General Odom to Senate: Withdrawal is only solution

Press_Coverage · 04-04-2008, 12:30 AM

[B][SIZE="4"]General William Odom Tells Senate Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution[/SIZE][/B]

[QUOTE]Related audio file:
[URL="http://www.standupcongress.org/downloads/360april1nationalpresscall.mp3"]Media conference call with StandUpCongress.org on April 1st[/URL].

Radio show with ThePeopleSpeakRadio.net on March 17th.[/QUOTE]

Testimony before Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations:

[URL="http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/OdomTestimony080402a.pdf"][COLOR="Blue"]TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ[/COLOR][/URL]By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.

2 April 2008

[I][COLOR="DarkRed"]Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

[B]I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims. [/B]

Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in
several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province.

More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political
solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic.

No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.

Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.

Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.

Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The
Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans,
including al Qaeda. [B]The concern we hear the president and his aides
express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter
nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq.[/B] The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites,
like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only
take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past
year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb
and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime.
As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president
and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on
spreading the war to Iran.

Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being
paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that
the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per
day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are
increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals
forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and
they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people.
We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment.
At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the
government’s troops and police, hardly a sign of political
reconciliation. [/COLOR][/I]

... <continued>

SanAntonio_JetFan · 04-04-2008, 10:56 AM

He's been arguing for withdrawal since 2005.

But thanks for the update. I'm glad to hear he's maintaining his position.

EDIT> Actually, since 2004.

bitonti · 04-04-2008, 11:18 AM

sounds like a COMMIE PINKO to me!

hey General ODOM love it or leave it! maybe you should move to Cuba!

Warfish · 04-04-2008, 11:42 AM

I'm just confused as to what a retired Lt. General who is not in the actual field active can tell us, and why his opinions about non-millitary issues involved are any more relevant than anyone else who is not an expert in those fields?

I'm not saying he is wrong. It just comes across as a cherry-picked Anti-War advocate being used to give testimony outside his actual personal experience and field of expertise, in order to discredit the current policy.

long island leprechaun · 04-04-2008, 11:55 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2464165]I'm just confused as to what a retired Lt. General who is not in the actual field active can tell us, and why his opinions about non-millitary issues involved are any more relevant than anyone else who is not an expert in those fields?

I'm not saying he is wrong. It just comes across as a cherry-picked Anti-War advocate being used to give testimony outside his actual personal experience and field of expertise, in order to discredit the current policy.[/QUOTE]

The sad thing is that we will be even more certain of being duped if we listen to current Pentagon stooges who issue tailor-made propaganda to serve whatever policy the Cheney Directorate imposes. You don't believe, I hope, that you will get a credible, honest, and direct assessment from anyone currently representing the Pentagon/White House? The "people" are always the last to know....

Warfish · 04-04-2008, 01:13 PM

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2464187]The sad thing is that we will be even more certain of being duped if we listen to current Pentagon stooges who issue tailor-made propaganda to serve whatever policy the Cheney Directorate imposes. You don't believe, I hope, that you will get a credible, honest, and direct assessment from anyone currently representing the Pentagon/White House? The "people" are always the last to know....[/QUOTE]

I think you're a little over the top in your conspiracy theory talk, but generally I do not disagree that the Pentagon is an arm of policy of the Administration, and as such is going to paint a rosier picture of things than perhaps it should. After all, it has no mandate to be "pessimisticly honest" with the American People, it's job is to plan for and engage in War.

Although, there has certainly been plenty of leaks, criticism and differences of opininion that has originated in the Pentagon thus far to perhaps diminish your ideals of the Pentagon as some unified proaganda machine for Cheney.....

Hoever, these issues do not address my concern with the Retired Lt. General or the legitimacy of this witness giving testimony on a War he is not involved in fighting, and on topics and issues he is not an certified expert in. If simply being opinionated is the criteria, we may as well have Sean Hannity and Rady Rhodes testify as well. At least it would be entertaining.

bitonti · 04-04-2008, 01:47 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2464353]
Hoever, these issues do not address my concern with the Retired Lt. General or the legitimacy of this witness giving testimony on a War he is not involved in fighting, and on topics and issues he is not an certified expert in. If simply being opinionated is the criteria, we may as well have Sean Hannity and Rady Rhodes testify as well. At least it would be entertaining.[/QUOTE]

What is the problem here? he's a master of warfare, regardless of his employment status.

The Pentacostalgon isn't necessarily any more legitimate than a retired general - in fact the retired person has nothing to lose, nothing to gain and can speak freely.

long island leprechaun · 04-04-2008, 02:20 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2464353]I think you're a little over the top in your conspiracy theory talk, but generally I do not disagree that the Pentagon is an arm of policy of the Administration, and as such is going to paint a rosier picture of things than perhaps it should. After all, it has no mandate to be "pessimisticly honest" with the American People, it's job is to plan for and engage in War.

