McCaffrey: Situation In Iraq Is Dire So We Need To ‘Stay The Course’
McCaffrey: Situation In Iraq Is Dire So We Need To ‘Stay The Course’
Last week, Gen. Barry McCaffrey delivered a dire report on the Iraq war to White House officials, concluding that Iraq is “ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels.” He wrote:
No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi — without heavily armed protection. In total, enemy insurgents or armed sectarian militias…probably exceed 100,000 armed fighters.
Despite such a dismal assessment, in an op-ed entitled “No choice: Stay the course in Iraq” in today’s LA Times, McCaffrey endorsed President Bush’s escalation and called for the the American people — who he said had “walked away from support for this war” — to “support the US leadership team in Iraq for this one last effort to succeed.” He added, “We will know by the end of the summer if Petraeus’ strategy is going to prompt an adequate political response from the Iraqis.”
McCaffrey’s argument, however, is a clear departure from his previous position on Iraq. Just four months ago in the Washington Post, McCaffrey declared that “we have run out of time” and laid out a 36-month long timeline for withdrawal:
Within the first 12 months we should draw down the U.S. military presence from 15 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), of 5,000 troops each, to 10. Within the next 12 months, Centcom forces should further draw down to seven BCTs and withdraw from urban areas to isolated U.S. operating bases — where we could continue to provide oversight and intervention when required to rescue our embedded U.S. training teams, protect the population from violence or save the legal government.
McCaffrey has been notoriously slippery about his position on Iraq. On November 26, 2006, McCaffrey appeared on Meet the Press and said “my guess is next four to six months are crucial” in Iraq. But on June 11, 2006 — five months before that — he was on the same show saying “I think between now and Christmas is the crucial time.” Time is up — redeployment from Iraq is now what’s crucial.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Stay the course???
Now there’s a strategy that Bush will love.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:59 pmI think we have a new time unit. McCaffreidmanrey? FreidMcManrey? ClusterF**reymanfried?
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 pmThis man is a characature. A cross between wonderful life and Ward Cleaver.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm“Six more months, just six more months!”
How many times have we heard this? And the President wants us to think that this six months will be any different? Laughable
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 pmSORRY Barry-boy, NO CAN DO! GET OUR TROOPS OUT AND HOME NOW, NO MORE OF THESE ENDLESS TOURS OF DUTY WHICH ARE WEARING OUT OUR SERVICE PERSONNEL TO THE POINT OF EXHAUSTION!!!!! DON’T BE A STUPID ASS Barry-boy!!!!!
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pmStay the Course?
Because that’s worked so well in the past?
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pmThe formidable, hard-hitting long arm of the Republican Party reaches far and there are dire consequences for those who do not submit to its will.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pmSomebody got a big pay check to tell this lie. It’s all about using once trusted people to lie for the White House. We can see what’s going on and with so much international news we do now know the truth. It’s sad to see military vets turn their backs on our troops for money. Now McCaffrey is now lying for Bush as he had a following of people that believed him. So many honest people are selling out for the money. Does anyone really care about our troops or is it just let them die until Bush decides he’s got the Middle East oil. Now even Mitt Romney wants to invade countries and start wars if he got to be President. Notice not a word about the draft just keep sending the current troops over there until they get killed. We know what happens to the injured troops. Now Bush is sending injured soldiers back to Iraq I guess that’s what Support our Troops mean. Support then to be killed if injured let maggots eat the wounds until then die.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 pmYes indeed, the situation is dire.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:09 pmAnd why is that, Barry?
Could it be that everything you gunslingers tried hasn’t worked?
Or maybe because it was a foolish idea in the first place?
No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi — without heavily armed protection. – - Barry’s gonna have to have face-to-face with Johnny Mc about this.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:09 pmApril 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
There was an item of great importance that was missed by the press so far. During the press conference today Pesident Bush was asked about the recent increases in the price of gas, Bush indicated that “people people get spooked when there com………..when it looks like there may be a crisis”.
