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.

 

Generals Seek To Reverse Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Decision

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Well, what if one of those leaders was BHO? And what if he gets his way, which I hope he does? I`m sure he`s not going to pull them out over night, anyone knows that. But, if says they are to be out one year from now, you bet the Generals better get a move on then.




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by inked up
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 


Comparing this to Hitler is stupid. Stupid.
You, nor I, know how to handle military matters better than those who are currently serving and have been serving for years. Dont be ridiculous please.


I beg to differ as you seem to be not understanding what our constitution means. Perhaps the Commander in Chief should just keeps his mouth shut is that the way you see it? I am all for letting the Military run a war and the bureaucrats staying out of it but a huge chunk of this countries money is going into Iraq for how many years now? 6 years and they have not learned to govern themselves yet....get real man. The only reason we are there is to protect big business oil interest that the previous administration setup to make profits for themselves. If you have not seen the light from that when the majority of the country has now then you are lost I am afraid at this point.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I allways thought the military was for destroying your enemy not rebuilding them the UN and NATO were for rebuilding and security of Allied nations unable to defend themselfs.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
"And why would want the military dismantled and thousands of people loosing their job and our military being reduced to nothing? That makes no sense!"

Neither does staying over there make any sense. Sure, if you brought them home with the way the economy is, and no job market, how are the troops going to get paid when there will be hardly any tax money going into the system? You have to have people working to get tax money remember? You can`t keep paying thousands of troops when you have no tax base anymore. Do like California? IOUs anyone?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 

We have a volunteer military. They were all employed in the military before Iraq and more than not be employed with them after Iraq.



[edit on 2/2/2009 by CaptGizmo]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptGizmo
 


True, but like everyone else in this country, they would not be immune to being canned once they are home, they would be brought home, and go back to work just long enough to get a pink slip. And that is the sad part. No, it`s not fair, but it`s just as not fair to have to continue to pay for our troops to be in Iraq when we can`t afford to.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I relate the situation to a biblical quote (i'm not a bible nut but I think it's a good relevant snippet for this situation).

It was something like "Please remove the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your friend's eye".

(Basically use it as a metaphor that we need to get stuff in line here before doing it elsewhere).

Just remember if we outsource everything we will have nothing left in the end.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Seems to me they would get rid of Black Water ,KBR and the rest of the mecenaries. And if you think our military not paying them means there unemployed you just kidding yourself. Most of the growing expendature our military has been paying out is rebuilding Iraq while they put there money in the bank and paying mercenary groups weve been paying to do Bush's dirty work.Hell there even fighting in Russia and Georgia conflict. Do we really need a mercenary army we already have several branchs of the military.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by inked up
If Obama has an ounce of intelligence, he will listen to his military advisors and not the people who have no clue what is best for our military. I would love for our military to be home from all countries, on our border and streets protecting it; however, only those military leaders know what is best and how to handle it.


What exactly is the Generals' alternative? The article doesn't specifically mentions it, but from certain subtle references, I'm not sure there is an 'alternative' other than more of the same.


Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge.


This also makes me wonder if there aren't other interests, besides troops and national security, for the desire to remain in Iraq, as whaa pointed out in his post.

But there's another point here: When George Bush was the President I used to hear this rhetoric a lot - he was the Commander-in-Chief and everyone should support him. Isn't Obama the Commander-in-Chief? Aren't the Generals supposed to be working for him, and in effect, the American people?

After all, one of his central campaign points was pulling out of Iraq, and since he was elected, I'm guessing the majority of people want to see this done (as also shown by polls).

The President, according to his words, after much deliberation and talk with his advisers, have established a 16-18 month plan to pull out. Now if a pull out can't be done in that time frame, what time frame does the Military require to do it?

It seems to me that the Generals aren't talking about a different time frame, they are simply talking about not pulling out.

The Commander-in-Chief, and in effect the people, want the troops to get out of Iraq. The President said he wants it done in 16-18 months, if it can't be done safely and successfully in that time frame, then the Generals better present a feasible time frame for it to be done. But that's not what they're doing is it?

