U.S. General Blasts Calls For Iraq Pullout

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch Says Withdrawal Would Create "A Mess"

(CBS/AP)  As pressure builds for a change in Iraq policy, a top U.S. commander there warned Friday that withdrawing troops too soon would leave the country "a mess."

"You'd find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing sanctuary, building more" roadside bombs, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told a Defense Department news conference. "The violence would escalate. It'd be a mess."

Lynch was responding to a question on the possible effects if officials were to decide not to extend beyond the summer the troop buildup President Bush ordered early this year.

Mr. Bush sent an additional 30,000 troops to try to pacify Baghdad and wants Congress to wait until September for an assessment on how it is working. But an increasing number of U.S. lawmakers are already convinced the policy is failing and should be changed.

Lynch said he did not know how long the extra forces would be needed.

"Those surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy," Lynch said by video conference from Iraq. "If those surge forces go away, that capability goes away."

"Over time, we can turn the area over to Iraqi security forces, and then we'll be ready to do something that looks like a withdrawal," Lynch said. "But that's not going to happen any time soon."

In the latest setback to the increasingly unpopular war strategy, Republican stalwart Sen. Pete Domenici said Thursday that he already has decided he wants to see an end to combat operations and U.S. troops heading home from Iraq early in 2008.

Domenici, who has served 35 years in the Senate, is the latest of several party loyalists and former war supporters to abandon Mr. Bush on Iraq in the past 10 days. They have urged a change sooner rather than later and further isolated the Republican president in his attempt to defend the unpopular war.

Last week, Sens. Richard Lugar and George Voinovich said the U.S. should significantly reduce its military presence in Iraq while bolstering diplomatic efforts. Sen. John Warner, a senior Republican military expert, is expected to propose a new approach this month.

In a floor speech last Monday, Lugar said the U.S. should reduce the military's role in Iraq and called on Mr. Bush to press other diplomatic and economic initiatives instead. Because of Lugar's position as the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, his speech was a considered a blow to the administration as it tries to shore up sagging political support for the unpopular war.

"I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops," Domenici said. "But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

With Congress on its holiday break, Domenici made his views known at a news conference in Albuquerque, N.M., though he said he has not talked to the administration about wanting a strategy shift.

"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward," he said.

The senator said the situation in Iraq is getting worse. He said he now supports a bipartisan bill that embraces the findings of the independent Iraq Study Group.

In December, the group said the primary mission of U.S. troops should evolve to supporting Iraqi security forces. The report also said the U.S. should reduce political, military or economic support for Iraq if the Baghdad government cannot make substantial progress.

The group said combat troops could be out by March 2008 if specific steps were taken.

[tbweb]

tbweb--Why don't you google the speech and look at a word by word translation of what Ahmadinejad said rather than relying on the lies of the MSM--that even they are moving away from...I say again...Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be wiped off the map. It is a lie and a self-evident one!

Posted by Prinzowhales at 08:31 AM : Jul 09, 2007,,,

Who said I was relying on MSN? Looks like you are the one making assumptions, I deal in facts with manifold sources! Ahmadinejad's page on Wikipedia is locked so no one can add anything untrue and here is what Wikipedia has to say about Ahmadinejad's statement, a.k.a. Iran's Charles Manson with a Degree! Read it and weep!

On October 26, 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "World Without Zionism". According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that must be "wiped off the map".

In a recent 60 Minutes interview Ahmadinejad was asked point blank about the statement, that was his chance in front of a captive U.S. audience to clear it up once and for all and Ahmadinejad passed, declined to comment, so silence is acceptance and that statement is his!

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad

[prinzowhales]

tbweb--Why don't you google the speech and look at a word by word translation of what Ahmadinejad said rather than relying on the lies of the MSM--that even they are moving away from...I say again...Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be wiped off the map. It is a lie and a self-evident one!

Ahmadinejad has said that the Holocaust has been exagerated for political purposes and called for study...The need for further study is readily apparent when you have a change in the official death count at Aushwitz from around 4 million to a little over 1 million. This does not diminish the vileness of what was done to European Jewry by the Nazis, but a concentration on the fate of one small element leads one away from the horror of which it was a part--the conflagaration known as World War II. In the West, this is virtually impossible. The countries of the EU regard any questioning as a crime and imprison writers and historians who dare to challenge the orthodox story line.

The concentration on 'Hitler the Orgre' and the Holocaust, takes away also from the people that made both possible. When you open those doors, the way leads directly to those responsible-- the money men and industrialists.

