Top U.S. Military Officer Recommends ‘We Remove All Troops From Baghdad’

[240 is Back]

REPORT: Top U.S. Military Officer Recommends ‘We Remove All Troops From Baghdad’

Think Progress | October 28 2006

President Bush has consistently said that his strategy in Iraq is dictated by military officials on the ground. Last night on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, columnist Mark Shields revealed that one of the “highest ranking men” in the military has recommended removing all U.S. troops from Baghdad. Here’s the key excerpt:

MARK SHIELDS: The highest ranking or certainly one of the highest ranking men in the United States military today has recommended that we remove all troops from Baghdad, all American troops from Baghdad…All of the troops out of Baghdad, secure the road to the airport, secure the oil fields and the borders, and say that the pacification and the maintaining of order in Baghdad is the responsibility of the Iraqis. That is the recommendation of probably one of the most — probably the most respected man in uniform today.

JIM LEHRER: You mean in uniform, serving on active duty today?

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right.

JIM LEHRER: So who did he make this recommendation to?

MARK SHIELDS: He made it to the civilian leadership of the United States.

If Shields’ report is true it represents an acknowledgment by the military that the conspicuous presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is actually making the situation worse. This is one of the core rationales of the American Progress plan, Strategic Redeployment.

NOTE:
CNN columnist Mark Shields - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shields
He is a liberal, but a very well connected and respected liberal nonetheless.  I wonder if the identity of the top military leadership will leak in the coming days...

[Dos Equis]

Sounds like a possibility.  He didn't say remove them from Iraq.  I'm all for it if it will save American lives. 

[240 is Back]

Sounds like a possibility.  He didn't say remove them from Iraq.  I'm all for it if it will save American lives. 

Me too dude.  This si a good solution.  Guard the oil, borders, roads, and stay the hell outta the messy area.   Initially, you'll have a spike in violance, but the newly unleashed Iraqi police will shoot that down in a few months.  It's going to happen eventuall anyway.  And I'm SURE our forces wouldn't mind the boring aspects of guarding an empty field all day.  No IEDs, no suicide bombers.  Anyone you encounter out there, you kill at 100 yards without question.

I think this idea is awesome.  I hope the mainstream media gives this notion a little play and it gets some support.

[Al-Gebra]

Me too dude.  This si a good solution.  Guard the oil, borders, roads, and stay the hell outta the messy area.   Initially, you'll have a spike in violance, but the newly unleashed Iraqi police will shoot that down in a few months.  It's going to happen eventuall anyway.  And I'm SURE our forces wouldn't mind the boring aspects of guarding an empty field all day.  No IEDs, no suicide bombers.  Anyone you encounter out there, you kill at 100 yards without question.

I think this idea is awesome.  I hope the mainstream media gives this notion a little play and it gets some support.

not a good solution, and more importantly, not a good political solution. 

[pumpster]

Letting them go at it while staying on base ready for occasional forays as needed sounds like a plan-time to let them kill each other and wait till the dust settles.

[Clubber Lang]

the objective in iraq isnt peace, its a sustained chaos, they are not stupid and this type of terrorist/gurilla war was anticipated and fueled. as long as there is shit happening there, the US has an excuse to maintain and expand upon their infrastructure in the region.

the troops arent coming home for a long time, as i pointed out in another post they are building permanent bases there for a reason.

[240 is Back]

the troops arent coming home for a long time, as i pointed out in another post they are building permanent bases there for a reason.

Actually, a guy named beach Bum from the internet heard from his neighbor, a PFC, that we weren't going to stay. 

So I either have to believe you and everything presented by the empirical evidence of present and past events, or I have to believe BB's neighbor.  Decisions...

[Slapper]

Me too dude.  This si a good solution.  Guard the oil, borders, roads, and stay the hell outta the messy area.

Which I suppose it's not what is happening already? I guess our troops are there feeding the poor and spreading our benign version of democracy. They were put there to get into harms way so that you and I could drive our big trucks for 2 cents per gallon and those who made that decission, as American as apple pie, including Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld; ought to be given the lethal injection for that.

Initially, you'll have a spike in violance, but the newly unleashed Iraqi police will shoot that down in a few months.

Right!! Never mind that the place will fall into full fledge civil war, a million innocent people will die and our plan to "spread democracy" will become a huge success. Next thing you know people will be flying planes into buildings or worse yet, planting a-bombs in the middle of Brooklyn and G-boy will say that they do it because they hate our "democracy".   

It's going to happen eventuall anyway.  And I'm SURE our forces wouldn't mind the boring aspects of guarding an empty field all day.

You're forgetting the fact that there are private contractors in Irak already doing that. They just make 5 times what a regular soldier makes. The HUGE problem is that the private contractors work for companies subcontracted by Halliburton (Cheney's old company) and God knows NOONE touches Halli's employees!!

