U.S. commander points to progress in parts of Iraq

[OzmO]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/07/petraeus.iraq/index.html


when real good news happens the alleged liberal anti-war network reports significant good news. 

I think I'm going to have a corndog.

 

[gcb]

the media has an outward candy coating that makes them appear liberal, but really they are as conservative as the day is long

[Decker]

Progress?

After four years, the greatest military in history can't even secure a city w/ a population the size of Chicago.

That is not progress.  That is unacceptable.

I'm not even commenting on the illegal genesis of the invasion.  I guess the military is not appropriate for delivering democracy at the end of a gun barrel.

I suppose those saying that a political solution is the only solution are correct. 

[headhuntersix]

Our job is not to bring democracy to these people, we there to bring order. They put down the guns, we stop our crap and help rebuild. At this point it is a lost cause. And for the record..there is nobody on this planet that can stand against the US military in a conventional fight. The rest are like children. Its not even close. There is nobody on the planet that can field an Army that can win in Iraq with the limitations we have put on ourselves. Allowed to do what is really necessary, we'd win quickly.

[Decker]

Our job is not to bring democracy to these people, we there to bring order. They put down the guns, we stop our crap and help rebuild. At this point it is a lost cause. And for the record..there is nobody on this planet that can stand against the US military in a conventional fight. The rest are like children. Its not even close. There is nobody on the planet that can field an Army that can win in Iraq with the limitations we have put on ourselves. Allowed to do what is really necessary, we'd win quickly.

I think that you make a point without a distinction.  The US military removed Iraq's existing government by force and occupied the country until a US friendly government could be installed.  Voting for Kodos or Kang (Simpsons reference) in a 'free' election doesn't change things.  The US military took out a dictatorship provided 'security' to install a democratic regime.

Here's a Bush speech about how you guys in the military are working with the Coalition Provisional Authority to ensure Iraq's fidelity to democracy.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

Since Baghdad cannot even be secured by our military, do you view this as a failing of the generals in charge or something else?

[headhuntersix]

Political faliure at the DOD level for not following guidance of folks who knew that without adequate manpower on the ground providing overwhelming force, occupation and reconstruction would be near impossible. Restrictive ROE based on years of Clinton political correctness had a part to play. The installation of folks after the fall of Bagdad that had no real clue. Dismantling the Army and local level government. We didn't dismantle ever institution in Japan and Germany, even though u had to be a Nazi party member to hold even low level political office, whether u were believer or not. Decker I won't make excuses for the failure in Iraq.

[Decker]

Political faliure at the DOD level for not following guidance of folks who knew that without adequate manpower on the ground providing overwhelming force, occupation and reconstruction would be near impossible. Restrictive ROE based on years of Clinton political correctness had a part to play. The installation of folks after the fall of Bagdad that had no real clue. Dismantling the Army and local level government. We didn't dismantle ever institution in Japan and Germany, even though u had to be a Nazi party member to hold even low level political office, whether u were believer or not. Decker I won't make excuses for the failure in Iraq.

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm trying to lay any of this at your feet b/c I'm not. 

I just think that you have some valuable insight here and that's why I'm following up with questions.

RE ROE, I have found this quote from a soldier:

"Before my unit went to Iraq we were briefed on the Rules of Engagement for the theater. There were really only two rules but the implications were far-reaching: If you are fired on or if you feel threatened you may engage. We were told, this was modified in practice, not to fire warning shots. These two rules gave us a considerable amount of freedom to react to or even preempt attacks. In mass briefings we were told that we were being entrusted with a great responsibility, down to the lowliest private every man and woman was a representative of the United States of America."

Is this statement true?  If it isn't, what ROE are causing problems?

[headhuntersix]

You get your mass briefing but then u get to your area and they may say that you need to call up before firing..or u can't call in artillery here or there..u can't show the bad guys we mean business while protecting the people. Case in point..the NBC reporter that filmed the Marines shooting the wounded and presumably booby trapped insurgent. They fire from Mosques..they hide behind women and children.

[Decker]

You get your mass briefing but then u get to your area and they may say that you need to call up before firing..or u can't call in artillery here or there..u can't show the bad guys we mean business while protecting the people. Case in point..the NBC reporter that filmed the Marines shooting the wounded and presumably booby trapped insurgent. They fire from Mosques..they hide behind women and children.

Thanks for your help HH.  This is something I will look into.

[headhuntersix]

Debate why we're there long and hard...and even if you were there for a month I'm sure that would not change, but you would absolutley hate the insurgents, and realize that we are showing and incrediable amount of restrant with them.