If you're like me, you've watched part or most of the testimony of GEN Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker over the past few days. I've found myself put off with the political posturing by many of the people questioning these two patriotic Americans - to the point that after a half day of watching it live, I turned it off.

And, depending on which main stream news source you watched or read, you got their slant on what was said or what was meant by what was said.

Some of you may have chosen to ignore the whole thing, saving yourselves the frustration of hearing it in real time or listening to the diverse opinions from those with their own agendas.

So - I decided to provide this special update with the news reports that have come out from the American Forces Press Service over the past few days. Admittedly, these reports come from the Department of Defense and are reported from their point of view - at least all stories come from a consistent source. With that said, what is reported here is a straight summary of what was said in the various testimonies or press conferences and is not twisted to fit the agenda of some special interest group or candidate.

If you're interested in this series of articles, read on - if not, feel free to hit erase and ignore them. I offer them as a service to our 4ID and MND-B Soldiers and Families

By Army Sgt. Sara Moore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 8, 2008 - The United States should take 45 days after the last "surge" brigade leaves Iraq in July to evaluate the situation before deciding future troop levels, the coalition's top military commander said here today.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus reported his recommendation in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He testified along with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker about the situation in Iraq and progress made since September, when the two leaders last delivered an update to Congress and the president.

Petraeus and Crocker both said that while Iraq has made significant security, economic and political gains, the situation remains fragile and the progress is reversible if the United States does not stay the course.

As the United States draws its forces down to the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams, leaders must ensure that the security gains made so far are not jeopardized, Petraeus said. The 45-day evaluation period would give commanders time to assess conditions on the ground and determine when they can make recommendations for further troop reductions, he said.

"This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit," Petraeus said. "This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable; however, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve." (Emphasis added by Bob - makes good sense to me, amazing how some of the Senators couldn't understand this statement).

Petraeus cited the operational and strategic considerations he took into account when forming his recommendation, including:

-- The military surge has achieved progress, but that progress is reversible;

-- Iraqi security forces have strengthened their capabilities, but still must grow further;

-- The provincial elections scheduled in the fall, refugee returns, detainee releases, and efforts to resolve provincial boundary disputes will pose challenges;

-- The transition of "Sons of Iraq" -- organized groups of local citizens helping with security -- into the Iraqi security forces or other pursuits will require time and careful monitoring;

-- Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year;

--Performing the necessary tasks in Iraq will require sizable conventional forces as well as special operations forces and advisor teams;

-- The strain on the U.S. military has been considerable;

-- A number of security challenges inside Iraq also are related to significant regional and global threats; and

-- A failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against al-Qaida, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the effort to counter malign Iran influence.

Since September, there has been "significant but uneven security progress in Iraq," Petraeus told the committee. Levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaida and other extremists have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have grown, and there has been involvement of local Iraqis in security, he said.

"Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory, and innumerable challenges remain," he said. "Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us, and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible."

Several factors have contributed to the progress made in Iraq, Petraeus said. Iraq added more than 100,000 additional soldiers and police to its security forces ranks in 2007. Counterinsurgency operations across the country have pursued al-Qaida, fought criminals and extremists, fostered local reconciliation and enabled political and economic progress. The country also experienced a shift in attitude among the Iraqi population, he said.

"Since the first Sunni 'awakening' in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected [al-Qaida in Iraq's] indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology," he said. "These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq's bounty if they didn't participate in the political arena."

More than 91,000 Sons of Iraq local security volunteers are under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads, Petraeus said. These volunteers have helped to reduce violence and contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons caches, he said. The Sons of Iraq have been directly responsible for many lives and vehicles saved, and their value far outweighs the cost of the contracts to pay them, he said.

"Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we are working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment, and over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs," Petraeus said. "This process has been slow, but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully."

For nearly six months, security incidents in Iraq have been at a level not seen since early-to-mid 2005, Petraeus reported. Also, the level of civilian deaths has decreased to a level not seen since the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. Deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence have fallen since September, and the number of high-profile attacks is far below what it was a year ago, the general said.

While this progress is significant, al-Qaida is still capable of lethal attacks, and the coalition must maintain pressure on the organization and the resources that sustain it, Petraeus said. Defeating al-Qaida will require actions by elite counter-terrorist forces, major operations by coalition and Iraqi conventional forces, a sophisticated intelligence effort, political reconciliation, economic and social programs, information operations initiatives, diplomatic activity and many other actions, he said.

Iraqi security forces have grown considerably and continued to develop since September, Petraeus said. More than 540,000 people now serve in the Iraqi forces, and half of Iraq's 18 provinces are under Iraqi provincial control. Additionally, Iraqi's training base has become more robust and is expected to generate another 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 army and special operations battalions through the rest of 2008, he said.

Coalition officials expect that Iraq will spend more than $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year, he said, allowing the United States to reduce its Iraqi security forces fund for fiscal 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion.

Recent operations in Basra, where Iraqi forces responded to a spike in violence by Shiia extremists, highlighted improvements in the Iraqi forces' ability to deploy units, supplies and replacements on very short notice, Petraeus said. However, they also underscored the considerable work still needed in the areas of logistics, force enablers, staff development, and command and control.

Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, cited Iraq's political gains in the past months. Iraq's parliament has formulated, debated and passed legislation dealing with issues of reconciliation and nation building, he said. The parliament has passed such important laws as a pension law, de-Baathification reform, a provincial powers law, and a vote to change the design of the Iraqi flag.

Crocker also noted the gains made in Iraq's economy and in improving governance and services. The most obvious indicator of these gains has been the revival of marketplaces and long-shuttered businesses, he said.

Iraq is now earning the financial resources it needs for reconstruction through oil production and export, and so the coalition's focus has shifted to capacity development through the provincial reconstruction teams, Crocker said. The 25 PRTs throughout Iraq have been working to improve provincial and local governance capabilities and to establish links between provincial and federal governments.

"We are seeking to ensure that our assistance, in partnership with the Iraqis, leverages Iraq's own resources," Crocker said.

Looking at the progress in the political and economic arenas, as well as the security gains, it is clear the strategy that began with the U.S. troop surge is working, Crocker said. However, it does not mean U.S. support should be open-ended, he said. In this vein, the United States and Iraq have begun negotiating a bilateral relationship that will include economic, political, diplomatic and security cooperation, he said.

This relationship will be a legal framework for the presence of American troops in Iraq, but it will not establish permanent bases there and will not specify troop levels, Crocker said.

"Our aim is to ensure that the next president arrives in office with a stable foundation upon which to base policy decisions, and that is precisely what this agreement will do," he said.

A direct quote form Petraeus:

"“We haven’t turned any corners, we haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”

I notice that I don't see the right wing spin machine using that quote much.

As for the rest of it, it mostly a major propaganda effort. Talk about spin, brother, you could sure see some from Crocker and Petraeus in that briefing.

Maliki and his cronies get Sadr to go home and sit on their hands for a few months. We pay off some of the people who were attacking us to form neighborhood militias to do the job that the government cannot or will we will not do. And then we call it major progress. BS.

Sadr popped up stirred the pot just enough to show that he could still be a major pain in the ass whenever he chooses and Maliki has to ask Iran to make him play nice.

Well, the good general was certainly correct - there does not seem to be any light at the end of that tunnel. In fact, that tunnel is looking more and more like a cave, with no "end" there.

Tell me again why we are breaking the American military and the American Treasury over this BS?

jack B i disagree with you. The u s military is not broken and if we didnt fight the terrorists in their home ground they would be here. They would wreak tremendous damage to this country.
Now if you want to read about the actions of american soldiers (specificaly 4th I D soldiers. Go to Blackfive and you can read about how they saved a newborn infant. But you or any other left winger would not want to hear anything good about americans.

If you decide to open your mind and go there scroll down to '4th Id soldiers make incredible find"

Duane as much as I really want to get away from these wastless posts, no one including myself is questioning nor have ever questioned what our 4th ID or our military has done. We all know that they are the best, excpet for a few of course, and our support is 150% behind them.

You seem to miss the entire point no matter what the post sublject is or who posts

"It is our leadership we question and the American people question." Why you do not understand that I have no idea.

end of post

Well put SSG Mike. Of course it will do no good with people who choose to intentionally mis-interpret, or mis-quote.
I am very proud of our soldiers. I am very proud to have been a soldier. One of the reasons I'm proud, is because we stood for the very dissent, and right to be critical of elected officials, that is exercised on this board. We, and our Brothers, fought for the right to dissent.
It is one of the anomalies of military service that in order to defend freedom, we are required to give up some of that freedom during our service. After discharge, we are no longer subject to the laws of the UCMJ, and have every right to speak our opinions.

None of you guys said that you did go and read about our soldiers taking care of that baby. None of you. Because it doesnt fit in with your view of the U S as evil.

Duane think you way off base here. No one is questioning the actions of our Armed Forces personnel. It seems we are questioning the leadership of this country. We know that the military does what the civilain elected government wants. The problem here to me is that the government is in the business of war, to me once the civilan government decides to go to war, they should let the military prosecute the war. In World War II that is what happened since then the government is running wars. I fear that all we will see is another wall with the names of the fallen from this war on it. Rest assured after the Fedearl Election this year, either we will still be in Iraq, or we will do another cut and run. This could be avoided if the military was allowed to prosecute this war. Sorry I am not political and I say screw world opinion. We are fighting this war along with Britan and a few other allies.

These are comments of two other veterans about the war.

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. L.W. Svendsen, 79, was a fighter pilot in Korea and Vietnam. He believes journalists "have a responsibility and an opportunity to garner support" for the war by focusing more on "positive stories" occurring in Iraq.

Dennis Russell, 59, a retired Army NCO, served in Operation Desert Storm. His son, Army Sgt. John Russell, 26, died in Iraq Nov. 15, 2003. Russell is "very angry" about the way the media are covering the war.

There is no "national will" to win, Svendsen argues, blaming that on the media's fixation on death totals and other bad news.

