Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: headhuntersix on August 06, 2007, 01:18:51 PM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QRMCU00&show_article=1
In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year.
It is a phase with fresh promise yet the same old worry: Iraq may be too fractured to make whole.
No matter how well or how long the U.S. military carries out its counterinsurgency mission, it cannot guarantee victory.....
Pretty good article, sums up how I and many in the Service feel. My question to the Dems and other would be...What happens if the Surge works and we could see cold hard proof that things are getting better. I don' think we're going to see solid proof that the American people could interpret as it working. I think it will be more obvious proof to the Military and analysts. But what if we could see proof that it was working, proof that anybody could see. Do we still draw down, pull out? What happens if we win. Bush gets blamed for a very slow and poor start but in the end we win.....maybe? I think its to far gone but......
-
Somethings don't make much sense to me.
All we needed after 4 years was 21,000 more troops to make things better?
BUSH will get blamed for 4 years of incompetence. Nothing can change that.
Personally, i don't think the juice is worth the squeeze in Iraq. Never thought it was.
-
500,000 troops in the beginning and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
-
Petraeus is a Bush company man. I predict that he will say exactly what Bush wants him to say about the 'Surge.'
-
Petraeus is a Bush company man. I predict that he will say exactly what Bush wants him to say about the 'Surge.'
I've been told there is no way to make it to General unless you are a "yes" man.
-
Pretty good article, sums up how I and many in the Service feel. My question to the Dems and other would be...What happens if the Surge works and we could see cold hard proof that things are getting better. I don' think we're going to see solid proof that the American people could interpret as it working. I think it will be more obvious proof to the Military and analysts. But what if we could see proof that it was working, proof that anybody could see. Do we still draw down, pull out? What happens if we win. Bush gets blamed for a very slow and poor start but in the end we win.....maybe? I think its to far gone but......
I think an important factor here is that this is a war without a purpose. Whenever Bush calls this a fight against terrorism, I get so irritated by how stupid that sounds. There is no way you can win a war against terrorism. You can only manage it to limit it. We see that the anytime America turns its back on Afghanistan, the taliban starts to regroup. The insurgency is going to have a bottomless supply of available recruits as long as we're occupying Iraq. Even if we manage to stabilize the country, if we ever leave, it will fall apart.
-
I've been told there is no way to make it to General unless you are a "yes" man.
Tell that to MacArthur....I mean if he were alive today.
-
I think u can build up countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to the point where they do it themselves. I think the name is dumb. But I think the we tried to go with politically correctish names so...GWOT is what u get. The war hasa purpose, but it might not have an end. Bush never said it would. The fronts might change, but the war will continue, whether it be active or dormant at times is a different story.
-
Tell that to MacArthur....I mean if he were alive today.
Tell that to the "American Caesar"?
;D
-
Petraeus is a Bush company man. I predict that he will say exactly what Bush wants him to say about the 'Surge.'
Hell no he's not. Ever meet the guy....he loves the US Army and would not want it destroyed. These guys were all around well before Bush. Decker, come on....u know better. I've met him, he's a good man. There are plenty of worthless Generals, its like that in any organization. Not this guy.
-
Hell no he's not. Ever meet the guy....he loves the US Army and would not want it destroyed. These guys were all around well before Bush. Decker, come on....u know better. I've met him, he's a good man. There are plenty of worthless Generals, its like that in any organization. Not this guy.
He's a very competent man and I'm sure his soldiers love him.
But he made up his mind about Iraq's progress back in 2004:
"Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up."
"Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html
I would bet the farm that he repeats the "momentum has gathered..." spiel in his September report.
The NIE from 2004 was so pessimistic in its analysis and conclusions over IRaq that the Bush people discounted it outright.
"As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made."
"Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?ex=1252987200&en=f2344cc156ca79c7&ei=5090
So where Petraeus sees solid progress and positive momentum in Iraq back in 2004, the classified NIE from the same time period shows the opposite is occurring.
Do you see the problem I have with the general's objectivity?
