He makes some pretty grandiose statements considering that almost 2,100 Iraqi civilians were killed in July 2007. The numbers in August are expected to be higher. That does not add up to 1/4 Mr. Petraeus.
Petraeus said the buildup strategy had turned U.S. forces into pursuers instead of defenders.
He said religious and ethnic killings, or "ethno-sectarian deaths," were the most important measure of progress and that the number of people killed on religious and ethnic grounds in the capital was going down.
"If you look at Baghdad, which is hugely important because it is the center of everything in Iraq, you can see the density plot on ethno-sectarian deaths," the newspaper quoted him as saying.
"It's a bit macabre but some areas were literally on fire with hundreds of bodies every week and a total of 2,100 in the month of December '06, Iraq-wide. It is still much too high but we think in August in Baghdad it will be as little as one quarter of what it was," it quoted Petraeus.
2007-08-31 08:43:57 · 8 answers · asked by David K 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Either 2100 were killed in July or they were not.
If thats not a "clue" what is?
2007-08-31 10:12:06 · update #1
So you will take the comments not backed by facts over factual numbers?
Your mistake.
Numbers don't lie people do.
2007-08-31 10:13:44 · update #2
Interesting that Petraeus did not even mention the July numbers.
If he wanted to impress the military worshipers
don't you think he would have given us facts instead of words?
Opinions mean nothing without proof.
I gave you factual numbers.
July had the second most murders of 2007 after May and August will be worse.
Believe what you want but each and every person that thinks without logic that this war is
is working will be held accountable.
This is a country of people not of government and a military.
911 happened because of bad government oversight and a worthless CIA.
The American people no longer trust the US government.
2007-08-31 10:21:05 · update #3
And what makes you think that you have enough of a clue to question those people who have been there?
2007-08-31 09:06:37 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Well, Gen Petraeus is a great general, But even though he is a General he still has bosses he has to answer too. When you're a officer in the military, if you say or do anything against your chain of commands policies, you get fired, its messed up, but thats the way it works. I think you'd some one would have to be ignorant to expect anything less than a good progress report on Iraq, no matter what the actual progress is over there.
2007-08-31 17:32:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
General Petraeus is without a doubt one of the best Generals that the Army has had in a long time. He understands that in order to make progress in Iraq that certain actions must happen, through no fault of anyone over there. It is just the nature of the beast. He knows that no matter how much "progress" we make over there that the insurgents will continue to attack Americans as well as the local populace. Many of the local populace are of the opinion that all of the deaths over there, whether from Allied gunfire or insurgent gunfire is the America's fault because it is only happening because of America's presence. Though this is false, because the violence has always been over there, even long before America ever was a presence over there, GEN P. still continues to make the hard decisions that must be made in order to aid the Iraqi's with all of the freedom's that they have been fighting for for generations.
More importantly, I say that GEN P. is one of the greatest Generals because a driving force in every decision that he makes is the welfare of all of his soldiers. I have served under him during 2 different year long deployments over there and was even a member of one of his PSD teams. He asks for feedback and opinions from those close to him and respects their judgements. Although at times, the decisions that he makes involving a much grander picture than the normal soldier realizes, GEN P. will take the time to explain why certain decisions are made and how in the long run, those decisions always benefit the soldiers far more so than hurt them.
2007-08-31 17:19:52 · answer #3 · answered by zitterich138 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no war in Iraq. The war and General Petraeus is a just another lie George Bush is telling us. Also, there is no Iran. It doesn't exist.
2007-08-31 16:57:44 · answer #4 · answered by rod901 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ill take his word over a Yahoo Answers poster's opinion.
2007-08-31 16:49:01 · answer #5 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
true, and yet not true...
I think that only religious fanatics, and the people who had friends and family die on 9/11, still believe that their is a chance to win, most other people have accepted that it's not going to happen.
Just my interpretation of the war... and wansn;t it more than 2,100 civvies... and who counts the combatants, their casualties to!
2007-08-31 16:00:54 · answer #6 · answered by J dog 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
David Petraeus is in Iraq, again, Your Not...
so how is it you are an expert?
2007-08-31 17:45:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He says what he thinks the people above him wants him to say.
2007-08-31 18:33:21 · answer #8 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