[Texgreen] Top brass turning into surrender monkeys too?

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:40:48 -0500

Stay focused on the mission.  It was to secure the oil.  It has not been
accomplished yet so we are still there.  It's not an ego thing or that Bush 
thinks he can still win.  It's establishing a controling force in the region
because of all that oil.  We will pull out on that time table, regardless of
civil war, military officer recommendations, troop conditions, and public
discontent.  

Craig Miller

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

---- On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Joseph Kaye (jkccnp@hotmail.com) wrote:

<html><div style='background-color:'>THese Generals are finally getting the
courage to speak out their true thoights, in spite of the chargge of being a
coward giving in to Bin Laden. Bush: he doesnt have a way out of a big quagmire,
just as Nixon faced in VeitNam. Saving Face. Thats what drives Bush. He still
thinks there is some way to do this all gracefully, in the middle of a growing
civil war, almost about to overwhelm the US forces there. 
  Stupidity or his selfish pride will outweigh in his mind as more important
than  the loss of our troops lives. He will sacrifice them in a desperate
attempt to put off losing face. 
  Fact is if he admits he messed up and takes our troops out it would be more
respected than the refusal to do that.
Lets get real. Its been longer than WW11 and we have only gotten things
terribly messed up dangerously for our whole world. Think of all the new
terrorists born because of our participation in so many civilian deaths, more
thatn 50% being children. Even the most die hard right wing war hawk should be
able to see that those children harmed no one. Unless you have lost your soul in
hate and fear.
Joseph Kaye 
<DIV>
 
<CENTER>
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be
achieved by understanding - Albert Einstein</CENTER>
<CENTER>
"To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily.
To not dare is to lose oneself. " - Soren Kierkegaard
</CENTER>
 Mind-Spirit Psychotherapy & Coaching.
By appointment: 713-839-9186</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
From: Roger Baker <rcbaker@eden.infohwy.com> To: TXGP Listserve
<texgreen@gp-us.org> Subject: [Texgreen] Top brass turning into
surrender monkeys too? Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:18:00 -0600 It
looks like Bush made a big mistake trusting his Joint Chiefs of Staff, who now
oppose their commander in chief. It looks like they're in bed with Osama
bin Laden. Just like defeatist Colin Powell. Fortunately our president has the
courage not to cut and run until we finally bring freedom to Iraq. --
Roger **************************************** <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/
AR2006121801477.html> White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding
Troops By Robin Wright and Peter Baker Washington Post Staff
Writers Tuesday, December 19, 2006; Page A01 The Bush 
administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White
House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous
disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar
with the intense debate. Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a
mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the
table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in
Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages,
the officials said. But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a
month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the
surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the
potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because the White 
House review is not public. The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the
sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important
decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion. At regular
interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has
warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger
problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission
could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq --
including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias --
without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi
army, the officials said. The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge
could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni
insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for 
more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials
said. The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have
also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait
until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of
Baghdad and other cities. Even the announcement of a time frame and
mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could
play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the
chiefs have warned the White House. The idea of a much larger military
deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far,
mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any
deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who
were scheduled to go home. A senior 
administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question
has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the
official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option. "Of course,
military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -- what you're trying
to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of
manpower and strength and all that," the official said. The official, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said
military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard
them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they
ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support
it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners
to be asking." The concerns 
raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For
instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term
deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now, the
official said. "Advocates would say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to
plan in the long term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have
time to wait?' " Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The
president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest," the official said, "and
I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information
he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind." Robert M. Gates,
who was sworn in yesterday as defense secretary, is headed for Iraq this week
and is expected to play a decisive role in resolving the debate, officials said.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's views 
are still open, according to State Department officials. The principals met
again yesterday to continue discussions. The White House yesterday noted
the growing number of reports about what is being discussed behind closed doors.
"It's also worth issuing a note of caution, because quite often people will try
to litigate preferred options through the press," White House press secretary
Tony Snow told reporters. Discussions are expected to continue through
the holidays. Rice is expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford,
Tex., after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's foreign
policy principals are also expected to hold at least two meetings during the
holiday. The White House has said the president will outline his new strategy to
the nation early next year. As the White House debate continues, another
independent report on Iraq 
strategy is being issued today by the International Crisis Group, a
Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several former U.S.
officials. It calls for more far-reaching policy revisions and reversals than
did even the Iraq Study Group report, the bipartisan report issued two weeks
ago. The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly
radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its
diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both in the way
the U.S. and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in
the way the U.S. deals with the region." The Iraqi government and
military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not
partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it
says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister 
Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's
escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be
solved only with a major political effort. The International Crisis Group
proposes three broad steps: First, it calls for creation of an international
support group, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council
and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political
compromise. Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including
militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to
forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism,
distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Baath Party members and a
timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that
would include engagement with Syria and 
Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace
process. _______________________________________________ texgreen
mailing
list texgreen@lists.gp-us.org http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/texgreen </BLOCKQUOTE></div> <hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2752??PS=47575"
target="_top">Type your favorite song.  Get a customized station.  Try MSN Radio
powered by Pandora.</a> </html>

_______________________________________________
texgreen mailing list
texgreen@lists.gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/texgreen