"(The enemy) knows that the compliant American press will poison our will by reporting all the negatives of the conflict and persuading more Americans that the war is not worth the losses," his e-mail said. "The horrors of defeat are unspeakable: Your newspaper will be run by an imam and there will be beheadings in the streets, food riots, no gasoline..."

"We are the world's guarantor of freedom. We cannot abrogate that responsibility we earned after World War II. We're gonna lose if we don't galvanize support for a total war effort.

"We can defeat them with alacrity," Svendsen later told me in a telephone interview, "but we can't win when we have people running for president who want to cut and run."

Russell compares Iraq to Vietnam, another war led by a Texan president, which split America along class and generational lines and claimed more than 58,000 American lives.

I think that I tend to agree with them.
Mad Doc, I’m sure you do support our troops. Just as Robert Ryan does and I suppose many others. The leadership of our country has continually been attacked by supporters of the Democratic party. Those that do it in the media do it for their own gain and lust for power rather than service to American.

Robert, I truly hope and pray that we do succeed in Iraq and manage to get a reasonable semblance of a functioning democracy there that can defend itself. I would hate to see your comments become fact.

"We can defeat them with alacrity," Svendsen later told me in a telephone interview, "but we can't win when we have people running for president who want to cut and run."

Alacrity? Six years is not exactly my idea of alacrity. There was no one running for President when we first invaded Iraq. There was a "honeymoon" of at least a year; when the Democrats "whimped out," in my opinion, and went along with everything the military asked for. Where was the alacrity at that time?
I do agree with the Vietnam anology; but I don't draw the same conclusion. Vietnam was a mistake, and so is Iraq. In both cases the President thought we were going to over-awe the enemy with our technology. Does not anyone in our military learn the lessons of guerilla war? You can not defeat an enemy who is protected by the people. These terrorists are not dropping from yhe sky. They are part of the landscape. "Winning Hearts and minds" went the Vietnam cliche. Cliche though it was, there was truth in it. We may have the minds of the Iraqis, but their hearts are not in it. A picture of GIs with Iraqi children can't change that. Where in the hell are the children's parents? If a majority of the Iraqi population stood up and said "ENOUGH!" then maybe I'll believe in alacrity.
The standard argument seems to go that we "cut and run" in Vietnam, and we shouldn't do the same in Iraq. We were involved in Vietnam, in one way or another, for over a decade. The people in power (in Vietnam) never could get their acts together and form a government that could inspire the people. I have no doubt we could still be there, if we hadn't "cut and run." I also have no doubt that we would be no closer to winning now than we were then. How much American blood are these causes worth?
If our side triumphs, and we get peace on our terms, I'll admit I was wrong. Let me ask you this: How long are you willing to wait for this miricle to occur? Is there any point at which you would say "it's just not worth it." The problem with counting our "investment in American lives," is the investment keeps getting larger but the dividends are never paid. No matter what we do, the dead are still dead, and we can't bring them back.

Duane you are still missing the entire point. Everyday our soldiers do good deads in Iraq covering various areas including saving the lives of children or ordinary Iraq / Afghan people not to include people in other countries. But that is our fellow Soldiers / Marines. Not only are we trained to fight and enemy who constantly hides in the shadows, but we are human people who care about others.

I say once again to you " It is our leadership" who has let our men and women down, and has moved our country into the worst shape that it has been in for centuries into a recession which the CIC is afraid to say the word on his watch and if we are not careful a depression could loom ahead.

Once again i ask if any of you have went to blackfive and read about the american soldiers helping to save that little baby . also its obvious the babys mother left her child where she knew americans would find him and care for him. she knew she couldnt and americans were her and her babys only hope. she didnt leave her child where al sadrs
forces would find him for good reason. Also there was one other important facet of this report. an iraqi interperter went to a close by store and bought diapers and formula for the child. think about that. A store close by selling the things people need in their lives. It is the americans that made that possible. That means the americans and the iraqi people are winning the fight against terrorism. You guys cant stand that hought but i say its true. you and the terrorists may yet achieve your goal of securing despotism where there could be peace and freedom, but yiou will have to fight hard.

Duane

Got a news flash for you.

In every war the US has fought in the US Soldiers have performed large amounts of Aid and Comfort to the Civilian Population. That includes Our War in Vietnam.

My unit Doc delivered a Baby in a Cart once, while we secured the road so a Chopper could come in and pick up the Mother and the Baby. It had nothing to do with our Mission, it was just the Right thing to do.

Im sure that Most here on this board share experiences of a similar instance of helping the Civilian population sometime in that war.

I haven't seen one post on this board where a poster has NOT Supported the US Troops in Iraq or where a poster has SUPPORTED the Terrorists as you keep saying we do.

I have however seen a lot of NON support for your Hero GW Bush and the rest of the Dirtbag Republicans in Congress.

Yes Jinks, but by now you should have recognized that if you don't worship in Duane's church of "Do it our way or you are dirt!", nothing that you ever do will be any good in his eyes.

I would give him credit at least for standing by his credo - except that I don't think he has a choice. I think that it is just built into him, like stink is built into a stink bug.