How this guy rates heroic status when he has tucked tail and run from us three times is bizarre. Still this shows that the bad guys at least know trouble when they see it. I hope that the irony is not lost on the rest of us that Congress is willing to play politics with lies so big about futility that even the enemy cannot swallow.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The hero only dies once, while the coward lives a thousand times.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Everybody dies once. I am sure that at least in part, the surge is in response to complaints by our troops about 'out of bounds' areas that were artificial products of political compromise. How did we not learn this lesson in Nam? At least it has been corrected and now they are showing their true devotion. Martyrdom is for the little guy, the money men are guaranteed the highest place in heaven and they still get to run and hide on Earth, great deal if you can swallow it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Does anyone realise just how stupid it sounds to call a week-, month-, or year-long initiative a "surge"?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
As opposed to a "horseshoe"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They have to call it a surge, otherwise it's called "deployment escalation" or "warfare intensification" or any one of a number of other things which the American public was promised that the war would not have to come to.
It's all language framing. They're trying to make the move as not politically disastrous as they possibly can, because this is a plan that nearly nobody thinks will work. Beyond that, it's not a substantive term.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: It's all language framing. They're trying to make the move as not politically disastrous as they possibly can, because this is a plan that nearly nobody thinks will work. Beyond that, it's not a substantive term.
It is sad that anyone thinks that the fight is all about language framing and not skilled fighting. It is even insulting to the insurgents that we are killing and detaining, saying that thier blood and cause is less important then silly leftist hair splitting. Yes it is all about you! Not about the people in peril... sheesh
Leave the fighting in the hands of the soldiers and we will not lose, run it on public opinion and we cannot win.
I cannot imagine what people think soldiers are for if it is not to fight, how does 'bring those boys back home' make sense when the boys are a professional army made up of volunteers? It is like showing your support for baseball by canceling the season. Lets show our support for plumbers by digging wells and hauling water.
Every piece of news I have seen has tried to make this surge look ineffective with language like, resolved enemy, determined foe and so on, yet every piece of news shows our boys swarming forward around and through the enemy, systematically tearing apart caches and safe houses and dragging everything from political heavyweights too foreign fighters off the field. My unit dug for months to accumulate a hundred and twenty detainees, a fight were three hundred stood and died would have been a gift from God. If Congress cannot get its vote on soon they will be condemning a tactical and strategic fiat acompli. I will then go next door an solemnly urinate on the neighbors Durbin sign.
[ February 16, 2007, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Counter Bean ]
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Mostly I'm just amused.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It is sad that anyone thinks that the fight is all about language framing and not skilled fighting.
It would be pretty sad if I thought that the fight was all about language framing. It's thankful that it's not even remotely my position, and that what I'm talking about here is the act of calling the escalation a surge.
It's a big difference. You go ahead and work on your language comprehension skills, and our interactions might stop being so comical!
But if you want to go urinate on people's signs, you go right ahead if it makes you feel better, or ... whatever that's about. I won't stop you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I cannot imagine what people think soldiers are for if it is not to fight, how does 'bring those boys back home' make sense when the boys are a professional army made up of volunteers? It is like showing your support for baseball by canceling the season. Lets show our support for plumbers by digging wells and hauling water.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. First of all, people LIKE baseball, they don't like war, unless they are sick and twisted. War might be what soldiers do best, but an army isn't a 'use it or lose it' force. Saying we should just keep letting them fight because fighting is what they like to do and it's what they are good at isn't a sufficient reason to continue a war. If the war isn't one we should be fighting, I couldn't care less on what the army wants to do. We show our support by only sending soliders into combat when they need to, not on a whim, and we bring them home when there's no longer a really good reason to be there, it's part of the trust between a state and their army, especially one run by a civilian government.
You're a bit too bloodthirsty and gung-ho for my taste BC. We don't kill to make the army happy.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
More often the civilian government lacks the will or stomach or practical knowledge to accept the consequences of a military intervention. Most of Europe cannot even find the will to engage in its own security.
What would this generation think of a Sgt York or any of the heroes of previous wars responsible for dozens of kills in close combat? I suspect that far from cheering them in parades they would be shunned and people would demand to know they were 'safe' before they were released into contact with the populace. In fact you see much of that now. It is a long fall from greatness, but it starts with a failure to keep the values that won you greatness in the first place.
All the worst violence in Baghdad could be done by an energetic company sized element, cheering when we crush a battalion and put the leader of a brigade sized element on the run (and perhaps put a bullet in the new AL queda leader) is not blood thirsty, it is being happy that we are meeting objectives that are big steps toward victory and stability (a state where life is safe for the real innocents). It is cheering for lives saved and a better life for those secured. It is cheering a triumph of America.
As for this not being best described as a surge, the fact that it matters at all to some, that words must reflect negatively on our countries chosen course is a cancer in our society that will inevitably spread and prove fatal if not treated.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems the topic of this thread isn't getting much comment now, but I think it's very good news that Sadr is ordering some of his leaders to leave, and that his military forces appear to be weakening. Time will tell, but that seems like a good sign to me.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Bean.
During President Bush's speech the other day, he said that one can support the troops, support the country, and love both, while disagreeing with, and attempting to change the strategy chosen.
There are two different conflicts going on, as different in impart and character as day and night. One is the war being fought by soldiers every day. The other is the debates being had over what is the best strategy to insure the victory of those soldiers.
Do not confuse the two.
You sound like any questioning of the present strategy is a slap in the face of the soldiers fighting. Others disagree, saying that sending those soldiers to fight in ways that won't let them win is a slap in their faces.
All agree that they do not need to be slapped. They need to be rewarded for the selfless acts of courage they do.
So the backers of this theory call it a Surge (though the President has not.). Surge, as in a power spike that is strong enough to devastate your computer, but is gone quickly.
Troop Escalation is another name that the opponents are trying to use. Neither is accurate, since the escalation sounds permanent, and surge sounds short term, when it is actually supposed to be successful if done in terms of months or years, not weeks or decades.
No one doubts that a small unit of the US Army could obliterate those who are doing the violence in Iraq, in an open fight.
However, finding those people, getting them to the open fight, making sure they are the right people, are all difficult things to do, and frankly, not what our soldiers were trained for. Is it surprising that we want to get our soldiers to do their jobs, but not be forced to do everyone elses?
Now some of you are surprised that Sadr has run? Why? Its how he keeps his forces alive.
No group can stand up to the US Armed Forces.
So he runs and hides in some place the US is not. Then when the US forces go to get them there, they come back. He is using the same strategy as always.
The surge/escalation is supposed to counter that strategy, by bringing in enough troops to cover both where he was and where he's running too.
The question is, are there enough troops even now?
The other question is, are there places that the politicians will let him go to hide, and deny us access to them.
Fears that we will pull completely out have been the key that has unlocked the Iraqi politicians into letting us go where we need to.
Finally, the truth.
I do not think that the "Surge" plan is going to work. With more troops and more support and more time, maybe, but I don't think the way its set, that it will.
But by God, I hope, wish, and pray that it does.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: During President Bush's speech the other day, he said that one can support the troops, support the country, and love both, while disagreeing with, and attempting to change the strategy chosen.
Bush is a Statesman, I do not have the lifetime of political instincts to make me feel the need to make fools feel good about themselves to keep them from stabbing me in the back.
quote:There are two different conflicts going on, as different in impart and character as day and night. One is the war being fought by soldiers every day. The other is the debates being had over what is the best strategy to insure the victory of those soldiers.
A debate over Strategy? I assume it is being carried on by military experts then? No well that tells you what their debate and opinion is worth. It will average well below competent.
quote: No one doubts that a small unit of the US Army could obliterate those who are doing the violence in Iraq, in an open fight.
Hence my happiness when we get into an large open fight. It means we are making a big leap forward. People over here vastly overestimate the depth of the insurgence. It would have bled to death already if it was not on life support from Iran and Syria.
quote: I do not think that the "Surge" plan is going to work. With more troops and more support and more time, maybe, but I don't think the way its set, that it will.
How can something so backward actually exist in a mind? Seriously if you, in your position think that things as simple as more support, time and political influence would ensure success, how can you believe the professionals doing the job do not know how to get what they need? It is a winning strategy because we are now allowed to engage the enemy, as you said they cannot stand against us in an open fight. You are in possession of both the knowledge you need to see the excellent prospects of success and the defeatist infection from the left, I would think the two would exclude each other in a clear mind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm not exactly surprised to find out that Bean Counter hasn't really factored in the knowledge that the great majority of the Iraq insurgency is homegrown. I am also less than stunned to see the reasoning "the guerrilla combatants fail to meet us in open combat! we must be winning!" What I am surprised to see is the really, really strange notion that the American public is (all the sudden) shunning its war heroes. I don't exactly know where someone gets that idea, since it's not actually at all happening. I guess I'm glad that some surprises still sneak in.
Anyway. This is as much as I can divine from inbetween nonsequitorial, quasi-readable pablum like "that words must reflect negatively on our countries chosen course is a cancer in our society," "No well that tells you what their debate and opinion is worth" and "You are in possession of both the knowledge you need to see the excellent prospects of success and the defeatist infection from the left." In other words, it's basically as though Bean Counter never left and we're simply picking up from where we left off.
I can't wait until the forum as a whole starts getting really in-depth into the controversy over 'why most people don't think the surge will work,' 'why most experts don't think the surge will work,' 'why Bush swapped out his military experts when the original staff told him that the surge wouldn't work, until he got a staff that would go along with it,' and 'why Bush hasn't exactly been receptive to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.' I think this thread is as good a place as any, since it's hard to find a stalwart Bush strategy supporter pretty much anywhere!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've said it before and I'll saying it again. If we're going to surge, let's SURGE. Send in a half million troops, pacify the country, disarm EVERYONE, and be done with it.
If we aren't willing to do that, then we need to leave entirely.
20,000 troops is like betting 20,000 chips at the Finale Table at the WSOP Main Event. It's a drop in the bucket, and it might scare off a couple betters, but likely it'll only egg them on,.
