primarily fueled by our own actions and inactions in their country.


Lack of manpower is the biggest problems the people that supported this dumb war to start with have a lot to answer for.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Summer 2009, that would be a few months into the term of the next president,
even if they did order an immediate withdrawal, the majority of troops and stuff
would still be there at this time.


Personally my opinion of the war is sort of middle-ground, so I'll be interested in this.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Iori_komei since an middle ground doesn't seem to exist when it comes to the war in Iraq would you care to elaborate further on your opinion ?
Cheer xpert11.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Basically, I believe we do need to leave, and we need a timeline with goals
(and possible incentives/prizes for Iraq for meeting them), but that we can't just pullout
within the next year or so.

Personally I think we need to create a five year plan with the above in it and focus more
on defence and training the Iraqi's to fight for themselves.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
iori,

Do you really think that the Administration is there for any other reason than sinister greed? If so, please explain.

We create more terrorist there every day. It's perpetual violence that has no end, until all the bodies are stiff.

Bin Ladden isn't even being focused on. When was the last time you even heard of a military Bin Ladden lead? NEVER!

Afhganistan is producing more drugs than before we got there.

The Taliban has grown even stronger, and 157,000 troops are in Iraq.

We only sent 100 special team soldiers to hunt for Bin Ladden when the whole calvary was bing shipped to Iraq.

These things all point to nefarious intentions without a doubt IMHO. BTW, I purposefully steer'd away from the mounds of circumstancial evidence that could make someones head spin.

It is not about freedom, because Iraqis are not free.
It is not about Democracy because there is no credible democratic status (please do not debate otherwise, my answer will always be... Opinion Vary, I guess).
It is not about Bin Ladden (for previously mentioned evidence)
It is not about Americans, because most of us want OUT.

So what is it about then? exactly.

ps. This is not directed towards you iori, I was only referring to you in the beginning,


AAC



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
expert, I would usually agree, but then look what happened when the dems won congress, they folded too. :shk:


You have to understand that the dems are playing there political cards smartly it is in there best political interests for the war to continue for as long as Bush is in office. The dems want to use the Iraq issue to win the White House in 08 in the mean time they will continue to make shallow attempts to end the war in order to appease there supporters.

The sad thing is that the right guy is finally in charge and that the right strategy is finally in place in Iraq but it is to little to late the US public is feed up with the war. Mind you even if more people supported the war the US military still doesn't have enough manpower to win the war military.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by xpert11]


The problem with this is exactly what you are saying. That's the dems putting all their eggs in one basket.

They believe they can let the war get so FUBAR that it will guarantee them the presidential election. What happens when that is taken away from them? 5 weeks before elections all Bush has to do is declare "Mission Accomplished" and land a jet on an aircraft carrier and BAM rally effect all over again. People will stupidly breathe a sigh of relief and say "I knew all along we would beat those terrorists!"

He doesnt have to do a thing except say that he has done something to sway the minds of the masses.

The GOP is masterful at taking credit for things that don't do and pushing credit onto others for the things they do do but are embarassed about.

Annnnd, this is all banking on the idea that we would even have free elections in 2008! With the very real possibility of martial law, for our own good of course
the FIRST thing that will be done is suspension of elections and I bet you all the money in the world it will be done so smugly as to actually use the line "Don't change horses midstream" just to throw it in our faces.

Meanwhile, Rothschild and others are swimming in their piles of money Duck Tales style.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Do you really think that the Administration is there for any other reason than sinister greed? If so, please explain.


I believe the Administration went there in the first place on faulty intelligence,
and has stayed there for various reasons, Bush because he thinks it's what is best
for both Americans ans Iraqis, and others because they have profited from it,
though they did'nt start to until a considerable time after the war in Iraq started.




We create more terrorist there every day. It's perpetual violence that has no end, until all the bodies are stiff.


We create more terrorists partially because of the way we act, our military is focused more
on the offensive, and there is no plan thus far to actually leave, so the Iraqis see us
as occupiers.
If we were to focus more on the defencive and have a known plan to leave,
the number of new nationalist terrorist in Iraq would shrink considerably.




Bin Laden isn't even being focused on. When was the last time you even heard of a military Bin Laden lead? NEVER!


Trying to find Bin Lade, is honestly a waste of resources and considering the geopolitics
of the area would be incredibly difficult even if there was'nt a war going on in Iraq.
Oh, and the last time I heard the military talk about OBL was in January, basically saying
what I said above.




Afhganistan is producing more drugs than before we got there.


And that's a problem how?
I don't have a problem with drugs, if they want to make them, and people want to buy them,
that's there business. Of course I would like to see a nationalization of it so that we
know money is'nt going directly to terrorists.




The Taliban has grown even stronger, and 157,000 troops are in Iraq.