-
Things were'nt so bad in 2004. I don't know about any of that. We talking about now. We can all see that the security situation was poor and growing worse during that time. He was commenting on training and equiping Iraqi units. Anyway its about know..whether we pull out or stick....here's what some Dems from Clintons's administration say.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/7/31/is-the-surge-working.html
Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:
We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
Their conclusion:
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.
Their argument is one many Democrats in Congress don't want to hear. Literally. This is the transcript of the response of freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Friday to the optimistic testimony of Gen. Jack Keane, one of the original advocates of the surge:
-
Things were'nt so bad in 2004. I don't know about any of that. We talking about now. We can all see that the security situation was poor and growing worse during that time. He was commenting on training and equiping Iraqi units. Anyway its about know..whether we pull out or stick....here's what some Dems from Clintons's administration say.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/7/31/is-the-surge-working.html
Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:
We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
Their conclusion:
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.
Their argument is one many Democrats in Congress don't want to hear. Literally. This is the transcript of the response of freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Friday to the optimistic testimony of Gen. Jack Keane, one of the original advocates of the surge:
Pollack and O'Hanlon are bullshit artists that have always supported the conquering of Iraq. The veneer of plausibility from their 'democrat' and 'NY Times" ties is just window dressing.
Just like Judith Miller, Pollack and O'hanlon are neocon whores and they broadcast their 'liberal' writings on the front page of the 'liberal' NY Times.
You know they might fool some people but just look at the book Pollack authored:
The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq http://www.amazon.com/Threatening-Storm-Case-Invading-Iraq/dp/0375509283
Why maybe you are right, they are typical liberals opposed to the war yet grudgingly admitting that Bush and his Surge are working.
Over 4 years, 700 billion spent, 10s of thousands dead and Baghdad is still not secure.
-
If we haven’t won after four years, we are not going to win. Accept it, and get out. There is no shame in getting your ass kicked, accepting defeat, and moving on.
You have Rumsfeld to thank for this loss. :-[
-
First off..we are not getting our asses kicked...and besides this is ur damm countryas well, except u (collectively)have sacrificed nothing, not a damm fucking thing. So, if we in the Military, are a little hesitant about leaving before we have something,anything, to show for the dead and wounded comrades, broken marriages and large chunks of normal life, now missing from our lives, u might have to forgive us. And don't give that 'You signed up crap" We signed up to defend this country for you. Once in, we don't decide where to get sent. I don't see long lines at the recruiting office. I will be in the Army long after this war is over and I don't want to go through the Post Iraqi war crap like we did after Nam. And keep in mind, if the surge is working, we'll be there longer, and I'll have to go back. I don't mind at all.
-
If we haven’t won after four years, we are not going to win....
You really have to talk to Cheney then.
Remember when Cheney went on all the Sunday morning talkshows to garner support for the war by pointing out the Judith Miller NY Times artices re WMDs and Iraq?
Well, that was a scam b/c she was a whitehouse mole.
Now the pattern repeats itself with Cheney going on Larry King and using the questionable Pollock/O'Hanlon story to show just how well things are going in Iraq thanks to the surge.
"made significant progress now into the course of the summer. ... Don't take it from me. Look at the piece that appeared yesterday in The New York Times, not exactly a friendly publication — but a piece by Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq. They're just back from visiting over there. They both have been strong critics of the war." Dick Cheney on Larry King
And what do you know? The NY Times is the paper cited...again.
How stupid do they think we are?
-
Hey these are your guys, now that they finda glimmer of hope you hate em. Either way that was just one article out of many who are finding that the surge is working. My question was Now what?
-
First off..we are not getting our asses kicked...and besides this is ur damm countryas well, except u (collectively)have sacrificed nothing, not a damm fucking thing. So, if we in the Military, are a little hesitant about leaving before we have something,anything, to show for the dead and wounded comrades, broken marriages and large chunks of normal life, now missing from our lives, u might have to forgive us. And don't give that 'You signed up crap" We signed up to defend this country for you. Once in, we don't decide where to get sent. I don't see long lines at the recruiting office. I will be in the Army long after this war is over and I don't want to go through the Post Iraqi war crap like we did after Nam. And keep in mind, if the surge is working, we'll be there longer, and I'll have to go back. I don't mind at all.
