CBS failed to note Abizaid's dismissal of the McCain-Graham plan "to save Iraq"
SUMMARY: CBS national
security correspondent David Martin reported that Republican Sens. John McCain
and Lindsey Graham "were in Baghdad ...
warning it will take more than [20,000 additional troops] to save Iraq," but Martin did not mention Gen.
John Abizaid's assessment that such an increase would likely not improve
the situation in Iraq.
On the December 14 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, CBS national security correspondent David Martin reported that the commander of American forces in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, "has already said the military is not big enough to sustain even a modest buildup of 20,000 troops" in Iraq and that "influential Republican Senators John McCain [AZ] and Lindsey Graham [SC] were in Baghdad today, warning it will take more than that to save Iraq." Martin, however, left out Abizaid's assessment that a troop increase such as the one McCain and Graham are promoting would likely not improve the situation in Iraq.
From the December 14 broadcast of the CBS Evening News:
MARTIN: The commander of American forces in the Middle East has already said the military is not big enough to sustain even a modest buildup of 20,000 troops.
But influential Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were in Baghdad today, warning it will take more than that to save Iraq.
GRAHAM: We need an overwhelming troop presence in the short term to level out the violence, so people can work out their political solutions.
MARTIN: And increasing the size of the Army won't help any time soon. It would take a full year to recruit and train just 6,000 more troops.
As Media Matters for America has noted, there are serious questions as to whether McCain's plan to significantly increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is feasible, given that McCain himself has asserted that the fate of the U.S. effort in Iraq will be decided in a matter of months, and yet he has acknowledged that sending 20,000 more soldiers into the region would require increasing the number of active forces by 100,000. While Martin reported that "[i]t would take a full year to recruit and train just 6,000 more troops," he failed to note that Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15, "I've met with every divisional commander. General [George] Casey, the corps commander, [Lt.] General [Martin] 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."
Abizaid must be one of them Surrender Monkies!
the Surrender Monkees. A copycat of the Surrender Beatles.
as if any of their solutions are not expensive and completely ineffective.
a response to FrontPageMag column on ISG
It's refreshing to see mmfa exhibit objectivity in the debte concerning the war in Iraq. In recent times, mmfa has repeatedly cited Gen. Abizaid as one of the experts on defining the situation in Iraq.
mmfa has strongly underwritten his value judgements in their crusade to identify conservative misinformation. With that in mind, I'm sure mmfa would also concur with the following recent assessments by Gen. Abizaid:
- "I think we can win this fight, I think we are winning this fight."
- Abizaid was asked on several occasions why American public opinion had turned so decidedly against the war, and he consistently said that the despair he felt in Washington was not reflected in the field among American or Iraqi soldiers and officials. - Boston Globe
- "We'll succeed unless we quit," - Pres. Bush.
- Bush's answer echoed Abizaid's resolve to fight on in Iraq and unwillingness to repeat the US decision to leave Vietnam after failing to defeat an insurgency. - Boston Globe
- He pointedly blamed the American media for its criticism of the US military in Iraq and said coverage of the war had led to the perception of a failed policy. - Boston Globe
Good work by mmfa...on recognizing the value of Gen Abizaid's knowledge on the war in Iraq...even when he labels their anti-war efforts as dubious.
Just because you agree with one thing someone says is no indication you buy everything they say. It has to do with credibility. There are three levels of credibility when someone say a war supporter speaks in terms supporting a war action they are grinding their own ax and it has the least credibility, not that its wrong but it is self serving. When someone who is nuetral on the war says something about a war policy it has more credibility because there is no ax to grind. When a war supporter speaks AGAINST a war policy it has the MOST credibility because it is going AGAINST his stated position. I think Hitler was right about how good a dog German shepherds are, doesnt mean I agree with him about genociding the Jews, this black white thinking just isnt very compelling. Is he an expert, sure, does that mean he is right about EVERYTHING concerning the war? Of course not. He gets my nod when talking about military tactics but as to his take on the POLITICAL aspects of the war? He has no more credibility than anyone else.
This is what he said March 2 2005 (WAPO)-Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said yesterday that the strength of the Iraqi insurgency is waning as a result of momentum from elections, and he predicted Iraqi security forces would be leading the fight against insurgents in most of Iraq by the end of 2005. (Bad prediction no?)
This is what he said 3 weeks ago(60 minutes)-"The sectarian violence is worrisome. It can be fatal to Iraq if it's not checked. The Iraqis know that better than anybody. And there's no solution to a divided Iraq. There's no good solution to a divided Iraq. It's gotta come together. It's gotta stabilize. And it's gonna require Iraqi sacrifice and courage and responsibility along with that of the United States and our allies," Abizaid says. "The U.S. strategy has been to hand over increasing responsibility for the country’s security to Iraqi forces, who are largely ill-equipped, undermanned and unreliable. There's mounting evidence they're complicit in many militia kidnappings and executions and are as much a part of the problem as the solution"(60 reporter).--"I believe that in the last three or four months, that the prime minister and his ministers, in particular the minister of defense and the new minister of interior, have showed a clear desire to move against the sectarian violence. They know that the militias have got to be taken on"Abizaid.
General Abizaid also pointed out that Iran that wants a weak central Iraq govt, bc they control strong militias. Basically they want to reproduce a Southern Lebanon. Our military and Bush need this kind of honesty when talking to American public. I always feel Bush thinks we are all 8 years old. Explain the geopolitics and people would make sacrifices. Iran provides money and weapons to the Shia death squads in Iraq.
What has been striking to me since the start of the war is that all the mistakes were made before in Vietnam. McCain should understand that no matter how many troops we commit to Iraq, that in the end it is the Iraqi people that must take over. What is an additional 30,000 troops going to do anyway? The whole country is a target for the insurgents.
No matter, the army is tapped out now. Maybe they just want an excuse to crank up the draft. But the secret is the country has already had it with the war, and will never stand for the draft. McCain better hang up thinking he'll be the next prez.