What A Surge Really Means

[jillian]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

[Dilloduck]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408


If a 2 division surge DID make a difference now, wouldn't that be a huge set back for the Democrats ? Would they even allow it or admit it?

[Gaffer]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

Seasoned military people means?

"Some people say", is another way reporters say "I think that... " Its a copout to make people think everyone thinks that way. The reporters use this to avoid naming sources because they are giving their opinion and want to express it like they have a real source.

[Evil]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

Yep, definitely an opinion piece here but is it really a worthy one? Seems this person claims the administration chose to go to war the cheap way on a personal theory, but now that the admin wants to boost the troops it's because the war is going badly but they don't want to admit it. Hmm, is it maybe the fact that whatever happens that this persons opinion would'nt vary too much?

[Gaffer]

Yep, definitely an opinion piece here but is it really a worthy one? Seems this person claims the administration chose to go to war the cheap way on a personal theory, but now that the admin wants to boost the troops it's because the war is going badly but they don't want to admit it. Hmm, is it maybe the fact that whatever happens that this persons opinion would'nt vary too much?

Its a definate fact his opinion would not vary. he's out to bash Bush as usual.

The equipment the troops had was sufficiant for the job as it was at the begining. They upgraded the equipment as things changed, like in every situation. The enemy changes tactics, we change tactics. That's how a war is fought.

A battle plan never survives the first clash with the enemy.

[Evil]

Its a definate fact his opinion would not vary. he's out to bash Bush as usual.

The equipment the troops had was sufficiant for the job as it was at the begining. They upgraded the equipment as things changed, like in every situation. The enemy changes tactics, we change tactics. That's how a war is fought.

A battle plan never survives the first clash with the enemy.

I'm kind of mixed on which route they go next admittedly but it's in my opinion that this is the kind of stuff that circulates out there that really plays into the hands of some. Interesting when this war on iraq opened there was plenty of support for it especially when we marched right through the iraqi's so called army within a few days, then comes the insurgents, things get ugly, and now there is the perfect opening to dismiss the administrations effort. Just my opinion but I think this is where the culprit lies for the bad image of the iraq war, its right here at home, and this is why whatever is decided it won't work unless particulars get thier way.

[Gaffer]

I have mixed thoughts on it as well. I want to see success there. But at the same time its a muslim country and I don't see the democracy thing actually happening there. The current fighting shows that. Democray and islam are incompatable, because islam will always seek to dominate.

[Dilloduck]

I have mixed thoughts on it as well. I want to see success there. But at the same time its a muslim country and I don't see the democracy thing actually happening there. The current fighting shows that. Democray and islam are incompatable, because islam will always seek to dominate.

As does capitalism.

[Gaffer]

As does capitalism.

Negative. Capitalism seeks to profit.

[TheSage]

Negative. Capitalism seeks to profit.

But those pushing capitalism into this nation are only interested in subjugating it's people to the existing megacorporations. They believe in monopoly capitalism, and subjugating any and all human value to the imputed value of human life as it is factored into the bottom line.

[TheSage]

I believe the real reason for Iraq was to reopen the poppy fields in afghanistan, and ensure the regionalization of the mideast. Regionalization: That's the same strategy they're using to consolidate the "americas". They will end up with between 10 and 13 "global administration blocks", all run completely by the fascist-o-corporate satanic hierarchy.

[Gaffer]

And the inside source is? And how they got the info is?

[jillian]

Yep, definitely an opinion piece here but is it really a worthy one? Seems this person claims the administration chose to go to war the cheap way on a personal theory, but now that the admin wants to boost the troops it's because the war is going badly but they don't want to admit it. Hmm, is it maybe the fact that whatever happens that this persons opinion would'nt vary too much?

I think it's a worthy opinion piece. And apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan vets thought so, too, since they linked it. Reikoff is pretty good about taking positions only for the benefit of the troops, IMO.

Perhaps the reason military folk are speaking their minds and acting as sources for articles like this is that they think Bush isn't listening to them.

[Gaffer]

I have been reading on here and posting and doing other things and haven't looked at the milblogs yet today but I will see what they have to say. Of course most of the milblogs I read are conservative. Haven't really found any liberal milblogs. But maybe I'm not searching hard enough.