It's all or nothing.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: since it's hard to find a stalwart Bush strategy supporter pretty much anywhere!
And he say's it like it is a point of pride...shudder.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Bush is a Statesman, I do not have the lifetime of political instincts to make me feel the need to make fools feel good about themselves to keep them from stabbing me in the back.
Wait a minute, are you disagreeing with your commander and chief? Isn't that heresy or conduct unbecoming, or something?
BC, I appreciate all that you and the others in the military do and risk for us, but I can disagree with the strategy others use to put you there.
quote: A debate over Strategy? I assume it is being carried on by military experts then?
Actually, it has been led by knowledgeable people with great military credentials, including Colin Powell.
The President has the right to listen to all sides and choose to do what he thinks best. So does every American which you are fighting to protect. If we all don't bow to his "Trust me" lines any more it may be because we've been burned by them too much.
quote: Hence my happiness when we get into an large open fight. It means we are making a big leap forward.
And hence Sadr's running to someplace you can't reach because you don't have enough troops, etc.
quote: How can something so backward actually exist in a mind?
Simple. 1) I don't fill my debates with senseless name calling. 2) I look at the reports I see and the information I can and may a decision. 3) I don't just believe whatever someone else tells me.
quote: Seriously if you, in your position think that things as simple as more support, time and political influence would ensure success, how can you believe the professionals doing the job do not know how to get what they need?
First, I didn't say political influence, though I did mention influencing Iraqi Politicians who are so busy covering their backsides as to risk the lives of their people and ours that it makes me sick--see the Shi'ite death squads working from the Ministry of Health for example.
Secondly, its obvious why I think you professionals are unable to get what you need. Because if you could have, and if it is as simple as you say it is, then it would have been done by now. The US Armed Forces are very efficient at meeting their military goals. So if you haven't met them yet then there are only two options. One, you don't have the support you need or two, they aren't military goals you are being forced to achieve.
quote:It is a winning strategy because we are now allowed to engage the enemy, as you said they cannot stand against us in an open fight.
So how is this different than last month? last year? Falujah and the other places where you engaged the enemy in a real battle? People die. Good soldiers die, but so do a lot of bad people. However, enough bad people slip away to somewhere else that it all starts again.
quote: You are in possession of both the knowledge you need to see the excellent prospects of success and the defeatist infection from the left, I would think the two would exclude each other in a clear mind.
Actually, I have neither.
I have been given no facts to support excellent prospects of success, and no defeatist infection from the left.
I have seen the finest military in history put into a politically vulnerable situation that will cost lives of good men and women. I disagree with my President on what is the best way to solve the situation. I disagree with you as well.
Welcome to America, land of Free Speech.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: So how is this different than last month? last year?
We are now in areas that were out of bounds, I covered that, but one cannot say it too often. Areas created by political compromise forced on soldiers by those in the Peanut Gallery.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Back when I supported the war (because I believed them when they told me that they nkew the Saddam had WMD and that there was a program to hide them) I, along with many others, said that the assurances that they were giving, that we'd be in and out and be welcomed with flowers and parades, were stupid. I said we'd almost definitely be met by an insurgency. I predicted that, if we weren't prepared for hostile reactions, had a whole mess of really good people working on the non-military aspects, and protected and/or restored vital infrastructure, it was very unlikely that democracy would flourish. I said that they needed to be prepared to handle the Shia/Sunni/Kurd splits or there would be in-fighting between them. When they didn't move to secure the borders, I said that this was a big mistake that would allow foreign terrorists to funnel into the country.
I'm a smart guy who has an interest in military matters, but I'm not an expert by any stretch and know/knew very little about the situation in Iraq. But, I saw all these problems a long time before they came up. The people in the Bush administration didn't seem to. And the Bush supporters told me that my concerns were unfounded.
Of course, I was told at the time that I just hated the President, didn't support our troops, wanted us to fail, etc. As the things I and others said would happen came to pass, we were told that they weren't happening, that the media was lying/spinning it, and that we just hated the President, didn't support the troops, yada yada.
Let me make another common sense prediction: The troop "surge" as it is currently being done has no realistic chance of accomplishing our goals. It will not work. There hasn't even been an explanation of how we are planning to achieve our goals with.
When is the point as we look back at the extremely easy to predict messed up situation that has resulted in large part from the obviously flawed plans put forth by the Bush administration are those who supported them going to take responsibility? Or heck, even acknowledge that they were wrong and possibly that the people who keep having their predictions come true might have a point?
[ February 16, 2007, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I mentioned earlier that our Combat Heroes are being ignored because of the liberal climate, here is a poll question, who knows the name of the soldier who took over the fifty caliber turret gun during an assault where a patrol was being overrun and personally killed (we know because of the bigger holes) scores of the attackers and personally turned the tide of the assault by over a hundred attackers? Hint: This was in OIF... you most likely do not know because we no longer call such action heroism.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I wonder if King George and General Cornwallis said many of the same things about George Washington and the Amercian "army" that we're saying about Sadr and his forces.
Cowards who won't fight out in the open.
We could beat them in a "fair fight."
and so on.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
yes Al Sadr is just like George Washington, if he becomes the leader he will prove a great statesman and set power aside and nurture the fledgling democracy. Even saying that ironically makes me faintly ill. The things that people say.
Did George Washington blow up American women and children to achieve his ends? Do I need to go on?
PS no soldier cares about fair fights so if you think I am crying about the methods of the insurgents you are mistaken, we are beating them in a very unfair fight, and that is the way I like it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not a widely accepted understanding, so far as I know, but a lot of what I've read in my history class research has suggested heavily that the Sons of Liberty fully planned on inciting British troops to violence during the Boston Massacre. In other words, they knew perfectly well the British would shoot Americans, and that Americans would die, but felt the sacrifice was necessary because it would turn public opinion against the British, especially when it is painted in the news as bloodthirsty British soldiers shooting down innocent Americans.
I'd be willing to bet a fair wager that the PR war is being lost in Iraq in much the same way the British lost it here in 1776. So while the comparison to Washington isn't entirely accurate, make no mistake about the fact that a great many American Revolutionaries during our little insurrection would clearly have been painted as terrorists using today's definition. And in fact, they probably were, back in Britain.
For every Son of Liberty, you have a man like John Adams, who, in the face of extreme public scrutiny and ire, defended the British soldiers who fired on the citizens during the Boston Masscare, and even got a few of them off. He felt the rights of men to have a fair trial and fair defense outweighed the desires of a vengeful population.
There were good men and bad men, all doing whatever they felt was the right thing to achieve the same goal back then, and I think we have much the same situation in Iraq. I only wonder what the Revolutionary War would have been like if the Americans had had ready access to Semtex, and if they hated the Tories that much more.
There's interesting parallels to be drawn between the two conflicts, though I think there is just too much differences to make anything meaningful other than guesswork and suppositions out of it for the most part. The goals of both conflicts, Independence, might be the same, but what comes next is very different, as are the "rules" of war, the sectional strife, and more.
Well now I'm just plain rambling, sorry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean:
quote: since it's hard to find a stalwart Bush strategy supporter pretty much anywhere!
And he say's it like it is a point of pride...shudder.
You think I say it as a point of pride? This is a pretty classic example of the art of 'mind reading,' wherein things are read into that are not said nor implied. End result is that you're mercilessly attacking a position which is not mine. Convenient, what.
Since you apparently need every nuance of my position spelled out very carefully for you if I want to keep you from inventing interpretations of my position that I do not actually hold, I guess I should state, remedially, that I do not think that it is a point of pride that our Commander in Chief is willing to push forward with a plan that both
1. the public at large, and 2. the body of experts related to such things
.. do not have any faith in. I do not think it is a point of pride that the president is further alienating himself with a plan that is likely to tax his credibility further and further waste the slim remaining window of opportunity in Iraq we still have, while probably accomplishing nothing.
But this is all rehash! I want to bring new things to the table. I want a cogent statement of position so that I'm not just dealing with bean counter sound bites.
So, how about you go ahead and tell us exactly why you think that the surge will work, and why criticism of the surge is actively suppressing what you consider to be, quote, 'a tactical and strategic fiat acompli (sp).'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:yes Al Sadr is just like George Washington, if he becomes the leader he will prove a great statesman and set power aside and nurture the fledgling democracy. Even saying that ironically makes me faintly ill. The things that people say.
That is not how he meant it, and you know it, Bean Counter. The very, very slight name change is appropriate-you haven't changed much at all.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I love the new age enlightenment that lets people say, 'I did not vote for him he is not my President', that kind of short sightedness has not been seen since Lincoln was elected.
We are one nation, I am committed to hold it together so it is personal when I see efforts to tear it apart even from the inside.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Did George Washington blow up American women and children to achieve his ends?
While Washington himself may not have, many rebel groups did in fact threaten and terrorize (and in a few cases bomb) the lives and properties of Tory sympathizers. Washington, for his part, was publicly notorious for arresting pretty much anyone foolish enough to disagree with him in public and shipping them off to Newgate Prison.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
BC,
You darn well were complaining about the "tactics" of the Sadr crowd.
I was not at all trying to say that Sadr should be remembered as a great patriot (although, if his side wins, he will be written about as such in the Iraqi history books). The point was simply that the stuff you're complaining about is, at least possibly, akin to a deliberate strategy engaged by those at a distinct tactical disadvantage against a force with superior arms and training.
That was the extent of my post.
I find it highly ironic, however, that your method of showing your commitment to "hold it together" is to run down anyone who has a different opinion than your own. I won't even say a "dissenting" opinion because, basically, the dissent has become the majority opinion.
Have you asked yourself why the people of the US are now generally against the war and the build up? Do you think it could have anything to do with a lack of confidence that our people's lives are actually WORTH this sacrifice -- or even that the sacrifice may not actually be worth it since the aims of the war are appearing so much less achievable? Do you think it could have anything do with the pattern of misinformation, misuse of information, and plain mismanagement by the people who are have the decision-making authority?
