Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 18, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


A New Way Insurers Are Shifting Costs to the Sick
Climate Action and Economies Can Grow Together




On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar
Toward an Open Tomb

Toward an Open Tomb

By Michel Warschawski
$14.95

more items

 
A/V Booth

Does Gen. Pace Agree with John Kerry on Iraq?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 13, 2006
Gen. Peter Pace
From MSNBC

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told MSNBC that “winning” in Iraq would mean reducing the violence to a level that permitted the relatively stable functioning of government—in other words: the exact “policing of terrorism” model that Bush and Cheney mocked in 2004.

Watch it

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Michael Robbins, November 16, 2006 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Michigan Bob,

There is surely a basis for the US and the rest of the so-called coalition that Bush claimed existed at the beginning of the Iraq debacle to assist in and help pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Let’s try and remember though that we claimed then to have invaded Iraq to depose Saddam and end the threat of “noo-q-lar” (a Bushism for nuclear) weapons of mass destruction. Well, Saddam was loooong ago captured and there were NO weapons of mass destruction and the Crawford Village idiot knew it was a lie when he said it.

The fact that deposing a tyrant like Saddam would cause death and destruction was a foregone conclusion. The Iraqis had the option all along to rise themselves and overthrow this maniac and tyrant but they lacked the courage to do so or simply chose not to. In either case it was not and is not our responsibility to assume all the costs of rebuilding their country in the aftermath.

Besides that, Bush claimed “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003. This has not prevented the intervening three years and six and one half months of continuing death and destruction in Iraq. In point of fact, many people who actually understand the situation in Iraq are of the opinion that our continued presence is in truth the reason that much of the destruction that Michigan Bob says we should undertake and pay for as well as the deaths have continued to mount.

The mission in Iraq was always about OIL, OIL, OIL Bob. There was also the promise of billions of dollars for Dick Cheney’s previous employer to rebuild Iraq that we were destroying to recommend it to the neo-cons and the CEO’s of these bloodsucking companies with their ILEGAL ‘no-bid’ contracts. Come on, even Dubya finally sort of owned-up to that OIL thing a while back.

Sir, there are many other repressive regimes in the world murdering their own citizens by the thousands. There are no troops there righting wrong for one simple reason, NO OIL!

I state again! Iraq IS NOT the 51st state of the United States and they have no wish to be. Since Americans allowed the Liar-in-Chief to trick us into this awful war we should assist (yes assist) in the recontruction costs of Iraq and its infrastructure as long as that assistance does not rquire the stationing of US troops there to police the people and provide protection for the rebuilders as your comment implies.

I address each of your questions/assertions:

1) We must finance the rebuilding.

Wrong, we must assist in the cost of the rebuilding.

2) It is kind of hard to build buildings when people are shooting at you.

Yes it is. That’s why the reconstrucion of Iraq should be done by Iraqis. Not American contract workers making ridiculous wages and doing precious little rebuilding. Also, Iraqi security personnel need to provide the protection you suggest. They seemed to have plenty of willingness and ability to police (and over- police) their country before we got there. They don’t do it now because we have our soldiers there doing what is THEIR job.

3) Do we pull the troops out completely? 
Do we leave them at the borders to keep infiltrators from Iran and Syria out?

Yes, we do pull out all American forces in a systematic and orderly fashion. We DO NOT leave our troops to guard the Iraqi borders - they are the borders of Iraq (do you get it?). The US is NOT and should NOT be the police force of the globe. If Iraq needs assistance with protecting their borders they should seek assistance from the UN and other nations in the region.

(4) Do we base them in a nearby country?  Which one will take us?  Afghanistan?

No! They are American troops. They do not belong in that area unless they are there for a compelling reason. In case you have forgotten Bob, there are already American troops in Afghanistan and have been for quite a while

(5) Do we encourage Muslim soldiers from neighboring countries to keep the lid on the violence while the infrastructure is rebuilt?

No! We encourage Muslim soldiers from Iraq to keep the lid on their own country. If Iraq, a sovereign nation, needs assistance they can appeal to the UN for that assistance. America can and should assist in this along with all the other nations that love to have the US ‘carry the water’ for them to insure the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the world.

