Gen. Petraeus admits there's no military solution in Iraq

[rox63]

I wonder if this means * will fire him now, like he did to all the other generals who've said this before.

No military solution to Iraq - U.S. chief

POSTED: 5:59 a.m. EST, March 8, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) -- U.S. and Iraqi security forces cannot solve the problem of violence in Iraq without political action and reconciliation with some militant groups, the U.S. commander in Iraq said on Thursday.

General David Petraeus, in his first news conference in Baghdad since he took command last month, also said he saw no immediate need to request more U.S. troops, but reinforcements already requested would likely stay "well beyond the summer."

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus said.

"Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient."

Read the rest here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus.reut/index.html

[babylonsister]

1. So much for listening to the military. Add this little nugget:

really makes me wonder who to believe, if Petraeus said he saw no immediate need to request more U.S. troops.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/apmoresurge070307/

Gates adds 2,200 MPs to Iraq surge


Posted : Thursday Mar 8, 2007 5:38:39 EST

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON— The Pentagon has approved a request by the new U.S. commander in Iraq for an extra 2,200 military police to help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the Baghdad security crackdown, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates also cited early indications that the Iraqi government is meeting the commitments it made to bolster security, although he cautioned that it was too early to reach any firm conclusions about the outcome.

“We’re right at the very beginning,” he told a Pentagon news conference. “But I would say that based in terms of whether the Iraqis are meeting the commitments that they’ve made to us in the security arena, I think that our view would be so far, so good.” He was referring to the movement of additional Iraqi troops into the capital.

Gates said that the request for extra MPs is in addition to the 21,500 combat troops that President Bush is sending for the Baghdad security plan and 2,400 other troops designated to support them.

more...

[Double T]

5. And 'we' need even more troops because???????

Because bush will NEVER concede that his trillion dollar military 'solution' is a complete and total failure.

[Jacobin]

6. Yep. Its an unending escalation

[TwilightGardener]

2. Yup, co-opting the Democrats' ideas

and pretending they came up with it--how many times have Congressional Dems said "we need a political solution" or "we need a surge of diplomacy" and were mocked by the 'Pugs? Suddenly it's a good idea, huh?

[TwilightGardener]

3. I said this on another thread...

But Petraeus is supposedly the military genius here, he was the one who apparently decided on 21,500--he should not get one troop more. That is false advertising to the American public. If he can't make it work with the number of troops Bush announced, then someone needs to come out and admit that they were wrong--and why.

[rox63]

4. Has * run out of generals who will go along with him?

I sure as hell hope so. Not that that would prevent him from doing whatever he wants anyway. :grr:

[spanone]

7. 'Well beyond the summer' so much for the 6 months scenario.

once the soldiers are in there, they are in for good. bush* has NO intention of ending this war under his watch.NONE WHATSOEVER.IMO

[bigtree]

8. but he's calling for MORE troops

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08military.html?ei=5088&en=3e942ae728ff95e3&ex=1331010000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[genie_weenie]

9. What the military says

doesn't matter. The propaganda elements supporting the Regime will continue to spout the same messages every day until 20 Jan 2009, no matter what is actually said about or ocurring on the ground in Iraq.