It doesn't matter if the soldiers volunteered for this duty. What matters is that they are there representing us. If this war doesn't "work" in the best interest of America, it should be ended in as face-saving a way as possible, with as little additional loss of American lives as possible.
Isn't it interesting that the country overwhelmingly supported the initial proposals for Iraq, but that now, those proposals aren't even really on the table. We're not talking about a vision of a democracy there anymore...are we? We're talking about "stable" government, and enough rule of law to ensure that the place doesn't just become East Iran, under the thumb of another scary theocracy.
There's a litany of missteps in the history of our work in this region, and especially in Iran and Iraq. Our inability to even understand the conflict between Shia and Sunni is a huge part of our problem there. We don't even care about it for the most part. When you go to reform a culture, unless you're going to KILL the culture first, you can't just graft a layer of some other culture on top. It doesn't work. And, guess what, we've had enough time and experience to learn that lesson in the Middle East by now.
This whole thing was a colossal blunder.
And I'm not sure what the military thinks it could "win."
Suddenly the objective is to put down the insurgency before we leave.
What exactly is that? All they would need to do is get quiet for a few months so we can declare "Mission Accomplished" again, and they've won. They wouldn't have to fire another round of ammunition or explode one more IED. All they have to do is wait for us to hold the close-out meeting with whatever puppet regime we install, and they can just ramp up again after all the cameras are turned off.
Anyone who asserts that our military, at a finite troop level, could possibly END the insurgency in Iraq is ignoring the simple problem of time and the ability of the insurgents to hide in plain sight.
It may be that they're too hot on destruction to play the "wait 'em out game." But I think not. I think they'll figure this strategy out, go quiet for a sufficient number of months, and then just stage a coup after the US troops are gone.
The real chance at victory was lost back when we decided to invade in the first place. We had options that would have cost less and probably worked better, but at least not have cost so many US and Iraqi lives. We didn't pursue them and, because we are so hated there now, we can't pursue them now.
How many US advisors on grass-roots democratic institution building are we going to send over there, do you think?
How many economic advisors do you think we'll be sending?
How many advisors on how to run a stable government and system of laws?
These are not military operations and, frankly the military sucks at it.
Those things were ALL part of the original plan. Winning in Iraq meant doing all those things.
We're not going to win in Iraq no matter what our military does from here on out, because we've already abandoned that country's future. There isn't a person in our Administration who is going to commit to nation-building in Iraq any more. Let alone in Congress.
We've already let that vision die.
Tell me we haven't. Show me the evidence. The plan for when the advisors are going to ramp up those jobs and start working in the communities to build that nation's "democratic infrastructure?"
That stuff can't even start until the country is relatively stable and safe for Westerners. The State Department won't even LET those types into the country in any great numbers until the place is militarily secure.
But...we're going to get the heck out of there moment we decide we can claim "mission accomplished" on the military side.
It's a flippin' joke. Except it's not funny. We have once again proven that we talk a great game and can't make it actually happen the way we say we can.
And why is that?
Is it because dissenters like me at home have been yelling against the war since day one? Or, is it because nobody listened when we said, right from the start "YOU NEED A PLAN THAT GOES FROM A to Z...not just the pacification, but the whole thing."
Any plan like this that ONLY includes military thinkers is, obviously, doomed to failure. The military can't even spell democracy, let alone install it somewhere. It's not a democratic institution and it doesn't understand how democracy works, other than that in our system the civilians retain ultimate control. They don't know how to build a grassroots organization. They don't know how to teach people to think at the national level and act at the local level. They know how to get people to follow orders or pay the price.
Anyone who didn't view the military operation as STEP ONE of a multi-step plan was making a huge mistake, IMO. And, frankly, it's the biggest reason why I've been against this war from day one. I can't gainsay the military operations other than to parrot what military experts say about it -- some of whom are apologists and some of whom think that this was all about a cult of personality for Mr. Wineburger, Bush and Cheney. But the "everything else" Steps two through N that were OBVIOUSLY going to be needed and had so little thought put into them before the invasion. I'm sorry, but I can and will comment on how dangerous, irresponsible, and ultimately BAD FOR AMERICAN interests that lack of planning was, and is, and will be.
And there isn't a military experts opinion on that stuff that we should care about or trust.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
My way of holding it together was to enlist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well at least your intentions were pure.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I love the new age enlightenment that lets people say, 'I did not vote for him he is not my President', that kind of short sightedness has not been seen since Lincoln was elected.
Yeah I totally didn't hear this a million billion billion times during the Clinton years, nor did my parents hear it a billion billion times during the Reagan years, etc etc.
You have this fondness for casually saying things which are in no way true and then moving on from them without consideration. I'll file this next to 'combat heroes are being ignored/shunned/persecuted due to the liberal climate' and watch it die without support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you think about it from the point of view of the persecuted Republican victimized by a vengeful Liberal mob, he makes perfect sense.
If you ignore the fact that it reads like an Ann Coulter wet dream.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: My way of holding it together was to enlist.
Thank you for doing so.
Just remember that you work for a civilian authority, and I've got absolutely no problem. In fact, I hold our military up as an example of how militaries should be structured and controlled. I don't hold ours up as an example of how they should be used, by the way. I'm of the same opinion you are with respect to letting the troops do their job.
That's why I don't think we should've sent them in until and unless it was clear we NEEDED to. Because there really IS only one way to win a war, and that's to do whatever it takes to win it. We clearly weren't at that point in Iraq -- leveling cities and killing off a large enough number of civilians to simply crush ANY opposition we might face. Ipso facto, this was not a job for the military.
Wrong tool for the job, in my opinion.
It's not your fault, and I'm sorry we sent you all there under such circumstances. We should've done a better job with other tools first and only used you all when the need arose.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
leveling cities is the job of the Air Force, the Infantry is capable of somewhat more subtle action.
A million billion huh? Well as long as you counted them scientifically...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah it's totally an accurate figure, as opposed to obvious sarcastic hyperbole. If you want, I can email you the excel spreadsheet with numbered tallies by month.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
BC,
Please don't ignore the substance of the post. I'm satisfied that you don't have any real answer to my points -- I pretty much assumed that going in. But if you're just spewing to hear yourself post, you should find someplace else to do it.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
If there are real points I will be satisfied to answer them. The statistical modeling of Left leaning Bush hating news reports has been done as university Masters thesis work, Clinton got a pass after he committed a felony! Be careful when you assume that I am unable to engage, I expect you to be worthy of the trouble, that opinion deserved exactly the attention I gave it.
If your point was the statement about "whatever it takes to win" then you simply do not understand the point of war, or another way of saying it is that you do not have a grip on the complex definition of victory in this war. It is well defined but it needs effort to comprehend, you cannot capture the flag. Our operations and goals are as complex as surgery, people need to stop trying to take the scalpel from the doctor.
PS it is CB
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bush makes it all sound pretty simple. Our goal is a stable, secure, democratic Iraq.
Not that complex at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If there are real points I will be satisfied to answer them.
WARNING: BEAN COUNTER IS ATTEMPTING TO COP OUT
Don't be a sissy, dude. There's plenty of real points that have been brought up. If you want to excuse your inability or unwillingness to address them on the idea that you consider them 'not to be real points,' then you're effectively acting with intellectual cowardice and validating distaste of your position.
You get extra special bonus cowardice points when you haughtily dismiss the positions of others by claiming outright that they simply lack the capacity to debate at your level, like if you look down your nose at Lavalamp and conclude essentially that he 'doesn't have a grip' on the positions that you are refusing to address. It's a circular retreat!
Also, you get SUPER extra MEGA bonus points by pathologically non-sequitering into pointless digs on Clinton that don't really contribute anything substantial to the debate.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
BC,
You are the same old Bean Counter we saw banned here once before. I have no doubt it'll happen again soon.
As for the miltary being a surgeon, that's a laugh! The military is not composed of the right kinds of people to do anything "surgical" with respect to the cause of "nation building."
The military has two uses: threaten and kill. If the threat doesn't work, then kill. If the killing doesn't work...kill more. There's nothing surgical about it. The military is more like a regimen of strong chemo-therapy or radiation treatment than it is a surgical intervention.
And, yeah, sometimes that's necessary. But when it is, it should be done all out and for the duration.
I'm not saying the military doesn't TRY other tactics (hearts and minds, afterall). I'm just saying that the military is historically very bad at them and we have better tools we could use in those cases.
If we're trying to build a democracy, the military is exactly the wrong tool for the job. The democracy building can, perhaps, be assisted by the military if the situation needs pacification first. But once the peace is established, the real work has to begin.
This job is not over even if the insurgency were crushed tomorrow. At that point, we'd need the next phase to start. We're no longer going to do the next phase in Iraq. And because we never planned for it, I assert that we did those people a disservice from day one. All we had was a military "plan" and a few vague notions of how to graft democracy on a Middle Eastern nation.
We didn't understand Sunni/Shia conflicts. We didn't understand the Turkish population. We didn't take the time or have the right information to even make educated guesses as to what it will eventually take to "install" a system of government there.
Go ahead, show me where the plan is. What exactly was the military going to do to train the Iraqis in democracy?
Show me how the military (any military) has successfully installed a democracy elsewhere in the world. It worked once. Here in the US. But we keep expecting that other people are just like we were in 1776 and that all we have to do is get rid of their "overlords" and they'll come rushing to the principles of freedom that we espouse.
Darned silly of us really.
We seem to have problems learning this lesson.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
One that can be our ally in the war on terror, , which means our operations break down into multiple parts, one of which it to insure that we do not assume the entire burden of security but let the Iraqi elements 'step up' as we train them.
Frankly I thought we should send a few hundred of them through Benning but there are a couple reasons we did not, One: cultural sensitivity (our DI's ain't), Two: operations security (we want to protect our techniques) that as it may be we have been training them as part of our security mission. The escalation of violence is a direct result of this second mission because we were over optimistic in how quickly they could step up. Not because of lack of equipment or training, but simply lack of character.
