Good news in Iraq

[IntruderLS1]

Report: Petraeus Expected to Propose Iraq Pullback Plan

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

• E-MAIL STORY
• PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

The top U.S. general in Iraq is expected to recommend removing American troops from several areas in Iraq where commanders believe security has improved, according to a report on Wednesday in the Los Angeles Times.
According to officials, Gen. David Petraeus is expected to propose the partial pullback in his September status report to Congress. Administration officials hope the general’s recommendations will persuade Congress to reject pressure for a major U.S. pullout from Iraq.
Click here for the full report.
The recommendation would allow U.S. commanders in the field to turn over security functions to Iraqi units, and redeploy them to other hot spots or as reserve forces, according to the report.
"That is the form of the recommendation we are anticipating him to come back with," a senior administration official said. But referring to the redeployment options, the official added, "I just don't know which of those categories he is going to be in."
/**/ Petraeus has not told the White House where he might recommend reductions. But military commanders have indicated in recent briefings that Nineveh province in northern Iraq and its capital, Mosul, like Anbar in the west, could be an area from which it might be suitable for the U.S. to withdraw.

 

[Tim]

Indeed that is good news

Why is Patraeus' report so anticipated by congress and the President? Since when does a general dictate policy? General MacArthur didn't even have that much power as to be able to dictate policy. Doesn't the policy of the war fall under the direct responsibility of the President, not the "war czar" or the generals? Is this a way for Bush to isolate himself from blame or criticism if something goes wrong with General Patraeus' plan? Does anyone know of any other war or major conflict where the President has been so far removed from the decision making aspect of it? Indeed the President needs to hear from his generals to make informed decisions, but it shouldn't be the generals that are reporting to congress. Bush is the commander in chief, so why is he laying all the responsibility on the shoulders of Patraeus and his new "war czar"? Is he that busy that he cannot bother himself with his "war on terror"?

 

[JuJu]

Indeed that is good news

Why is Patraeus' report so anticipated by congress and the President? Since when does a general dictate policy? General MacArthur didn't even have that much power as to be able to dictate policy. Doesn't the policy of the war fall under the direct responsibility of the President, not the "war czar" or the generals? Is this a way for Bush to isolate himself from blame or criticism if something goes wrong with General Patraeus' plan? Does anyone know of any other war or major conflict where the President has been so far removed from the decision making aspect of it? Indeed the President needs to hear from his generals to make informed decisions, but it shouldn't be the generals that are reporting to congress. Bush is the commander in chief, so why is he laying all the responsibility on the shoulders of Patraeus and his new "war czar"? Is he that busy that he cannot bother himself with his "war on terror"?

BRAVO!

This site needs an applauding or clapping smiley coz Mr Tim hit the nail right on the head!!!

Here's the best smiley I could find for his outstanding questions!!: :rockon:

 

[All Else Failed]

gooooood

 

[dt3]

Indeed that is good news

Why is Patraeus' report so anticipated by congress and the President? Since when does a general dictate policy? General MacArthur didn't even have that much power as to be able to dictate policy. Doesn't the policy of the war fall under the direct responsibility of the President, not the "war czar" or the generals? Is this a way for Bush to isolate himself from blame or criticism if something goes wrong with General Patraeus' plan? Does anyone know of any other war or major conflict where the President has been so far removed from the decision making aspect of it? Indeed the President needs to hear from his generals to make informed decisions, but it shouldn't be the generals that are reporting to congress. Bush is the commander in chief, so why is he laying all the responsibility on the shoulders of Patraeus and his new "war czar"? Is he that busy that he cannot bother himself with his "war on terror"?

Generals deploy the troops to specific locations, not the President. I wouldn't want the President making these kinds of decisions. Leave it to the military to decide how to fight the war. They're the ones over there every day and know the situation the best.

Besides, if Bush made this decision people would probably be saying it's a political move by the Republicans to help their election chances. This way, it's purely a military/strategic decision.

 

[Tim]

Generals deploy the troops to specific locations, not the President. I wouldn't want the President making these kinds of decisions. Leave it to the military to decide how to fight the war. They're the ones over there every day and know the situation the best.

Besides, if Bush made this decision people would probably be saying it's a political move by the Republicans to help their election chances. This way, it's purely a military/strategic decision.

I'm not talking strategy. I'm talking policy. It's the President's responsibility to make policy decisions in war time. It's not up to the Generals to determine how much longer we stay, that's up to the commander in chief.... right?

 

[dt3]

I'm not talking strategy. I'm talking policy. It's the President's responsibility to make policy decisions in war time. It's not up to the Generals to determine how much longer we stay, that's up to the commander in chief.... right?

It doesn't say Petraeus is pulling out, he's talking about realigning our forces and turning over the security of some areas to Iraqis, which has been the plan all along.

 

[Tim]

I'm talking more about his September report, not the article.

 

[dt3]

Ah, gotcha My guess is Congress "requested" it :dunno

 

[IntruderLS1]

The General isn't setting policy, the President is. The report due in September is simply the commander's report to the President of the success of the surge.

The President has said repeatedly that he is listening to the commanders in the field before he makes his decisions, but they are in the end his decisions to make.

If we go back in time to the early 1970's, everybody was pissed at the President because he was trying to micro-manage the war. We took much larger losses, and ultimately were not able to accomplish our goals because of this management from the Oval Office.

Look at the ass kicking the President took over doing business that way.

Bush is calling the shots, but he's not listening to political rivals to do it. He is using information gathered from FAR more reliable sources.

The poor Generals in this conflict are getting dragged into the political fray by both sides in Congress, but not the President.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Good post Intruder, as usual.

 

[The_Rooks_Revenge]

Indeed that is good news

Why is Patraeus' report so anticipated by congress and the President? Since when does a general dictate policy? General MacArthur didn't even have that much power as to be able to dictate policy. Doesn't the policy of the war fall under the direct responsibility of the President, not the "war czar" or the generals? Is this a way for Bush to isolate himself from blame or criticism if something goes wrong with General Patraeus' plan? Does anyone know of any other war or major conflict where the President has been so far removed from the decision making aspect of it? Indeed the President needs to hear from his generals to make informed decisions, but it shouldn't be the generals that are reporting to congress. Bush is the commander in chief, so why is he laying all the responsibility on the shoulders of Patraeus and his new "war czar"? Is he that busy that he cannot bother himself with his "war on terror"?

Your right in the fact that "War must serve policy" but policy is changes as a result of war. 8000 series my man. lol. ZFunny shit aside. War is ever changing and fluid. results decide how policy is to be changed or adjusted. This man holds the most accurate results. His results are so "awaited" cause this war is like no others. Every move is so scrutinized and public. I might make a bet saying that every war was just like this but there wasnt so many eyes seeing and reporting on it.