He caught himself just as he was about to utter the word coming. If you can get a video of the conference, I think it will be pretty evident. Don’t know if the attack (the main reason for the surge/escalation BTW) is set for Friday, but the three carriers will be in position any day now.
Of course any action we take will only send the price of oil through the roof and furnish Iran with more money to by nukes and finance Hezbollah. They export 2 million barrels a day, so its easy to do the math.
Text from whitehouse.gov:
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, are you aware of the current price of a gallon of gas? Can you explain why it’s gone up so sharply in recent weeks? And is there anything in the near future indicating that prices might start coming down again before the heavy summer driving season?
THE PRESIDENT: About $2.60 plus.
Q Where are you shopping, sir? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Nationwide average. The price of gasoline, obviously, varies from region to region for a variety of reasons. Some has to do with the amount of taxation at the pump; some of it has to do with the boutique fuels that have been mandated on a state-by-state basis. But a lot of the price of gasoline depends on the price of crude oil.
And the price of crude oil is on the rise, and the price of crude oil is on the rise because people get spooked, for example, when it looks like there may be a crisis with a crude oil-producing nation, like Iran. But the whole point about rising crude oil prices and rising gasoline prices is that this country ought to work hard to get off our addiction to oil — all the more reason why Congress ought to pass the mandatory fuel standards that I set forth, which will reduce our use of gasoline by 20 percent over the next 10 years. And there’s two reasons why. One is for national security reasons, and two is for environmental concerns. And I hope that we can get this done with the Congress, get it out of the Congress to my desk as quickly as possible.
Audio:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070403.pod.a.mp3
Video:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070403.html#
Link on the right
Timestamp is 18:18 for Iran question
Time is 20:05 for gas question
Time is 20:46 for the screw up:
…because people get spooked for example [not in transcript] when there com… [continue from transcript] when it looks like (continue from transcript)
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
He knows that if he continues to support Bush while ignoring the rising body count maybe he, too, could one day become a cabinet member and commit political suicide on the floor of the UN.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:19 pmwho let this idiot out of his cage! there’s gonna be poop everywhere!
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm“Crucial….Crucialer….Crucialest….which is it McCaffrey? Perhaps it’s really “most crucial” or is it just “very crucial”?? Maybe it really happens to be “less crucial” at this point? In fact, it is precisely that – more crucial for us to get the hell out of this festering hell hole this village idiot got us into …. and less crucial that we sacrifice our men & women for a ridiculous, perhaps even illegal, war?? Which is it, double talking general?
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pmEvery week Gen. McCaffrey has a different position, a different criticism, a different compliment, a different strategy sometimes all within the same press conference. McCaffrey has no credibility with anyone outside of the Republican Party and only then on those days he agrees with them.
AF
Malkin and her ilk have grown both fat and crafty suckling at the teat of Rove.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:25 pmFrankly, I think everyone in this administration needs to be sent to Iraq so they can see things up-close-and-personal and perhaps then they might have a clue!
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:25 pmNo, No, No. Think Progress rightfully excoriates McCaffrey for advocating that the U.S. stay the course in Iraq. But then Think Progress does what so many Democrats do and that is to recommend that the U.S. begin to “redeploy” the troops. It should be made clear that redeploying the troops is not the same thing as returning them back to the United States. Redeploying the troops would mean sending them, to use Murtha’s term, “over the horizon”, which would mean having the troops sent to Kuwait or Qtar or Oman, where they could then be sent back to Iraq at the discretion of the United States, where they could inflict more misery upon the Iraqi people.
Or redeploying the troops could mean keeping a certain amount of troops in Iraq, as H. Clinton and Biden have suggested, for security reasons. Both plans would draw the ire of the Iraqis because they would once again resent the unwelcome presence of the U.S. military in their country. Would Think Progress advocate that an armed foreign milita be allowed to remain in Canada or Mexico or were allowed to stay in the United States for “security reasons”? This simply comes across as another example of how Americans, both liberals and others such as McCaffrey, are unable to empathize with the feelings of people who live outside the United States.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmABC: Iran added 1000 centrifuges
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:38 pmI think when our orangutan atheist overlords* arrive from Borneo, McCaffrey will soon learn what’s what.