HH it is comforting illusion to think that the US military is defending us in Iraq but it is not. I get no satisfaction in saying that.
Is the Surge working? I don't know and I don't care.
The same tired ploys are being used to build support for a failed foreign policy...right down to the same newspaper used to deceive the public as it had with the run up to war in 2002.
My stance is that nothing good can come of this invasion and continued occupation
I also think that we will not get a straight answer from Petraeus, Bush or anyone associated with this administration regarding more of the same aka the Surge.
The US military securing 1/2 of Baghdad is not progress HH.
-
Well thats whats wrorng with the Libs and Americans in general. You (Americans) want a quick fix to a complex problem that you have no hope of understanding. Americans and the military have grown extemely far apart. You don't understand warfare, nor should u have to. But I think u should understand how complex 4th generation warfare is. Understand or have heard that term or others like the 3 block war, which describes conflicts like Iraq. U don't have a good concept of military history, beyond broad strokes. And most importantly many have been blinded by Bush hate so much that you won't except the word of a 3 Star General who is doing his job brilliantly in a type of warfare that is almost impossible to win in the modern era of BS ROE's and constant media attention. You would be blown away by how we conduct and plan combat operations. How we see and deal with complex problems on a daily basis. Or how important these people will be to the future success of this country, on and off the battlefield. We fought the same type of war in the Philippines. We employed Gattling guns and developed the Colt .45 to deal with the insurgency. There was no media and no BS ROE. We fought a fanatical enemy and we crushed them. We would loose that war today.
Sure u can debate on whether we should be there, but we're there,and being there we should win. I won't except loosing as an outcome. Especially as we're in a situation where victory, defined by an Iraqi governement able to maintain its own security, freeing US troops to hunt AQ. Its not your problem, its America's problem. The concept of a defeated Army is alien to this current crop of Americans. Yet the remifications of such an event are huge..case in point, this guy.
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070806/FOREIGN/108060029/1001
Chavez consolidates control over military
SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has moved to tighten his control over his nation's armed forces, which he has equipped with the most powerful arsenal in the region, according to military officials and defense analysts.
In a command reshuffle last month, Mr. Chavez replaced his defense minister, Gen. Raul Baduel, with Gen. Gustavo Rangel, who previously commanded a 100,000-strong militia established by Mr. Chavez to protect his regime and resist any U.S. invasion.......
-
Well thats whats wrorng with the Libs and Americans in general. You (Americans) want a quick fix to a complex problem that you have no hope of understanding. Americans and the military have grown extemely far apart. You don't understand warfare, nor should u have to. But I think u should understand how complex 4th generation warfare is. Understand or have heard that term or others like the 3 block war, which describes conflicts like Iraq. U don't have a good concept of military history, beyond broad strokes. And most importantly many have been blinded by Bush hate so much that you won't except the word of a 3 Star General who is doing his job brilliantly in a type of warfare that is almost impossible to win in the modern era of BS ROE's and constant media attention. You would be blown away by how we conduct and plan combat operations. How we see and deal with complex problems on a daily basis. Or how important these people will be to the future success of this country, on and off the battlefield. We fought the same type of war in the Philippines. We employed Gattling guns and developed the Colt .45 to deal with the insurgency. There was no media and no BS ROE. We fought a fanatical enemy and we crushed them. We would loose that war today.
Sure u can debate on whether we should be there, but we're there,and being there we should win. I won't except loosing as an outcome. Especially as we're in a situation where victory, defined by an Iraqi governement able to maintain its own security, freeing US troops to hunt AQ. Its not your problem, its America's problem. The concept of a defeated Army is alien to this current crop of Americans. Yet the remifications of such an event are huge..case in point, this guy.
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070806/FOREIGN/108060029/1001
Chavez consolidates control over military
SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has moved to tighten his control over his nation's armed forces, which he has equipped with the most powerful arsenal in the region, according to military officials and defense analysts.
In a command reshuffle last month, Mr. Chavez replaced his defense minister, Gen. Raul Baduel, with Gen. Gustavo Rangel, who previously commanded a 100,000-strong militia established by Mr. Chavez to protect his regime and resist any U.S. invasion.......
