BREAKING Top Army General Drops Bombshell about ISIS as He is about to Retire

He has nothing to lose and we must know the truth. We need to know what we are facing so we can prepare!

SPC Silva, it should be made clear that GEN Odierno is retiring and not resigning. That sets the tone for the article. If you can't believe part you can't believe it all. Obviously GEN Odierno has advised the CJCS and SECDEF on his opinion previously. Normally TCS doesn't speak directly to the President.

If you'll rememember we withdrew our forces because Iraq refused to renew our SOFA, without which U.S. soldiers could have been tried in Iraqi courts. Neither the Bush or the Obama administrations could persuade Iraq to relent.

As for the interview, I found the interviewer asking questions that would reinforce her preconceived notions. This article emphasizes phrases that the General wasn't particularly emphatic on.btupicslly misleading.

A point to remember ISIS was conceived and originated in Syria, by former Baathists from Saddam's regime and started as a reaction to Assad as part of the Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East.

Not impressed. Think of the impact he could have made by resigning his position while he had influence not when he has one foot out the door.

SPC (Join to see)
I agree with pretty much everyone when I say that General Odierno is 100% correct.

Won't be the first, Won't be the last. Senior Officers live in the Whirlwind that is Inside the Beltway Politics and Politics is an Ugly Game. They are Sworn to the President but their Advancement is up to the Senate and with a Conflicted Government you have to decide which is more important to you. Obviously he has thrown his lot in with the Republicans with hope of a position possibly in an Republican Administration. Nothing More, Nothing Less.

I just recently changed my specialty within nursing, needs to work on a medical surgical floor where I dealt with patients who were going to get better, or they were going to die. Pretty much their future was written in stone, and it was an extreme emergency any time this future was threatened. I’ve now moved in the critical care field, and one of the things I’m realizing is that modern medicine allows us to basically put somebody on life support to an extent that they would never technically die. I almost wonder if Iraq is an analogous situation, yes things were going really good, and the US constructed Iraqi state looked like it was going to survive forever, but I feel like just as in my profession if that person is on the life-support machines for five minutes, or five years if there is not actually any hope of growth, or healing there’s no point keeping them on the machine for any longer. As we are seeing some of the defeats of the Iraqi army where tens of thousands of American trained troops are tossing aside their weapons and running from inferior forces I don’t know how many decades of American life support would’ve been necessary to maintain that stability.

We definitely have a legitimate discussion to be had over whether the investment would have been worthwhile in the maintenance of a stable Middle East, but I’m not convinced that further US investment would have created a stable Middle Eastern country that would’ve been capable of combating the situation whether it occurred now or 50 years in the future.

Please don’t get me wrong, the current administration is not and most likely will not accept responsibility for its role in the current problems within the Middle East by withdrawing troops at that time (as most administrations would not either), but just because they haven’t accepted responsibility for that, and just because the outcome was not positive does not mean that it was the incorrect action to take. I also wonder if maybe this was the best time for it to happen, as in Iraq you have the great majority of the population still remembers the rule of Saddam Hussein, and now they’re being threatened and required to work towards some form a unity to combat this horrendous force that is ISIS, or they may be required to in the very near future. In 40 years you would have a generation that was fully dependent on US military ground support for the defense of their nation, and we would have US troops dying for a citizenry that was most likely unwilling to die for its own protection.