While the Generals (in theory) know what's best for the military, but honestly, this apparent refusal (by attempting to convince Obama to do something else) of the Generals to accept their orders is incredibly undemocratic to me.

The President has asked them to do something, so they better go do it. If they can't do it in 18 months, then they should present a plan for the pull out with a more realistic time frame if that's what's needed.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle

Originally posted by TheOracle
Maybe generals should worry more about the situation at home and not the future of a state that doesnt want them there.


You want Gen. Patraeus to manage the economy in the US? Don't you think we would be better off letting Gen. Patraeus handle the war and thsoe with education and training on handling the economy do so? It's not Patraeus' job to worry about the situation at home.


It had more to do with the amount of money wasted everyday in Iraq. It could be used to rebuild the country and create jobs instead.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
reply to post by inked up
 


Yes let us all just sit back and let the military handle things as we have no clue what we are talking about. The last time a people of a country let the military handle things and just sat back and said nothing was this.







Hitler was not the German military.

Hitler was a charismatic demogogue promising change. He and his party were elected.

The German military did not care for Hitler and many of its high ranking brass conspired to assassinate and overthrow Hitler.

Hitler had to form his own independent military service to do his dirty work, the SS.

I can't believe people actually starred the post. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle

It had more to do with the amount of money wasted everyday in Iraq. It could be used to rebuild the country and create jobs instead.


The Congress single handedly wasted more money in one moronic bailout bill than we have spent on the entire Global War on Terror since 2001 and Congress is about to do it again.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

The Congress single handedly wasted more money in one moronic bailout bill than we have spent on the entire Global War on Terror since 2001 and Congress is about to do it again.


No, they estimate the Iraq war will cost $2.4 trillion (source). The bailout was $700 billion. And if I know anything about which number is bigger than the other...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I'm guessing you missed the 2017 part. That is a CBO estimation of costs from 2001 to 2017.

As of August 2008, the Iraq war had cost over $500 billion. Afghanistan is far cheaper with over $100 billion.


The War in Iraq Costs
$593,582,422,088
See the cost of war counter for your community

Here's a counter: nationalpriorities.org...



You'll like this:


Bailout costs more than Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war, and NASA's lifetime budget -- *combined*!

If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars.

www.boingboing.net...

Bank bailout could cost $4 trillion
money.cnn.com...

This one is even better with a chart.

Calculating the Total Bailout Costs

More than a few people have asked me how I came up with the the $8.5 trillion figure for the total cost of the bailouts. Below is a table, plus the Excel Spreadsheet it came from.

www.ritholtz.com...

Thats 8.5 trillion right now, not in 2017. Right here, right now, 8.5 trillion for our corrupt banking system.

[edit on 2/2/09 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
If Hitler would have let his generals run the war we would be speaking German right now. Hitler was a bumbling idiot when it came to military strategy. Let us hope for all our sakes Obama is not the same way.

It's a veritable powder keg over there in Iraq right now. A delicate situation to say the least. There is no telling how many terrorist Bush created by invading Iraq.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
As per usual people have missed the crux of the matter . While the present level of US troops is maintained in Iraq the coalition efforts in Afghanistan which is where the real war has been all a long will continue to flounder . This proves just how unwise the war in Iraq has been since day one . The troops needed to stabilize Afghanistan can either come from Iraq or somewhere like South Korea . The possibility of redeploying US troops from South Korea to Afghanistan after they have been retrained has to my knowledge never been examined.

Bush committed the same strategic mistake that Hitler did which was to commit his forces to thinly in to many places . Obama has inherited a nightmare of a strategic situation no matter what he does there is going to be adverse consequences somewhere . IMO US forces wont leave Iraq entirely a small reaction and training force will remain even if it is just to prevent the myth that the war was won then lost by Obama . We could all do without the same sort of myth that surrounds the end of US involvement in Vietnam . The Achilles heel in Iraq will be or has so far proven to be the poor quality of the Iraqi army and other local security forces rather then the presence of US troops .




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join