No IEDs, no suicide bombers.  Anyone you encounter out there, you kill at 100 yards without question.

And hence that's why people fly planes into buildings.

I think this idea is awesome.  I hope the mainstream media gives this notion a little play and it gets some support.

You are the master, paisan!! We need more people like you in the Pentagon. They sure need some fresh new ideas that will gather the consensus of most of the countries in this world. The United Nations will surely receive your initiatives to "kill at 100 yards without question" with an open mind... the only problem is that we're pretty much doing that already... beside the torturing, raping and God knows what else.

God bless all peoples of this world.

[240 is Back]

Okay, this is a middle-of-the-road solution. What is yours?

The extremes are 1) stay in iraq in the cities, and lose 5 men a day, or 2) Pull out completely, and lose the oil infrastructure and pipeline we went in for (never will happen).

What is your solution?

[Dos Equis]

Actually, a guy named beach Bum from the internet heard from his neighbor, a PFC, that we weren't going to stay. 

So I either have to believe you and everything presented by the empirical evidence of present and past events, or I have to believe BB's neighbor.  Decisions...

Actually, Beach Bum never said that, but I think we all know you have a problem distinguishing truth from fiction. 

[240 is Back]

My bad.  Who was it?  One of the regulars whose basis for longterm US presence was "my neighbor told me".  My apologies.

[Clubber Lang]

Actually, a guy named beach Bum from the internet heard from his neighbor, a PFC, that we weren't going to stay. 

So I either have to believe you and everything presented by the empirical evidence of present and past events, or I have to believe BB's neighbor.  Decisions...

nobodys putting a bucket over your head!

[Slapper]

Okay, this is a middle-of-the-road solution. What is yours?

The extremes are 1) stay in iraq in the cities, and lose 5 men a day, or 2) Pull out completely, and lose the oil infrastructure and pipeline we went in for (never will happen).

What is your solution?

Don't ask me, ask Bush & Cheney!! Most of that shithole we call the South voted for their Messiah and now we're paying for it. There's an election coming up, so that's where you and I can make a difference (or so they say).

Having said the above, do not believe, for a second, that there is a short-term solution to the War on Terror, much less the war in Iraq. I do believe that there is a long term way out though, although Halliburton and the other big oil companies have been lobbying for years against it because they can't make a dime out of it (yet): hydrogen or other renewable resources.

I know it's a beat up subject, but the more you think of it the more sense it makes. If you put 1/1000th of the resources we already spend in Iraq in renewable energy research we'd pretty much need not worry about what happens in any countries east of Greece for the next millenium.  

At this point in time we're going in the opposite direction, and the countries holding most of the oil, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.; are pissed off at us and signing contracts with China, which has a potential army of half a billion souls, enough to make some damage in a conventional war, nukes or not.

Another thing we should do is keep the Bushes and the Cheneys away from the White House dude. These rich ass types are seriously f-ing up the image the world has of Americans. Any CNN or ABC or NBC employees can tell you that (they are usually booed wherever they go, and when at a war setting they have to be accompanied by a bunch of tanks).

[Dos Equis]

My bad.  Who was it?  One of the regulars whose basis for longterm US presence was "my neighbor told me".  My apologies.

I talked to my neighbor about troop morale.   

[240 is Back]

I talked to my neighbor about troop morale.   

Are you sure you never made a statement about not setting up longterm military bases, based upon his statements?

[Dos Equis]

Are you sure you never made a statement about not setting up longterm military bases, based upon his statements?

Why you don't go back and read my posts.  You made a dumb comment.  You figure it out yourself. 

[JOHN MATRIX]

Having said the above, do not believe, for a second, that there is a short-term solution to the War on Terror, much less the war in Iraq. I do believe that there is a long term way out though, although Halliburton and the other big oil companies have been lobbying for years against it because they can't make a dime out of it (yet): hydrogen or other renewable resources.

I know it's a beat up subject, but the more you think of it the more sense it makes. If you put 1/1000th of the resources we already spend in Iraq in renewable energy research we'd pretty much need not worry about what happens in any countries east of Greece for the next millenium.  

At this point in time we're going in the opposite direction, and the countries holding most of the oil, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc.; are pissed off at us and signing contracts with China, which has a potential army of half a billion souls, enough to make some damage in a conventional war, nukes or not.

Another thing we should do is keep the Bushes and the Cheneys away from the White House dude. These rich ass types are seriously f-ing up the image the world has of Americans. Any CNN or ABC or NBC employees can tell you that (they are usually booed wherever they go, and when at a war setting they have to be accompanied by a bunch of tanks).

good post here Slapper. too bad it will never happen. the same kind of people are always the only ones in the running for president. its really not all that different than a monarchy, the richest, most politically connected families always produce our leaders, whether they are qualified or not.

our current president was given the most important job in the world for no reason other than that his father held the same position.