I know enough about military warfare to comprehend the assertion that new ROE for troops just means more discretion to shoot without accountability.
I also know that terrorism is not a problem that can be solved militarily. It requires police work, help from our allies, and negotiations with our enemies.
Aside from that, yes I hate Bush for what he's done but "blind hatred" implies a hatred that is unwarranted or without object.
I hate Bush b/c he fabricated a threat to the US posed by Iraq and he illegally ordered the invasion of a country with no ties to the attacks of 9/11.
I would say that my contempt for the man is informed and justified....hardly blind.
As a student of military history you should know better than to reference the US's annexation of the philipines as some sort of a success. Anywhere from a quarter of a million to a million filipinos died. Is that the sort of success we want in Iraq?
We are there illegally and I don't accept the argument that, well, we're there already so let's see this thing through.
That is not good enough. With reasoning like that we would continue to march off the cliff instead of doing an about-face. (Ron Paul quote)
That is the rationale of any oppressive regime. The US is better than that.
-
I'll try to go point by point...
Our ROE especially during the invasion was crazy at times. You show your contempt of the militray by assuming we'd just mow down civilians..not true and you know it.
Terrorism is not a police issue..this is crazy and no real anti terrorism expert is going to agree. Such agencies can play a part. Big at times, small at other, but not the driving force.These are not Germans or Russians or anybody we have ever faced. We can't talk to them..so forget it.
The Philippine insurrection as a military operation was a success. We fought and defeated the same type of enemy, in very hard terrain. People die in war, its an unpleasant but pretty standard outcome. If more Americans understood the realties of combat, we might have the will to win this war in a very quick manner. This would save the lives of many Iraqi's. Th rest, illiegal war stuff..I'm not getting into..we both disagree...enough said.
-
If we haven’t won after four years, we are not going to win. Accept it, and get out. There is no shame in getting your ass kicked, accepting defeat, and moving on.
You have Rumsfeld to thank for this loss. :-[
What you just said is fucking reason we haven't already won...You are a pussy. If we would have went in strong, then we would even be talking about this right now and your fruity ass could be down at the nearest martini bar having cosmos with your life partner...
-
What you just said is fucking reason we haven't already won...You are a pussy. If we would have went in strong, then we would even be talking about this right now and your fruity ass could be down at the nearest martini bar having cosmos with your life partner...
We haven’t won because:
• the war was poorly managed (not enough troops, etc.)
• the war itself was unnecessary (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11)
If we had kept our eye on the ball--Al Queda (which is as strong now as it was before 911) and Bin Laden--we wouldn’t be talking about this right now and your dumb ass would not be put in the laughable position of defending a failed leader with failed policies. Given a choice between following the leadership of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (I actually respect Gates) I’d rather be at a martini bar having a mojito (I don't drink cosmos) with my life partner.
-
Both accurate points.....but i think that Bush has made other points that were valid about invading Iraq. My bottom line is twofold..what now, if the surge is working and I guess two...what happens if we leave. How will it affect America?
-
Good points in this thread Headhunter.
-
We haven’t won because:
• the war was poorly managed (not enough troops, etc.)
• the war itself was unnecessary (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11)
If we had kept our eye on the ball--Al Queda (which is as strong now than it was before 911) and Bin Laden--we wouldn’t be talking about this right now and your dumb ass would not be put in the laughable position of defending a failed leader with failed policies. Given a choice between following the leadership of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (I actually respect Gates) I’d rather be at a martini bar having a mojito (I don't drink cosmos) with my life partner.
How do those two points combat what I said??? I agree with the first point... We should have went in with more troops right off. furthermore, we went after Iraq because of WMD and not just what they could do with them, but who they could distribute them to(insert taliban)...sorry, I didn't mean to yell. I love mojitos...does that make me gay?
-
So,
Im waiting for the good news from the powers that be(white house) to show the surge is working or is taking a turn for the better.
All I read about is Iraqi government is walking out of cabinet meetings. Truck bombs still going off in public places in Bhagdad.
I would love for the Iraqi government to take control of their country and have all foreigners weaned off and out of their country.
Unfortunatly we are going to be there for years.