I think its just another Bush basher getting in his shots.

[jillian]

I have been reading on here and posting and doing other things and haven't looked at the milblogs yet today but I will see what they have to say. Of course most of the milblogs I read are conservative. Haven't really found any liberal milblogs. But maybe I'm not searching hard enough.

I think its just another Bush basher getting in his shots.

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

[Kathianne]

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

It looks that others don't see the same as you either? :no: That smilie doesn't really apply here, but it's cool.

[Gaffer]

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

Or perhaps they have an agenda. I have NEVER read a liberal forum where they weren't on a Bush bashing binge. And out to make the administration look bad in anywaay posible. And in all the years I have been around I have never seen such a venomus attack on a sitting president in the end of his term. He's in the final two years and they are attacking him like he's running for office. This is why I can't take anything said by the dems seriously. They use iraq as a political football instead of supporting the troops and concentrating on the war with islamists.

I have plenty of things I don't like about Bush, but they are overriden by the poison spit out by the dems.

[TheSage]

They use iraq as a political football instead of supporting the troops and concentrating on the war with islamists.

.


You think bush is serious about the war with the islamists? The Bushes have been in bed with the Bin Ladens for at least two generations now.

I wonder if Bush knows our border is wide open. Any president serious about an external threat would SURELY close the border.

[Evil]

You think bush is serious about the war with the islamists? The Bushes have been in bed with the Bin Ladens for at least two generations now.

I wonder if Bush knows our border is wide open. Any president serious about an external threat would SURELY close the border.

:lmao:

Spent much time over the past year reading up on all the good conspiracy stuff did ya? Hey, did ya know the Bush also coordinated the attack of 911 as well?

[jillian]

It looks that others don't see the same as you either? :no: That smilie doesn't really apply here, but it's cool.


But they didn't misread the article. They just disagree with its premise. ;)

[TheSage]

:lmao:

Spent much time over the past year reading up on all the good conspiracy stuff did ya? Hey, did ya know the Bush also coordinated the attack of 911 as well?
Let's just debate policy. Border: Important or not? Closed or open? Economic issue or security issue?

[Kathianne]

But they didn't misread the article. They just disagree with its premise. ;)

I didn't misread, I quoted from. ;)

[Gaffer]

Let's just debate policy. Border: Important or not? Closed or open? Economic issue or security issue?

He won't answer my questions and wants to change the topic. :D

[TheSage]

He won't answer my questions and wants to change the topic. :D

Oh yes. The surge. Legitimate error. I was thinking of something else. The surge: Throwing our boys into a meat grinder vainly trying to stop others from killing each other is a good idea ? Yes or no?

ANd actually. I gave you that inside first hand account you were horny about.

[Gaffer]

Oh yes. The surge. Legitimate error. I was thinking of something else. The surge: Throwing our boys into a meat grinder vainly trying to stop others from killing each other is a good idea ? Yes or no?

ANd actually. I gave you that inside first hand account you were horny about.

You did not. your threw out a lot of questions and rhetoric and NEVER answered my questions.

Answering questions with questions doesn't work with me.

[TheSage]

You did not. your threw out a lot of questions and rhetoric and NEVER answered my questions.

Answering questions with questions doesn't work with me.

You wanted an inside view? I gave a link to Benjamin Freedmans' testimony (http://www.rense.com/general34/amaz.htm)

Jew read it yet?

[Gaffer]

That's your proof? That's your inside source? :lol:

That has about as much authenticity as the de Vinci code. Great creative writing but nothing substantial. You live in a real fantasy world if that's the only basis you put your beliefs on.

I want real up today proof. Not some silly sect writing. You spout about what all is being planned and operations going on, then there should be an insider passing that information on.

Seems to me more like a continue the story type of thing, where someone starts a story and multiple people add to it. Jim might want to make a thread of that idea.

Your still adolph with the tinhat.

[TheSage]

That's your proof? That's your inside source? :lol:

That has about as much authenticity as the de Vinci code. Great creative writing but nothing substantial. You live in a real fantasy world if that's the only basis you put your beliefs on.

