Buchanan: Petraeus points to war with Iran

Buchanan: Petraeus points to war with Iran

wnd.com

Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.

Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
IRAQ: A war for power against Iran?
Petraeus and Presidential politics: Setting the stage for a war with Iran
The Truth about Petraeus' Proxy-War against Iran in Iraq
On the Escalator to War With Iran

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists
Poll: Iran, Iraq, China Top US Enemies
Bush: US will 'confront' Iran if necessary
Bush: `Iran Is a Threat to World Peace'

[edit on 4/10/2008 by biggie smalls]

I thought Petraeus was going to tell the senate that Iraq is a complete failure. It seems he has been bullied to lie. Too bad. That's what I'm here for bud, to shed light on the crap you call the truth.

These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."

Oh really? Is that what the military-industrial complex paid you to say?

First McCain says that Al Qaeda is in Iraq after being in Iran and now you're saying that Iranian special forces are training the "extremists."

Get your stories straight warmongers, its getting a bit old.

Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?

"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."

Oh how convenient. So Ahmadinejad doesn't support these rebels anymore, but the "evil" special forces guys are?

How about the CIA training Al Qaeda and Bin Laden during the Afghan war? Were they doing "nefarious" activities? If not, how can you judge another nation for trying to rid their neighboring country of an occupier?

Its a bit hypocritical.

Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:

"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"

"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.

Iran isn't killing Americans, but Iranian-backed groups are. Oh I see the distinction.

General it seems you do not want to point the finger directly at Ahmadinejad because you may have somewhat of a conscience left. However, those who control you want war so they will have it. Am I correct?

The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.

Awesome, another proxy war. Instead of fighting the Soviets, now we're fighting the Iranians.

Different day, same story. Can you at least be a little more creative next time? I can see right through your facade of lies.

There is no democracy in Iraq in the first place. It is a US-backed puppet faux-republic. The US military is there to ensure the government is not taken out by rebels and "insurgents."

Once we leave Iraq is going to hell in a hand-basket anyway. Face the facts.

That is, unless the plan was never to leave Iraq.

Its all making sense.

The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?

I'd say Bush forced Petraeus' mouth, but ok. I'll go with it. It looks like we're going to war with Iran.

Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:

"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.

"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."

Here we go. Next up, US draft.

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

reply to post by biggie smalls


As long as Iran is continuously linked to attacks against US soldiers, the warmongering will scare the American public into a frenzy of hate.

Bush has said time and time again how dangerous Iran is, how much they want to kill all of us, and how if we don't kill them first we'll somehow be hurt.

Its rather insane.

Iran may be backing extremists in Iraq. I'd say its quite possible. That doesn't mean their intended target is Americans or diplomats.

Quite frankly, if I was an Iraqi I would not want foreigners in my country, no matter if they were Iranians or Dutch. Neither one belongs there.

Most of the "insurgents" are Iraqis fed up with foreign occupation, and they are completely justified in their attacks. I may not be suicide bombing, but the message is clear: GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.

We complain about all the illegal immigrants coming over the border from Mexico, how do you think the Iraqis feel? Its quite a different scenario because Iran is an affluent nation, and Iraq is well...not. The proper analogy might involve Americans emigrating to Guatemala to fight for their freedom against tyranny.

[edit on 4/10/2008 by biggie smalls]

Well at least you have the issue right, but you have gone all lone gunman on this.

First, the Iraqi gov. is "influenced" by the Iranians.
2) nobody with half a brain thinks that will change anytime soon.
(have you seen the prank on youtube where they get a stooge to hold a bowl of water against the ceiling with a stick?)
well that is what we have in Iraq. If we leave then the Iranians have control of Iraq (the bowl of water) our presence there is the (stick)

we leave...Iran is in.
we stay....we continue the 2000yr or more fight in the middle east.

it is lose/lose no matter how you slice it.

so what do you suggest?

We can't travel back in time..... so what do we do?