[240 is Back]

I apologized.  I thought for sure we had a discussion about pulling out of Iraq based upon your neightbor's words.  but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[Slapper]

good post here Slapper. too bad it will never happen. the same kind of people are always the only ones in the running for president. its really not all that different than a monarchy, the richest, most politically connected families always produce our leaders, whether they are qualified or not.

our current president was given the most important job in the world for no reason other than that his father held the same position.

I agree, but you cannot deny that the situation requires a change!!

I think the origin of this dilema we got ourselves in is due to the fact that we tend to think that a poorman cannot be president. It's the proverbial carrot in front of the rabbit.

We need various things to happen:

1) No lobbying allowed;

2) Teach the new generations that someone who makes 50 grand a year can do just as good a job as someone making 100 times that;

3) If you've been the CEO, CFO, COO, bitch or rat of any corporation you CANNOT become a senator, congressman, representative, president or vicepresident.

4) If you send our kids to war, EVERYONE of the senators, congresmen, representatives president and vicepresident MUST send one of their kids to war. YOu have no kids? Send a relative you really care about.

I'm sick and tired of these corporate types who insist we need to be led. F-ck it dude! They're the real enemy. My company is outsourcing some departments to India next year and 1,500 people are going to lose their jobs. Do you think they care? I have 0 tolerance for these people. They ought to be tried and, if found guilty, if they've f-cked enough people's lives: put them in the electric chair, give them a lethal injection, lynch them, whatever. Make 'em disappear. They don't give a shit about us, why should we give a shit about them?

[Dos Equis]

I apologized.  I thought for sure we had a discussion about pulling out of Iraq based upon your neightbor's words.  but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

No biggie.  "It's water over the bridge."  F. Flintstone. 

[240 is Back]

Iran says U.S., Israel ordered September 11 attacks
Wed. 06 Sep 2006
Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – The Supreme Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps accused the Bush Administration and the Israeli security service Mossad of ordering the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC.

“The events of September 11 were ordered by U.S. [officials] and Mossad so that they could carry out their strategy of pre-emption and warmongering and unipolarisation in order to dominate the Middle East”, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi told military commanders on Tuesday. His comments were reported by the state-run news agency ISNA.

General Safavi said that Iran was the leading force of the “Islamic world”. “The geographic heart of the Islamic world is in Mecca and Medina. But, the political heart of the Islamic world is in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is the flag-bearer of the front of Islamic awakening and the fronts of the awakening of third world nations”, he said.

He said that Washington had been defeated in its strategy of “attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon” and creating a new order in the Middle East.

“The U.S.’s neo-conservative strategy was to dominate the vast energy resources of the Persian Gulf in order to be able to control Europe, China, and India and drive the world to a unipolar state. Therefore, it planned to change undesirable regimes such as those of Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and Afghanistan”.

The IRGC general said that the Lebanese militia Hezbollah had defeated Israel during their recent war. “After many years, the political and military image and hollow might of the Zionist regime was broken and the real power of Hezbollah fighters was proven. Thus, Hezbollah defeated Israel”.

He described Washington and Tel Aviv as two “inter-continental threats” against Tehran. “The U.S. must be livid at Iran because of its disgraceful defeats in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Regarding [Iran’s] nuclear dossier, it might try to create circumstances so that slowly but surely economic and political pressure is applied against Iran by the [United Nations] Security Council”.

He accused Washington of plotting a “cultural” attack on Tehran by setting up new radio and television stations broadcasting into Iran, supporting dissident groups, and stepping up intelligence operations. “Therefore, the armed forces must be completely prepared in order to combat any forms of foreign and domestic threats”, he said.

He charged that Britain and the U.S. were stirring ethnic and religious divisions in Iran, in particular in the provinces close to the country’s frontiers.

The IRGC’s primary task is to export the Islamic revolution to Jerusalem via Baghdad.

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of many officials who stem from the IRGC
 

[JOHN MATRIX]

I'm sick and tired of these corporate types who insist we need to be led. F-ck it dude! They're the real enemy. My company is outsourcing some departments to India next year and 1,500 people are going to lose their jobs. Do you think they care? I have 0 tolerance for these people. They ought to be tried and, if found guilty, if they've f-cked enough people's lives: put them in the electric chair, give them a lethal injection, lynch them, whatever. Make 'em disappear. They don't give a shit about us, why should we give a shit about them?

hahahahah awesome
i agree with u slapper. but theres simply nothing the common man can do about that stuff not in this country.

