Gen. Petraeus: Obama Did Acknowledge to Me in Meetings that Iraq Surge Was a Success

more at foxnews.com, December 6, 2009

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• president
• barack
• obama
• general
• david
• petraeus
• chris
• wallace
• fox
• news
• sunday
• interview
• iraq
• afghanistan
• strategy
• war
• meeting
• meetings
• surge
• success
• troops

[asphyxiafeeling]

Fox News, lying again.

I remember far back in the campaign debates Senator McCain called Obama out on the Iraq Surge, and Obama acknowledged then that the Surge was a success, but noted that McCain "was acting like the war started in 2007!", noting that the war was managed poorly prior to that.

Always doing whatever distortions they can to discredit the Obama Admin. and they still say they're "Fair and Balanced". disgusting.

GOP news network is a more accurate name, i think.

[1samothrace77]

If the surge worked, why are we still in Iraq?

[ajr666]

Rather u agree w/ this war or not, General Petraeus will go down in history as one of the great war time Generals of the modern age. His name will become as familiar to future generations as MacArthur, Eisenhower, Montgomery, or Rommel is to ours. This man single handedly turned what looked like a hopeless war into an astounding success for the US and UK. So much so that it is now statistically safer to walk around downtown Baghdad as an American than it is to walk around downtown Detroit!

[Gamahlee]

what a great general

[random0815]

lies based on lies based on lies, this guy is one of the worst most criminal people on the planet

[random0815]

local forces were fed up with some of the extreme violence and the us military tried to get some of the laurels by throwing in some troops while and after it happened, it was a political maneuver, but all that doesnt really matter, the entire context is completely distorted by demagogic schemes and traditions, and so is just about everything of the american perspective

[mintvagoo]

The "surge" did nothing but help contain our failed "hearts and minds" mission. Bush went in with grossly inaugurate troop numbers, fired the Iraqi military and police force- leading to looting, total chaos and civil war.

It's not a victory- it was a band-aid on a failed war strategy. The "surge" at best slowed the problems cause by poor leadership. The "surge" is also responsible for our failed war in Afghanistan. Troops were diverted to Iraq leaving the mess we have in Afghanistan today.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

your observations seem rational, I agree. Iraq was mishandled and was not necessary. your short list of the contents of the surge also seem to match my thoughts on the matter. I still see this current strategy in Afghanistan as a version of the surge in Iraq. all I want is for America to take its role in Afghanistan seriously and alleviate the burden on other members of Nato.

[lifeseeker1]

I'll go to that home page thingie.

My understanding of the surge is, we added troops, paid off a lot of people, did a little cultural understanding, & got the Iraqie security forces to do joint operations with us.

My conservative buddy says "our might scared them!"

Personally I dont think we ever should have gone there.

I hoped we would have put roops on the borders, then gave Saddam an exile offer like Idi Amin, The Shah, or Marcos, leaving Iraq intact with a functioning government.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

its not simple when you want the specifics, that involves me wasting more of my valuable work time. If you really want to know, send me a message to my inbox, and in my free time I will detail what you ask.

[lifeseeker1]

Could you tell us EXACTLY what the SURGE consisted of?

EXACTLY, what did we do?

What were the components?

Very simple question, will you answer it?

[Zakdayak]

This is an often overlooked point, that and Iran's influence of the Mahdi cease fire.