- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Petraeus: Obama Iraq plan a good starting point
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:30 pm to Wolfhound45
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:30 pm to Wolfhound45
He hasn't cost us trillions over a bunch of people that hate our guts.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:36 pm to Wolfhound45
Ongoing investigation. He can not be held accountable for blowing smoke.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:42 pm to TT9
quote:
He hasn't cost us trillions over a bunch of people that hate our guts.
No, he has just wasted trillions of dollars.
And they still hate us.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:50 pm to Wolfhound45
But not on wars dumbfrick, at least he's blowing it on our citizens.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:57 pm to TT9
quote:
...at least he's blowing it on our citizens.
What a wonderful virtue.
And you can come to Fort Bragg anytime and run your mouth at me face to face.
One time.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:10 pm to TT9
quote:
I'm in transit.
I'm sure you are. Internet tough guy.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:11 pm to Wolfhound45
Says the guy telling me to come to ft. Bragg.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:33 pm to TT9
quote:
Says the guy telling me to come to ft. Bragg.
You can come by any time. See how much of your mouth you will run face to face.
I can guarantee it will be zero.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:37 pm to Wolfhound45
Guarantee? You fight for Stalin or America? I have freedom of speech here.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:39 pm to TT9
quote:
We wouldn't be in this situation if not for Bush/war deferment chicken hawk
yet I'm sure you're a huge Clinton fan
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:42 pm to REG861
Absolutely, he balanced the budget and didn't lie us into wars.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:42 pm to Wolfhound45
My take on it is this. (From reading, talking to people involved, and personal experience)
1. Petraeus understood and employed counter insurgency during OEF 1 when he was the 101st Commander, his subordinates did the same thing and for the most part it was successful, meanwhile Odierno as 4th ID Commander blundered during the same period, mostly because he didn't understand the dynamics of where he was operating and allowed his subordinate commands to make a bad situation worse. The 4th did have a tougher sector, but I have heard so many stories of ineptness that makes me think Odierno should have been relieved, but TF 121 captures Saddam in Odierno's sector and he gets credit. The 101st is relieved by one brigade of 2nd ID and Mosul goes to shite, meanwhile the 4th's sector is split between 1st ID, 1st CAV, and the Marines who have varying success. 1st ID generally does ok all things considered, the Marines do well and 1st CAV under Chiarelli, not so much.
2. So before the surge Petraeus takes his success and trains Iraqis and puts his thoughts into doctrine so much so that his influence is being felt heavily through all Training and Doctrine activities (I don't think this gets as much attention). By 2006 Iraq is a shite show both politically and militarily. Casey from my understanding is all about force protection, everything is big fobs, securing the routes and staying out of the cities. Meanwhile the Marines start their own counter insurgency tricks with the Anbar Awakening this pre dates the surge, they had also tried some early counter insurgency around Fallujah but Bremer had shut them down. At this point Petraeus and some policy insiders start pushing the administration for the surge. I guess my point is Odierno may have disagreed with Casey but I never heard he was instrumental in pushing for it.
3. I guess the last part is, did the surge really work, or did enough ethnic cleansing between the Sunnis and Shia finally separate the belligerent parties. The Marines in Anbar was certainly crucial in turning the tribes against AQ, and the intel/snake eaters under McChrystal got really good at killing the AQ types as well.
4. Anyway, I have never been really impressed with Odierno as a strategic thinker, and I have yet to hear anything extremely positive, just ok. I almost feel that some sort of revisionist history is being undertaken. Almost rather Soviet.
1. Petraeus understood and employed counter insurgency during OEF 1 when he was the 101st Commander, his subordinates did the same thing and for the most part it was successful, meanwhile Odierno as 4th ID Commander blundered during the same period, mostly because he didn't understand the dynamics of where he was operating and allowed his subordinate commands to make a bad situation worse. The 4th did have a tougher sector, but I have heard so many stories of ineptness that makes me think Odierno should have been relieved, but TF 121 captures Saddam in Odierno's sector and he gets credit. The 101st is relieved by one brigade of 2nd ID and Mosul goes to shite, meanwhile the 4th's sector is split between 1st ID, 1st CAV, and the Marines who have varying success. 1st ID generally does ok all things considered, the Marines do well and 1st CAV under Chiarelli, not so much.
2. So before the surge Petraeus takes his success and trains Iraqis and puts his thoughts into doctrine so much so that his influence is being felt heavily through all Training and Doctrine activities (I don't think this gets as much attention). By 2006 Iraq is a shite show both politically and militarily. Casey from my understanding is all about force protection, everything is big fobs, securing the routes and staying out of the cities. Meanwhile the Marines start their own counter insurgency tricks with the Anbar Awakening this pre dates the surge, they had also tried some early counter insurgency around Fallujah but Bremer had shut them down. At this point Petraeus and some policy insiders start pushing the administration for the surge. I guess my point is Odierno may have disagreed with Casey but I never heard he was instrumental in pushing for it.
3. I guess the last part is, did the surge really work, or did enough ethnic cleansing between the Sunnis and Shia finally separate the belligerent parties. The Marines in Anbar was certainly crucial in turning the tribes against AQ, and the intel/snake eaters under McChrystal got really good at killing the AQ types as well.
4. Anyway, I have never been really impressed with Odierno as a strategic thinker, and I have yet to hear anything extremely positive, just ok. I almost feel that some sort of revisionist history is being undertaken. Almost rather Soviet.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:43 pm to TT9
quote:
Absolutely, he balanced the budget and didn't lie us into wars.
but he was a draft dodger
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:58 pm to OleWar
quote:
I almost feel that some sort of revisionist history is being undertaken. Almost rather Soviet.
General Odierno readily admits he did not fully understand the conflict while in command of the 4th ID(M). And no one disagrees that General Petraeus had tremendous success as the commander of the 101st AASLT. But he was at Leavenworth while the issues were being discussed whether we should proceed with the surge. As the MNF-I DCG, General Odierno was (somewhat) covertly leading that effort by providing direct insights to General (Ret) Keane and Mr Hadley. General Casey was in complete disagreement (as were the service chiefs) to the concept of a surge.
I don't know either man personally (I did meet General Odierno while I was a student at the Army War College) and have not studied either extensively. But the actual implementation of the surge fell to General Odierno based upon what I have recently read.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:22 pm to TT9
quote:
TT9
Internet tough guy.
Feel free to come and prove how tough you are anytime.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News