Heads up: Gen. Odom a guest commentator on PBS NewsHour after Bush's TelePrompTer-ization

[omega minimo]

... should have some strong statements as usual.

:patriot:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iraq_11-21.html

odom:

profile:

LT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM (Ret.):
So this notion that you stay in longer in order to reach something you couldn't reach early on is simply an unwillingness to face the realities.
 

DEBATING IRAQ WAR STRATEGY

November 21, 2005
Democratic U.S. Rep. John Murtha's speech calling for the U.S. to withdraw troops from Iraq in the next six months added fire to the debate over the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror. Two experts discuss how Murtha's plan would affect the situation on the ground.



 
Experts debate withdrawal
RAY SUAREZ: Two views now on Congressman Murtha's get out of Iraq proposal. Retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor who is co-authoring a book on the inside story of the Iraq war, and retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, his latest book is "America's Inadvertent Empire."

<snip>

LT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM (Ret.):
People are becoming more and more aware of that it is not in our interest to be there. And the unfortunate thing about the debate is a refusal to go back and look at the war aims and look at whose interests were really served best. It is clear that Iran's interests were served by our invasion and that al-Qaida's interests because it could not break there until we came in. If we were to get out fairly precipitously, you can bet al-Qaida will be run out, too. They don't operate in the Kurdish area now, and the Shiites and the Iranians hate the al-Qaida.

<snip>

LT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM (Ret.):
The problem is not training security forces; the problem is political consolidation and it is not taking place. Gen. Trainor mentioned the danger of civil war there. We have a civil war now. The only thing that the U.S. withdrawal will change is the configuration of that war to some degree. It will probably not be as bad and as long as we thought, or as predicted.

<snip>

LT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM (Ret.):
Most of the things he has said will happen and others have said will happen were inevitable the minute we invaded and staying longer won't make them not inevitable. We're going to have to pay the price of accepting these consequences. They were eminently foreseeable and the longer we put it off, the bigger the price we will pay, and the longer it will take us to restore some kind of alliance effort for the larger region. Those people who want to stay the course now are just, in my view, very much feeding the forces they think they are against al-Qaida and other radical movements in the region. The quicker we get out, the quicker it will re-stabilize and the quicker we will have an option to do something about it with true allies as opposed to those we paid to come and join the coalition.

<snip>



An older discussion with Lt. Gen. Odom

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/prospects_5-10.html

WINNING AND LOSING

May 10, 2004

Between a growing prisoner abuse scandal and continued clashes between insurgents and coalition forces, some say the U.S.-led war in Iraq is facing major challenges to any successful military conclusion. Margaret Warner gets three perspectives on coalition progress and what steps the military should take next.
 
MARGARET WARNER: Joining me to discuss the military prospects in Iraq are retired Army Lt. General William Odom, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. His latest book is "America's Inadvertent Empire." Retired Marine Corps Lt. General Bernard Trainor, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and co-author of "The Generals' War," a book about the 1991 Gulf War, and Larry Diamond, a former political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. He left that post last month. He's a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Online NewsHour Special Report:
Iraq in Transition

Nov. 18, 2005
Political analysts discuss the debate about the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Nov. 17, 2005
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq

Nov. 16, 2005:
Sunnis in Iraq requested an international inquiry into claims that Shiite forces abused suspected insurgents


Nov. 15, 2005:
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi defends Iraqi invasion and outlines road ahead.

Nov. 15, 2005:
Two senior senators discuss how best to outline an exit strategy from Iraq.

Nov. 7, 2005: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace discusses the U.S.-led operation to root out insurgents in Iraq.

Oct. 25, 2005:
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad discusses the next steps.

Oct. 19, 2005:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testifies to the Senate about U.S. policy in the Middle East

Oct. 14, 2005:
Middle East experts debate the Iraq referendum's importance to peace and stability.

Oct. 12, 2005:
Iraqi leaders reach deal on draft constitution.

Sept. 15, 2005:
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani discusses the latest violence in his country and the possibility of a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

[omega minimo]

1. started at 18:42-- check it out!-- more info on Odom

posted by Scarlet Woman in Dec. 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2922588

“Six Brutal Truths about Iraq,” By Gen. Odom (READ THIS, dammit!)
Six Brutal Truths about Iraq
General William Odom, one of the earliest advocates of an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, attacks some of the mythologies that are interfering with an honest debate about how to proceed in the Middle East and says the media have failed to recognize dramatic changes in the region.
By William E. Odom
Mythologies about the war in Iraq are endangering our republic, our rights, and our responsibilities before the world. The longer we fail to dispel them, the higher price we will pay. The following six truths, while perhaps not self-evident to the American public, are nevertheless conspicuously obvious to much the rest of the world.
Truth No. 1: No "deal" of any kind can be made among the warring parties in Iraq that will bring stability and order, even temporarily.
Ever since the war began to go badly in the summer of 2003, a mythology has arisen that a deal among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could bring peace and stability to Iraq. First, the parliamentary elections were expected to be such a breakthrough. When peace and stability did not follow, the referendum on a constitution was proclaimed the panacea. When that failed, it was asserted that we just had not yet found the proper prime minister. Even today, the Iraq Study Group is searching for this holy grail. It doesn't exist.
Truth No. 2: There was no way to have "done it right" in Iraq so that U.S. war aims could have been achieved.
Virtually every new book published on the war, especially Cobra II, Fiasco, and State of Denial, reinforce the myth – the illusion – that we could have won the war; we just did not plan properly and fight the war the right way. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and most other major newspapers have consistently filled their opinion pages with arguments and testimonials to support that myth. (Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University offers the most recent conspicuous reinforcement of this myth in the Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2006.)
The fragmentation of the country, civil war, and the rise of outside influence from Iran, Syria, and other countries – all of these things might have been postponed for a time by different war plans and occupation polices. But failure would have eventually raised its ugly head. Possibly, some of the variables would be a bit different. For example, if the Iraqi military had not been dissolved and if most of the Baathist Party cadres not been disenfranchised, the Sunni factions, instead of the Shiites, probably would have owned the ministry of interior, the police, and several unofficial militias. The Shiites, in that event, would have been the insurgents, abundantly supplied by Iran, indiscriminately killing Sunni civilians, fighting the U.S. military forces, blowing up the power grid, and so on.
A different U.S. occupation plan might have changed the course Iraq has taken to civil war and fragmentation, but it could have not prevented that outcome.
Now go read Truths nos. 3 through 6, dammit!
sw

[omega minimo]

2. kick for anyone interested in Odom. and see www.pbs.org/newshour