(6) The Iraq puppet government is seen as a Bush lackey and will be ignored.  However, the local government must take over if any kind of success is attained.

As I said in my earlier piece, “The government of Iraq is weak and incompetent. Puppet governments usually are weak and incompetent”. Who set up this weak sister? The Bush mis-administration, that’s who. The people of Iraq just recently had an election that was a ‘dog and pony show’ to legitimize the incompetent lap dogs of the Bush administration. The Iraqi people need to elect their own leaders NOT our chosen puppets.

About at least one thing you are completely correct. There are no easy answers. There ARE obvious answers but they are not easy. Those of us who worked, pleaded with and cried over this ill-advised and ILLEGAL war stated from day one that once in that there would be no easy way out. That did not matter because GW was gonna have his war and he was ready, willing and able to lie and mislead us to have it.

Oh yeah, your opening remark “Before we toss Iraq the keys…” was telling. If we had the keys we stole them. It was their plac that we had the keys for. It is high time that we returned “the keys” to the Iraqi people.

Report this

By Michigan Bob, November 16, 2006 at 8:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Before we toss Iraq the keys, bear in mind we have the responsibility to return the infrastructure to the same condition it was when we found it.
We owe the Iraq people that.  We must finance the rebuilding.
Can we leave the country without installing a rebuilding process?
It is kind of hard to build buildings when people are shooting at you.
Do we pull the troops out completely? 
Do we leave them at the borders to keep infiltrators from Iran and Syria out? 
Do we base them in a nearby country?  Which one will take us?  Afghanistan?
Do we encourage Muslim soldiers from neighboring countries to keep the lid on the violence while the infrastructure is rebuilt?
The Iraq puppet government is seen as a Bush lackey and will be ignored.  However, the local government must take over if any kind of success is attained. 
There is no easy road out.

Report this

By Michael Robbins, November 15, 2006 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another general, John Abizaid Commander of the forces in the Middle East, stated that we cannot set definte redeployment timetables and benchmarks today. Here follows my remarks sent to Yahoo! News about this:

Iraq IS NOT the 51st State
by: mlrobbs 11/15/06 01:43 pm
 
The assertions of the commander of the forces in the Middle East sound vaguely like those of another commander named Westmoreland regarding a southeast Asian nation almost 40 years ago. The commanders in Iraq have utterly failed to train competent Iraqi forces to police their own nation in the last years since Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003. There has been precious little evidence that Iraqis are in any hurry to take over this responsibility as long as there are American forces there to do it for them any way. Of course no one in the Bush mis-adminstration can give you an honest answer about “the mission” in Iraq. We went in there based on a pack of lies from them to begin with and the mission has changed, if in name only, repeatedly over the last 3 years. Saddam Hussein has been deposed, caught, tried and sentenced to hang. What is going on now in Iraq is a civil war between Shi’a and Sunni factions of Islam. Iraq is their sovereign nation NOT an American state. The government in Iraq is their business and their choice. The government of Iraq is weak and incompetent. Puppet governments usually are weak and incompetent. That is also their responsibility to remedy not ours. It is neither possible nor appropriate for the United States to decide for every nation what form of government they should have. The United States is not the world’s 911 number nor are we the ‘deciders’ of any other nation’s internal matters. Iraq IS NOT the 51st state, even if they do have a lot of oil, which is of course the reason we invaded in the first place.

Report this

By Pace is a "cooked" lobster - over DONE!, November 13, 2006 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pace reminds me of “westmoreland” and more “westmoreland”.  I lived same at my dinner table…..

Please

      “Return Pace to SENDER”,

as I have caught him in so many lies in the past year, I trust a chimp more.  If Bush was “smart” (if) he should have been let GO along with Rummy. But some men never learn from their mistakes.

I rank him the same level as Hollywood Murderer “tommy Pranks” or was it Franks?

They BOTH will go down into the history books as the worst “Generals” known to man!

Nothing can or WILL save his reputation in history! He is Lobster over COOKED!

Most Sincerely,
Concerned Mother

And no I didn’t even bother listening to his words.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.