In 2004, General Now Leading Escalation Lauded Progress of Iraqi Security Forces, Predicted Success
In 2004, General Now Leading Escalation Lauded Progress of Iraqi Security Forces, Predicted Success
The person in charge of executing Bush’s escalation plan in Iraq is Gen. David H. Petraeus. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Petraeus “agrees with ’surge’ advocates.” And he’s highly regarded by many. But in Iraq, his judgment has proven completely wrong before. Here is what Petraeus had to say about the Iraqi security forces in September 2004:
[T]here are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.
Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight — so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country.
[T]here is no shortage of qualified recruits volunteering to join Iraqi security forces. In the past couple of months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits just reported for training in various locations.
Of course, the column has the usual caveats: “There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way.” But the conclusion of the column is clear: “Iraq’s security forces are…developing steadily and they are in the fight…this trend will continue.”
In fact the trend has not continued. Iraqi security forces have been infiltrated by insurgents and many have walked off the job “due to scheduled leave, absence without leave, and attrition.” Nealy two-and-a-half years later, U.S. troops are still bearing the responsibility of providing security in Iraq.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nothing wrong with optimism except when it’s been proven to be wrong and becomes myopia rather than optimism. This guy’s a hack – a Busbot “yes man” which is precisely why he’s been put in charge. Bush goes through generals and personnel like most people go through underwear – disposable type, that is.
As for tempering optimism with a good dose of realism, this guy doesn’t make the grade….but he’s certainly in lockstep with Bush.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:45 pmT R A I T O R
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:47 pmHe sounds perfect — in Bush World, that is.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pmWell, Pres Bush is surrounding himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear, and that tendency will lead him to make disastrous decisions.
More deja vu. Nothing new here. It makes me angry to think so many will pay dearly for Pres Bush’s lack of grounding onr eality.
::sigh::
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pmHey, lame trolls. Why does America not trust George W. Bush? Why does America trust Speaker Pelosi’s Democratic congress so much more?
Are you trolls going to STFU now?
From TPM:
The full range of numbers in the new Washington Post/ABC News poll has been released this morning, and it contains some striking numbers. First, it finds that Americans trust the Democratic Congress to deal with Iraq over President Bush by a nearly two to one margin, 60%-33%.
Losers.
-GSD
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:51 pmEvery other general has been a Bush bot and has been replaced. How long until this guy wants to “spend more time with his family. Let’s start a pool. I will take 154 days.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pma new yes man. used to have spine, now wears sponge.
funny how they stomp each other to get anointed to a higher rank. They have all the footprints on their backs and blood under foot. Someone respected by the NOOZ yesterday, is being roasted by talking heads on cheney’s instructions
They are changing what were yesterday’s “old soldiers”, into “yesterday’s meals on wheels” Notice we haven’t had anyone retire in favor for quite a while. Maybe stormin’ norman? even he wasn’t stupid enough to invade baghdad.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pmAnd at the time, neither was Bush Sr. or Dick Cheney.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pmAre you trolls going to STFU now?
Comment by GSD — January 22, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
The trolls will deny, obfuscate, and question your sources because they are “liberal” and cannot be trusted in 10, 9, 8…
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 pmWell, this is hardly good news. But with the passing of each day, I am comforted by the idea that the US will – somehow – survive the insanity of GW Bush. The fact that he has so little support for his agendas and the Dems control the senate should all give us reason to breath a collective sigh of relief. Sure, he can still do massive damage to the nation but I believe we’ve seen the worst of it.
I feel sorry for the troops (and the familes) who must die for his ignorance and self-importance. Clearly the next step in Iraq should by a strategic drawdown. It’s what the nation needs and what this nation needs.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 pmAnother sycophantic Bush Butt Kisser!
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pmOne wonders, then, why House Joint Resolution 14 – legislation recently introduced by Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) which explicitly forbids a U.S. attack on Iran, except in response to a “demonstrably imminent” attack on U.S. forces or interests – has yet to attract more than a dozen or so co-sponsors. Unlike the weak palliatives offered up on the Iraq question by the Democrats, the Jones resolution is a binding one.
Although I started making inquiries last week, I have yet to get an answer from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office as to her position on H.J. Res. 14. It’s now quite popular to be antiwar when it comes to Iraq, but Iran is a different story altogether. Hillary Clinton, who seems on track to grasp the Democrats’ presidential nomination, has criticized the Bush administration for being too soft on Tehran, and Howard Dean takes the kooky “Objectivist” position that the Iraq war is a case of attacking the wrong enemy, the right one being Iran.
Unless the Democrats and the fast-rising antiwar faction of the Republicans in Congress are willing to go on record as explicitly forbidding an attack on Iran, the presidential exercise of the military option will hang over our heads like a veritable sword of Damocles.