I think if we, as a People were asked to sacrifice something...gas rations, silk stockings, metals and felt that we are actually in wartime, the outcome of this engagement would have an exit plan.
Sandra
-
I'll try to go point by point...
Our ROE especially during the invasion was crazy at times. You show your contempt of the militray by assuming we'd just mow down civilians..not true and you know it.
Terrorism is not a police issue..this is crazy and no real anti terrorism expert is going to agree. Such agencies can play a part. Big at times, small at other, but not the driving force.These are not Germans or Russians or anybody we have ever faced. We can't talk to them..so forget it.
The Philippine insurrection as a military operation was a success. We fought and defeated the same type of enemy, in very hard terrain. People die in war, its an unpleasant but pretty standard outcome. If more Americans understood the realties of combat, we might have the will to win this war in a very quick manner. This would save the lives of many Iraqi's. Th rest, illiegal war stuff..I'm not getting into..we both disagree...enough said.
What exactly is wrong with the current ROE?
“Brigadier General Frank Wiercinski, the deputy commanding general for support with Multi-National Division North, does not see the rules of engagement as restrictive.” "I can tell you that no soldier at any time is held back from defense of himself, from the destruction of property, or from the killing of innocent Iraqis," the general reports. "And every soldier has that initial right." http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/01/iraq_commander_says_no_restric.php
If you want ROE like the sort in WWII, ask the president to ask congress to declare war on Iraq.
This goes to my contention that battling terrorists is not a military problem. You guys are left holding the bag in a guerilla war. I don’t think that can be won. You brought up the conquering of the Philippines, but that included concentration camps, a million dead, and an enemy that was armed with sticks and rocks. Times have changed and so have the capabilities of the guerilla warriors.
Terrorism is a police problem if we go after the criminal network that attacked us on 9/11. This goes to the heart of the matter: You defend the indefensible. Why did we attack Iraq? They didn’t attack us on 9/11. They weren’t complicit with Al Qaeda. Iraq is not a terrorist problem linked to 9/11, it is something created by president Bush’s illegal use of force against the country.
We invaded and took over and now you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole--Iraqi resistance and battling terrorism. Calling Iraqi resisters ‘terrorists’ while the military engages in policing neighborhoods is what it’s reduced to.
How would you liberalize the ROE to accommodate victory in Iraq?
-
Alot of what i think we should do is almost to late to do. We were not allowed to engage Fedayeen Saddam while we were moving up toward Bagdad. These are the guys we're fighting now. I would not have dismantled the Army and Police.
If we want to win, we'd restrict the media...sorry but they need to go. We would tell Iran that if we get solid proof that Revolutionary Guard are caught inside Iraq, or that we see anymore molten core penetrator IED's, we're going after them. Not on the ground mind u....but pounding the shit outa targets from the air. I would then split the country. I'd pull troops back to major bases or Kuwait. I'd use SOF to hunt and kill AQ inside Iraq.
They were not criminals....they were jihadist nutbags. They had no plan but to cause death. Criminals have something, generally financial, to gain. Criminals don't kill themselves in robberies or crimes, they try and get away. Your missing the point and by doing so understating the threat. I can call them whatever the heck i want....they're killing my fellow soldiers. These guys won't like u or any other Lib because u might label them "freedom fighters". If they stopped fighting we'd leave and they'd have all the freedom they could handle. In any case..we are in Iraq and we have to win. Losing will invite further attacks.
-
You are a fool . . . maybe.
-
So,
Im waiting for the good news from the powers that be(white house) to show the surge is working or is taking a turn for the better.
All I read about is Iraqi government is walking out of cabinet meetings. Truck bombs still going off in public places in Bhagdad.
I would love for the Iraqi government to take control of their country and have all foreigners weaned off and out of their country.
Unfortunatly we are going to be there for years.
I think if we, as a People were asked to sacrifice something...gas rations, silk stockings, metals and felt that we are actually in wartime, the outcome of this engagement would have an exit plan.
Sandra
JUST IN THE LAST TWO DAYS WE HAVE KILLED OVER 50 MILITANTS AND CAPTURED ALMOST 20 MORE... IS THIS NOT PROGRESS?
-
You are a fool . . . maybe.