I want real up today proof. Not some silly sect writing. You spout about what all is being planned and operations going on, then there should be an insider passing that information on.

Seems to me more like a continue the story type of thing, where someone starts a story and multiple people add to it. Jim might want to make a thread of that idea.

Your still adolph with the tinhat.


real up today proof?

[Gunny]

Its a definate fact his opinion would not vary. he's out to bash Bush as usual.

The equipment the troops had was sufficiant for the job as it was at the begining. They upgraded the equipment as things changed, like in every situation. The enemy changes tactics, we change tactics. That's how a war is fought.

A battle plan never survives the first clash with the enemy.

Tactical rule of thumb .... the plan goes to shit with the first shot.

[High Plains Drifter]

But those pushing capitalism into this nation are only interested in subjugating it's people to the existing megacorporations. They believe in monopoly capitalism, and subjugating any and all human value to the imputed value of human life as it is factored into the bottom line.

I disagree. Capitalism in this country is driven solely by greed.

[High Plains Drifter]

A "surge"? Frankly, I've been hearing don't even have enough troops and resources to "surge". We're stretched out practically right down to nothing left.

[Gunny]

I think it's a worthy opinion piece. And apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan vets thought so, too, since they linked it. Reikoff is pretty good about taking positions only for the benefit of the troops, IMO.

Perhaps the reason military folk are speaking their minds and acting as sources for articles like this is that they think Bush isn't listening to them.

Perhaps the military folk want the damned politicians out and the handcuffs removed so they can do what they are trained to do.

[jillian]

Perhaps the military folk want the damned politicians out and the handcuffs removed so they can do what they are trained to do.

I'd have been okay with that at the beginning when they were begging for troops. Now I don't think it's worth one more American life because there's no practical objective that can be met by escalation at this time. It's just too late.

And I WAS listening to military folk... like Abizaid who seemed to know EXACTLY what he was talking about.

[Gunny]

I'd have been okay with that at the beginning when they were begging for troops. Now I don't think it's worth one more American life because there's no practical objective that can be met by escalation at this time. It's just too late.

And I WAS listening to military folk... like Abizaid who seemed to know EXACTLY what he was talking about.

It is not too late. You've been listening to too much doomsaying.

Abizaid might know "exactly what he is talking about" because you agree with his opinion.

[jillian]

It is not too late. You've been listening to too much doomsaying.

Abizaid might know "exactly what he is talking about" because you agree with his opinion.

No. I've been listening to all sides.

And perhaps you don't agree with Abizaid because you DON'T agree with his opinion. Works that way sometimes.

[Gunny]

No. I've been listening to all sides.

And perhaps you don't agree with Abizaid because you DON'T agree with his opinion. Works that way sometimes.

The difference: I'm fully-trained and qualified to disagree, or agree with is opinion, as the case may be.

[Gaffer]

Abizaid has been replaced so maybe wasn't the one to be listened too. Just cause he's a general doesn't make him right on all military matters.

Generals are military politicians. Not all achieve that rank because they are good commanders.

[jillian]

The difference: I'm fully-trained and qualified to disagree, or agree with is opinion, as the case may be.

Really? Well, perhaps...

I think I'll go with Abizaid on this one because it's common sense and apparent. The fact that Bush only wants to hear what he's already decided he believes notwithstanding.

[Dilloduck]

Really? Well, perhaps...

I think I'll go with Abizaid on this one because it's common sense and apparent. The fact that Bush only wants to hear what he's already decided he believes notwithstanding.

Bush is most likely getting every bit of advice from A-Z. Just bcause he doesn't act on all of them doesn't mean he doesn't listen.

[TheSage]

Really? Well, perhaps...

I think I'll go with Abizaid on this one because it's common sense and apparent. The fact that Bush only wants to hear what he's already decided he believes notwithstanding.

At least bush can maintain a consistent thought. He doesn't present " I voted for the war before I voted against it" as an "answer".

[jillian]

At least bush can maintain a consistent thought. He doesn't present " I voted for the war before I voted against it" as an "answer".

Bush "believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday ...... no matter what happened on Tuesday" -- Stephen Colbert

:dunno:

[TheSage]

Bush "believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday ...... no matter what happened on Tuesday" -- Stephen Colbert

:dunno:


I quote a senator, you quote a comedian. I grant there's not a ton of difference, but still; my source is more legitimate.