This surge has corrected that, by taking the responsibility for all areas back, we are passing judgment on the job the Iraqi's did when we let them have control. We are also shifting to direct supervision from oversight. Ongoing tactics must include letting the IA and IP stumble through first to get up to speed even if we could sweep through more effectively. The IA and IP had warrants for Al Sadr, they lacked the discipline and courage to serve them, rule of law without recourse to bribery or coercion... incorruptibility, was unheard of in Iraq until our military began to demonstrate it, they need more time to learn to emulate it.
That is just one complex tactical issue that arises from broad strategies. If we wanted a toothless Iraq we could have had it in a year.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
quote:This surge has corrected that, by taking the responsibility for all areas back, we are passing judgment on the job the Iraqi's did when we let them have control. We are also shifting to direct supervision from oversight. Ongoing tactics must include letting the IA and IP stumble through first to get up to speed even if we could sweep through more effectively. The IA and IP had warrants for Al Sadr, they lacked the discipline and courage to serve them, rule of law without recourse to bribery or coercion... incorruptibility, was unheard of in Iraq until our military began to demonstrate it, they need more time to learn to emulate it.
And you don't see the failure of planning implied in the fact that nobody seemed to realize this going in?
Seriously. Are you saying that you expected we could succeed in grafting our notions of incorruptibility of law enforcement there using the military as teachers?
And that it'd be done on a reasonable time frame?
I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic based on history of our military or the people in the region we're hoping to impact.
If that was the idea, I'm going to have to call say that our decision-makers were even more clueless than I thought. I just figured they were wildly over-optimistic. I didn't realize they actually expected our military to be the ones to train their police to be incorruptible. And that the lessons were supposed to be learned by example.
Oh dear.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Allow me to demonstrate why you do not always want me to address your... ahem... points
quote: BC, You are the same old Bean Counter we saw banned here once before. I have no doubt it'll happen again soon.
I have perused with curiosity what Hatrack looks like without me. Collectively it is worn out, everybody agrees, there is only discussion when new members fail to toe the line until they leave in disgust. Papa falls asleep at the wheel for days at a time and here, being a Right wing nut means thinking OSC is on the button.
quote: As for the military being a surgeon, that's a laugh! The military is not composed of the right kinds of people to do anything "surgical" with respect to the cause of "nation building."
A fan of John Kerry school of 'the military is a bunch of stupid heads' I see, simply not true, when it comes to organizing large scale relief, distribution, rapid infrastructure development, rapid medical access our military is the best organization in the world. Your mockery only demonstrates your ability to ignore the obvious, our military is a mobile civilization. (a fact with historical precedent)
quote: I'm not saying the military doesn't TRY other tactics (hearts and minds, afterall). I'm just saying that the military is historically very bad at them and we have better tools we could use in those cases.
Our boys have historically been the best ambassadors of hope we have ever had, it sickens me to see the generosity of the 'dough boys' the selfless sacrifice of countless troops in areas where we are and were the only shield against genocide forgotten or untaught to you.
quote: The military has two uses: threaten and kill. If the threat doesn't work, then kill. If the killing doesn't work...kill more. There's nothing surgical about it. The military is more like a regimen of strong chemo-therapy or radiation treatment than it is a surgical intervention.
Can you really be this ignorant? While a comprehensive list of the not 'kill' activities of the military does require a catalog, I offer you five to start your search, detain insurgents, locate caches, collect Intel, interact with locals, distribute aid...I promised to stop at five but it hard.
quote: And, yeah, sometimes that's necessary. But when it is, it should be done all out and for the duration.
War is never done 'All Out' except by the desperate and criminal, again things that every young boy should know.
quote: If we're trying to build a democracy, the military is exactly the wrong tool for the job. The democracy building can, perhaps, be assisted by the military if the situation needs pacification first. But once the peace is established, the real work has to begin.
There is no democracy in the world today that exists without military security, security is and will always remain 'real work'
quote: We didn't understand Sunni/Shia conflicts. We didn't understand the Turkish population. We didn't take the time or have the right information to even make educated guesses as to what it will eventually take to "install" a system of government there.
Go ahead, show me where the plan is. What exactly was the military going to do to train the Iraqis in democracy?
I am going to skip the dumb one and take the next two together since my patience is wearing thin...
We do not need to get into the mud of Sunni and Shia nonsense, they all understand 'killing is not acceptable' we just need to demonstrate our commitment to that standard and teach them to enforce it. It is new to them and they are slow to pick it up.
We will train the Iraqi's in democracy by giving them opportunities to vote, I was lucky enough to provide security for a few of those myself.
Anything left oh this gem...
quote: Show me how the military (any military) has successfully installed a democracy elsewhere in the world. It worked once. Here in the US. But we keep expecting that other people are just like we were in 1776 and that all we have to do is get rid of their "overlords" and they'll come rushing to the principles of freedom that we espouse.
Darned silly of us really.
We seem to have problems learning this lesson.
Well...Japan, Israel, South Korea, Panama, Mexico... Do I need to go on, being wrong only takes one I do not want to be less then kind but it is often unkind to upset a child's worldview, nothing malicious about it, an ignorant child is not stupid, even an ignorant savage can be bright, there is hope for you if you seek remedy, but I am a poor teacher and will not rise up just to smack you down. Better for you if I just ignore or take a short poke when your views are too silly
[ February 17, 2007, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Counter Bean ]
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: If that was the idea, I'm going to have to call say that our decision-makers were even more clueless than I thought. I just figured they were wildly over-optimistic. I didn't realize they actually expected our military to be the ones to train their police to be incorruptible. And that the lessons were supposed to be learned by example.
With this statement you bite the hand that feeds you and prove yourself beneath my notice. You are dead to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ladies and gentlemen, that was mr. bean counter.
don't worry, he'll be here all week!
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Counter Bean, is dyslexia rampant here or what?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You'll always be Bean Counter to me, lovey.
We'll always have paris. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bean Counter,
quote:We are one nation, I am committed to hold it together so it is personal when I see efforts to tear it apart even from the inside.
You don't appear very interested in holding the nation together on the hearts and minds front. Rather, you seem more interested in insulting, deliberately misunderstanding, and driving away those who don't already agree with you. That's not 'holding together', no matter what you tell yourself.
You're certainly not fooling anyone here about that.
Nicely sidestepped my observation about what Bob actually meant, compared to what you really said, by the way. Because, you know, you haven't acknowledged that Bob did not mean what you suggested he meant. It was obvious, and you wormed your way around it. Your methods for winning hearts and minds are pretty weasely.
quote:My way of holding it together was to enlist.
So, what, your way is to enlist and then to hell with holding things together outside of that committment?
quote:A fan of John Kerry school of 'the military is a bunch of stupid heads' I see, simply not true...
Not what he said.
quote:Your mockery only demonstrates your ability to ignore the obvious, our military is a mobile civilization. (a fact with historical precedent)
He didn't deny that.
quote:There is no democracy in the world today that exists without military security, security is and will always remain 'real work'
There is not, nor has there ever been, a 'real democracy' that was uplifted and sustained solely by military effort. Bob's point is that perhaps we should have relied on a more substantial mix of the military and non-military tools necessary to our mission in Iraq than we, in fact, did rely on.
You're still Bean Counter, and I look forward with pleasure to the time when you're banned again. Hopefully permanently this time.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Of course you do, this Hatrack. I will stay for a time and make it interesting then the long dark tea time of the soul can return.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I think Counter Bean is overly supportive of bad leadership, but beyond that, everything he says makes sense.
Lavalamp is clueless as to the reality of the situation in Iraq, and the military's relationship with...everything, and keeps digging a hole that I think should be labeled "I know more than you do about what you're doing".
Just to set the record straight, I know more about what we're doing than pretty much everyone, and BC/CB is waaay closer to the governmental concept of the way things WILL CONTINUE to be done than anyone else. If you think you can change the system, carry on, but if all you are willing to do is pick on a "nut" on an internet forum then worthless may well be your middle name.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: My way of holding it together was to enlist.
BC, last I checked you weren't give the right, privilege, or the responsibility to determine what was patriotic, or what makes someone American.
Thank God.
All you have done is make me wish that ranks under Sargent didn't have access to the internet. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I think Counter Bean is overly supportive of bad leadership, but beyond that, everything he says makes sense.
Lavalamp is clueless as to the reality of the situation in Iraq, and the military's relationship with...everything, and keeps digging a hole that I think should be labeled "I know more than you do about what you're doing".
Just to set the record straight, I know more about what we're doing than pretty much everyone, and BC/CB is waaay closer to the governmental concept of the way things WILL CONTINUE to be done than anyone else. If you think you can change the system, carry on, but if all you are willing to do is pick on a "nut" on an internet forum then worthless may well be your middle name.
it's the primary label of that post.....because attempting to refer to some sort of veiled authority is pathetic.
My entire family has been in the service, including high ranking members of the Navy and the Marines, and not one of them supports the tactics we currently use, or were supportive of the over all strategy we went in there with.
Hell, even Bush Sr. knew what would happen, and wrote it into his one book.
We are failing, and it is because we set ourselves up for failure from the beginning.
THAT is a slap in the face of all of the soldiers over there, even if they don't realize it.
We were lied to from the beginning, and unprepared for the conflict. When the military spoke up against the plans. no one listened.....and even Generals knew it wasn't going to work.
But when they spoke up, they were called ignorant, and unAmerican.
Even treasonous.
We have seen how well THAT worked, haven't we?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, *I* wasn't lied to.
Which military advisors were called un-American and treasonous, for saying the war plan wouldn't work? That's significant news, and should be publicized.
On another note: what tactics would have worked, according to the military? That would have been a debate worth having nationally.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You weren't lied to? Rice, Rumsfeld, and various intelligence officials all asserted in speeches there was no possible usage other than nuclear centrifuges for shipments of aluminum tubes, despite, as it has come out, being shortly prior provided evidence of significant dissent by experts at the Energy Department (including with examples of alternate uses, specifically a common type of missile used by Iraq).
Would you care to clarify how that wasn't a lie?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As for tactics that would have worked, the original military plan included a significantly larger last wave, mostly to help with immediately post-combat operations, which were considered very important to preserving infrastructure and the like.
