The "Experts" on Iraq
Posted on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:47:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Anthony C. Zinni . . . argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it. “The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. . . . I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.” Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.
Um, they are not capable of stopping the sectarian violence so that's why we should commit MORE forces to Iraq? Sounds like Rummy talk to me. This is beyond absurd. I would ask General Zinni this question, when do we win? Because 6 months ain't going to do it. 10,000 troops ain't going to do it. Straight talk please. If you don't want us to leave, tell the truth and tell us what it would cost, in blood and treasure.
[S]ome current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to consolidate their control of the capital.
Since all of this is already happening what in blazes are these generals talking about?
John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”
Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.
And Batiste calls is naive? He lives in a fantasyland. He wants all that and I want a pony. Neither of us is likely to see our wishes fulfilled. Just how nuts is Batiste?
Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.
The man is delusional. That will NEVER happen. Ever.
Some military experts said that while the American military is stretched thin, the number of American troops in Iraq could be increased temporarily — by perhaps 10,000 or more, in addition to the 150,000 or so already there — by prolonging combat tours.
Yes, 10,000 more troops will do the trick. I officially do not listen to Zinni and Batiste anymore. They live in a world of fantasy.
| < Jack Abramoff Reports to Prison | Republicans Choose Senate Leaders: Lott's In > |