[Evil]

Let's just debate policy. Border: Important or not? Closed or open? Economic issue or security issue?

Yes sir, my mistake sir!

I never said a word about the borders in fact I don't agree with his immigration policy at all so while you are harping about debating policy it may be a good time to remind you that it was your simple minded suggestion that brought the topic of course there Shirley!

[TheSage]

Yes sir, my mistake sir!

I never said a word about the borders in fact I don't agree with his immigration policy at all so while you are harping about debating policy it may be a good time to remind you that it was your simple minded suggestion that brought the topic of course there Shirley!
Oh, eat me, Madge!:)

[Evil]

Oh, eat me, Madge!:)

Would'nt of expected anything less Betsy! :D

[Gunny]

Really? Well, perhaps...

I think I'll go with Abizaid on this one because it's common sense and apparent. The fact that Bush only wants to hear what he's already decided he believes notwithstanding.

A lot of things are "common sense and apparent." If the people who want to destroy morality at home but hold our troops to a set of rules Christ himselfwould be proud of would shut the Hell up and the military was deployed in its true capacity, the number of thugs running about shooting people whould be diminished greatly.

Y'all want to hold the US military to this Holier-than-thou standard the enemy not only scoffs at but exploits the Hell out of, then blame Bush because we aren't "winning."

Well, we aren't "winning" because we aren't fighting. We're using the US military as a police force. That takes away every training and technological advantage we have. You fight to win. Nothing else is good enough. And if Hakim's eyelash gets bent or his religious sensibilities insulted in the process, tough shit.

So let's don't pretend this is about "common sense and logic" when it clearly about political correctness, and a blatantly obvious moral double-standard.

[dirt mcgirt]

I'd have been okay with that at the beginning when they were begging for troops. Now I don't think it's worth one more American life because there's no practical objective that can be met by escalation at this time. It's just too late.
I've been saying they needed more troops from the beginning. But I don't know if more troops is going to do anything at this point either. They need an Iraqi face on security and it's time for the Iraqis to step up. IMO, they need to decentralize the troops, spread them out to the borders within Iraq, and let the sectarian violence subside or escalte without an American presence to fuel the fires. General Petraeus, who now takes over in Iraq, is a superstar from the 101st and a very competent leader who knows what he's doing. He may not be able to fix this but at least you have good and tested leadership in there now.


At least bush can maintain a consistent thought. He doesn't present " I voted for the war before I voted against it" as an "answer".
Comparing Bush to Kerry doesn't vindicate Bush in the least. The administration said we were in the last throes of the insurgency a year ago. Hell just a couple of months ago, we were winning in Iraq according to Bush. Now Gates says the situation in Iraq is dire and Bush acknowledges it and just stated that we're neither winning nor losing in Iraq. That has about as much consistency as diarrhea.


A lot of things are "common sense and apparent." If the people who want to destroy morality at home but hold our troops to a set of rules Christ himselfwould be proud of would shut the Hell up and the military was deployed in its true capacity, the number of thugs running about shooting people whould be diminished greatly.

Y'all want to hold the US military to this Holier-than-thou standard the enemy not only scoffs at but exploits the Hell out of, then blame Bush because we aren't "winning."

Well, we aren't "winning" because we aren't fighting. We're using the US military as a police force. That takes away every training and technological advantage we have. You fight to win. Nothing else is good enough. And if Hakim's eyelash gets bent or his religious sensibilities insulted in the process, tough shit.

So let's don't pretend this is about "common sense and logic" when it clearly about political correctness, and a blatantly obvious moral double-standard.
The military knew that they'd be in police mode- lessons learned in Haiti and Bosnia in the 90's. They knew that they'd have to play peacekeepers after they defeated the Iraqi Army on the battlefield. That's why there was all this talk about how many troops were needed and what strategies needed to be employed to win their "hearts and minds." Disbanding the Iraqi Army, not sealing the borders, Ahmad Chalibi, and not sending enough troops for security were bigger problems than cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

[Evil]

That has about as much consistency as diarrhea.