That got removed at the last minute because the combat itself was going well.
Here's a nice overview, including examples of military officers (such as Shinseki) talking about what would be needed in Iraq post-invasion (and whose advice was not followed): http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/ohanlon/20050101.htm Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I am no longer under the rank of Sergent.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Bean,
I realize that part of the job of the military in THIS war includes going around looking for things, and setting up schools and handing out food, and treating medical problems, and so on.
I'm just saying they aren't particularly the best tool we have for those jobs.
What I mean by all out is that if you don't let the military do what it does without a bunch of restrictions -- or rather if you CAN'T do that because of the situation, you end up putting our own men and women in additional danger and, typically, make it very hard for them to achieve the overall objectives.
airmanfour, I'd be curious to hear exactly how you think the military is the tool we should be using to foster democracy. Bean's list aside (and I do reject most of it as not very good examples of MILITARY imposition of democracy, since that isn't exactly what happened in those cases), I'm really at a loss to think of examples of how the US military has shown itself capable of installing a democratic style of government anywhere. The original verbiage about Iraq from this Administration included a vague plan to send a wave of advisors to help them build the institutions. This was all predicated on a lot of things, apparently, but one of the biggest was that they actually wanted it and wanted us to help them become like us.
Turns out they really may not want that.
Bean -- your summary of the Sunni/Shia problem proves my point more dramatically than I could've ever wanted. If your attitude is typical of our troops, it pretty much also proves my point that the US military is the wrong tool for this job.
[ February 17, 2007, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Lavalamp ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
This is the first I'd heard that WMD technology could not be dual use, yes. (Although I'm not sure "using it to build missiles" qualifies as "not for WMDs.")
Thanks for the links; I look forward to reading them.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
btw, Bean, I'm not exactly sure what you think I'm supposed to apologize for. So far, you've misread my posts and taken offense. Should I apologize for your reading something more than what was there?
Or, do you see some personal attack in my posts?
I'm truly puzzled.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Honor is alive in the military, so many people have seen it that it has become the most common description of our soldiers everywhere in the world. Except occasional foul mouth punks who think they know the world because they unhooked a bra. Samurai warriors were astonished by the Honor of American soldiers, nowhere in this country do people feel frightened instead of relieved when they see the uniform, but some punks scoff at the idea of a people learning honor from us. A mind that can hold such an opinion is too rotted to interact with.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Honor is not the same thing as democracy.
The military is not, and can not be, a democratic organization. That says nothing about their honor, or courage, or many other desirable traits. Neither do their honor, or courage, or many other desirable traits necessarily make them the best tool for teaching democracy.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean:
I cannot imagine what people think soldiers are for if it is not to fight, how does 'bring those boys back home' make sense when the boys are a professional army made up of volunteers? It is like showing your support for baseball by canceling the season. Lets show our support for plumbers by digging wells and hauling water.
Did anyone catch that episode of the Daily Show where Rob Riggle says that the surge is a good idea because it's operationally sound (i.e. because it's possible)?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am no longer under the rank of Sergent.
Congrats, Sarge. But you should learn how to spell it correctly.
When I first got made a "Network Administrator," I made sure to get all those letters in the right places on my business card.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
As has been pointed out, you are misreading my posts. You've done it again. If you'd wanted to know my opinion of military honor, I would've gladly given it to you.
Please tell me what that has to do with anything that's been discussed so far.
Have I once called the military or the men and women in it "dishonorable?" (Barring, of course, specific cases of actual bad behavior)
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: The military can't even spell democracy....
quote:And there isn't a military experts opinion on that stuff that we should care about or trust.
quote:Are you saying that you expected we could succeed in grafting our notions of incorruptibility of law enforcement there using the military as teachers?
And that it'd be done on a reasonable time frame?
I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic based on history of our military or the people in the region we're hoping to impact.
If that was the idea, I'm going to have to call say that our decision-makers were even more clueless than I thought. I just figured they were wildly over-optimistic. I didn't realize they actually expected our military to be the ones to train their police to be incorruptible. And that the lessons were supposed to be learned by example.
Yeah, you sound friendly.
Oh, and D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Airman, what makes you think that our military is qualified to teach Iraqis how to be civilian police?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I am no longer under the rank of Sergent.
Congrats, Sarge. But you should learn how to spell it correctly.
When I first got made a "Network Administrator," I made sure to get all those letters in the right places on my business card.
Thanks for beating me to it >:[
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I meant Surgent
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: Airman, what makes you think that our military is qualified to teach Iraqis how to be civilian police?
In my unit it is because about a third of them are civilian police(or CJ majors), and another third are DOC
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will: The assertion was that the tubes, quote, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" (that's from Rice).
That's different from also being useful for missiles.
Of course, they weren't useful as centrifuges, either. In fact, one nuclear scientist (no nuclear scientist argued they were for centrifuges; the push was by a former nuclear engineer at the CIA) pointed out that if they were for centrifuges, that Iraq had demonstrated better centrifuge technology years before, and that if they were going to switch to these we should encourage it since they were incredibly unsuited.
Furthermore, we'd known they were buying these types of pipes for a long time. Iraq hadn't tried to hide it, either, because they were for missiles it was legal for them to have.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Airman, what makes you think that our military is qualified to teach Iraqis how to be civilian police?
The only people I know (personally) that have done actual Iraqi police training is our (AF) Security Police. I assume they're qualified to teach it because that's what they do.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Absent the command structure that understands policing, turning over training to police within the unit is probably not a very good idea.
The fact they are doing it anyway is not proof of anything.
airman4, please try not to read more into my statements than I put there. I do not have antipathy toward the US armed forces. I just don't like when they are used for jobs they aren't equipped to do. I am unconvinced that they are equipped to do things like run prisons, for example, even though many of the people assigned to that duty came out of various correctional departments in the states. Again, without a command structure that understands how to manage such an operation, having people in the ranks with experience is no guarantee of success.
Sorry.
That doesn't mean I don't see honor in our troops and the sacrifices they are making.
I predict the military will issue its own report soon detailing how certain of the jobs it was assigned were not appropriate. There has been such a report after every conflict/war in my lifetime (at least the ones I can remember.
I don't see how this time will be any different.
I wish we would learn this lesson and stop asking the military to perform jobs they can't perform well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The only people I know (personally) that have done actual Iraqi police training is our (AF) Security Police. I assume they're qualified to teach it because that's what they do.
I think confusing the military's "Security Police" with a civilian police force is a good example of the problem. In fact, even if every single member of the MPs had actually been a civilian cop in their previous life, the nature of the mission is different enough that I would still be reluctant to consider their roles at all equivalent.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Wow. The usual suspects. It's remarkable how similar the tactics being used against someone disagreeable. I'm glad I read this thread. A real eye opener. What did you get banned for, CB?
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
When was Counter Bean banned? Never... If it happens it will most likely be for not according the Islamic political party the status of a religion at some point.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: The only people I know (personally) that have done actual Iraqi police training is our (AF) Security Police. I assume they're qualified to teach it because that's what they do.
I think confusing the military's "Security Police" with a civilian police force is a good example of the problem. In fact, even if every single member of the MPs had actually been a civilian cop in their previous life, the nature of the mission is different enough that I would still be reluctant to consider their roles at all equivalent.
I recognize the difference between a civilian police force and a military one. But it's not as large a difference as people seem to think. Especially in Iraq, where I imagine (I do not have any firsthand knowledge here) that their police are more paramilitary than our traditional version of a police force anyway.
Understanding that this could be exactly what some people think is wrong, I still think it's better than not having police at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wow. The usual suspects. It's remarkable how similar the tactics being used against someone disagreeable. I'm glad I read this thread. A real eye opener. What did you get banned for, CB?
What's remarkable is that you haven't gone back to the thread you started, and actually replied to the kinds of questions and criticisms you claimed to want, chicken.
No, we haven't forgotten about that Buck-buck-bckaaaaa!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The major problems with preparing their police force haven't, as I understand, been with the quality of the policework training, but with the quality of their supplies, infrastructure, organization, and administration.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I would include the last two as among the "training" concerns we might've considered going in.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Wow. The usual suspects. It's remarkable how similar the tactics being used against someone disagreeable. I'm glad I read this thread. A real eye opener. What did you get banned for, CB?
What's remarkable is that you haven't gone back to the thread you started, and actually replied to the kinds of questions and criticisms you claimed to want, chicken.
No, we haven't forgotten about that Buck-buck-bckaaaaa!
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I think you're in your own little world. But don't worry, you're not alone. Wait a minute...
But anyway, everytime I did answer the questions asked of me and responded to the challenges and criticisms, you and the others who are joining you here on this thread whose names are always popping up at every opportunity to show everyone else how much smarter you are than them, you would just barrel ahead like nothing was said because if you bothered to listen to anyone else you might realize that you're not as smart as you think, and that just would not do, would it?
So if you're so smart, why don't try and decipher the above sentence, and let me know what I just wrote. I keep getting stuck about half-way through.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
It is snobbery, the Left is driven by utopianism and elitism. It is ironic that in the history of Iraq, the Baath party started as the progressive party of the intellectual elite. They where the educated doctors and teachers and lawyers who knew what was best for everyone else. Then they realized that if they were ever going to go beyond high browed hot air they need men that were capable of violent action. So they pulled a thug off the streets and put him in a suit, their trained monkey. Until he gathered every thread of power from the secret police to the military into his hands and turned the Baath party into the blood bath party. The problem with our elites is that they have a vast infrastructure to prop up that self importance so they can drag us all a long way down before their idiocy puts them out of power. It is up to those who really remember, conservatives who do not put their faith in every new fad notion that comes along, men who will take up arms to fight for their country, men and women who fight for every life as sacred and eat every cow because it isn't, those that believe in the second amendment as well as the first, it is up to us to protect the 'elites' and ourselves from the consequences of their inevitable blunders.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I think you're in your own little world. But don't worry, you're not alone. Wait a minute...