*See The Carpetbagger Report for the lowdown on this.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmThis simply comes across as another example of how Americans, both liberals and others such as McCaffrey, are unable to empathize with the feelings of people who live outside the United States.
Comment by Erroll — April 3, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Do you think Hillary and Joe Biden represent liberals? The definition of liberal, or at least the practice, is based on the concept of empathy. There aren’t a lot of liberals in the Democratic Party.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 pm“We will know by the end of the summer if Petraeus’ strategy is going to prompt an adequate political response from the Iraqis.â€
Sounds like a timetable.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:57 pmDo you think Hillary and Joe Biden represent liberals? The definition of liberal, or at least the practice, is based on the concept of empathy. There aren’t a lot of liberals in the Democratic Party.
Comment by gogreen
And there are soooo many in the Republican Party . . .
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:11 pmGogreen at #20
I agree. Barring a miracle in which either Dennis Kucinich of Mike Gravel becomes the presidential nominee for the Democrats, it is all but certain that I will be voting for the Green candidate in 2008. A candidate who advocates immediate withdrawal from that quagmire in Iraq and a single payer health care system will have made a persuasive case in obtaining my vote.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:13 pmStay the course until Bush can pit the blame on Dems for not giving enough funds or the next President for not being strong enough! I support the timeline for the war; we need some sense and structure in Iraq along with multilateral cooperation in the region. Mostly, I agree with setting a timeline because the $340 billion spent in the Iraq debacle can be utilized in beneficial ways.
According to the Borgen Project, a group that is lobbying political leaders to support the UN Millennium Development Goals, just a fraction of the military budget can end starvation, provide education for every child in the world and reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. We need leadership that will be progressive in tackling major issues in the world.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:14 pmDid you just see what he said on MSNBC “Give them six more months”.I say its time to redeploy.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm438,000 Americans killed in War in 2006
America has 12 times the population of Iraq.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pmHow would we feel if:
UN reported that Iraqi deaths averaged 100 per day in 2006.
100 X 365=36,500 X 12=438,000
Lancet Report on Iraqi deaths is now up to 655,000.
655,000 X 12= 7,860,000
Reports vary but many say 2,000,000 have fled their homes.
2,000,000 = 24,000,000.
438,000 killed in one year
7,860,000 killed in four years.
24,000,000 lost their homes.
Oh! How we mourned for 35 years the loss of 58,000 soldiers.
Oh! How we had world ending crisis in New Orleans with loss of homes.
Oh! What a crisis with loss of 2500 Americans from twin towers disaster.
HOW WOULD WE FEEL WERE WE VICTIMS LIKE IRAQIS? Think on it.
Clarence Swinney
Political research historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II administrations
It has become all too clear that there is not ONE administration official or military leader that knows what is going on, and/or how to fix this mess. What a huge f cking disaster this administration has brought down on the American people and the world.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:24 pm@clarence:
I agree and I certainly don’t condone what’s going on in Iraq. What I think is interesting though is the incredible domestic social vices that plague us that never get attention any more. Deaths to drunk driving alone, for example, outnumber deaths in Iraq 13 to 1. I wrote a full on article on the War in Iraq vs. Drunk Driving, but it’s a little long to post here. Feel free to read up if your interested.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:33 pm“Stay the course.” What was that definition of insanity again?
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pmStay the course? I don’t think so McCaffrey, so blow it out your ass.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:55 pmI didn’t walk away from this war – I was never for this war – I knew from day one that is was a futile exercise in epic quality hubris – and a blatant grab for oil by the Bush Family Cartel. And if the vast majority of Americans are only now waking up to what has happened, they have every right to walk away – we should impeach Bush, Cheney, et al. and turn them over to the International Court of Justice for the war crimes they have comitted. Then maybe, just maybe the world will start to forgive us, and maybe, just maybe we can begin to forgive ourselves.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 pmS.T.F.U.