The military knew that they'd be in police mode- lessons learned in Haiti and Bosnia in the 90's. They knew that they'd have to play peacekeepers after they defeated the Iraqi Army on the battlefield. That's why there was all this talk about how many troops were needed and what strategies needed to be employed to win their "hearts and minds." Disbanding the Iraqi Army, not sealing the borders, Ahmad Chalibi, and not sending enough troops for security were bigger problems than cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

:lmao: :lmao:

"Hearts & Minds" now that there is some of the best posting diarrhea available throughout the war, and it's ensuing discussions. In fact that may even be one of the best strategies of the libs although I can see from a few of your posts that you are probably a person without party. There is no winning the "hearts & minds" of these people, no matter what you do the insurgency would still flow. It's a guerilla war that was evident practically from the get go, and anybody who assumed there was no chance of that happening are just plain ignorant to the type of enemy being fought.

[jillian]

I've been saying they needed more troops from the beginning.

Me, too. I thought we should have focused on Afghanistan but if they were insistent on Iraq, they should have done it with overwhelming force, IMO, particularly in light of State Department warnings to Daddy Bush that if we went into Baghdad in Gulf I, we were going to destabilize the country and an insurgency and civil war would ensue.


But I don't know if more troops is going to do anything at this point either. They need an Iraqi face on security and it's time for the Iraqis to step up. IMO, they need to decentralize the troops, spread them out to the borders within Iraq, and let the sectarian violence subside or escalte without an American presence to fuel the fires. General Petraeus, who now takes over in Iraq, is a superstar from the 101st and a very competent leader who knows what he's doing. He may not be able to fix this but at least you have good and tested leadership in there now.

I don't know anything about General Petraeus. But I hope you're right. And it sounds like you're dead on in terms of what's needed.

[dirt mcgirt]

"Hearts & Minds" now that there is some of the best posting diarrhea available throughout the war, and it's ensuing discussions. In fact that may even be one of the best strategies of the libs...
Except "winning their hearts and minds" was a phrase that this administration has talked about since before the initial invasion. I doubt that the irrelevant, powerless liberals had applied any pressure to Bush and made him use that term back in 2002-2003. Unless you're referring to Bush and the gang as liberals. ;)


There is no winning the "hearts & minds" of these people, no matter what you do the insurgency would still flow. It's a guerilla war that was evident practically from the get go and anybody who assumed there was no chance of that happening are just plain ignorant to the type of enemy being fought.
http://www.wgrz.com/imagepool/images/011210142247_cheney-meetpress.jpg
'We Will, In Fact, Be Greeted As Liberators' - Cheney

:D

[Evil]

Me, too. I thought we should have focused on Afghanistan but if they were insistent on Iraq, they should have done it with overwhelming force, IMO, particularly in light of State Department warnings to Daddy Bush that if we went into Baghdad in Gulf I, we were going to destabilize the country and an insurgency and civil war would ensue.

Did you really think a war could take place without an insurgency following? It was a huge cry of the libs that there was no terrorists in iraq, now it's a complaint. Many seem to forget that the enemy we are fighting there come in the form of normal citizens, car bombers, suicide bombers, practically undetectable. Also many seem to look right over the timeline of the whole iraq problem, this was not simply about wmd's that everyone wants to hang their hat on, iraq has been a problem dating back to damn near the 60's so when was something actually going to be done? Sooner or later it would of happened, now was the right time.
[/QUOTE]

[jillian]

Did you really think a war could take place without an insurgency following? It was a huge cry of the libs that there was no terrorists in iraq, now it's a complaint. Many seem to forget that the enemy we are fighting there come in the form of normal citizens, car bombers, suicide bombers, practically undetectable. Also many seem to look right over the timeline of the whole iraq problem, this was not simply about wmd's that everyone wants to hang their hat on, iraq has been a problem dating back to damn near the 60's so when was something actually going to be done? Sooner or later it would of happened, now was the right time.


Iraq was a moderate country. Saddam, although a viper, kept the fundies at bay. He hated them. And, lest you forget, Saddam was the one we used as our surrogate to fight Iran. We were perfectly happy to have him do that.