King of Men, at the very least, gave you what you asked for in that thread. You haven't been back since. As for the rest of your post, well, you may think what you like. However, in a thread you started, in a thread which you frequently complained no one was trying to make a real argument to your homophobic, sexist statements, you did not respond when someone actually did that.
Instead, the latest post in that thread is still not yours. So, I'll say it again: put up, or shut up.
Edit:
quote:But anyway, everytime I did answer the questions asked of me and responded to the challenges and criticisms, you and the others who are joining you here on this thread whose names are always popping up at every opportunity to show everyone else how much smarter you are than them, you would just barrel ahead like nothing was said because if you bothered to listen to anyone else you might realize that you're not as smart as you think, and that just would not do, would it?
Suffice it to say, I disagree about what actually happened in that thread. I'm quite comfortable in that disagreement not only because I read it a few times and thought about it, but because people whose opinion and reading comprehension abilities I respect agree with me.
Chicken.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is up to those who really remember, conservatives who do not put their faith in every new fad notion that comes along, men who will take up arms to fight for their country, men and women who fight for every life as sacred and eat every cow because it isn't, those that believe in the second amendment as well as the first, it is up to us to protect the 'elites' and ourselves from the consequences of their inevitable blunders.
Conservatives are not the only ones who take up arms in defense of their nation. Nor are liberals the only ones who inevitably make blunders.
Why are you still here? You cannot seriously think you're persuading anyone of anything in your favor. What value do you get out of hearing yourself talk so much?
Edit:
quote:It is snobbery, the Left is driven by utopianism and elitism.
No, they're not. You're either ignorant or lying.
[ February 18, 2007, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Yes they are...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Why are you still here? You cannot seriously think you're persuading anyone of anything in your favor. What value do you get out of hearing yourself talk so much?
I'm not even convinced he believes what he's saying, let alone him having any expectations of winning others over to his side.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Do too...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bean Counter,
So, the many liberals and Democrats I've spoken with in depth on these issues...they're lying? Or you read their minds? Or what, exactly?
Your opinions only work if you already buy into a whole slew of garbage in the first place. If your opinions were equated to a military, they'd be France Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
HISS
God I'm sick of Franco-bashing.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bean...don't you get tired of posting agreements with yourself, and typing with both hands? Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Utopian... Believing in and seeking to create a perfect world of human goodness.
Elitism... Believing that one knows what's best for everyone else.
...Liberals
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just what bean needed: to be defended by another paragon of trollish argumentation.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
If your opinions were equated to a military, they'd be France
Please stop. I'm just as sick of this as Lyrhawn is.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:by Rakeesh
King of Men, at the very least, gave you what you asked for in that thread. You haven't been back since... Instead, the latest post in that thread is still not yours. So, I'll say it again: put up, or shut up.
Rakeesh, not that it matters, but I don't care for how you carry yourself. You need to come off of your pedastal. I have other things to do in life than spend all day on an internet forum. I have my periods where I do that, but that doesn't last too long because then I remember my real life, where things actually matter. I've been accused of being callous because of this attitude, but I think that anyone who puts more than a tiny amount of emotional involvment on an internet forum needs counseling. So that is why I hadn't been seen for a while.
But I agree with you about France. France sucks. Lyrhawn and Euripides don't like it that people don't like France. I don't like that people do like France. Let's all be happy. I'm gonna go talk about Narnia to someone now.
Edit: to include quote.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Someone had one too many servings of freedom toast this morning.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I did that for a reason. It's because I knew it would appeal to Bean Counter's sensibilities and he would get it. Not because I particularly hate France (although there are many times-most times-I am not very fond of that nation's government).
-------------
quote:Utopian... Believing in and seeking to create a perfect world of human goodness.
Elitism... Believing that one knows what's best for everyone else.
...Liberals
Are you telling me you don't claim to know what's best for everyone else, on nearly a constant basis, Bean Counter? You're at least as elitist as any liberal I've ever met.
Conservatives try and create the perfect world as well. So your little sound-bite comparison, unsurprisingly, falls flat on its ass.
------------
quote:Rakeesh, not that it matters, but I don't care for how you carry yourself. You need to come off of your pedastal. I have other things to do in life than spend all day on an internet forum. I have my periods where I do that, but that doesn't last too long because then I remember my real life, where things actually matter. I've been accused of being callous because of this attitude, but I think that anyone who puts more than a tiny amount of emotional involvment on an internet forum needs counseling. So that is why I hadn't been seen for a while.
Well, now I know I've 'won' this particular argument, because you've resorted to this Basically, you're calling me a loser because I spend too much time on teh intarwebs. You do this without knowing what I do for a living, how I do it, or even anything, really, about me, except that I think you acted like a jackass in that thread, and didn't do anything other than posture and insist no one was taking your arguments seriously-which some people were.
So, go back to your real life where things actually matter. Let yourself believe I am deeply emotionally involved in this argument, if you like. That would appear to be what you need to do to avoid going back to that thread.
Oh, and as for needing counseling based on putting more than a tiny amount of emotional involvement in an Internet forum? You really don't understand this place at all, Reshpeckobiggle.
So I don't buy your lame cop-out, chicken. I keep on this particular point because you're annoying, and because you were sexist and bigoted and constantly rude in that thread, no other reason, and because despite all your tough talk in that thread, you haven't yet gone back. You could have already, but you haven't. Put up or shut up. Although at this point I think it's perfectly clear you're not going to put up in that thread, rather you're going to let things the way they are and whine that people were rude to you.
Boo-hoo. Chicken.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
You have proved my point, for you, the liberal infection is so deep that you cannot conceive of anyone not sharing it. Now learn the shocking truth...
Conservatives do not believe in Utopia, we believe that man exists and will always exist in a 'fallen' state. This is just too say that we are born with a capacity for lust, vengeance, violence and envy that we must learn to control. Conservatives believe that each person must strive to master that state, many say this should be done by following the example of Christ, but we always know that the evil is there. No Utopia of human goodness is possible because human goodness is not and cannot be universal, Conservatives believe in 'managing chaos' or making the best of a bad situation and fixing what can be fixed. A hard nosed practical multi-layered approach to creating temporary bubbles of goodness and security were even liberals can flourish. (like America)
Conservatives do not think for other people, we think for ourselves and expect responsible thought and action from those around us. We do not control others, we expect civilized behavior from them and punish them if it does not arise. Conservatives expect a minimum of human decency to qualify for membership to society, beyond that we leave people alone. Elitism is all about scoring points in meaningless battles, artificial games that feed self importance, the fact that I do frequently score points in the elitist games just means I take personal pleasure in playing them from time to time, always to puncture self importance, if I am good at it imagine how much better I am at things I take seriously.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You have proved my point, for you, the liberal infection is so deep that you cannot conceive of anyone not sharing it. Now learn the shocking truth...
I'm not a liberal. I'm a registered Independant, and I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives in my life.
You as usual have not proven anything except your own fundamental ignorance, and your lack of mind-reading capabilities, Bean Counter.
And you're also-as usual-ignoring what was actually said and instead addressing a point that was never made. I did not say that conservatives believe in a utopia. I said that conservatives, like liberals, work to create a perfect world.
quote:We do not control others, we expect civilized behavior from them and punish them if it does not arise.
That's actually control.
quote:...the fact that I do frequently score points in the elitist games just means I take personal pleasure in playing them from time to time, always to puncture self importance, if I am good at it imagine how much better I am at things I take seriously.
It must be fun to play games in which the referee, score keeper, and hell the commissioner of the league is...you. You're not scoring points. I can't remember the last time you did score a point outside of your own imagination. You're not welcome here, you're not saying anything that hasn't been heard already, so why are you around? Why do you enjoy it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You have proved my point, for you, the liberal infection is so deep that you cannot conceive of anyone not sharing it.
Wow! That's a pretty shocking charge! Golly, I wonder if it's true.
Hey, is it true, Rakeesh? Are you incapable of conceptualizing that someone could not be fully of the liberal persuasion?
ANSWER HONESTLY.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:ANSWER HONESTLY.
How can I possibly do that, I'm apparently a liberal!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: You're not welcome here, you're not saying anything that hasn't been heard already
Actually what I am saying, if it is not welcome here makes its importance here far greater then it would be on the conservative boards. Think of me as 'reaching across the isle' to pull liberals back to reality.
The charge of 'it has all been said before' is shameful, I am sure that people coming to this list are not going to wade through years of discussion, the fact that you have 'talked out' all the topics means that it is time for you to leave, this is not a 'we are all old friends with secret inside jokes and private meetings group' it is a discussion group. It is time for you to move to a chat room for your clique and stop trying to make this board into one.
Leave.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why not -- and this is just a thought, mind you -- avoid wasting our breath pissing in the snow and actually try to discuss things?
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Witch of Islams fallacies or moral failings made you leave Tom? Discuss...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bean Counter,
You're not welcome here not because of what you're saying, but because of how you behave. You cheapen and diminish the community by your presence and behavior, you're certainly not 'reaching out' to anyone-you're deliberately lying when you say that.
You're also not interested in discussion, either. Why are you still here? What pleasure do you get out of this?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:ANSWER HONESTLY.
How can I possibly do that, I'm apparently a liberal!!!!!!!!!
OMG bean counter was RIGHT ALL ALONG
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, how can you doubt a mind-reading conservative, Samprimary????????????????????????
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Actually what I am saying, if it is not welcome here makes its importance here far greater then it would be on the conservative boards. Think of me as 'reaching across the isle' to pull liberals back to reality.
I am sure that your faith in your own message is dogmatic and unshakable. However, you are not showing any ability or willingness to understand your faults which sabotage your 'mission.' Whatever faith you have in your own convictions, you are not an effective pulpiteer. You are garbled and haughty and a terrible advocate for your ideology and faith. You persist in holding to untenable sentiments simply on the basis of unshakable axiom, and your sentiments come off as arrogant and willfully blind. You condescend without effort or intent, and in the process, you have been constantly delivering witless one-liners that pretty much assure that (even as you are certain of the unassailability of your position) you are incapable of evoking much but disgust for it. You clam to be pursuing commentary here only through educational intent, as though you have never listened to yourself talk.
