Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Charles Schumer disses military in Iraq


81artmonk

Recommended Posts

Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge ---- not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves." It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here.

(charles Schumer D. New York)

Wow, I haven't seen this reported on any of the News networks. This just blows me away. Well, I lie, no it doesn't. You may dis the error in how we went about it, but to slam the troops saying they aren't getting it done, is just too low for my taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am not sure if he is slamming the troops, who couldn't protect the tribes: There just aren't enough troops in that region to have really done the job, and they can't garrison every single town or village. And that is one reason some of these tribes formed anti-AQ alliances, which indeed is responsible for why the tide has turned against Al-Qaida in that region. Until that time, I remember reports virtually writing off Anbar, since there weren't enough boots on the ground to secure the entire region. Then reports started to trickle out of insurgents fighting Al-Qaida, which has led to the recent alliances against the terrorist organization.

Anbar is a relative largea area to secure, as well as having borders with Syria, so it was a difficult assignment for the military.

Perhaps it could have been worded a little differently, but Schumer is correct to a degree. Various tribes forming alliances and including insurgent groups has made a significant, if not primary, impact in Anbar, and the situation wasn't necessarily affected by the Surge (which I am not sure was really aimed at that area, so it may be a moot point, either way). It further has to be mentioned that the tribes feel more confident having the backing of the U.S. in their fight in western Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, thee once was a time when the only argument over a war would have been how to best win it.

And then our country was run over with politicians who smoked too much dope. We are still trying to weed out these spineless communists from our political ranks. Until then expect these type of comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History will not be kind to George W. Bush.

I think it will be quite the opposite if Iraq can be re-made into a peaceful democratic nation. The good things that could come of that will reverberate throughout the Midle East and down the line of future history. That's not to say that history will record him as brilliant. He has not handled the details well at all. But I believe history will show that going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it could have been worded a little differently, but Schumer is correct to a degree. Various tribes forming alliances and including insurgent groups has made a significant, if not primary, impact in Anbar, and the situation wasn't necessarily affected by the Surge (which I am not sure was really aimed at that area, so it may be a moot point, either way). It further has to be mentioned that the tribes feel more confident having the backing of the U.S. in their fight in western Iraq.

Agreed. I'd like to see/hear this quote in full context. I very seriously doubt he was "dissing" the military in Iraq. Even if he felt that way, he'd never say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am not sure if he is slamming the troops, who couldn't protect the tribes: There just aren't enough troops in that region to have really done the job, and they can't garrison every single town or village. And that is one reason some of these tribes formed anti-AQ alliances, which indeed is responsible for why the tide has turned against Al-Qaida in that region. Until that time, I remember reports virtually writing off Anbar, since there weren't enough boots on the ground to secure the entire region. Then reports started to trickle out of insurgents fighting Al-Qaida, which has led to the recent alliances against the terrorist organization.

Anbar is a relative largea area to secure, as well as having borders with Syria, so it was a difficult assignment for the military.

Perhaps it could have been worded a little differently, but Schumer is correct to a degree. Various tribes forming alliances and including insurgent groups has made a significant, if not primary, impact in Anbar, and the situation wasn't necessarily affected by the Surge (which I am not sure was really aimed at that area, so it may be a moot point, either way). It further has to be mentioned that the tribes feel more confident having the backing of the U.S. in their fight in western Iraq.

I heard his comments last night. See this comment for what it is. The surge is working and it scares the hell out of many of the democrats. Many places in Iraq that the democrats waived the white flag on are now becoming peaceful, anti AQ areas. Instead of giving the military credit for the changes, he insults them by saying things have turned around in spite of them. Try to spin it anyway you want, it is insulting and he is further proof of many democratic leaders rooting against our military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard his comments last night. See this comment for what it is. The surge is working and it scares the hell out of many of the democrats. Many places in Iraq that the democrats waived the white flag on are now becoming peaceful, anti AQ areas. Instead of giving the military credit for the changes, he insults them by saying things have turned around in spite of them. Try to spin it anyway you want, it is insulting and he is further proof of many democratic leaders rooting against our military.