[tbweb]

Posted by Prinzowhales at 03:01 PM : Jul 08, 2007,,,

Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made hating the U.S. and Israel his life%u2019s work! Ahmadinejad is well educated with a PhD and was an active University Professor for 7 years spewing hate. During the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover and hostage crisis, Ahmadinejad was very active in that event at the eye of the storm, many argue he was photographed with U.S. hostages but this was never confirmed, but it doesn%u2019t matter because he was one of the main instigators anyway! When Ahmadinejad ran for President he was the only candidate who ran on an anti U.S., Israel agenda. Ahmadinejad does not just want to be the leader of Iran but the leader of a worldwide Islamic revolution against the U.S. and Israel! Ahmadinejad%u2019s 3 famous quotes against Israel are "World without Zionism", "occupying regime" and "disgraceful stain on the Islamic world" that must be "wiped off the map". Despite mountains of dead Jewish bodies in official photographs he still claims the Holocaust as a "myth". He has also refused to stop the nuclear program of Iran, regardless of the demands of the World and UN Security Council. If Iran doesn't back down Iran will be wiped off the map and few share your views on Iran!

[prinzowhales]

tbweb--The Iranians saw no point in maintaining reserves or dealing exclusively in a currency that even the CFR refers to as a joke. Why prop up the dollar by selling your goods in it when the US has targeted you for attack?--that is suicidal.

The Israelis turned a deaf ear to the recent peace overtures from the Arab conference in Saudi Arabia...essentially offering recognition for the return of the lands seized--which is in accordance with the demands of the UN.

Why should Iran--or any Arab country--recognize Israel? And it goes both ways--Israel does not officially recognize them. Yet, they have worked together under the table at times. The Israelis have refused to set their borders. This is something that every nation in the world has done...how can you recognize a nation that won't set its borders?

It should be common knowledge by now that Ahmadinejad DID NOT CALL FOR ISRAEL TO BE WIPED OFF THE MAP. This was a calculated mistranslation and the Neo-Cons continue to use this falsehood to smear Iran. He quoted an ayatollah who said the 'regime that controls Quds, will disappear from the pages of time'. He went on in the speech to discuss other regimes--such as the USSR--that had disappeared.

In essence he was calling for regime change in Israel--not for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Iran has no nuclear bomb making capability--though the US has actively encouraged other countries to develope that capability since it attacked Iraq, which had no WMDs.

[tbweb]

The real problem, I think, is that Iran is going to price oil in Euros and is buying Russian rather than American.

Posted by Prinzowhales at 01:08 PM : Jul 08, 2007,,,

Iran's decision to deal in Euros was out of fear of retaliation from Washington to freeze Iranian assets and also to drive a wedge between the U.S. and the EU, but then the stupid Iranians grabbed British Sailors as hostages and the threat of freezing their assets came back to life in EU form! The problem is not what you note, the problem is Iran does not like Israel and does not officially recognize Israels right to exist which is illegal since both Iran and Israel are U.N. Members. In addition, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hates Israel with a passion and advocates wiping Israel off the map. Many believe because Iran does not like or recognize Israels right to exist and because Ahmadinejad hates Israels guts, its not wise to allow Iran to have nuclear bomb making capability and that seems reasonably to the U.N. and it voted unanimously to impose sanctions twice on Iran with more to come, so the real issue is Iran's inability to reconcile its differences with Israel.

[prinzowhales]

The USSR didn't try to "take over" Cuba any more than we tried to take over Turkey by stationing our missiles aimed at the USSR there.

Iran has lived up to its international obligations under the Non-proliferation treaty and if the Americans want to re-negotiate the treaty they should do so. But, like the mad scientist in SOUTH PARK, the Decider says, "I am above the law!" and a vile and timid Congress slinks along behind him like a mangy cur, growling and whining.

Amazingly, there is still tremendous good will towards Americans in Iran and no danger from them. If Russia has no fear of them, why should we? They've had their entire embassy massacred in Tehran and show neither fear nor vengefullness toward the Iranians.

The real problem, I think, is that Iran is going to price oil in Euros and is buying Russian rather than American.

[jn122736]

jn122736,,,

Are you serious? Read my Post again and come back.
Posted by tbweb at 09:58 AM : Jul 08, 2007
---------------

Your post is clear as to why the Iranian presidents actions are a threat to the very infrastructure of his own country and where his actions are indeed a threat to our totally aggressive and totally wrong invasion (and attempted nation building) of their neighbor, Iraq (a sovereign country).
Which, BTY, is exactly why JFK confronted Russia over their attempted take over of Cuba, or what we would do now if some foreign power attempted the same in Canada, Mexico or any other neighboring country.

It does not, however explain how Iran is or can be a serious physical threat to this country. Certainly not as compared to India, China, Russia, Pakistan, Britain, Israel, or any other country with nuclear weapons.

It is one thing for individuals to commit suicide it is quite another for an entire country to do so.