Given the terms of your belief and the standards of your 'rationality,' it is unimportant to debate with you. If it's at all important to anyone to do so, it's probably because they realize (correctly) that the more you talk, the more you hurt your own position. Your actions here make you essentially a tool against your own viewpoint being wielded by the people that you pathologically give in to. You're being played like a lute whenever you dismiss others, or are goaded to damage your credibility more on behalf of your ideology. You don't realize that your critical failing is that you are a stow bomb that does not understand how you are doing nothing but hurting your own position and embarrassing people who might also hold it. That is the only possible purpose I can envision for this thread, or the idea that anyone is still paying attention to you. It's fun, and rewarding to your enemies.
It's funny, I've said much the exact same thing about you and others before.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: You clam to be pursuing commentary here only through educational intent
Clams are the source of all pearls...
Here is a challenge for you, since there are thousands of Hatrackers on the Left, lets see if you can be persuasive enough to shift me from the Right. GO!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If we already outnumber you that much, why waste the effort? We've already won!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not a challenge. You've already stated you think liberals are brainwashed, and that you know their minds better than they do.
And anyway, there are technically 'thousands' of Hatrackers, but no more than a few hundred at most who are regular participants on a monthly basis...and not much more, I think, than a hundred who participate on a weekly basis.
And I wouldn't say that a strong majority of them are liberal.
I guess this is one of those troublesome small details that gets ignored in your attitude of total certainty.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The best way for Democrats to win is to allow idiots like BC to speak, as often as they want, as long as their speech is not unopposed.
He makes a beautiful case against the current administration just by being who he is.
I just feel sorry for those who get painted by the same brush because they are also Republicans, although they have as much in common with BC as I do with Bush.
Funny thing is I have voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats in my voting history...but according to the rocket scientist over there I am beyond hope. Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
quote:Clams are the source of all pearls...
Don't pearls come from oysters?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Don't pearls come from oysters?
Where'd you get that, a book? You don't look up truthiness in a book, you look it up in your gut, and his gut tells him that pearls come from clams.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Clams have a pending ACLU case demanding that they be recognized as and have the same rights as oysters...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Isn't that kind of like men bringing an ACLU action to be allowed to bear children?
Like the clams, they're biologically incapable of accomplishing the task in question, but they'd certainly like to have the right.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Where will you keep the fetus...in a box?
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Interesting timeline of the history of US war and intervention: here Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: Where will you keep the fetus...
In the same place clams keep their pearls I guess.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
...or the same place BC placed his brain, and and tact.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Cool it, people.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
and and cool it! Tom said so...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Here is a challenge for you, since there are thousands of Hatrackers on the Left, lets see if you can be persuasive enough to shift me from the Right. GO!
It wasn't too long ago that you were railing on people for bandwagon mentality. Now you're making a challenge which is akin to "If there's thousands of people who disagree with me, and I still don't change my mind even then, my point of view must be stronger than theirs!"
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm just an observer (admittedly not objective), and although I think CB could make stronger arguments, he's still right. The most forcful arguments from the opposition has been: "You're not welcome here," "You're not a mind-reader," and my favorite, "pearls come from oysters."
I think the gist of what Samprimary is saying (in his earlier post, not the one directly above) is that CB is wrong because he won't change is mind. And when he says: "It's funny, I've said much the exact same thing about you and others before," it makes me think of the time(s) he's said basically the same thing to me. I find it humorous that your criteria for intellegence and worthiness for debating with seem to be how quickly one is convinced and admits you are right. This goes for all of you, not just Samprimary.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean:
Here is a challenge for you, since there are thousands of Hatrackers on the Left, lets see if you can be persuasive enough to shift me from the Right. GO!
No. I'm not going to be your monkey.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
The most forcful arguments from the opposition has been: "You're not welcome here," "You're not a mind-reader," and my favorite, "pearls come from oysters."
Can anyone say 'strawman'? Go read page 1.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I think the gist of what Samprimary is saying (in his earlier post, not the one directly above) is that CB is wrong because he won't change is mind.
Actually, the gist of what Samprimary was saying (if I may interpret) is that by spouting dogma and not being amenable to rational argument, he's doing his cause more harm than good.
Page 2 and 3 of this thread has been mostly meta-discussion; discussion about the way the discussion has been and should be conducted. On page 1 on the other hand, you'll find some very detailed posts refuting Bean Counter's claims.
Take, for example, the 1221 word post in which Bob explains some of the flaws in BC's reasoning and the current strategy in Iraq. To that, BC replied, "My way of holding it together was to enlist."
Bob then took the time to respond even to that, with a post thanking him for serving his country and explaining that he believes the reconstruction of Iraq is not a job the military is best suited for. To that BC replied, "leveling cities is the job of the Air Force, the Infantry is capable of somewhat more subtle action", ignoring, as Bob pointed out, the substance of the post. BC finally responds with a post starting with "If there are real points I will be satisfied to answer them."
And consider Lyrhawn's response to another statement of BC's:
quote:
quote:I cannot imagine what people think soldiers are for if it is not to fight, how does 'bring those boys back home' make sense when the boys are a professional army made up of volunteers? It is like showing your support for baseball by canceling the season. Lets show our support for plumbers by digging wells and hauling water.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. First of all, people LIKE baseball, they don't like war, unless they are sick and twisted. War might be what soldiers do best, but an army isn't a 'use it or lose it' force. Saying we should just keep letting them fight because fighting is what they like to do and it's what they are good at isn't a sufficient reason to continue a war. If the war isn't one we should be fighting, I couldn't care less on what the army wants to do. We show our support by only sending soliders into combat when they need to, not on a whim, and we bring them home when there's no longer a really good reason to be there, it's part of the trust between a state and their army, especially one run by a civilian government.
You're a bit too bloodthirsty and gung-ho for my taste BC. We don't kill to make the army happy.
BC's response, culminating in an attack on free speech:
quote:More often the civilian government lacks the will or stomach or practical knowledge to accept the consequences of a military intervention. Most of Europe cannot even find the will to engage in its own security.
What would this generation think of a Sgt York or any of the heroes of previous wars responsible for dozens of kills in close combat? I suspect that far from cheering them in parades they would be shunned and people would demand to know they were 'safe' before they were released into contact with the populace. In fact you see much of that now. It is a long fall from greatness, but it starts with a failure to keep the values that won you greatness in the first place.
All the worst violence in Baghdad could be done by an energetic company sized element, cheering when we crush a battalion and put the leader of a brigade sized element on the run (and perhaps put a bullet in the new AL queda leader) is not blood thirsty, it is being happy that we are meeting objectives that are big steps toward victory and stability (a state where life is safe for the real innocents). It is cheering for lives saved and a better life for those secured. It is cheering a triumph of America.
As for this not being best described as a surge, the fact that it matters at all to some, that words must reflect negatively on our countries chosen course is a cancer in our society that will inevitably spread and prove fatal if not treated.
BC, apart from arguing that civilian authorities should leave war up to the military (even though the army was created to serve the union rather than determine its foreign policy, and despite the President being the C-in-C), that liberals are delusional cowards, that the war should be supported because the primary function of an army is to fight, what are you saying? Put something on the table and its not unlikely that a group of patient Hatrackers will grace your post with a reasoned response, as they have earlier in this thread.
But before you do, since you imply that you are concerned about the moral implications of debates like this, consider that the position people adopt on this issue could have a bearing on how many American and Iraqi lives are lost in the future.
This kind of oversimplified dismissal and refusal to consider alternative courses of action (even working towards the same goal) reeks of moral irresponsibility:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: During President Bush's speech the other day, he said that one can support the troops, support the country, and love both, while disagreeing with, and attempting to change the strategy chosen.
Bush is a Statesman, I do not have the lifetime of political instincts to make me feel the need to make fools feel good about themselves to keep them from stabbing me in the back.
And when Rakeesh said "You're not welcome here, you're not saying anything that hasn't been heard already", he was most likely referring to the fact that you yourself were repeating your dogma rather than addressing the arguments of others.
If you like, why not respond to Lyrhawn's post; about how the surge is too insignificant in size to attain America's goals in Iraq, and that if the commitment to 'victory' can't be made, there is no sound reason to keep US soldiers in harm's way.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I'd be interested in what people think of the timeline I linked to (see post in the middle of all that silliness about oysters). Most of that stuff I knew already and have taken it to be a mostly true summary of events and rationales.
I'd be interested in rebuttals, though, views of why some of the more ignoble chapters in our history of military use really were necessary and good after all. Especially the propping up of South American, African, and Middle Eastern regimes that tended toward totalitarianism.
Oh, btw, there are several bivalve mollusc species that form pearls, so it's not JUST oysters. I think they may even be a clam species with that "capability." Oysters are just the prime source of commercial/jewelry-grade pearls.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's the thing which you didn't get in the thread you chickened out on, and you're not getting here either, Reshpeckobiggle: people are much less likely to trust you enough to seriously discuss something with you if you've got a history of approaching serious discussions like a rude jerk who doesn't argue intelligently or honestly. Who makes sweeping generalizations as though they were hard scientific fact, and then when called on them, completely ignores the criticism and pretends his point has been made.
Bean Counter has a history of this. Months and months, at least. His methods clearly have not changed. You started your own little history like that in your bigoted, homophobic, and sexist thread which you squirmed away from 'because you don't spend so much time on Internet forums'
Chicken.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I took the time once on this thread to dismantle a post, I would rather people reach inside to their inner conservative and do it for themselves. Spending all my time doing it is not building anything, so again I will say, if a point cries out worthiness by my standards I will reply at length, otherwise you are correct in assuming I thought it was weak.
Like the previous post with a recap, long and not too useful since it is a all just a few lines up. ... and then she said... and then he said... and that is so just like him... Junior High much?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Bob, I found that timeline fascinating, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on many of the listed interventions to be able to analyse it's accuracy. It seems like a broad topic; perhaps worthy of a new thread?