Comment by Juan C
Exactly what I was going to say.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 pmDo you think that these retired military officers want the war to stop…? why should they?..they will end up mowing their backyard grass if war stops….
With wars going on…they stay on the air with big contracts given by major networks providing experience with maps all over the place…
So ‘STAY THE COURSE’ is a very much desirable option for these people.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pmMcCaffrey Compromised:
By Some Situation / Set of Circumstances Bushies Have His Short-hairs Gripped With.
What else is new?
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 pmit is now a teevee personality, hence has no respect at all. it sold it. and it must not have been worth too much either
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 pmMcCaffrey is sometimes presented on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, with Olbermann never presenting an opposing viewpoint to McCaffrey’s vacillating stance on Iraq. But then again, it is quite rare, if ever, for Olbermann to have on his program an antiwar voice such as a Dennis Kucinich or Amy Goodman or Kevin Zeese or Stacy Bannerman or Anthony Arnove or Howard Zinn or Cindy Sheehan or Norman Solomon or Alexander Cockburn, et al, to counter the arguments of the hawks who permeate the corporate airwaves that are heard in America today.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 pmIt is not a war, it is an occupation. You do not win an occupation. You do not escalate an occupation. All you can do in an occupation is stay the course or leave. The president declared the war over and victory won back in the codpiece spectacular.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:56 pmWhich is it gonna be guys?
McCaffrey: It’s a catastrophe… we need to stay the course!
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:02 pmMcCain: I had a peachy time at a Baghdad market… we need to stay the course!
McCaffrey is a consultant for the Pentagon on Iraq so he is a war-profiteer.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 pmErroll,
Just to clarify, redeployment generally means coming home. I was deployed from Fort Hood, Texas to Kuwait in 2000, then redeployed back to Texas. In 2003 I was deployed from Utah to Baghdad for over a year, then redeployed back to Utah. For most current/ex military, redeployment generally means coming home. (I know, tiny point, I hate to nitpick).
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:27 pmIt is not a war, it is an occupation. You do not win an occupation. You do not escalate an occupation. All you can do in an occupation is stay the course or leave.
#
Comment by coal_train — April 3, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
#
Good point.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:29 pmHe used to be the drug czar. Why is anyone surprised that he’d be willing to keep fighting a war than can never be won?
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 pmThen HIS al Crackkker a*s can pay for it…
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:48 pmChris L at #40
I do not think that you are nitpcking in what you have said but it is important to keep in mind that when the Democrats say that they are in favor of the troops being redeployed, it means that they are endorsing Congressman Murtha’s position of redeploying American troops “over the horizon” which, as I mentioned at comment #17, …”would mean having the troops sent to Kuwait or Qtar or Oman, where they could then be sent back at the discretion of the United States, where they could inflict more misery upon the Iraqi people.”
Unless I am wrong, I believe almost all the Democrats, with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel, wish to redeploy those troops “over the horizon”, where they can be brough back into Iraq at the slightest whim of the United States while Ron Paul, a libertarian/Republican, is the only Republican that I am aware of who is advocating that the troops be withdrawn, not redeployed, “over the horizon”.
I still stand on what I had said at comment #17. The U.S. has no business keeping troops in Iraq or in the surrounding area where they can be sent back to wreak more havoc upon the Iraqi people.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pmThe formidable, hard-hitting long arm of the Republican Party reaches far and there are dire consequences for those who do not submit to its will.
Comment by Tigris Lily
Have you submitted your will?
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:32 pmMr. McCaffrey’s statements are a pretty clear declaration of ethical, moral, strategic, and intellectual bankruptcy.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 pmBut I thought that Saint McCain proved that things were getting better by strolling through a Baghdad market with 100 soldiers, the three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apache gunships.
So confusing…
One day it’s better… the next day it’s worse.
And what the hell does saying “ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels.” supposed to mean?
How is a “low grade” civil war also “catastrophic”?
What would a full blown civil war by classified as? Apocalyptic?
