Why is general Petraeus' report so drastically more optomistic than the pentagon's or GAO's?

or anyone else's ?|||Petraeus' report is basically another political statement asking for more time for Bush's war by claiming that the "surge" might work. His statements follow a wavering propaganda line.


First: Iraq is involved in terrorism, is linked to Al Qiada and involved in 9/11.


Second: Iraq is a nuclear threat to the the USA and the world


Third: Sadam Hussein is a tyrant and it is our duty to free the Iraqi people and bring them to democracy





After these statements were shown to be false and opposition to our presense and attempts to control Iraqi oil, the reasons to fight becasme less strident.





Fifth: If we leave Iraq will fall into chaos (It already IS in chaos)


Sixth: If we leave Al Qaida will take over Iraq (Iraqi's don't want Al Qaida or any foreigners controlling them which is why they are fighting us)





As these statements become transparent half truths another turn is taken:





Seventh: We're finally succeeding. We only need an indefinate amount of time and money. (Money is kept out of the debate as much as possible)


Eigth: General Petraeus' gives his "assessment" confirming all the above - all of which are lies.





The reason Bush continues this war is so American oil cartels, protected by US Troops and mercenary soldiers, can take control of Iraqi oil. This was to be accomplished as usual: We install a puppet government to do our bidding. But this time the government has no control of the army, police or populace which is intelligent and not afraid to fight foreigners on their soil because they've been doing so for centuries.





No one wants to say "The Emporer has no clothes!" and so we stay, fighting shadows, loosing lives, spending our nation's future for a lost cause that was wrong from the start but we're all too whatever to admit it, pack our bags and leave as the Russians finally did years back.|||Petraeus is a "political general". That's why he wrote an op/ed before the 2004 Presidential election extolling our success in Iraq.





He had an additional motivation with the current report. He needed to show how well he was doing his job following criticism that he allowed 200,000 weapons to disappear into the hands of insurgents.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,鈥?/a>|||Because Petraeus' report was about military successes due to the troop surge, while other reports address other factors such as political reconciliation, oil revenue sharing, progress of Iraqi security forces, etc.|||well... I think he's putting the best possible light on the situation... much like Bush...





ANYTHING that can REMOTELY be considered even close to being progress made is counted as a "goal achieved"...





while the Pentagon's and GAO's seem to be more fact based and deal with the real current situation... not the "almost, maybe, could be if everything goes perfect the next two years and we get lucky" situation...





EDIT:IS THE PENTAGON NOT ON THE GROUND? aren't all the generals with the pentagon? why do people keep saying they aren't on the ground? if the pentagon is as clueless as some seem to think... we're not going to win this war...|||Because Petraeus's report is a BLIND ATTEMPT to cover up the true face of Iraq:





That being we lost this war and are only looking for a way to briefly stabilize the country long enough to make our own escape from the very hell we ourselves CREATED.|||Petraeus is on the ground.. more than i can say for the rest .|||He believes we can still win in Iraq. To be fair, I see why he believes that. America started this war quick and took Baghdad within a couple of months. But the afterwards was horrible for both America and Iraq.





With the surge and the general change from Abizaid to Petraeus America was able to do much, much better. In fact, with the new allies in the Anbar Sunnis and possible other allies looking for our help it is fair to say America has a real chance in winning this war on a military level.





Unfortunately on a political and economic level, Iraq is a current failure (and looks to be a permanent one).





But Petraeus still believes if we give them the chance, the Iraqis can still pull this out of the fire and we can get what we wanted when we entered this war (a democratic gov't that is firmly allied with us). I could see a splintered country (meaning more than one country arising out of this) with at least one of those splinters allied with America (and most of the other at least not against us). But I don't see this current government doing it.





I see the various tribes/sects/regions each fighting for peace but not working together to get there. Each one would come to us separately for assistance and would insist on staying separate even after the violence ceases (assuming it does, I see it as a possibility but by no means a certainty). The only way then would be to split the former Iraq into various small nation-state (similar to Greece before it unified under Alexander the Great).





Petraeus is just trying to buy time from Congress to see if he can still make this work. I don't see him as a Bush yes-man, but that he honestly believes he can still pull this off and wants the chance to try.|||Maybe, just maybe, he really IS trying to betray us. Clearly he doesn't know when to let go, and as his C-in-C has shown us, that causes one to fudge the truth a little...|||Point of correction - the GAO team that prepared the GAO report was in Iraq for several months. In fact, since they could travel with less security than Gen. Petraeus, they probably got a much better look at things on the ground than the general did.|||Maybe because he has been to Iraq.|||General Petraeus is a very intelligent person , a real professional and a expert in his field of service. Some just can not comprehend the importance of anything except their own agenda's.