I hate Bush and his evil administration as much as you do but what the hell is anyone suppose to do at this point. Seriously give up the solution for us all.

The solution would be to leave. "Cut and run" as the Republicans call it. Leave with dignity as I call it.

McCain has called for 100 more years in Iraq. The US military cannot stand a few more years there, let alone 100. Our economy is struggling thanks to over $1 trillion on this war alone (the figures go up to $3 trillion, but I'll use the more conservative estimate).

We're going to have to leave sooner or later. Mercenary forces probably will stay in Iraq to protect "our" oil (see the Cheney oil thread for clarification on that point). Kroll, Blackwater, and Halliburton can provide all the necessary might behind the corporate greed machine while our soldiers leave.

They can provide backup, and we'll cut our losses and go home.

It is pretty insane to think that staying in Iraq somehow "supports the troops." This is a pet peeve of mine.

How in the world do you support someone when you ask for them to die in a foreign country? Its not like we're fighting the Nazis in Iraq. We're fighting people who want freedom from oppression and occupation. Its almost as if we've become the Nazis, albeit in a different form (and maybe not quite as bad, we haven't murdered millions of people...yet).

hmmmm, I like that for the most part.
1) leave but declare victory and say that Iraq can deal with anything
(of course keep the merc. there and pay whom ever we had to in order to keep Iran out for a bit)
2) blast the # out of some Iranian targets to keep them from thinking about taking advantage.

Look, if we can spin 9/11 and the whole war thing to begin with, then we sure as hell can spin a great victory in Iraq don't you think?

I think you have the right answer amazingly enough

Replace our troops with trained mercenaries and provide air support and missle support when needed.

declare victory and call it a day.

Then back home we can get a grand jury to indicte Bush, Cheney, whose next in alphabetical order? Those Frackers need to face justice.

oh....dude, not agreeing with your signature at all.

human rights and the olympics go hand in hand...they are all that is good with the human race...the ultimate alternative to war.

I actually took a course with Hogshead-Maker as my professor (olympic swimmer and...oh google her)
I know quite a bit about the olympic story is what I'm saying and what it means beyond the economic and political aspects.

reply to post by biggie smalls


I agree that he has been manipulated to lie, I saw him on the news while he was facing the congress and he look like somebody that wanted the ground to open and swallow him.

This the way that our acting government relegate its war failure to nothing more than a problem instigated by the Iranian axis of evil and nothing more than an attack will take care of the problem.

Either they think we Americans are stupid of their moronic ideas are getting out of hand.

To tell you the truth I am offended as an American with the way our government believe that we are ignorant.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by biggie smalls

 

I agree that he has been manipulated to lie, I saw him on the news while he was facing the congress and he look like somebody that wanted the ground to open and swallow him

You ain't kiddin.....I think he is trying to figure out a way to survive long enough to retire with honor and realizes that the window is starting to shut on him. No military dissident survives under this administration. He has the "oh crap" look on his face. He knows the truth but can't do a damn thing about it

reply to post by Res Ipsa


I highly doubt the cowards we call senators and congressmen are ever going to indict or impeach the Bush administration. The democrats came into power in 2006 to end the Iraq war. Now that they have the majority, what progress has been made?

If they are indicted on war crimes and crimes against humanity its going to be the generation that is in college now. We're the ones who have been paying attention, and once we get into office, all hell is going to break loose.

Do you agree with the other part of my signature? Gandhi's quote is relevant to today's situation in Iraq...



marg,

Petraeus doesn't want to die. He must have had a hit put out on his life if he didn't go along with "their" plans.

That whole axis of evil crap is what politicians tell the ignorant masses. Not all of us actually believe it...Although unfortunately some of us do.

Remember if you boil a frog slowly, degree by degree, it won't realize what's happening until its too late.

American citizens are that frog, and the neocons/Bush administration are the pot.

I am glad you noticed also, he was desperate, but who will no be with the fate of those that has preceded him.