[Mr. Intenseone]

REPORT: Top U.S. Military Officer Recommends ‘We Remove All Troops From Baghdad’

Think Progress | October 28 2006

President Bush has consistently said that his strategy in Iraq is dictated by military officials on the ground. Last night on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, columnist Mark Shields revealed that one of the “highest ranking men” in the military has recommended removing all U.S. troops from Baghdad. Here’s the key excerpt:

MARK SHIELDS: The highest ranking or certainly one of the highest ranking men in the United States military today has recommended that we remove all troops from Baghdad, all American troops from Baghdad…All of the troops out of Baghdad, secure the road to the airport, secure the oil fields and the borders, and say that the pacification and the maintaining of order in Baghdad is the responsibility of the Iraqis. That is the recommendation of probably one of the most — probably the most respected man in uniform today.

JIM LEHRER: You mean in uniform, serving on active duty today?

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right.

JIM LEHRER: So who did he make this recommendation to?

MARK SHIELDS: He made it to the civilian leadership of the United States.

If Shields’ report is true it represents an acknowledgment by the military that the conspicuous presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is actually making the situation worse. This is one of the core rationales of the American Progress plan, Strategic Redeployment.

NOTE:
CNN columnist Mark Shields - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shields
He is a liberal, but a very well connected and respected liberal nonetheless.  I wonder if the identity of the top military leadership will leak in the coming days...

It's Liberal spin.......everyone knows that we have to pull out of Iraq, it's just a matter of when. The retarted Liberals want the troops out NOW (a la; Cut and Run)......it's not like it's anything new!!

[Mr. Intenseone]

Iran says U.S., Israel ordered September 11 attacks
Wed. 06 Sep 2006
Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – The Supreme Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps accused the Bush Administration and the Israeli security service Mossad of ordering the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC.

“The events of September 11 were ordered by U.S. [officials] and Mossad so that they could carry out their strategy of pre-emption and warmongering and unipolarisation in order to dominate the Middle East”, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi told military commanders on Tuesday. His comments were reported by the state-run news agency ISNA.

General Safavi said that Iran was the leading force of the “Islamic world”. “The geographic heart of the Islamic world is in Mecca and Medina. But, the political heart of the Islamic world is in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is the flag-bearer of the front of Islamic awakening and the fronts of the awakening of third world nations”, he said.

He said that Washington had been defeated in its strategy of “attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon” and creating a new order in the Middle East.

“The U.S.’s neo-conservative strategy was to dominate the vast energy resources of the Persian Gulf in order to be able to control Europe, China, and India and drive the world to a unipolar state. Therefore, it planned to change undesirable regimes such as those of Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and Afghanistan”.

The IRGC general said that the Lebanese militia Hezbollah had defeated Israel during their recent war. “After many years, the political and military image and hollow might of the Zionist regime was broken and the real power of Hezbollah fighters was proven. Thus, Hezbollah defeated Israel”.

He described Washington and Tel Aviv as two “inter-continental threats” against Tehran. “The U.S. must be livid at Iran because of its disgraceful defeats in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Regarding [Iran’s] nuclear dossier, it might try to create circumstances so that slowly but surely economic and political pressure is applied against Iran by the [United Nations] Security Council”.

He accused Washington of plotting a “cultural” attack on Tehran by setting up new radio and television stations broadcasting into Iran, supporting dissident groups, and stepping up intelligence operations. “Therefore, the armed forces must be completely prepared in order to combat any forms of foreign and domestic threats”, he said.

He charged that Britain and the U.S. were stirring ethnic and religious divisions in Iran, in particular in the provinces close to the country’s frontiers.

The IRGC’s primary task is to export the Islamic revolution to Jerusalem via Baghdad.

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of many officials who stem from the IRGC
 

Rob, you really have me worried when you post articals that starts with "Iran said" and follow it up with something about 9/11. I mean really, who gives a shit what Iran says especially when it reguards 9/11 and them accusing us, they are a terrorist state and the President (of Iran) is a freaking terrorist!!

[240 is Back]

IRAN - I agree the leader should be in a box.  But it's important, as Americans, to know what the enemy is saying about us.  We used to have shady dealings with iran.. they know a lot about Bush 1 and his CIA mess of the late 70s.  And whether it's true or not, it give us Americans a chance to know what the enemy is saying about us.

THAT ARTICLE ABOUT IRAQ - I thought that was actually a good idea.  It wasn't a cut-n-run idea.  it was a "let the iraqis handle the cities on their own, and we can guard borders and oil infrastructure and airports.  It would save American lives, and we'd still be calling the shots.  It would just mean that we'd be in safer places there. 

I thought it was a nice moderate solution... we wouldn't be leaving, just turning over the most dangeroud duties, to the locals.