Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
our occupation is not necessarily a good thing:
"For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.
American officials backtracked on their expectations of what the U.S. military can achieve in Iraq months ago. But this week's comments showed that commanders believe a large U.S. force in Iraq might in fact be creating problems as well as solutions.
"This has been hinted at before, but it's a big shift for them to be saying that publicly," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in Washington. "It means they recognize that there is a cost to staying just as there is a benefit to staying. And this has not really been factored in as a central part of the strategy before."
The generals' comments reflect an evolving outlook that senior military officials and even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have articulated in recent months. The battle against Iraqi insurgents will not be won by the U.S. military, they have said, and the insurgency will persist long after U.S. troops have left.
"If [the insurgency] does go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever … it is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq," Rumsfeld said in June.
"They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time. They are ultimately going to be the ones who win over that insurgency."
The generals' words also represent a less ambitious definition of military success than what President Bush has put forth in recent statements."
--But President Bush knows more than professional soldiers, of course, so we'll "stay the course", whatever that means.--
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq1oct01,0,7766978.story?coll=la-home-headlines
"For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.
American officials backtracked on their expectations of what the U.S. military can achieve in Iraq months ago. But this week's comments showed that commanders believe a large U.S. force in Iraq might in fact be creating problems as well as solutions.
"This has been hinted at before, but it's a big shift for them to be saying that publicly," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in Washington. "It means they recognize that there is a cost to staying just as there is a benefit to staying. And this has not really been factored in as a central part of the strategy before."
The generals' comments reflect an evolving outlook that senior military officials and even Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have articulated in recent months. The battle against Iraqi insurgents will not be won by the U.S. military, they have said, and the insurgency will persist long after U.S. troops have left.
"If [the insurgency] does go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever … it is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq," Rumsfeld said in June.
"They're going to have to cope with that insurgency over time. They are ultimately going to be the ones who win over that insurgency."
The generals' words also represent a less ambitious definition of military success than what President Bush has put forth in recent statements."
--But President Bush knows more than professional soldiers, of course, so we'll "stay the course", whatever that means.--
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq1oct01,0,7766978.story?coll=la-home-headlines
