|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 20, 2007 10:06:07 GMT -4
What we know is that General David Patraeus wrote this op ed in the Washington Post five weeks before the 2004 US elections: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.htmlOne must note that the timing of this op ed was very obviously meant to help sway the election to George Bush. Active duty generals should stay the hell out of the political process. And in the three years since his op ed, very little has actually changed on the ground in Iraq. And so I'd have to say that it isn't too surprising that now that Gen. Patraeus is in charge in Iraq that he believes things are going better than ever.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 20, 2007 11:38:02 GMT -4
Things are going better than they were. See other threads about positive signs in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 20, 2007 11:41:48 GMT -4
I am currently flying over Iraq every other day. I know things are going better. They are still not great but they are quieter than even a few months ago and much more so than a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 20, 2007 11:43:03 GMT -4
More troops = better security. So now we are back to 2006 KIA levels. Great.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 20, 2007 15:39:55 GMT -4
Mmmm . . . health care . . . .
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 21, 2007 23:59:00 GMT -4
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq: "The improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country. There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result." news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071122/ap_on_go_ot/us_iraq_sanchez;_ylt=Av3atKPkvNH9Rwqg7VFuiXms0NUE
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 23, 2007 18:28:59 GMT -4
What's a Retired Army General doing commenting about the current political situation in Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 24, 2007 0:31:08 GMT -4
He is retired, is a member of the public and does not command members of the military. He is knowledgeable of the situation. You have a problem with him speaking out?
Do you honestly not understand the difference between an active duty general's political statement and a retired general's political statement?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 24, 2007 1:44:48 GMT -4
What's a Retired Army General doing commenting about the current political situation in Iraq? You gotta be kidding Jason. It seems you'd like the world to be one in which no one ever criticized their government, always supported military actions, never spoke out, elected only Republican presidents, toed the line and I guess, went to a Mormon church. Well, in your country at least. Isn't America supposed to be the land of Free Speech?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 25, 2007 1:27:29 GMT -4
You both misunderstand me (what else is new). My point is that a retired general is not the current man on the ground. He doesn't have updated information, and therefore not necessarily the best understanding of the current situation. Plus he is a military man giving a political opinion - not necessarily his realm of expertise. My point was not that he doesn't have the right to express himself, but that he may not have the current knowledge or expertise to be as credible a source on the matter as the people currently running things.
Plus he's criticizing the job his replacement is doing - a job he failed to do. Sour grapes, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 25, 2007 2:35:13 GMT -4
My point is that a retired general is not the current man on the ground. He doesn't have updated information, and therefore not necessarily the best understanding of the current situation. On the other hand you have to consider that the people currently in command are expected to not contradict the official stance of the government, no matter how badly they would like to. If the President says things are going well in Iraq then every active member of the military is expected to say things are going well in Iraq... so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 25, 2007 20:23:37 GMT -4
Not necessarily. They may not wish to contradict their commander in chief but that doesn't mean they will actively lie on his behalf.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 26, 2007 15:17:19 GMT -4
A military commander who publicly contradicts the Commander in Chief would very quickly be out of a job. It is the job of the military to do as the president directs. The military commander might disagree with the president in a private communication, but not publicly.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 17:01:16 GMT -4
I find Mr. Sanchez's impartiality even more suspect now that he has appeared on the Democratic weekly radio address, and Senator Clinton has put forward the same points: "The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks," she said. "We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it."
So basically, Sanchez was spouting the Democratic talking points about Iraq.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 17:13:31 GMT -4
By the way, are any of you Aussies a bit upset that the New York Times saw the election of Kevin Rudd as the new Australian PM as essentially a referrendum on George Bush? Did the election play as a referrendum on Bush down under, or were there some other issues at play there?
|
|