Thanks..for that.
-
It looks like the Brits are popping smoke at the end of the year or sooner. I'm not sure what this will mean....we might have to try and secure the south, which we don't have enough guys to do.
-
Alot of what i think we should do is almost to late to do. We were not allowed to engage Fedayeen Saddam while we were moving up toward Bagdad. These are the guys we're fighting now. I would not have dismantled the Army and Police.
If we want to win, we'd restrict the media...sorry but they need to go. We would tell Iran that if we get solid proof that Revolutionary Guard are caught inside Iraq, or that we see anymore molten core penetrator IED's, we're going after them. Not on the ground mind u....but pounding the shit outa targets from the air. I would then split the country. I'd pull troops back to major bases or Kuwait. I'd use SOF to hunt and kill AQ inside Iraq.
They were not criminals....they were jihadist nutbags. They had no plan but to cause death. Criminals have something, generally financial, to gain. Criminals don't kill themselves in robberies or crimes, they try and get away. Your missing the point and by doing so understating the threat. I can call them whatever the heck i want....they're killing my fellow soldiers. These guys won't like u or any other Lib because u might label them "freedom fighters". If they stopped fighting we'd leave and they'd have all the freedom they could handle. In any case..we are in Iraq and we have to win. Losing will invite further attacks.
Those are valid points. The de-Bathification of Iraqi governmental forces was a horrible call
I conclude from your comment re the media that you don’t want to have every military move on video. Whether that’s apt or not is up for discussion, but as with the de-bathification, you can thank the current administration for putting you in this position with embedded reporters.
As for Iran, it is not the place of the troops to decide to go after them. The ROE for Iran is still in the province of the politicians. Since it was obvious prior to the invasion of Iraq that the Shia Iran would align itself with the de facto ruling Shia majority of Iraq, it seems Iranian influence should have been anticipated.
The civil war already split the country along sectarian lines. As for using SOF to kill Al Qaeda in Iraq…there is very little Al Qaeda presence in Iraq compared with the total composition of the “insurgency”.
I beg to differ with you that the 9/11 terrorists were not criminals; the 9/11 attackers were criminals in every sense of the word. From the conspiracy all the way to the murders; The wrongful act by the fact of itself is a criminal act.
You are mischaracterizing the terrorist threat and as a result, overstating it. The people that are killing your fellow soldiers are largely Iraqi people reacting to the invasion and occupation. That is a natural reaction if you think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen and try to conclude otherwise.
You presuppose only dual options—win (how do you define victory?) or lose (how do you define losing?). Does a phased withdrawal constitute a loss? We have no legal or moral footing for staying in Iraq.
Are you aware of the “redirection” policy that the US government is currently using?
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
The Bush administration is trying mightily to rope Iran into a war.
-
Criminals generally benefit financially from a crime...these guys were acting like saboteurs or spies...much like the French Resistance. They themselves do not view themselves as criminals but soldiers. This is symantics because I think u need to use all resources to combat these guys.
Absolutely they should have forseen some of the secondary effects. I'm not sure what they thought would happen. But if u had 500,000 guys on the ground, it would have been alot less. The insurgency could have been stifled.
Win or losse....my definition is....an Iraqi State that can defend itslef, internally and externally. Thus allowing us to withdraw. A loss would be a pull-out (quickly)while Iraq slips toward either a civil war and or into Iranian hegemony.
-
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/indexengjulaug07.asp
Some good articles about Iran.
-
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/indexengjulaug07.asp
Some good articles about Iran.
Thanks for the source HH. I'll look at some of those articles over lunch.
I'd hate to think that the long-term Bush strategy was that the Iraqi invasion was a subterfuge and that Iran is the real target.
-
I love the embed program.....you get the truth. It works very well. What i don't like is reports from the Green Zone or wherever that don't have a clear picture of whats going on. YTalk to any vet. The media reports only bad news. Embeds tell the whole story. The media has not been used effectively in Iraq..or not as well as we needed it to work to tell our story. Some BS lib blogger from California has no idea whats going on. On the Right, u get Generals who have never served in combat or in Iraq, saying things are great. The truth is in the middle.