The Taliban is no stronger right now than it has been at any point, it is regaining some
of the strength it lost after 9/11, but it's not really that strong, in fact Al Queda only has
at the most a few thousand members, though there are many groups that base themselves
around Al Queda, but are not part of it.

And there are 140,000 troops in Iraq, not 157,000.




We only sent 100 special team soldiers to hunt for Bin Laden when the whole calvary was bing shipped to Iraq.


Considering that where he was at the time was'nt exactly somewhere you get a large
number of troops to, and the fact that if he moved to foreign soil while they were tracking him,
one-hundred soldiers would be less noticeable than thousands, that is the only real
option that could be employed.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
At the end of the day there is no way the U.S is going to withdraw fully from Iraq, regardless of what the people want Iraqi and American. They invaded Iraq to secure bases in a volatile area next to the Oil and their sibling Israel. Why after losing 3000 soldiers would they just up and leave? Not saying it's right but it is what has happened and what will happen.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I believe the Administration went there in the first place on faulty intelligence,
and has stayed there for various reasons, Bush because he thinks it's what is best
for both Americans ans Iraqis, and others because they have profited from it,
though they did'nt start to until a considerable time after the war in Iraq started.

Hold up...the administration went there knowing beforehand the intelligence was not real. (Sadam having nukes...pleeeeasse
)

How is it best for the Americans to have soldiers dying everyday? Or for the Iraquis having their old "silent" opression government changed for a terror one (one that will remain...mainly to US policy.)

Defense related corporations began profiting the minute speculation began on Iraq...not "considerable time after the war in Iraq started". The army has to stock up for war you know...



We create more terrorists partially because of the way we act, our military is focused more
on the offensive, and there is no plan thus far to actually leave, so the Iraqis see us
as occupiers.
If we were to focus more on the defencive and have a known plan to leave,
the number of new nationalist terrorist in Iraq would shrink considerably.


The Iraquis will see the US as occupiers until the last boot is off the ground. If the US was to focus on humanitary aid...thus cutting the "terrorists" off new recruits...their numbers would shrink.

Early withdrawal with no aid whatsoever spells victory to them...thus multiplying their numbers ("Look, the terrorists won, maybe it wasnt such a bad idea to join them")




Trying to find Bin Lade, is honestly a waste of resources and considering the geopolitics
of the area would be incredibly difficult even if there was'nt a war going on in Iraq.
Oh, and the last time I heard the military talk about OBL was in January, basically saying
what I said above.


We agree totally there. OBL was reachable before 9/11. With many arab countries now protecting him, directly, or indirectly now (policy) he is as easy to catch as Bigfoot.




And that's a problem how?
I don't have a problem with drugs, if they want to make them, and people want to buy them,
that's there business. Of course I would like to see a nationalization of it so that we
know money is'nt going directly to terrorists.


Well...considering US drug policy...and that a lot of that Heroin will end up in western consumers...and that's a helluva lot of funds for "enemies", this should be a red flag.






The Taliban is no stronger right now than it has been at any point, it is regaining some
of the strength it lost after 9/11, but it's not really that strong, in fact Al Queda only has
at the most a few thousand members, though there are many groups that base themselves
around Al Queda, but are not part of it.


A "few" thousand...more than enough to wreck havoc in Iraq...and supposedly, Mission Afghanistan was to pummel the Taliban to the ground...not let them thrive once again.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
At least this report is more realistic, even though they will be there longer. It gets the date past the elction, so gives president candidates breathing space.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

The draft, developed by Gen. David Petraeus' staff, lays out a series of security-related goals over two years, envisioning U.S. troops in the war zone through 2009.





I wonder when the media will finally come around to the realization that
the new General's plan is a shadow-orchestration of the neocon planners and Rumsfield's ideas all along.

Patraeus might earn the (?apt) nickname 'Be-Tray-Us' when the media discovers the Surge(s) are a series of strategies to continually build up the troop levels, not to win a conflict but to become permanent based troops....

?hey, isn't the 'Surge" developing the same dynamics as all the sexed up
half-truths of pre-invasion intelligence, that got us into Iraq???

the Generals 2 yr roadmap, seems will be a series of 'surges' in an ever expanding scope of US troop involvement.



Point 2; the morale of the troops is way more important than civilian polls or public sentiment about the combat theater.

Point 2a; administration must continue to cut the legs out from spoiler
issues like the Pat Tillman saga, which can destroy morale,

Point 2b; administration, along with the no-bid-contractors, must continue to deflect scrutiny that point to rogue bands of contractors actually setting IEDs and Shrine bombings under the guise of a AQ-in-Iraq or insurgency.

gotta stop here, because these points could at some future,
get construed as factual evidence instead of merely creative fiction, and food for thought from other sources like prisonplanet, anti-war, etc etc
and the actual author be termed a sympathizer or an Enemy-of-the-State.
[Executive Order (to be given a number in 30 days) ]
www.whitehouse.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join