Although, there has certainly been plenty of leaks, criticism and differences of opininion that has originated in the Pentagon thus far to perhaps diminish your ideals of the Pentagon as some unified proaganda machine for Cheney.....

Hoever, these issues do not address my concern with the Retired Lt. General or the legitimacy of this witness giving testimony on a War he is not involved in fighting, and on topics and issues he is not an certified expert in. If simply being opinionated is the criteria, we may as well have Sean Hannity and Rady Rhodes testify as well. At least it would be entertaining.[/QUOTE]

Here's a very interesting link for you. I meant what I said abou the propaganda machine. What the power elite has learned is that you have to control information... if you control information, you control power. It isn't a "conspiracy" at all. It is a way of doing business that essentially highjacks the democratic process and allows a handful of ideologues to steer our nation outside constitutional boundaries. It's ugly and it's not just a product of the neo-cons. It's how Washington has grown up over the years to be a cynical power factory with dreams of Roman glory.

[url]http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html[/url]

Press_Coverage · 04-04-2008, 04:08 PM

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2464505]Here's a very interesting link for you. I meant what I said abou the propaganda machine. What the power elite has learned is that you have to control information... if you control information, you control power. It isn't a "conspiracy" at all. It is a way of doing business that essentially highjacks the democratic process and allows a handful of ideologues to steer our nation outside constitutional boundaries. It's ugly and it's not just a product of the neo-cons. It's how Washington has grown up over the years to be a cynical power factory with dreams of Roman glory.

[url]http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html[/url][/QUOTE]

Post of the Week.

Can anyone remind me how much combat Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and the gang ever saw? Gosh, Dick. Just what were those deferrments all about?

JetsCrazey · 04-04-2008, 04:15 PM

delusional libtard ;)

SanAntonio_JetFan · 04-04-2008, 05:05 PM

[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2464835]Post of the Week.

Can anyone remind me how much combat Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and the gang ever saw? Gosh, Dick. Just what were those deferrments all about?[/QUOTE]

Well, the only candidate running right now who has combat experience is McCain. Unless you count Hillary's "courage under fire" episode.

MnJetFan · 04-06-2008, 12:01 AM

There is no doubt this war is sucking the lifeblood out of this country. It simply cannot go on. It is about priorities and Iraq is not one of them.

04-04-2008, 12:30 AM	#1
Press_Coverage Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,123	General Odom to Senate: Withdrawal is only solution [B][SIZE="4"]General William Odom Tells Senate Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution[/SIZE][/B] [QUOTE]Related audio file: [URL="http://www.standupcongress.org/downloads/360april1nationalpresscall.mp3"]Media conference call with StandUpCongress.org on April 1st[/URL]. Radio show with ThePeopleSpeakRadio.net on March 17th.[/QUOTE] Testimony before Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations: [URL="http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2008/OdomTestimony080402a.pdf"][COLOR="Blue"]TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ[/COLOR][/URL]By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret. 2 April 2008 [I][COLOR="DarkRed"]Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. [B]I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims. [/B] Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic. No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities. Also disturbing is Turkey’s military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey. Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight. Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. [B]The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq.[/B] The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran. Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government’s troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation. [/COLOR][/I] ... <continued>

04-04-2008, 10:56 AM	#2
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	He's been arguing for withdrawal since 2005. But thanks for the update. I'm glad to hear he's maintaining his position. EDIT> Actually, since 2004. Last edited by SanAntonio_JetFan; 04-04-2008 at 11:04 AM.

04-04-2008, 11:18 AM	#3
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	sounds like a COMMIE PINKO to me! hey General ODOM love it or leave it! maybe you should move to Cuba!

04-04-2008, 11:42 AM	#4
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	I'm just confused as to what a retired Lt. General who is not in the actual field active can tell us, and why his opinions about non-millitary issues involved are any more relevant than anyone else who is not an expert in those fields? I'm not saying he is wrong. It just comes across as a cherry-picked Anti-War advocate being used to give testimony outside his actual personal experience and field of expertise, in order to discredit the current policy.

04-04-2008, 11:55 AM	#5
long island leprechaun Don't mess with Angel Eyes. All Pro Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: greenwich village, NYC Posts: 7,237	[QUOTE=Warfish;2464165]I'm just confused as to what a retired Lt. General who is not in the actual field active can tell us, and why his opinions about non-millitary issues involved are any more relevant than anyone else who is not an expert in those fields? I'm not saying he is wrong. It just comes across as a cherry-picked Anti-War advocate being used to give testimony outside his actual personal experience and field of expertise, in order to discredit the current policy.[/QUOTE] The sad thing is that we will be even more certain of being duped if we listen to current Pentagon stooges who issue tailor-made propaganda to serve whatever policy the Cheney Directorate imposes. You don't believe, I hope, that you will get a credible, honest, and direct assessment from anyone currently representing the Pentagon/White House? The "people" are always the last to know....