-
No i think we had options with Iran...I think other things could have been done. The article I want u to read is on the Iranian POV and some good recent history. I think Bush hated Saddam, thought he had WMDs and he had to go. Right or wrong, I think this is how he felt. Perhaps Iran was the bigger threat globally, but......
-
Decker...
Make sure u read this one.....Its what I ment about the media. Its about half way down on the site I sent u.
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/RidINSIGHTS.pdf
-
Decker...
Make sure u read this one.....Its what I ment about the media. Its about half way down on the site I sent u.
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/RidINSIGHTS.pdf
Thanks, I did read it. The only critical point I would make is that the US media, embedded or not, were not critical of the Iraqi war from the outset. They were cheerleaders for the war. Therefore, any type of governmental oversight of the media work products during the embedding process was not necessary. There was no need. The media was playing ball voluntarily. The liberal media does not strike again.
-
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/indexengjulaug07.asp
Some good articles about Iran.
So far this article is pretty good. My damn job keeps interrupting though. I hate these inconveniences.
-
Embed's work great..even some of the pricklier personalties do pretty good by the soldiers and the mission....its the talking heads in DC and New York or those who don't venture out who do a very bad job.
-
I found this article on the effect of the Surge so far.
The US Defense Department says that, this June, the average number of attacks on US and Iraqi forces, civilian forces and infrastructure peaked at 177.8 per day, higher than in any month since the end of May 2003. The US has failed to gain control of Baghdad. The harvest of bodies picked up every morning first fell and then rose again. This may be because the Mehdi Army militia, who provided most of the Shia death squads, was stood down by Sadr. Nobody in Baghdad has much doubt that they could be back in business any time they want. Whatever Bush might say, the US military commanders in Iraq clearly did not want to take on the Mehdi Army and the Shia community when they were barely holding their own against the Sunni. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2841425.ece
I was thinking about the Iraq invasion again.
The president sends US troops into Iraq to enforce IRaq's compliance with WMD inspections required under the terms of surrender from the first war.
Bush orders the attack before the inspectors finish inspecting even though the UN resolution requires the inspectors to finish their jobs/find wmds before there can be any use of force by the US.
Instead of compelling inspections (which were already going on???), the military overthrows the government of Iraq and installs a new one. How that jibes with the use of force authorized under the UN Resolution compelling inspections is beyond me.
Bush orders the military to defend the newly established government by occupying/running Baghdad.
The objectives changed from enforcing inspections, to overthrowing a government, to establishing a new government, to policing the country to keep the new government afloat.
It is no wonder that things are failing. Who in the hell drew up these plans?
-
Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz scrapped the long standing plan that DOD had come up with over 9 years and went with a last minute drive by plan put together by idiots.
It was a complete mistake not to kill Al sadr..he was abit player loosing power, ignoring him and then critizing him later gained him prominance and power.
We're pushing in there now, raids, airstrikes, which are not the most affective.
-
Nothing will change because Americans are HATED over there. For every one Iraqi that claims to thank you for being there, there are thirty that would eat your heart for breakfast. They hate you because their whole lives have been turned upside down and who can blame them? Everything that Americans touch over there has turned to a pile of shit, what will change?
-
Nothing will change because Americans are HATED over there. For every one Iraqi that claims to thank you for being there, there are thirty that would eat your heart for breakfast. They hate you because their whole lives have been turned upside down and who can blame them? Everything that Americans touch over there has turned to a pile of shit, what will change?
yeah, relieving them from an oppressive tyrant...turned their life upside down. and not everything that we touch has turned to shit...I Think that you are thinking of the taliban. we aren't the ones setting off car bombs and blowing up mosques...that is a very stupid comment... but then again you are probably stupid, so.....
-
yeah, relieving them from an oppressive tyrant...turned their life upside down. and not everything that we touch has turned to shit...I Think that you are thinking of the taliban. we aren't the ones setting off car bombs and blowing up mosques...that is a very stupid comment... but then again you are probably stupid, so.....