I dunno - I think some folks want the U.S. to leave Iraq regardless of the success, or failure, of the Surge. Perhaps it does benefit some folks if the Surge failed, just like it benefits others if it has success - "spin" can most certainly go both ways with this issue.

Here is the issue: The Surge isn't necessarily responsible for the success in Anbar. I think it HELPED, in that it gave some of the Iraqis confidence, but ultimately, events were unfolding in this region before the Surge actually began. Also, I believe the Surge was really aimed at trying to secure Baghdad, not Anbar, and having insurgents fighting against Al-Qaida, instead of us, most certainly helps as well.

If you have been following events in Anbar, then you will see that it wasn't the Surge that truly affected events in Anbar. These events were put into motion months ago, and it was Al-Qaida's own actions against the tribes and the towns in the West that turned many of the insurgents and tribes against them. THAT, ultimately, had more of an affect the probably anything else.

So, if we are giving credit where credit is due, perhaps we should give some credit to the Iraqis who are risking their lives to fight against Al-Qaida and other foreign elements? After all, a lot of them fear being pulled out of their house in the middle of the night and having their head removed, or dying in a suicide bomb blast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will be quite the opposite if Iraq can be re-made into a peaceful democratic nation. The good things that could come of that will reverberate throughout the Midle East and down the line of future history. That's not to say that history will record him as brilliant. He has not handled the details well at all. But I believe history will show that going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

Still drinking the cool aid I see :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard his comments last night. See this comment for what it is. The surge is working and it scares the hell out of many of the democrats.

How come 15 out of the 18 objectives failed then? If you go up to the plate and get a hit 3 out of 18 times you are batting below the Mendoza line, and even in baseball standards, where succeeding 3/10 times makes you a hall of famer, it is a miserable record.

Yep, pay no attention to what we said, we reserve our right to do the complete opposite because we know what is best. . .even though we have not given a smidgen of credibility to ourselves, or anything that we have stated has come true, we are right none the less:doh:

How many times do you eat brown turd that they tell you is a brownie? Do you stop being tricked after the 5th time? how about the 10th? Well, we are on try number 79 here, and you are still shoveling :pooh: down your throat like it is the chef's special of the day. At what point do you admit you are eating crap? Or are you one of the ones who knows all along you are eating :pooh:, but would never admit a mistake, so you keep on eating :pooh: and telling everyone else what they are missing, and how great the "brownie" is? I believe you fall into that category :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno - I think some folks want the U.S. to leave Iraq regardless of the success, or failure, of the Surge. Perhaps it does benefit some folks if the Surge failed, just like it benefits others if it has success - "spin" can most certainly go both ways with this issue.

Here is the issue: The Surge isn't necessarily responsible for the success in Anbar. I think it HELPED, in that it gave some of the Iraqis confidence, but ultimately, events were unfolding in this region before the Surge actually began. Also, I believe the Surge was really aimed at trying to secure Baghdad, not Anbar, and having insurgents fighting against Al-Qaida, instead of us, most certainly helps as well.

If you have been following events in Anbar, then you will see that it wasn't the Surge that truly affected events in Anbar. These events were put into motion months ago, and it was Al-Qaida's own actions against the tribes and the towns in the West that turned many of the insurgents and tribes against them. THAT, ultimately, had more of an affect the probably anything else.

So, if we are giving credit where credit is due, perhaps we should give some credit to the Iraqis who are risking their lives to fight against Al-Qaida and other foreign elements? After all, a lot of them fear being pulled out of their house in the middle of the night and having their head removed, or dying in a suicide bomb blast.

I appreciate your perspective but I just don't agree with it. The Iraqis fighting AQ are assisted by our military or vice versa. For him to say they are successful IN SPITE of our troops is dishonest, misleading and an insult to our military. There is no doubt that Schumer along with many other dems are nervous about the success of the surge. Why would any American want to root against the military? Political gain is the answer. Why wouldn't they give the military credit but still bash the Iraqi gov't. That is where the problem lies. The gov't is a corrupt mess, not the military. Unfortunately, this country is so divided that he will not pay for his comments because many on the left are also rooting for defeat. That is a sacrifice many on the left are willing to accept in order to win the 08' election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...