LibriumArcana.Games

If the articles I'd posted before didn't make it clear.. I have no faith in Petraeus. Yet his arrival in Washington is undoutably news. So here's a recap in the style of my Attorney General Scandal Updates.

For those with the stomach, the cable news channels are giving wall-to-wall cover of Petraeus coming down from the mountain with the giant stone tablets engraved with the answers. Well, that's how everyone's been playing it.

Before he even hit the steps of Congress, though, he hit his credibility hard. Tonight, he'll be spending an hour on Fox News for an exclusive interview. On the other hand, it'll be more coverage of the war than Faux has had in the last month.

In for a F.U. though. Petraeus has said that any decisions on troop deployments be delayed six more months. I will never grasp what the draw is; the war supporters increasingly say things about how pivotal every six month span is.(For those wondering, F.U. stands for Friedman Unit, as the Extremely Serious Tom Friedman has been saying 'It'll be better in six months... Since the war began.)

The incredible report which was first mandated by law to be from the President(Bet no one remembered that, huh?), then was promoted as Petraeus own words to improve it's credibility, then was revealed to being written by the White House.. Is looking like it's not going to appear at all. This one is one I'm skeptical on, because it originates from the Moonie Cult Times, but no report has manifested yet.

Then there's the numbers. The GAO report, the independent investigations, all find that the level of attacks remained flat despite the Surge, and civilian deaths are up. There's been progress in Anbar, but the Surge has been a troop surge in Baghdad.

The final thing is something everyone's too aware of. The political and economic rebuilding of Iraq has ground to a halt. The last major work being done I heard of was the Saddam Dam on the Tigris, and that's only putting bandaids on chainsaw wounds(The Saddam Dam holds back a few billions cubic feet of water.. And is on a limestone foundation.), and Maliki's government is increasingly not doing shit.

The highlights from the almost disgusting circus...

Petraeus is recommending a small drawdown of troops. When pressed on it by Sen. Jack Reed, he was forced to admit it's not 'conditions based' as has been flogged; it's the simple fact that some guys need home because no one else is able to be sent in.(There's also word going around that the Pentagon is going to recommend a much larger, and quote, 'rapid withdrawl', of, again, quote, 'Two thirds' of those in Iraq.)

That's the big thing that leapt out at me as unique, a rare confession of the reality. Petraeus does get points for not playing entirely by the White House playbook, however. When Lieberman(Independent, whatever bullshit he spouts.) basically asked 'Pretty please, can we go invade Iran?', Petraeus politely declined offer of authority to go start shit in a third country.

SirNitram wrote:The highlights from the almost disgusting circus...

Petraeus is recommending a small drawdown of troops. When pressed on it by Sen. Jack Reed, he was forced to admit it's not 'conditions based' as has been flogged; it's the simple fact that some guys need home because no one else is able to be sent in.(There's also word going around that the Pentagon is going to recommend a much larger, and quote, 'rapid withdrawl', of, again, quote, 'Two thirds' of those in Iraq.)

Supposedly, a Marine Captain got in trouble for telling the POTUS when he visited Iraq last week during a briefing something along the lines of "15 month deployments are great, it helps us get acclimated and learnt he terrain. But we don't have equal time between deployments, and it's destroying out military and our families."

That's the big thing that leapt out at me as unique, a rare confession of the reality. Petraeus does get points for not playing entirely by the White House playbook, however. When Lieberman(Independent, whatever bullshit he spouts.) basically asked 'Pretty please, can we go invade Iran?', Petraeus politely declined offer of authority to go start shit in a third country.

Patraeus is being a "good soldier", like Colin Powell during the first half of the presidency, and Westmoreland way back when were. I'm curious as to what the actual written report(if any) says. Blurbs in front of congress are meaningless.

Lonestar wrote:

SirNitram wrote:The highlights from the almost disgusting circus...

Petraeus is recommending a small drawdown of troops. When pressed on it by Sen. Jack Reed, he was forced to admit it's not 'conditions based' as has been flogged; it's the simple fact that some guys need home because no one else is able to be sent in.(There's also word going around that the Pentagon is going to recommend a much larger, and quote, 'rapid withdrawl', of, again, quote, 'Two thirds' of those in Iraq.)

Supposedly, a Marine Captain got in trouble for telling the POTUS when he visited Iraq last week during a briefing something along the lines of "15 month deployments are great, it helps us get acclimated and learnt he terrain. But we don't have equal time between deployments, and it's destroying out military and our families."

That's the big thing that leapt out at me as unique, a rare confession of the reality. Petraeus does get points for not playing entirely by the White House playbook, however. When Lieberman(Independent, whatever bullshit he spouts.) basically asked 'Pretty please, can we go invade Iran?', Petraeus politely declined offer of authority to go start shit in a third country.

Patraeus is being a "good soldier", like Colin Powell during the first half of the presidency, and Westmoreland way back when were. I'm curious as to what the actual written report(if any) says. Blurbs in front of congress are meaningless.

The only written report from Petraeus is his prepared opening statement. So much for the vaunted Petraeus Report, which would correct all that pesky bad news from the GAO and other sources.

I would say the letter qouted here comes close. Remind me Nitram, didn't you post earlier that Patraeus' report was redone by White House staff.

I should also note that General Westmooreland wasn't playing good solder. He very much believed in his idea of how to fight Vietnam and that it was a necessary war. To the point of blocking and sabotaging the alternative strageies being pursued by the Marine Corps (read CAPs) for not being aggressive enough.

He did more for Moscow then any 3 Red tank divisions of that time.

frigidmagi wrote:I would say the letter qouted here comes close. Remind me Nitram, didn't you post earlier that Patraeus' report was redone by White House staff.

Then it was being done by Petraeus, now it's just gone. It's a bizarre state of affairs. I'm wondering if the White House will turn in the report which is required by law. My guess? Since there is no legal penalty attached, they will not.