::)
-
First off..we are not getting our asses kicked...and besides this is ur damm countryas well, except u (collectively)have sacrificed nothing, not a damm fucking thing. So, if we in the Military, are a little hesitant about leaving before we have something,anything, to show for the dead and wounded comrades, broken marriages and large chunks of normal life, now missing from our lives, u might have to forgive us. And don't give that 'You signed up crap" We signed up to defend this country for you. Once in, we don't decide where to get sent. I don't see long lines at the recruiting office. I will be in the Army long after this war is over and I don't want to go through the Post Iraqi war crap like we did after Nam. And keep in mind, if the surge is working, we'll be there longer, and I'll have to go back. I don't mind at all.
Wow HH, I know you're pissed, and you're sensitive about this, ...and I know you guys are making sacrifices,
but to tell an American at home that they haven't sacrificed anything, is as offensive as saying "who gives a shit about soldiers on the front lines?" They may not be getting shot at everyday, ...but Americans at home are sacrificing as well. They are sacrificing their own safety & security because all resources are being put into a bottomless spending pit called Iraq that shouldn't be on the bill to begin with. They are sacrificing their rights every day for lies. Their borders are not secure and never will be. The social secuirity funds are being plundered. They and their children for generations to come are being saddled with burdensome debt, while the treasury is being pillaged. And they are sacrificing the very America they have grown to love. There is a reason you don't see long lines at the recruiting offices. If there were WMDs in Iraq, and if Saddam did pose an imminent risk to America, the line up around recruiting offices would be a heckuva lot longer.
-
(http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/us/news/editorial/4/ea/4eae08e1f3187b47fedecb6c0a0ca0ce.gif)
The Surge's Short Shelf Life
By BOBBY GHOSH
Wed Aug 15, 1:45 PM ET
Hospital officials in northwestern Iraq have told TIME that the death toll from Tuesday's blasts in Qahataniya may exceed 300, making the multiple suicide bombings the deadliest terrorist operation in the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein. One hospital is saying that there are at least 500 bodies and that 375 people are injured. That report, however, cannot yet be verified. The only previous occasion when the toll from concerted attacks has exceeded 200 was last November, when six car-bombs in Baghdad's Sadr City killed 215 people. If the toll in the Qataniya incident grows, it could become the worst terrorist incident since al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 attack on the U.S. (The Beslan massacre in Russia in September 2004 came to approximately 330, about half of the total children).
Since then, the massive "surge" of U.S. and Iraqi troops in and around Baghdad has made the Iraqi capital safer than before from such bombings - but terrorist groups have stepped up attacks elsewhere. There have been a number of attacks in northern Iraq, which had enjoyed a long spell of peace before the start of the "surge."
Tuesday's bombings were also a reminder that even successful U.S. military operations can have a short shelf life - a sobering thought for Bush Administration officials and independent analysts who have recently been talking up the successes of the "surge." After all, the area around Qahataniya was the scene of a major anti-insurgent operation barely two years ago. In the fall of 2005, some 8,000 American and Iraqi troops flushed a terrorist group out of the nearby town of Tal Afar in an operation that was a precursor to the "clear, hold and build" strategy that underpins the current "surge." A few months later, President Bush cited Tal Afar as a success story for the U.S. enterprise in Iraq.
There have been several attacks in and around Tal Afar since then; last March, two truck bombs killed more than 100 people in a Shi'ite neighborhood in the town. The bombings in Qahataniya were a deadly reminder that the terrorists have not gone very far away.
The U.S. military said al-Qaeda was the prime suspect; some Iraqi government officials fingered Ansar al-Sunnah, which has links to al-Qaeda and has long been active in northern Iraq. Early reports suggest the majority of the victims were Yazidis, a pre-Islamic sect in Syria and northern Iraq.
Throughout history, Yazidis have faced persecution because an archangel they worship as a representative of God is often identified by Muslims (and some Christians) as Satan. Branded as devil worshipers, they are detested by extremists on both sides of Iraq's sectarian divide.
The Yazidis have their own extremists: earlier this year, members of the community stoned to death a young woman they accused of converting to Sunni Islam to marry her lover. A widely distributed video of the stoning inflamed Sunni sentiments; in retaliation, insurgents executed 23 Yazidi factory workers near Mosul.
With reporting by Andrew Lee Butters