Bush is *not* allowing the generals to make the military decisions,
despite his rhetoric about the opposite. He is giving ground now
because he wants to keep negative press down before the election.
(1) We are losing ground that will cost *more* American lives when we
have to regain it after the election. (2) More troops should have been
sent and now will have to be sent if we are to be effective.
Consider the below excerpts.
--------
GOP BLASTS BATTLE PLAN
http://news.bostonherald.com/election/view.bg?articleid=45064
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) ripped Bush's handling of the war, pointing
to a spate of Bush administration missteps in Iraq and insisting a new
ground offensive was needed to quell the spiraling violence.
"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq,'' Hagel said on CBS'
"Face The Nation'' show, just two days before Bush makes a major
speech on Iraq at the United Nations.
"We're going to have to sustain, tragically, some more casualties,''
McCain said. "Airstrikes won't do it. Artillery doesn't do it. Boots
on the ground do it. And the longer we delay, the more difficult the
challenge is going to be and the more casualties we will incur.''
Some Democrats suggested Bush is waiting until after the election to
launch a major offensive. "The only thing I can figure as to why
they're not doing it with a sense of urgency is that they don't want
to do it before the
election,'' Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), said on ABC.
McCain said Bush must attack the insurgent strongholds.
Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman
and a respected voice on global affairs, criticized the Bush
administration for spending just $1 billion of the $18.4 billion
Congress approved to rebuild
Iraq.
"This is the incompetence in the administration,'' Lugar said on ABC's
"This Week."
SENATORS URGE BUSH TO RETHINK IRAQ POLICY
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/174187.html
McCain was asked about a report in Sunday's New York Times that U.S.
commanders were planning a drive in November or December to retake
areas where insurgents have won control. Such a timetable would place
the
operations after the Nov. 2 election for the White House.
McCain said Bush was not being "as straight as we would want him to
be" about the situation. "The longer we delay with these sanctuaries,
the more difficult the challenge is going to be and the more
casualties we will incur
and the Iraqi people will suffer because they will be able to operate
out of these sanctuaries obviously now with somewhat of impunity,"
McCain said.
It should come as no shock to anyone that there are different opinions on
how to run the war or that there are political considerations involved.
My suspicion is that there is a lull going on while the Iraqis themselves
get geared up to take over the security of their own country. I think the
basic plan is for US troops to pacify an area possibly with Iraqi help then
turn the area over to Iraqi security forces. But this requires that
adequate numbers of Iraqi security forces be hired, trained, and equipped,
all of which takes time.
"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bush is *not* allowing the generals to make the military decisions,
> despite his rhetoric about the opposite. He is giving ground now
> because he wants to keep negative press down before the election.
>
> (1) We are losing ground that will cost *more* American lives when we
> have to regain it after the election. (2) More troops should have been
> sent and now will have to be sent if we are to be effective.
>
> Consider the below excerpts.
>
>
> --------
> GOP BLASTS BATTLE PLAN
> http://news.bostonherald.com/election/view.bg?articleid=45064
>
>
> Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) ripped Bush's handling of the war, pointing
> to a spate of Bush administration missteps in Iraq and insisting a new
> ground offensive was needed to quell the spiraling violence.
>
> "The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq,'' Hagel said on CBS'
> "Face The Nation'' show, just two days before Bush makes a major
> speech on Iraq at the United Nations.
>
> "We're going to have to sustain, tragically, some more casualties,''
> McCain said. "Airstrikes won't do it. Artillery doesn't do it. Boots
> on the ground do it. And the longer we delay, the more difficult the
> challenge is going to be and the more casualties we will incur.''
>
> Some Democrats suggested Bush is waiting until after the election to
> launch a major offensive. "The only thing I can figure as to why
> they're not doing it with a sense of urgency is that they don't want
> to do it before the
> election,'' Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), said on ABC.
>
> McCain said Bush must attack the insurgent strongholds.
>
> Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman
> and a respected voice on global affairs, criticized the Bush
> administration for spending just $1 billion of the $18.4 billion
> Congress approved to rebuild
> Iraq.
>
> "This is the incompetence in the administration,'' Lugar said on ABC's
> "This Week."
>
>
> SENATORS URGE BUSH TO RETHINK IRAQ POLICY
> http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/174187.html
>
> McCain was asked about a report in Sunday's New York Times that U.S.
> commanders were planning a drive in November or December to retake
> areas where insurgents have won control. Such a timetable would place
> the
> operations after the Nov. 2 election for the White House.
>
> McCain said Bush was not being "as straight as we would want him to
> be" about the situation. "The longer we delay with these sanctuaries,
> the more difficult the challenge is going to be and the more
> casualties we will incur
> and the Iraqi people will suffer because they will be able to operate
> out of these sanctuaries obviously now with somewhat of impunity,"
> McCain said.
"WoodMangler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Bush is *not* allowing the generals to make the military decisions,
> > despite his rhetoric about the opposite. He is giving ground now
> > because he wants to keep negative press down before the election.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise here, but the information you
> provided has nothing to do with what the generals think or say, just what
> other politicians say. Can you provide something to support your
assertion?
You may remember a snafu when the administration overrode the army on troop
numbers, saying a lot less was sufficient. And the army went public. The
administration responded by reprimanding the Chief of Staff of the Army.
Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's
Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February
2003 that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops."
Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark." [USA Today,
6/2/03]
"It is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S.
Army Chief of Staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be
necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General Shinseki
now looks prescient." [McCain Speech To the Council on Foreign Relations,
4/26/04]
Powell Says The U.S. Miscalculated The Postwar Insurgency. In an interview
with Panama's TVN Channel 2, Powell admitted that the U.S. "miscalculated
the strength of insurgents in Iraq" and "it is clear we did not expect an
insurgency that would be this strong." [Associated Press, 9/2/04]
Perhaps they should all sign on to "alt lets pretend we know how to run a
war". mjh
--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:msi5d.977$Mf.165@trnddc05...
> So how does this relate to woodworking?
>
>
>
> Bush is *not* allowing the generals to make the military decisions,
> despite his rhetoric about the opposite. He is giving ground now
> because he wants to keep negative press down before the election.
I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise here, but the information you
provided has nothing to do with what the generals think or say, just what
other politicians say. Can you provide something to support your assertion?
"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bush is *not* allowing the generals to make the military decisions,
> despite his rhetoric about the opposite. He is giving ground now
> because he wants to keep negative press down before the election.
>
>
I suppose you have been sitting in on those meetings.