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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone realise just how stupid it sounds to call a week-, month-, or year-long initiative a "surge"?
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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,.
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