Edit: sp
[ February 20, 2007, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you disagree with any specifics of the recap, BC, or just the fact that it exists? I thought the recap was in general very accurate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm just an observer (admittedly not objective), and although I think CB could make stronger arguments, he's still right. The most forcful arguments from the opposition has been: "You're not welcome here," "You're not a mind-reader," and my favorite, "pearls come from oysters."
They actually weren't the most forceful arguments at all. Didn't you see the threads where we were doing things like "pointing out something that CB said is completely untrue" and watching him "not assert or acknowledge this point further?"
It happened like ten times. Go back and read through the thread. I refuse to believe that you are near-totally illiterate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: Man, you guys are so immature for not debating yourselves for me.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
It is an issue of what we consider important, traditionally peace has been a state achieved when you identify and crush your enemies, that is tribalism. The logic of genocide is simply a matter of practicality, why make your great grandchildren fight the 'whoever' when their numbers and belligerence reemerge. However war today must be guided by a morality higher then expedience. We are not just killing, we have to match the level of violence to the lessons we are teaching.
One lesson that has clearly been learned, the US military in attack mode is to be feared. (Hence Sadr runs again) My own unit took the initiative in our areas and with the same number of troops put six times as many patrols out in our own mini surge then the Unit we replaced. How? The 10th Mountain was patrolling six hours a day, we put out three (yes three) twelve hour shifts. The result? No loss of life and the bad guys ran or were captured except two who turned themselves out of exhaustion (true story) because they had not slept for a week or so. We stayed on the attack for my whole deployment.
Did the people hate us? Not at all, we were always at their villages, in there homes and bringing gifts and medicine and treating them with respect. They took cell phones we gave then and called us when high value targets showed up. They called us with tips on plots and IED locations and they came to us and begged us not to leave (our unit) because the 'bad guys' would come back.
The Unit that replaced us did not have the same idea about how to do things so they had problems but you can hardly expect a regular Army unit to listen to a National Guard Unit no matter how successful they were.
Still our operational success and success at creating the expectation in the people of stability, generosity and honor from troops shows that it can be done, and done over a large area with a relatively small number of troops. It is all about engaging in the mission. The possibility of a better life is in those people now, especially the kids, we had literally dozens of boys who wanted to know how they could become US soldiers we helped one of our interpreters do just that.
They wanted to be us, protectors. The seeds of a better life are there, that is what is making the insurgents attack civilians, that is where the dangerous infection is for them.
As for the ridiculous claim that 20,000 troops cannot make a difference, a few things need to be understood. First much of the ground being searched had no troops in it at all before, the regular patrols had not even been in there. Just opening those areas to the troops would have accomplished a great deal. Second the troops being sent in are for the most part infantry. (Marines and so on) most of the troops in Baghdad are support, like 75% never patrol. So in effect the number of troops engaging the enemy has doubled. Third, by penetrating the Iraq Units their effectiveness will more then double because they slack when we are not there but make a good show of things when we are and our available support more then doubles their effectiveness. This surge is overwhelming because in effect it gives us four times (conservative) the manpower in the field. Why not send more? The troops are rotating in on equipment, you can only push a vehicle so hard before it is down for maintenance, so you can only surge usefully up to the point where you hit the usage hours of your equipment. The troops coming in may or may not have new vehicles and such, but even if they do you have to keep them on the roads and you will soon hit the wall of what your maintenance personal can keep operational. To me these things are obvious, so it may be a blind spot that I see a question about effectiveness of 20,000 troops as naive or obvious. A better use of your time would be to ask me what the real danger of the surge strategy is.
For me it is not that it will not work, it will absolutely work. However a small number of our troops could be lost or captured because they end up in a compromised Iraqi Unit and I absolutely hate that thought. To be taken in the back by traitors when you are in the US military is unheard of, we take care of each other, so it grates my cheese when one of us is totally exposed to potentially treacherous allies. There are ways to guard against that, but inevitably there will be some losses.
From an operational standpoint however, revealing the penetration is also high value, this surge will leave the Iraq Military much cleaner. There are other elements of the President's strategy that are perhaps not brilliant but at least long overdue sensible solutions that I am glad to see implemented.
We can no longer engage in warfare that is simply slaughter so the function of the military is what it does, sure it would be nice to kill all the Iraqi's and replace them with Illegal Immigrants creating a new Christian country. But it is frowned upon in this time to do things like that, it might be considered heavy handed, like killing the Tibetans and replacing them with Chinese. We do not do that sort of thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That was an excellent post, BC. Thanks for taking the time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*seconded*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thirds. Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
BC,
That is a wonderful post. Thank you.
A question leaps to mind. If successful tactics don't seem to be shared well among the various units -- even those working the same areas -- what assurances have we got that the surge will be something other than more of the same waste and inefficiency you reference in your post?
How much of the new 20,000 is there just to ensure that our armed forces overcome the inertia of their own commanders?
I know that may not be answerable, but a student of history can't help but note that balky commanders (and conflicting orders from above) cost lives, prolong conflicts, and tend to make the job more difficult.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:We can no longer engage in warfare that is simply slaughter so the function of the military is what it does, sure it would be nice to kill all the Iraqi's and replace them with Illegal Immigrants creating a new Christian country. But it is frowned upon in this time to do things like that, it might be considered heavy handed, like killing the Tibetans and replacing them with Chinese. We do not do that sort of thing.
No, that wouldn't be nice. And no one suggested doing it.
BC, your unit's success is encouraging, but hardly representative of the situation in many other regions of the country, as you've alluded. Iraqi public opinion varies wildly on how the US should conduct the war from here on in, but the proportion of Iraqis who support attacks on coalition forces is sizeable:
quote:A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.
Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly).
Further, once threats to civilian security are dampened (which will take time), it's not unlikely that Iraqis will grow weary of an occupier's presence in their country. That's usually the way with occupying armies, even if they are able to ensure a relative state of stability.
Most Iraqis also want a timeline for withdrawal, which is what the democrats are suggesting.
And to echo Bob, how can we know that the extra 20,000 troops are actually going to quadruple patrol effectiveness? And the surge troops will get their own support personnel - which brings the total to about 48,000, so it's not as if the non-combat troops and PMCs in the country already are going to have to absorb another 20,000 fighting men.
It's true that out of the 130,000 troops in Iraq, about half are support personnel. This is pretty much the same number of troops the US had in Iraq shortly after the initial invasion. In any case, adding another 20,000 doesn't double the number. It would take morelike 50,000 fighting troops.
The question is not; will we be able to root out the insurgents with these troops, it's 'will we be able to get Iraq back on its feet, so that when insurgency returns after the US withdrawal (which has to come at some time) the Iraqi government will be able to maintain order?' Even if patrol effectiveness was quadrupled, that doesn't guarantee that US goals in Iraq will be met. It's not a matter of rooting out a terrorist network or two; Iraq is a country in civil war, with competing militias organised along religious lines vying for power.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: A question leaps to mind. If successful tactics don't seem to be shared well among the various units -- even those working the same areas -- what assurances have we got that the surge will be something other than more of the same waste and inefficiency you reference in your post?
How much of the new 20,000 is there just to ensure that our armed forces overcome the inertia of their own commanders?
I think the idea of the surge (correct me if I'm wrong) is not security, but attack. Rather than being used to reinforce the admittedly ineffective Iraqi security infrastructure, they are being used to push an all-out ground war against the insurgency, and to drive them out of their strongholds. Sadr city is one place they will probably be targeting.
Unlike most of what we are seeing now, the surge will probably be performed with the precision and skill of the most powerful army in the world. This, unlike the training of a police force and the like, is what the American command structure in Iraq is ready for. It's what needed to have been done before all the other civilian and security programs had been started. Just my opinion.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: It's true that out of the 130,000 troops in Iraq, about half are support personnel. This is pretty much the same number of troops the US had in Iraq shortly after the initial invasion. In any case, adding another 20,000 doesn't double the number. It would take more like 50,000 fighting troops.
Baghdad while significant is not the whole of Iraq. Indications are that we are indeed getting more then twice the work out of the security forces by babysitting them and leading them by the hand. It is startling how timid Iraqi's are when you meet them, seriously, you think they are all gun totting slogan shouters but the most frustrating thing about real Iraqi's, not the ones on the news, is their timidity.
It is my understanding that Kurdistan has a growing tourist industry, that is how successful we have been. This is a local issue in one city, albeit a largely populated one. 20,000 troops will deal with it quite nicely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No offense, but I credit Kurdistan's success more to Kurdistan than I do to the US Army. The peshmerga was never disbanded like the Iraqi army was, they've had a security net in place before, during and after the main assault of the war, they have an autonomous government that's working towards their own goals, they have a stabl food supply, they have a rather large lacking of strife between religious groups, especially compared to Baghdad, and they've convinced foreign investors they are safe enough to pour millions into their region.
That's far more to do with Kurdistan's preexisting status than to do with US military involvement. Not that I want to take credit away from the US military, but I do want to fix incorrect assumptions that might lead to false impressions of our successes.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
The Status of Refugees, dependant on US military aid in camps in Turkey? No the military had nothing to do with helping them at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The success of the Kurdish region is the product of the Peshmerga and the KDP's seperation from Iraqi oversight.
It's peaceful there because the Kurds are simply seceeding from the Iraqi state. Baghdad politicians don't control them; they're essentially their own country now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: The Status of Refugees, dependant on US military aid in camps in Turkey? No the military had nothing to do with helping them at all.
I never said the military had NOTHING to do with their current status, but you're throwing out rather some (and not all) minor things in the grand scheme of the road to their current situation.
You're helping me make my case by ceding the big stuff.
Thanks Samp.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Euripides, Samprimary: I know. There was a lot more to it than that. I just felt like jumping in with a smartass remark without actually getting involved in the debate. Excuse me for acting on my snarky impulses.
Rakeesh: Calling me chicken only serves to make you look about twelve years old. Now if you're only ten, keep it up! You're actually helping yourself.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Buck-buck-bckaaaaa!