I’m soooo confused.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 pmRyan Powers notes “Time is up — redeployment from Iraq is now what’s crucial.”
May I suggest, Ryan, you need to get up to speed on the official “talking points.” I just got through watching Keith O for a WHOLE five minutes (I had a strong stomach tonight!) while Sen. Feingold was discussing, not “re-deployment” but WITHDRAWAL AKA “surrender”. Sen. Feingold’s proposed surrender includes the following announcement,”White flags may be picked up after mess hall – will someone please lock the door on the way out?”
April 4th, 2007 at 12:26 amWhat less than valiant venus conveniently neglects to mention is who these mysterious people the United States would be surrendering to. Would that be the all of 2000 outside forces who are fighting against the U.S. and coalition forces? Or would that be the 98 per cent of Iraqis who are fighting to make sure that the less than benevolent U.S. military are no longer occupying their country? I realize this may be difficult but try to imagine what it would be like to have armed foreign soldiers roaming the streets of the United States with an armed assault rifle exposed in their hands. If you could actually work up a little empathy for what the Iraqi people are going through, then you might actually realize that they probably feel anger, fear, resentment at the sight of these intimidating foreign soldiers illegally occupying their country.
Also, as independent journalist Nir Rosen has reported, members of Al Qaeda are looked down upon with derision by both the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq and if and when the U.S. finally leaves Iraq, it is quite doubtful if the outside forces will increase in numbers once the U.S. is [finally] gone from Iraq.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:32 am#48 Surrender what, skank? What do we lose. I will tell you. We will lose a huge drain on our economy, nothing else. You are so incredibly stupid.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:33 am“re-deployment†but WITHDRAWAL AKA “surrenderâ€.
Comment by valiant venus
Surrender?
I wonder who we are supposed to be “surrendering” to?
Dont’ we have to know who we are fighting first, before we know who we are “surrendering” to?
Does anybody really know WTF is going on over there anyway?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:58 amHmmm… if it’s a civil war, who are we surrendering to?
Enquiring minds need to know.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:00 amMcCaffrey wants two Friedmans! On the News Hours last night, Senator Shelby only asked for one (actually he asked for 1.3).
April 4th, 2007 at 7:08 am#39 McCaffrey is a consultant for the Pentagon on Iraq so he is a war-profiteer.
Not surprising!
Cheney probably arranged his company Halliburton/Blackwater to cut him a nice big early Christmas thank you.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:23 amI’m certain that the White House can assist McCaffery in obtaining many lucrative positions on the board of directors of various corporations. These jobs require nothing more than showing up four times a year for a meeting, rubber stamping the CEO’s recommendations and collecting a nice check. On the other hand, if he doesn’t play ball with Bush and Cheney these perks become infinitely harder to get. He’s a typical Republican whore.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:39 amSome people seem to forget all the lives, and resources that have already been wasted on this war. $340 billion has gone into Iraq and yet victory is still as elusive as ever. Perhaps it’s time those promoting the war come to grips with our inability to “fix” Iraq and accept the timeline to withdraw. Then perhaps our administration will remember that while they have been focused on Iraq, millions of people are starving everyday. The Millennium Goals were set to eliminate world hunger and according to the Borgen Project this can be achieved with $19 billion annually. How about instead of sending additional troops we do something to actually save some lives?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:48 amThose of you with a deep interest in Iraq should check our finding out. When it comes to foreign affairs, public anxiety is rising. While the war is definitely a driving force, the public’s uneasiness spills over into the entire range of challenges facing the United States. Overwhelmingly, the public embraces diplomatic measures, with 44% of those surveyed favoring diplomacy with Iran and an addition 28% backing economic sanctions. Favor for military action is in the single digits. Our anxiety indicator is currently at 137 on a 200-point scale, edging toward the 150 point mark that we would consider a crisis of confidence in government policy. Go to http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm to check out the fourth edition of our “Foreign Policy Index.â€
April 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pmThis guy is starting to sound like a “loyal bushie”.
April 4th, 2007 at 5:21 pm