Victory Is Not an Option - Gen. William Odom

[fastpat]

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy

By William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

[Dottore]

Excellent post.

That should really be required reading for everyone in the US Administration.

[74-911]

Originally posted by Dottore
Excellent post.

That should really be required reading for everyone in the US Administration.

+1

Unfortunately, no one in the executive branch of W.'s administration reads newspapers.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by 74-911
+1

Unfortunately, no one in the executive branch of W.'s administration reads newspapers.

The newspapers or old, has-been, cold-war generals will not provide the strategy to win this or any war. Thinking that it will is about as realistic as the liberal claim that if we leave Muslim terrorists alone, they will be our friends.

[livi]

I suppose it its a catch 22 situation. I suspect the motive for intervention has always been to gain access and power in the part of the world with most oil. Pulling out will mean chaos and lost power. Waiting until it stabilizes with hopefully a more or less democratic domestic government will risk inviting China as a big player. Staying/increasing forces will risk a never ending blood shed.

Quite a predicament.

These are just my ignorant thoughts of course.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by livi
I suppose it its a catch 22 situation. I suspect the motive for intervention has always been to gain access and power in the part of the world with most oil. Pulling out will mean chaos and lost power. Waiting until it stabilizes with hopefully a more or less democratic domestic government will risk inviting China as a big player. Staying/increasing forces will risk a never ending blood shed.

Quite a predicament.

These are just my ignorant thoughts of course.

You are right. As the Senate stated in their resolution to go to war....there were/are very many reasons to go to Iraq...and even more to finish what we started. It is too bad that so many seek to use the difficulty of war for political opportunism...and too bad the rest of the world do not have the nerve to defend their way of life. The lesson is not lost on the fundamentalist Muslims who will view our failure as vindication of their evil methods.

[hardflex]

It's too bad so many seek to use the difficulty of war as the preferred option.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
You are right. As the Senate stated in their resolution to go to war....there were/are very many reasons to go to Iraq...and even more to finish what we started. It is too bad that so many seek to use the difficulty of war for political opportunism...and too bad the rest of the world do not have the nerve to defend their way of life. The lesson is not lost on the fundamentalist Muslims who will view our failure as vindication of their evil methods.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Herman Goering, April 18, 1946.

[Rearden]

Pat, that's a Godwin's Law violation.

[CRH911S]

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?
Senator Murkowski (R) is hearing our troops and likely to support most of the resolutions before Congress. I think this is the trend around most of the country except for the southeast portion. That's to be expected.

[jluetjen]

Interesting, that to date, most of the Pelican's surveyed disagreed with the Congressional resolution disagreeing with troop surge.

[stevepaa]

some of the comments on your resolution thread are really a yes vote not to put more troops in, but a no vote on the current wording.


why not do a different poll, staright forward.

Do you think the sending of more troops into Iraq is the correct next step?

[jluetjen]

I purposely didn't rephrase the resolution (except to add the reference to Pelican) because I'm curious how Congress' vote outcome will jibe with the population as a whole, and more specifically in this case, the population of the unscientific sample known as the Pelican Parts BBS Off-Topic forum.

The Dem's and the press make it out that the majority of the population is against Bush's decision. That's what people say, but as many elections have shown, what people actually vote is often something different.

Anyhow, it's non-binding and in the case of the Off-Topic forum, all in fun. Right?!