04-04-2008, 01:13 PM	#6
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2464187]The sad thing is that we will be even more certain of being duped if we listen to current Pentagon stooges who issue tailor-made propaganda to serve whatever policy the Cheney Directorate imposes. You don't believe, I hope, that you will get a credible, honest, and direct assessment from anyone currently representing the Pentagon/White House? The "people" are always the last to know....[/QUOTE] I think you're a little over the top in your conspiracy theory talk, but generally I do not disagree that the Pentagon is an arm of policy of the Administration, and as such is going to paint a rosier picture of things than perhaps it should. After all, it has no mandate to be "pessimisticly honest" with the American People, it's job is to plan for and engage in War. Although, there has certainly been plenty of leaks, criticism and differences of opininion that has originated in the Pentagon thus far to perhaps diminish your ideals of the Pentagon as some unified proaganda machine for Cheney..... Hoever, these issues do not address my concern with the Retired Lt. General or the legitimacy of this witness giving testimony on a War he is not involved in fighting, and on topics and issues he is not an certified expert in. If simply being opinionated is the criteria, we may as well have Sean Hannity and Rady Rhodes testify as well. At least it would be entertaining.

04-04-2008, 01:47 PM	#7
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[QUOTE=Warfish;2464353] Hoever, these issues do not address my concern with the Retired Lt. General or the legitimacy of this witness giving testimony on a War he is not involved in fighting, and on topics and issues he is not an certified expert in. If simply being opinionated is the criteria, we may as well have Sean Hannity and Rady Rhodes testify as well. At least it would be entertaining.[/QUOTE] What is the problem here? he's a master of warfare, regardless of his employment status. The Pentacostalgon isn't necessarily any more legitimate than a retired general - in fact the retired person has nothing to lose, nothing to gain and can speak freely.

04-04-2008, 02:20 PM	#8
long island leprechaun Don't mess with Angel Eyes. All Pro Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: greenwich village, NYC Posts: 7,237	[QUOTE=Warfish;2464353]I think you're a little over the top in your conspiracy theory talk, but generally I do not disagree that the Pentagon is an arm of policy of the Administration, and as such is going to paint a rosier picture of things than perhaps it should. After all, it has no mandate to be "pessimisticly honest" with the American People, it's job is to plan for and engage in War. Although, there has certainly been plenty of leaks, criticism and differences of opininion that has originated in the Pentagon thus far to perhaps diminish your ideals of the Pentagon as some unified proaganda machine for Cheney..... Hoever, these issues do not address my concern with the Retired Lt. General or the legitimacy of this witness giving testimony on a War he is not involved in fighting, and on topics and issues he is not an certified expert in. If simply being opinionated is the criteria, we may as well have Sean Hannity and Rady Rhodes testify as well. At least it would be entertaining.[/QUOTE] Here's a very interesting link for you. I meant what I said abou the propaganda machine. What the power elite has learned is that you have to control information... if you control information, you control power. It isn't a "conspiracy" at all. It is a way of doing business that essentially highjacks the democratic process and allows a handful of ideologues to steer our nation outside constitutional boundaries. It's ugly and it's not just a product of the neo-cons. It's how Washington has grown up over the years to be a cynical power factory with dreams of Roman glory. [url]http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html[/url]

04-04-2008, 04:08 PM	#9
Press_Coverage Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,123	[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2464505]Here's a very interesting link for you. I meant what I said abou the propaganda machine. What the power elite has learned is that you have to control information... if you control information, you control power. It isn't a "conspiracy" at all. It is a way of doing business that essentially highjacks the democratic process and allows a handful of ideologues to steer our nation outside constitutional boundaries. It's ugly and it's not just a product of the neo-cons. It's how Washington has grown up over the years to be a cynical power factory with dreams of Roman glory. [url]http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html[/url][/QUOTE] Post of the Week. Can anyone remind me how much combat Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and the gang ever saw? Gosh, Dick. Just what were those deferrments all about?

04-04-2008, 04:15 PM	#10
JetsCrazey All League Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,664	delusional libtard ;)

04-04-2008, 05:05 PM	#11
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2464835]Post of the Week. Can anyone remind me how much combat Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and the gang ever saw? Gosh, Dick. Just what were those deferrments all about?[/QUOTE] Well, the only candidate running right now who has combat experience is McCain. Unless you count Hillary's "courage under fire" episode.

04-06-2008, 12:01 AM	#12
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	There is no doubt this war is sucking the lifeblood out of this country. It simply cannot go on. It is about priorities and Iraq is not one of them.