[prinzowhales]

The same evil clowns who gave us the Stupid Peoples' War in Iraq, want to strike another regional oil producer for the sake of Big Oil and Israel. Iran has already been attacked once by the US-backed Saddam. A war of this magnitude was a set-back for the Iranian economy. It faces the threat of American attack as it tries to modernize and integrate itself into the modern world--and Americans are losing the opportunities that this presents.

Recently, it was announced that the Iranians have contracted with a German firm to build a new 'bullet' train rail route--something we don't have in the United States, where hardly a month goes by without a story on our crumbling infrastructure--as we fund apartheid walls in Israel, face un-paralleled criminality, have more prisoners than any other nation and while spending more on health care rank a mere 37th in health care by the WHO...even a Cuban peasant has a longer live expectancy than an American doctor.

Iran is no threat to Americans, only to Big Oil and the dollar-mongers of New York.

[tbweb]

jn122736,,,

Are you serious? Read my Post again and come back.

[jn122736]

Posted by ozilot at 08:14 AM : Jul 08, 2007,,,

Because instead of building up the Iranian infrastructure Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is too busy funding and supporting terrorist like HAMAS, HEZZBOLLA, IRAQI INSURGENTS and helping his Shiite partner in crime in Iraq Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army! Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been busy behind the scenes setting up his new western propaganda TV station and directing the production, funding and distribution of new advanced more powerful IED's and when Ahmadinejad gets bored captures British Sailors for entertainment, so there's your answer as to why the Iranian infrastructure has been and is being neglected!
Posted by tbweb at 08:32 AM : Jul 08, 2007
-------------

Tbweb;
This does not answer the Question posed in ozilot%u2019s Myth #8.

The question asked how Iran, with it%u2019s failing infrastructure, was a threat to anyone but itself; it did not ask why the %u201CIranian infrastructure has been and is being neglected!%u201D

[prinzowhales]

General Odom calls for withdrawal. General Lynch says lets have a more or less permanent surge to momentarily put a lid on Anbar Province and a bit more of Baghdad. How many years have we been there? How much of the capital do we and our 'sovereign' government of Iraq hold?

Ask yourself honestly, is there anything in Iraq that I, as an American, desire? I have no interests there...I genuinely wish the Iraqis well...who among you has an interest there? Who among you was born to desire war with this land thousands of miles away--which most Americans couldn't even find on a map?

Big Oil and the Israel-firsters are the only ones with an interest there--an interest important enough for them to tax you and bleed you to fight for it. It is part and parcel of monopoly capitalism to try and diminish competition--both Rockefellar and Morgan, pillars of this type of piracy spoke out against competition while their propagandists peddled a line of hokum associating finance capitalism with free market economics. They want to control oil--particularly that which can be produced at rock bottom prices--so as to be able to control the price of energy in the world.

The Israel-firsters desire the destruction of any and all Moslem states that might be a challenge to Israel's regional hegemony...to break down the large states into statelets that can more easily be played one, against the other.

[tbweb]

Posted by ozilot at 08:43 AM : Jul 08, 2007,,,

I didn't miss any points, I just focused on answering your #8 question. The point you're missing is that the U.S. really doesn't want to go to war with Iran and have to deal with $8.00 a gallon gas at the pump! Iran knows this is and is being a pain in the a s s every chance it gets, but thats getting old and the U.S. is losing its patience. The other point is Iraq can't move forward and progress the way it needs to because of negative Iranian and Syrian influences.

[tbweb]

Myth #8: Iran poses a threat to the west...SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW A COUNTRY WITH ONE OF THE WORLDS LARGEST OIL RESERVES THAT HAS TO RATION GASOLINE TO ITS OWN PEOPLE BECAUSE ITS INFRASTRUCTURE IS FALLING APART IS A THREAT TO ANYONE BUT ITSELF?

Posted by ozilot at 08:14 AM : Jul 08, 2007,,,

Because instead of building up the Iranian infrastructure Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is too busy funding and supporting terrorist like HAMAS, HEZZBOLLA, IRAQI INSURGENTS and helping his Shiite partner in crime in Iraq Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army! Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been busy behind the scenes setting up his new western propaganda TV station and directing the production, funding and distribution of new advanced more powerful IED's and when Ahmadinejad gets bored captures British Sailors for entertainment, so there's your answer as to why the Iranian infrastructure has been and is being neglected!

