Who do you believe, Gen Petraeus or the media? A 4 Star General versus the leftist/anti-Bush media?

Question

I think this is a no brainer. Moveon.org's add only further lets us know that the surge is working and that Democats know it.
Success for our troops is defeat for our democrats . AND THEY KNOW IT!

Just you watch. As the situation on the ground gets better and better and better, the propaganda attacks on our soldiers and Bush will increase. As we begin to turn the situation around in Iraq and give the Iraqi's a chance at freedom and peace, the democrats and liberals and leftist Europeans' will only increase their assult against our nation.

Anyway, Petraeus is doing a great job - though there is still much to be done - and it seems as though George Bush is going to stand firm and do what we all know to be right. To win in Iraq.


We are going to win people - but it may take a few more years - lets give our support to our soldiers and our President!!

Answer 1

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ***-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

Answer 2

General Petraeus was merely acting as the mouthpiece of an utterly discredited President who has dragged America's name to the lowest point it has ever been and damn near destroyed it's economy in the process.

What I find most alarming is that there are still a few gullible people prepared to back Bush despite the damage he's done.

I am not saying America should simply pull out, they've caused untold damage, killed thousands of innocent people, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and created a political vacuum into which religious fanatics and assorted maniacs of all kinds have eagerly moved determined to make life even more unbearable for the ordinary Iraqi's that the "Coalition" has already done.

If they leave now there will be a bloodbath and Iraq is likely to be completely destroyed. The least they can do is try and rebuild Iraq and create a semblance of normality before they run away.

Answer 3

They will do anything to belittle the good General. This is why anyone who pays attention has to believe him over the media.
It's amazing to see jerks seriously MISquoting retired Generals and, of all people, Admirals! You would think they would know Admirals work in the NAVY.
What is worse is the extent to which the mis quote and literally lie about the facts. They take a mildly diagreeable comment about other things add a few lies and bingo, total crap.
Saying an Admiral disagrees with something is totally appropriate. But with the outrageous BS spin they add it's plain abuse. These extremists are the problem with Y/A.

Answer 4

Who do you believe, General Petraeus or his commanding officer, the director of Middle East operations?

Who do you believe, General Petraeus, recently-installed to run this surge, or the government reports that have come out saying the Iraqi government has failed? Petraeus admits this is true.

Also, General Petraeus wrote an article in 2004 saying the Iraqi insurgency was almost over. He was dead wrong.

Answer 5

Theres no such ingredient as preventive conflict. there is in basic terms the pretext which makes use of words like preemptive conflict as a justification for military intervention. In all circumstances, this has been used against international locations that are incredibly inferior militarily to the single instigating polemics. Bush 40 3 used preemptive warfare, yet so did Clinton, Bush 40-one, and Reagan, who became into the 1st neo-conservative president. He continuously suggested using rigidity to bounce his enemies in such threats to nationwide risk-free practices as Panama, Nicaragua, and Grenada. Kennedy tried its use interior the Bay of Pigs. If Ike became into no longer serious of Truman -- who all started the completed affair while he invaded Korea and delivered on a extensive conflict -- then he ought to no longer probable despise Bush. What you should understand is that preemptive warfare is a catchword and that jointly as working classification youths would die, the capitalists proceed to make income interior the conflict financial device. that's the contradiction of the army commercial complicated that Ike emphasised and which individuals have did no longer heed.

Answer 6

I do beleive that Petraeus is an egotistical, thinks he is, trying to make a name for himself on the corpses of his dead comrades. The surge is woking ? Ha! Ha! Take a look at the casualty figures for August they are on the up not the down. As to winning this campain, No Way. Read your history books. No occupying force has ever won. So go home and leave them to sort out the mess YOU have made. We in the rest of the world don`t have to beleive all the B/s that comes out of the American Administation. Have you ever given thought to paying for all the damage and distuction you cause with your bombs and shells!

Answer 7

Yes, but look at General Westmoreland during Vietnam. We had to artificially increase the body count to show the folks back home that we were making progress. I have been skeptical of what I hear from Generals ever since then. I do support the troops because my child is serving in Iraq.

Answer 8

There are quite a few Generals who don't agree with Patraeus.

In a New York Times op-ed column, retired Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation. Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.

Publicizing his book, "The Battle for Peace," in a recent "Meet the Press" appearance, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the Central Command, describes administration behavior that ranged from "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence and corruption." Another Marine, retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, has written in Time magazine that the Iraq war was unnecessary. Finally, Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon have written a history of the invasion of Iraq, Cobra II, which describes a willfully self-deluding planning process.

Now, on CNN, Maj. Gen. John Batiste also called for Rumsfeld's resignation; the Washington Post reported that Batiste, commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq during 2004-2005, turned down a third star and a tour in Iraq as the second-ranking U.S. military officer there. He retired rather than continue to work for Rumsfeld.

Answer 9

I would believe Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), who told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ***-kissing little chickenshit."

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq...
The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region.

Answer 10

the general is a great guy doing his job. he is honest and couragous if you like a butt kissing yes man !!!!!!!

However

ballocks.. the war in iraq is lost and has been for some time. if GW BUSH keeps up this luniucy the GREAT US of A will go down in bankupt flames. this all because of a junior style dictator named Bush. As he is used at the end of his puppet masters strings.

the soldiers are great people doing a very tough job in a battle they are looseing rapidly.. just a little longer are the famous last words of all the indesissive leaders who have no idea how to win a war they have no idea how to fight,

i love americans and thier country as i love my UK and our soldier who fight G W BUSH's folly.. if you believe what BUSH's government and his plan has to say then you must be in the 28.7% who still follow is meandering train of thought and deception through this plan with no vision or ending.

this is fast becoming the USA's afganistan as it was for the USSR

Answer 11

Well, since you put it that way--

A series of INDEPENDANT studies and reports--by other generals and high ranking officers--all contradict Petraeus.

So does Admiral Fallon--Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Petraeus lied--and betrayed the best interests of the men and women serving under him. But the cons don't whant to hear that--because they don't give a rat's a-- about the troops, or this country--only about "killing muzzies."--and of course, worshipping their little tin god in the White House.

moveon.org didn't go far enough--Petraeus should be cort-martialed for lying to Congress.