Confronted with this obstacle to his war plans, will a president who believes he has absolute power in wartime assert his supremacy and provoke a constitutional crisis? Given the legendary cowardice of the Democrats on questions of war and peace, we may never get to find out.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm#2: I hope he does #2 (more do-do?) on the faux Iraq/911 connection…I really hope he does because it will be a case of “be careful what you help people remember” when he does. People’s heads are spinning but at the bottom of this barrel of crap is the totally inaccurate, inconsistent “timeline and official story” about 911. Perhaps with his numbers down so low and the end of his administration this imminent, this will be the frosting on the cake of disgust….the people know in their guts that this group of thugs is capable of anything to get their way….yes, anything! It’s not original and has been done before….Read “Another Pearl Harbor”….great read!
At the bottom of this cesspool of lies and corruption, we may soon find the complicity of 911 right here under our noses.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:20 pmHow long until this guy wants to “spend more time with his family. Let’s start a pool. I will take 154 days.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 22, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
heh… i don’t bet… but i think you are being optomistic…
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pmi’d say 2, maybe 3 months…
Does anyone else find it odd that we have gone from a pair of 4-star Generals (Abizaid and Casey) to a 3-star in commad of our troops?
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:26 pmDoes anyone else find it odd that we have gone from a pair of 4-star Generals (Abizaid and Casey) to a 3-star in commad of our troops?
Comment by Rebel In CA
“Bush-odd”….no
“Reality-odd”….yes
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:38 pmIt kind of makes you wonder how these guys got ahold of this place: http://grapheety.com/?story=241&zoom=15.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pmGen. David H. Petraeus on the Iraq war in 2003:
“Tell me how this ends.”
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm#6- I’ll go with the “Friedman” timeline- six months tops.
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pmNice of you to leave out of that post any mention that Petraeus was the general in charge of the training of those Iraqi forces.
So the guy in charge of something was optimistic about that something ? Wow. That’s a shocker. And that guy was a general in the US armed forces speaking about a core component of his nation’s war effort.
Yeah let’s all wonder why the general didn’t just unleash criticism on himself and discredit a major component of the Iraq plan when offerred an interview. Sheesh.
And this supposedly has some bearing on what impact the general with the most success in bringing successful counterinsurgency tactics to major hotspots in post invasion Iraq will have once he is elevated to overall command in Iraq.
Why not write about his hair color while you are at it.
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pmAmericablog seems to disagree….
- 42% think country is better off under Democrat controlled Congress
- 53 percent of Americans say Bush is likeable,
- 58 percent say he is decisive and
- 44 percent think Bush is honest
- 49 percent think he is ethical
You could interpret that as meaning that Americans trust GWB more than a Democrat controlled congress. Or that regardless of whether Americans trust Democrats more than Bush, a Democrat congress isn’t what’s best for the country.
Frankly when you have had a constant 25-30% of the population polling for years that they will believe in any ridiculous idea (9/11 inside job, JFK, moon landing, etc) this indicates you need to stop referring to polls of Americans as something worthy of serious discussion.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pmKilo, you selectively left out these numbers:
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earns 51% job approval rating, higher than Congress’ 34% approval rating
- President Bush earns a low 36 percent job approval rating
The only reason you would leave that out is that it doesn’t conform to the point you’re trying to make. When is the last time you saw a Speaker of the House with a better poll number than a president, much less 17 points better?
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmUmmm link to your polling info please, I have a feeling it is a bit out of date.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pmOh, and Kilo, “Democrat” is not an adjective. “Democrat” is a noun. Unless you’re a Lutz-scripted, mindless Bush cultist, the correct English would be “Democratic Congress.” You see, “Democratic” is an adjective. Got it?
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pmBush cultists like Kilo are so predictable. Now that people don’t like them, polls are not reliable. Funny, I heard more than a few of them bragging about Bush’s high numbers just a few years ago.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pmthe correct English would be “Democratic Congress.†You see, “Democratic†is an adjective. Got it?
Comment by Bluedog49 — January 22, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
franken actually pissed me off today when he told (a guest? producer?) who had the same gripe, that it was too late to turn that around…
as a proud DEMOCRAT in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, i’ll never stop correcting the mistake… and thank you…
i hear more and more of the politician in franken… too bad…
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 pmbut, imagine that…
Kilo, I agree with you that there are about 25% – 30% who seem to always have their heads up their assses when it comes to polls.
Kinda like the 25% that still support Boy George. And the 25% who believe that Jebus is coming out of the clouds to save their asses.
BTW, I wouldn’t disagree that Bush is “decisive”. A fu*king idiot whose “decisions” are not based in reality, but decisive nonetheless.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pmThere is nothing inherently wrong with being a politician. In another time, it was synonymous with “public servant.” The right wing has succeeded in making it a dirty word. It’s part of their “government is a bad thing” movement.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 pmWhat IS inherently wrong is a man who has taken a military oath to protect the consitution lying to the public for political reasons.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:55 pmNot “conform”, “relate”. They don’t relate to what was being discussed by the person I replied to.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pmNot sure why you needed to point out why I didn’t mention something I wasn’t talking about but there you go.
It is the 2nd story on the front page of Americablog. How out of date do you think it is going to be for a blog that posts 8 times a day ?
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pmThere’s a bumper sticker slogan if ever there was one. Democrats… they’ve earned the right to capitalization.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pmYes tell us why Republicans are so predictable, right after someone posting a contrary statement on ThinkProgress is labelled a rabid Bush/Republican supporter, as happens in 100% of all instances.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pmOK So now we know…this mission is doomed as well. This guy is obviously an airhead optimist, and yes man.