[tbweb]

General David Petraus is now claiming that the enemy(Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muqtada al-Sadr!) are planning a mini Tet to influence the Media and American public opinion. My message to General David Petraus who I admire by the way is that the American people are not willing to support or give you the time and resources you want or need to get the job done in Iraq! Time is up plain and simple! It's not the U.S. Militarys fault just like in Vietnam if the Iraqis did not hold up their end of the bargain, we did our part and then some. The enemy can not manipulate our opinion, this is modern America and we are not stupid, we know exactly what the enemy is doing and trying to do, so don't worry about our opinions, our opinions are safe! The situation in Iraq is a Civil War and there is no Military solution, only if it is accompanied by a faster Political solution and even you admit that! With the Iraqi government still planning a 2 month vacation and over 3,600 Americans dead, the price is too high and the Iraqi oil is not paying for this war as advertised as well. We can no longer afford this disaster and we won't! Come home and have a cold one and relax and let them slaughter each other, we need to get out of their way and let them get on with it, you guys won the Iraq war a long time ago, this has mutated into something else.

[brianbwb-2009]

Nskduke,

You ask, "How many terrorist attacks have we had since the war began in our country."

lets' see, there were the anthrax letters from the American neonazi groups, a few schools and colleged shot up, and, oops, sorry you meant how many Iraqis attacked us since 9/11? None, but that same number is exactly how many Iraqis hijacked the planes on that day.

Can't get your head around the "Tonkin gulf style inside job possibility," can you? It is far more plausible than "the normally inept, non communicative, and arrogant US police, FBI, Immigration, and CIA all of a sudden got their act together for only this aspect of their total jobs"...

[brianbwb-2009]

to NSKDUKE,

A very wise man said this way back back in 1968;

"Thirty two billion dollars into a civil war ten thousand miles from our shore to protect the freedom of the South Vietnamese and keep the Viet Cong from attacking San Francisco. That%u2019s where we are told is America%u2019s destiny%u2014in the rice paddies of DaNang. And America%u2019s youth%u2014or at least a sizeable share of them%u2014find this to be patently unbelievable."

Those of us born before 1970 have heard that song before, so to all those born since then, "fight them over there, rather than over here" was a lie then, it is a lie now...

[nskduke]

If we leave Iraq too soon the country will be a mess. The last thing we need is to leave Iraq and have the terrorist regain ground again. How many terrorist attacks have we had since the war began in our country. I count none. Is pulling out really the smartest thing we should do. Lets look at the cost and benefits of pulling out.
Pulling out:
Cost: Terrorist regain ground.
Benefit: Troops come home.
Cost: Future attacks in this country.
Benefit: None.
Cost: More problems.
Benefit:None

Looks pretty good right, wrong.
Terrorist groups build up again, which could result in more terrorist attacks in the near future for this country. The terrorist might even try to plant roadside bombs in this country. If the terrorist win, they will become more powerful in the near future and who knows they might even bring the fight from the Middle East to the US. Terrorist in the US, boy are we going to be in really big trouble.

Anything can happen, I'm not saying that I am right. But I think this would be the worst outcome. Costs and Benefits.

[iceman_1960]

"LEAVE THE MILLITARY STRATEGY TO THE MILLITARY, NOT THE LOSERS WHO BELIEVE WHAT THEY SEE ON TV."
- Posted by yurpallid at 08:20 AM : Jul 07, 2007

I've seen it on TV enough times to spell it correctly.

[brianbwb-2009]

Or how's this for a story template;

"(CBS/AP) As pressure builds for a change in Iraq policy, a top U.S. commander there warned Friday that withdrawing troops too soon would leave the country "a mess."

But since he would not field questions, but only wanted to trumpet Bush's position, CBS has deemed this story just more useless propaganda, so we shall simply write "Blah, Blah, Blah...etc.,", because you've heard it all before.

And henceforth, whenever a "spokesman representing the Administration makes such statements, we will simply list his name, and "Blah,Blah,Blah...etc.,"
in the interest if saving our readers the time and sparing the insult to their intelligence.

Your readership would double overnight, C'mon, can I have the job?...;)

[brianbwb-2009]

It's a bit strange, whenever someone like Mr. Lynch(what an apropos name, given what he espouses) contacts the news media and says "we need to stay until victory is achieved", or some such Bushit, no one ever follows his line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, and confronts him with the lunacy of it. Maybe something like this:

Lynch; "You'd find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing sanctuary, building more" roadside bombs,...etc"

Reporter: This is already happening Mr Lynch, why should we remain willing targets?

L.; "The violence would escalate. It'd be a mess."

R. It will escalate anyway, and already is a mess.

L.; I don't know how long the extra forces would be needed.

R.; That suggests you don't know what we're supposed to accomplish there. Why and how are you then qualified to be making statements?

L; "Those surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy,"

R. Who are the enemy? They didn't attack us, we invaded them, because your boss lied. Why not just get out, then there will be no enemy.

L.; "Over time, we can turn the area over to Iraqi security forces, and then we'll be ready to do something that looks like a withdrawal," but that's not going to happen any time soon."

R. Isn't that decision up to the American people, and not you?

CBS, hire me, I'm not afraid to call them on Bushit, and I'll work for half pay. You have my Email address...