I'm an US Army veteran who served in Afghanistan in 2005, and I listened to General Petraeus's report yesterday, and I believe that he was telling the truth (for the most part). However, there's this other part of me that keeps telling me that the White House influenced his report. The Bush Administration has allocated a lot of money to the US Military. So, I'm pretty sure that the White House had some influence on how the General wrote his report.
One of the Army Values is Integrity. However, when I was in the service, I've seen that value violated quite a few times. So, do you think General Petraeus's report was telling the "whole truth" or only a "part-truth"?
*BTW, in my unit, General Petraeus's haircut would've been considered a violation of Army regulations.
2007-09-11 01:59:54 · 11 answers · asked by Mr. Main Event 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It was statiscally accurate and truthful. Just not what the Dems wanted to hear though, so they will try to smear him and call him a puppet of Bush. It's truly a shame that such a large segment of our population is so heavily invested in our failure.
2007-09-11 02:12:01 · answer #1 · answered by booman17 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
As far as Petraeus....I thought the republicans tore him a new one far more than the dems did at those hearings, yet I don't hear the neo-cons condemning these republicans? Isn't it odd that the best liberals in those hearings were republicans?
In the 2008 elections, I believe repub senators, up for re-election, outnumber Dem candidates by two to one. The same holds true for the 2010 elections...not to the same extent, perhaps, but the repubs are in danger of being mired in the minority party for years on end.
That's why repubs are speaking out...they rightly fear for their political futures. Military families know the truth, and they want their soldiers home. I can supply matters of public record that prove other high ranking officials in the military do not believe we are accomplishing anything in Iraq and are actually hurting and depleting our military, putting our nation at greater risk.
There is a bill that is getting solid support, that will end the numerous extended tours of our soldiers. Every year in Iraq will mean one year stationed stateside. That alone will help end this war. It will not be sustainable with current troop levels.
Based on Gen. Petraeus's own Army Field Manual on Insurgency, we need 1 soldier for every 40 civilians. This means we should have 650,000 troops in Iraq to achieve any substantial progress.
We all know this level of committment will not happen, and is not even possible.
When the surge troops come home to pre surge levels, Bush will be left with one choice...admit troop levels are not adequate to accomplish anything, or start the draft.
We, as liberals, libertarians, or true Goldwater conservatives simply need to bide our time until 2008-2010 when the neo-con party will have no hope of being any more than the minority party for a good 40 years.
God Bless America, and thank you for the patriotism of dissent, and the freedom to question our government.
From a former veteran
2007-09-13 07:03:21 · answer #2 · answered by Stan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure how truthful were Gen. Petraeus's statements are. But I have read many news reports from other independent media sources that were covering the Iraq War which says the opposite of what he claims in his report.
But this one thing I know for sure. If General Petraeus ever made statements in his report that are unfavorable to the White House point of view, he'd be a sure goner by now, just like the rest of the generals that came and went before him.
We have to admit that the US military had now become more highly politicized than it ever was. The military had now become a political tool of those in power, and used for the pursuit of political agendas. Could it be that the "Military Industrial Complex" that President Eisenhower warned us about in the 50's is happening now?.
2007-09-11 03:07:03 · answer #3 · answered by Botsakis G 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey, I guess when you are a general you can fudge the hair standards a bit. 6 hours of questioning and 2 more days to come. Plus the late night interview last night. The entire planet having eyes on him? The guy must be dragging hard.
Of course politics are involved. But I think that he tried to make the point. Unfortunatly the media twists it in a certain way. He tried to show the way that the military actually does things. But the average joker who only watches TV and surfs the net would not get it.
I found it interesting that Iran kept coming up. Someone told him he could do that....... plainly say Iran and Syria are helping to kill our troops. We know this but on a major news feed? Something is up with that.
I as well spent 3 years in the sand and spent time as well the first time around.
2007-09-11 05:33:18 · answer #4 · answered by jackson 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I read what he has said. I think he's telling us all he popssibly can. Why would he lie? Army Values, Integrity. He says there is progress, there probably is, there always was in some form or another if you leave out the fact that Al-Quaida is there screwing things up (that's a terrorists mission!)
What I can't stand anymore is the way this country has been tearing itself apart over the last couple years. The Rep and Dems have always been two sides of the story, but anymore they seem like two sides of the country equivalent to the sunni's and shi'ite's in the muslim world, and we see where that difference has gotten them. It's like a political cold civil war. Lots of name calling by each side, but no fists thrown, yet. After the "Betray-Us" remark, I wouldn't be surprised if there are. (in my opinion that was the most unprofessional thing anyone in the press has ever said and this a-wipe should be fired!) it's crap tlike this that makes the U.S the laughing stock of the world anymore.
It's like finding out the Captain of the football team, whom most look up to, has a cross dressing fetish on saturday nights. We're loosing respect.
2007-09-11 02:25:46 · answer #5 · answered by Sean C 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
primary Petraeus is a hand picked puppet of Bush. he will say what he's instructed to assert. That pronounced, i do no longer see how we are in a position to depart Iraq now that we've opened this could of worms. disgrace on us for doing so, whether it will in straight forward terms be worse if we basically depart it.
2016-10-18 21:03:33 · answer #6 · answered by blide 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a military spouse, I too believe that he was correct in some aspects. The bottom line is that we need to get out. I understand that if we pull out, there will be some civil war, but the Iraqi people and government need to step up and take responsibility for their country.
Our troops are there and and DYING!!! We have lost one too many lives in this pointless battle. And for what? I will argue to the death that no WMD's were ever there. If some were found or if there were some the government would be posting that information all over the news to justify "their war" and if the media found out they would have posted it as well.
2007-09-11 02:10:52 · answer #7 · answered by Mary A 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't know yet - I'll need to compare notes between the testimony, the White House report, and the GAO review.
2007-09-11 02:08:13 · answer #8 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have watched the Dem's attack the Commander in chief relentlessly and now the General, I would not be surprised to see them go and attack the troops as they just hate anyone they have to look-up to
2007-09-11 02:15:43 · answer #9 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
my fear is that he might be cast in the same light as general colin powell who was duped by the administration into surrendering his credibility. only time will tell.
2007-09-11 15:52:27 · answer #10 · answered by john j 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