Typical of this administration.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:39 pmF’in-A. That’s all we need is Gomer leading the troops in bush’s iraq misadventure.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm.
Kilo, if I insulted you by referring to you as a Bush supporter, sorry. I know it’s a little embarassing supporting him these days. But, I did explain why I said “predictable.” It’s right there in the next sentence. And, in the first instance, you were using Americablog stats to make the point that dems are “not as popular as you think.” You left out those numbers because they didn’t support your thesis. Again, sorry about referring to you as a Bush supporter. I know that’s a huge insult.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pmKilo: “There’s a bumper sticker slogan if ever there was one. Democrats… they’ve earned the right to capitalization.”
A noun is still a noun, whether or not it’s capitalized. Same with an adjective. Are you being purposely obtuse or is English a second language for you?
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pmThe General in the pic looks like Gomer Pyle > lol. I bet he is stupid too!
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 pmWell no, it’s typical of ThinkProgress.
To leave you without any understanding of the topic you are commenting on, namely what kind of operator is Gen Petreaus.
And by “Gomer” you of course are referring to the man who’s leadership and tactics in treating Iraqi religious and social leaders respectfully, engaging them in providing their own security and using force as a last resort led to his AO having the lowest levels of crime and NO insurgency presence in post-invasion Iraq as the rest of the country was looted and burned. Him and only him.
That’s who you are referring to as “Gomer” and unworthy of heading Iraqi operations. The single solitary General who, if you knew WTF you were talking about, you would actually want in that role if your position was you wanted a major reversal of existing policy in Iraq.
But as we know, ThinkProgress says the General who achieved this sort of peace on the ground via such tactics was optimistic about the Iraq troops he later trained, so he is clearly the last person you want to take over Iraqi operations to pursue such success on a nationwide coordinated basis.
I mean it just makes sense. If you want the complete opposite of what has occurred to date in Iraq, why would you want the General who has shown he will embrace the complete opposite of those Pentagon tactics to the benefit of Iraqis, pacification of the insurgency and peaceful, cooperative governance ?
That’s not the kind of complete opposite Iraq policy you want is it. You want the complete opposite of the complete opposite… otherwise known as more of the same.
Could you have any less understanding of what you pretend to care about ? The only military leader ever championed by the left is Shinseki for saying you’d need a “couple of hundred thousand” more troops than Petreaus has said you need.
Yeah that makes so much sense. Why not ask for such a Iraq-proven successful General to be replaced for supporting a return of troop levels to 2004 levels with the only candidate ever praised…. the man who apparently would have wanted an *actual escalation* of several hundered thousand.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pmLooks like GWB isn’t the only one who pretends to read books.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 pmnot crazy about the dizzying way he says it, but kilo makes some valid points… i’ve always heard mostly good things about petraeus, especially this – “the man who’s leadership and tactics in treating Iraqi religious and social leaders respectfully, engaging them in providing their own security and using force as a last resort led to his AO having the lowest levels of crime and NO insurgency presence in post-invasion Iraq as the rest of the country was looted and burned.” -kilo
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 pmand wasn’t he pulled form his training duties just when things were looking up?
too bad that he “agrees with ’surge’ advocates.  but who better?
just asking…
who better to lead this escalation?
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 pmI don’t know that Petreaus was pulled from training duties just as improvement was showing, however he was judged to have done a better job than his predecessor and was only in that role for about a year.
But his achievements in that role are irrelevant. As we know he said that he was optimistic about what those achievements might be, thanks to ThinkProgress’ in-depth coverage of the real issues.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pmKilo = Seixon
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 amTroops under his command nicknamed him Gen. Betrayus…this should speak volumes.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 amGen. David H. Petraeus got to where he is in the Bush administration by being a yes man. End of story.
He may well be smart and all of that but none of that would have mattered if he would have been half the General that Shinsecki was by providing candid, truthful advise. Because of this I don’t expect things to go much better under Gen. Petraeus than they did under Gen. Casey. Tweaking the tactics will make little difference. After all, we have changed Generals before and not seen any real progress. The only thing that can make a real difference is changing the policy and even that will take time for meaningful progress to happen.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 amTroops under his command nicknamed him Gen. Betrayus…this should speak volumes.
Comment by chock — January 23, 2007 @ 5:00 am
enough for me… i’m probably mistaken about what i heard…
could be i was listening to satirical opinion…
sexion? he’s much too into himself to use another alias… imo…
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 amsexion? he’s much too into himself to use another alias… imo…
Comment by katy — January 23, 2007 @ 11:07 am
In this case,your opinion is wrong.
Seixon has posted under several alias’s in the past to avoid being shouted down with first post.
Kilo = Seixon
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pmThe boots on the ground call him General Betray Us. I think that says it all.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:51 pmWell yeah it does. It says you haven’t read any of the plethora of accounts of this General by those who have served under him appearing in the press and print over the past 3 years and you just made that up.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:35 amIn short, it says you are a wanker.