Politics at work specially on election year, even when this men are military men, they can not stay away from the ruling politics of war.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by marg6043]

Here's an interesting article about the surge that probably no one here has read:

online.wsj.com...

It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.

Some people charge that we have merely "rented" the Sunni tribesmen, the former insurgents who now fight by our side. This implies that because we pay these people, their loyalty must be for sale to the highest bidder. But as Gen. Petraeus demonstrated in Nineveh province in 2003 to 2004, many of the Iraqis who filled the ranks of the Sunni insurgency from 2003 into 2007 could have been working with us all along, had we treated them intelligently and respectfully. In Nineveh in 2003, under then Maj. Gen. Petraeus's leadership, these men – many of them veterans of the Iraqi army – played a crucial role in restoring civil order. Yet due to excessive de-Baathification and the administration's attempt to marginalize powerful tribal sheiks in Anbar and other provinces – including men even Saddam dared not ignore – we transformed potential partners into dreaded enemies in less than a year.

Then al Qaeda in Iraq, which helped fund and tried to control the Sunni insurgency for its own ends, raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, and brought drugs into too many neighborhoods. By outraging the tribes, it gave birth to the Sunni "awakening." We – and Iraq – got a second chance. Powerful tribes in Anbar province cooperate with us now because they came to see al Qaeda for what it is – and to see Americans for what we truly are.

Soldiers everywhere are paid, and good generals know it is dangerous to mess with a soldier's money. The shoeless heroes who froze at Valley Forge were paid, and when their pay did not come they threatened to leave – and some did. Soldiers have families and will not fight for a nation that allows their families to starve. But to say that the tribes who fight with us are "rented" is perhaps as vile a slander as to say that George Washington's men would have left him if the British offered a better deal.

Equally misguided were some senators' attempts to use Gen. Petraeus's statement, that there could be no purely military solution in Iraq, to dismiss our soldiers' achievements as "merely" military. In a successful counterinsurgency it is impossible to separate military and political success. The Sunni "awakening" was not primarily a military event any more than it was "bribery." It was a political event with enormous military benefits.

The huge drop in roadside bombings is also a political success – because the bombings were political events. It is not possible to bury a tank-busting 1,500-pound bomb in a neighborhood street without the neighbors noticing. Since the military cannot watch every road during every hour of the day (that would be a purely military solution), whether the bomb kills soldiers depends on whether the neighbors warn the soldiers or cover for the terrorists. Once they mostly stood silent; today they tend to pick up their cell phones and call the Americans. Even in big "kinetic" military operations like the taking of Baqubah in June 2007, politics was crucial. Casualties were a fraction of what we expected because, block-by-block, the citizens told our guys where to find the bad guys. I was there; I saw it.

The Iraqi central government is unsatisfactory at best. But the grass-roots political progress of the past year has been extraordinary – and is directly measurable in the drop in casualties.

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting. To give one example, I just returned this week from Nineveh province, where I have spent probably eight months between 2005 to 2008, and it is clear that we remain stretched very thin from the Syrian border and through Mosul. Vast swaths of Nineveh are patrolled mostly by occasional overflights.

We know now that we can pull off a successful counterinsurgency in Iraq. We know that we are working with an increasingly willing citizenry. But counterinsurgency, like community policing, requires lots of boots on the ground. You can't do it from inside a jet or a tank.

Over the past 15 months, we have proved that we can win this war. We stand now at the moment of truth. Victory – and a democracy in the Arab world – is within our grasp. But it could yet slip away if our leaders remain transfixed by the war we almost lost, rather than focusing on the war we are winning today.

reply to post by jerico65


That's funny, because my brother says the exact opposite.

But what would he know? It's not like he's in the Army......oh.

He may be a stodgy geezer but Buchanan is almost always right. Damn it!

He's never politically correct and he always tells the truth, even when the result may creates drama or trouble. If he thinks that is what Petreaus means, I'd take it to the bank.

We're so screwed.