General Abizaid rejects Levin's call to withdraw troops in 4-6 months (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

General Abizaid rejects Levin's call to withdraw troops in 4-6 months

November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin got a negative response from the top U.S. commander in the Middle East Wednesday after the Michigan Democrat said during committee hearings that the United States must tell Iraq it'll begin withdrawing troops in 4 to 6 months.

Gen. John Abizaid warned the Senate Armed Services Committee against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

That assertion seemed to put Abizaid at odds with Levin and some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq.

In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other U.S. commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

Specific timetables limit that flexibility, the general said.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061115/NEWS99/61115026

General Abizaid was not alone in rejecting the Democrats plan for immediate withdrawal retired General's Batiste and Zinni, also, chimed in rejecting the Democrats disastorous plan:

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html

Abizaid also, rejected McCain's proposition that we need to add more troops:

MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/abizaid-mccain-iraq/
​

​

Gee it sure sounds like General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM and the head of operations in Iraq says that stay the course is the best option, imagine that.​

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This needs to be heard so I'm bumping it.

 

[Deegan]

I just watched the entire hearing, he has eaten their lunch once again!

They all expected him to come to Washington with his tail between his legs, and they got the same strong, detirmined General that I know and respect, good for him. I did find it funny how he dismissed the two books Senator Dayton referred to, and I thought he made the senator look foolish for even suggesting these books deserve time in this important discussion!:doh

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I just watched the entire hearing, he has eaten their lunch once again!

They all expected him to come to Washington with his tail between his legs, and they got the same strong, detirmined General that I know and respect, good for him. I did find it funny how he dismissed the two books Senator Dayton referred to, and I thought he made the senator look foolish for even suggesting these books deserve time in this important discussion!:doh

I think I disagree with him about adding more troops, I agree with the Powell doctrine, but maybe he's right, maybe it's too late to add more troops and while it would have been better to go in there with overwhelming forces in the opening stages IE to seal the borders and hold the lines so we're not playing wack a mole, but now it would just be a crutch for the Iraqi's enabling them to not depend on themselves.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Where are all the Dems who were busting in their pants when Generals Zinni and Batiste came out against the Bush administration and more specifically Rumsfeld? I guess they didn't know that they weren't recommending surrender and withdrawal but rather increased troop numbers.

 

[Gibberish]

I think I disagree with him about adding more troops, I agree with the Powell doctrine, but maybe he's right, maybe it's too late to add more troops and while it would have been better to go in there with overwhelming forces in the opening stages IE to seal the borders and hold the lines so we're not playing wack a mole, but now it would just be a crutch for the Iraqi's enabling them to not depend on themselves.

That is how this war should have been fought. We should have entered IRAQ and Afghan with such speed and force that the terrorists would of had no time to do a single thing. We should have secured the country in full then, while under our secure watch, allowed the government to form.

The only way to stop terrorists is with a firm grip of security so they don't ever get the opportunity to act. What we are doing in Iraq now is just pointless and a waste of resources. Either commit to a successful objective or get out.

This countries admin has crippled the ability to secure Iraq but half committing to the objective.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That is how this war should have been fought. We should have entered IRAQ and Afghan with such speed and force that the terrorists would of had no time to do a single thing. We should have secured the country in full then, while under our secure watch, allowed the government to form.

I think we had the right idea about using the Northern Alliance complimented by Special Forces and U.S. logistical and Airsupport to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, I think Afghanistan has been a great success, the problem I think is that Rumsfeld tried to adopt the Afghanistan model to Iraq which is a totally different situation than in Afghanistan because their was no civil war in Iraq or an organization that we could more or less rely on to do our dirty work.

The only way to stop terrorists is with a firm grip of security so they don't ever get the opportunity to act. What we are doing in Iraq now is just pointless and a waste of resources. Either commit to a successful objective or get out.

Abizaid disagrees with that he thinks that adding more troops now would only serve to alleviate the Iraqi government of dealing with its own problems, and I think I might agree with him.

This countries admin has crippled the ability to secure Iraq by half committing to the objective.

I think they should have listened to Powell too.

 

[NYStateofMind]

That is how this war should have been fought. We should have entered IRAQ and Afghan with such speed and force that the terrorists would of had no time to do a single thing. We should have secured the country in full then, while under our secure watch, allowed the government to form.

The only way to stop terrorists is with a firm grip of security so they don't ever get the opportunity to act. What we are doing in Iraq now is just pointless and a waste of resources. Either commit to a successful objective or get out.

This countries admin has crippled the ability to secure Iraq but half committing to the objective.

Agreed. Unfortunately, what we should have done 3.5 years ago is a moot point now. Now, we have a mess that resulted from the errors, and that's what we have to deal with.

What we need is a political solution, not a military one. We can continue to play "whack-a-mole" for a while longer, but in the absence of a political solution, we will eventually be forced to pull out (not declare victory and leave, but retreat) in the face of a full blown civil war. The lack of will of the Iraqi politicians to find a political solution has put us between a rock and a hard place.....we can't leave unless we are willing to allow the civil war to blow up, but we are not getting anywhere by staying except allowing the Iraqis to avoid dealing with the political problem and the slowly escalating civil war. It's a no-win situation at this point....the same old, same old will lead us to cut and run in the end.

 

[Deegan]

No, I think he has it right, no more of our troops need be sent, they need to introduce Iraqi troops in with our troops, or ours with theirs more to the point. People just don't understand how difficult this is, well with the language barrier, the lack of experience these troops have, and the enemy trying to kill them at every turn, it's damn difficult to get this done. Still, for those to just say, "No, it's too hard, soldiers and civilians are dying, and it's chaos there" well no s**t Sherlock, it's a war after all.:doh

And if I hear one more person compare the time there to WW2, I might just blow a casket.:roll:

 

[Captain America]

I am reminded of a song by Jerry Jeff Walker called "Pi$$in' in the Wind."

 

[Deegan]

I am reminded of a song by Jerry Jeff Walker called "Pi$$in' in the Wind."

Does that mean you don't think our troops can train theirs, or you just think it's not worth the effort, or do you think we have already lost?

What exactly do you mean by this?

I reminded of a song, it's called "What the F88k is your point?"

 

[aps]

Oh, like General Abizaid is going to go against George Bush. NOT.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh, like General Abizaid is going to go against George Bush. NOT.

I take it you didn't bother to read my whole argument former Generals Batiste and Zinni who came out very vocally against the Bush administration also said that withdrawal is not a solution:

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/wa...5military.html