While Bill O'Reilly,
Michael Reagan and other hate radio pundits call for Howard Dean to be tried for treason and hung for suggesting the war in Iraq cannot be won, General Barbara Fast last week in the
Sierra Vista Herald had this to say about the Iraq Mission:
"One of the things I wanted to do was to take a look at the training that we at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center are doing in Iraq," Fast said.
One of the United States' strategies is to train Iraqi security forces to function on their own, the general said.
"The (U.S.) military is not going to win this war, nor should we expect the military to win the war," she said.
It isn't that Fast is a defeatist, but she was taking a realistic approach.
"The whole thing is going to be won and decided by the Iraqi people," Fast said. "That's what is going to dictate success."
I have my ear to the ground, waiting for the outrage and demands for General Fast's treason trial and hanging.
And I hear... nothing.
Here's General Fast's
Wikipedia bio:
Major General Barbara Fast is an officer in the United States Army. In her recent posts her responsibilities have been in the field of military intelligence.
Major General Fast was the most senior military intelligence officer serving in Iraq during the period of time when the most infamous abuse of prisoners occurred. She is one of the senior officers critics believe should have been held to account for that abuse.
Major General Fast has not received any official reprimands for the performance of her troops. She was recently assigned to command the Army's intelligence school at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. This is generally regarded as a promotion and a sign of the Bush administration endorsement of her performance in Iraq....
Is General Fast advocating Cut & Run, like General William Odom, or does she have the same intelligence as Representative John Murtha?
From Democracy Now last October:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, why don't you lay out your argument? A general calling for cutting and running?
LT. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM: Well, I'm trying to think like a strategist. And in war, as well as in politics and diplomacy, one has to know when to withdraw and when to attack. And this was a misguided attack, and it requires a strategic vision and moral confidence to turn it around, the earlier the better. But as the evidence piles up, I think my judgment is being borne out.
I said before the war in February that if we invade Iraq, this will serve primarily the interests of two people: Osama bin Laden, because it will make Iraq safe for al Qaeda, and it will allow him to have access to kill Americans, which he cannot do in the U.S. very effectively; the second party that would benefit greatly would be the Iranians. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, and they fought for eight years, and Iranians hated that regime as much more than we did. Therefore it was very much in their interest, and it is clearer now that a Shiite majority will probably end up in control in Iraq, and it will not be pro-American, and it probably will be an Islamic religious republic....