We weren't attacked by Iraqis. We were attacked by Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan. So, no... I don't think there was ever any reason to go into Iraq and I don't think it was ever possible to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq without there being an insurgency and tossing the country into civil war. And any hope there was of avoiding those things was destroyed because Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and didn't listen when he was told AT THE BEGINNING that we needed more troops.

[Evil]

Except "winning their hearts and minds" was a phrase that this administration has talked about since before the initial invasion. I doubt that the irrelevant, powerless liberals had applied any pressure to Bush and made him use that term back in 2002-2003. Unless you're referring to Bush and the gang as liberals. ;)

:D

You used the phrase here, I stated my opinion, so if you really wanna think the the "hearts & minds" is of any relevance at all be my guest. What I do find funny though is how quick you were to apply Bush & Cheney's name to the equation as though I just made a post in absolute backing. Yes, in all fairness I lean right but I can actually say that, and at the same time voice my own opinions without making it about a particular phrase from some politician.
So don't hide behind a secret party dirt, we don't care if you are a lib, just speak your mind.

[Evil]

We weren't attacked by Iraqis. We were attacked by Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan. So, no... I don't think there was ever any reason to go into Iraq and I don't think it was ever possible to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq without there being an insurgency and tossing the country into civil war. And any hope there was of avoiding those things was destroyed because Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and didn't listen when he was told AT THE BEGINNING that we needed more troops.

:lmao:

Simply look over the timeline that I suggested in the earlier post, there was nothing mkore taking place other than appeasement, and perhaps corruption through the UN. The iraq situation was by no means in control!

[manu1959]

Iraq was a moderate country. Saddam, although a viper, kept the fundies at bay. He hated them. And, lest you forget, Saddam was the one we used as our surrogate to fight Iran. We were perfectly happy to have him do that.

We weren't attacked by Iraqis. We were attacked by Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan. So, no... I don't think there was ever any reason to go into Iraq and I don't think it was ever possible to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq without there being an insurgency and tossing the country into civil war. And any hope there was of avoiding those things was destroyed because Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and didn't listen when he was told AT THE BEGINNING that we needed more troops.

when we invaded Afghanistan which it appears you were cool with.....where did all the terrorist go? and of the countries they went to which ones complied with US requests to arrest them and or fight them and or help us track them down....

additionally, was iraq funding any terrorist groups? was iraq abiding by the terms of the cease fire from their invasion of kuwait?

[jillian]

when we invaded Afghanistan which it appears you were cool with.....where did all the terrorist go? and of the countries they went to which ones complied with US requests to arrest them and or fight them and or help us track them down....

additionally, was iraq funding any terrorist groups? was iraq abiding by the terms of the cease fire from their invasion of kuwait?

I'm a NY'er born and raised ... I was totally cool with going after the SOB's who took down the buildings. Bush took his eye off the ball, plain and simple.

Where did the terrorists go? How 'bout Saudi Arabia, where they're being trained in the Madrassas; How 'bout Syria, Iran, etc.? But they didn't go to IRAQ. Iraq was not a place that welcomed fundies. That was something they decided to do before 9/11 even happened. Go back to the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton as far back as 1998... it was just an efficacious means of pursuing the PNAC agenda.

We know that Saddam gave money to Palestinians who died as Suicide bombers attacking Israelis. But the Palestinians had nothing to do with Al Queda... There has never been any proof whatsoever that Saddam funded Bin Laden and, in fact, Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. It's about proportionality and whether it was worth the billions in debt we've incurred and the 3,000 military personnel who have died thus far. Did we really get bang for our buck by that criteria?

[dirt mcgirt]

You used the phrase here, I stated my opinion, so if you really wanna think the the "hearts & minds" is of any relevance at all be my guest. What I do find funny though is how quick you were to apply Bush & Cheney's name to the equation as though I just made a post in absolute backing. Yes, in all fairness I lean right but I can actually say that, and at the same time voice my own opinions without making it about a particular phrase from some politician.
So don't hide behind a secret party dirt, we don't care if you are a lib, just speak your mind.
Not hiding behind any party. As you figured out, I'm unaffiliated. I did speak my mind and without any talking points. "Hearts and minds" is very relevent to Iraq. In case you didn't know, there are many different types of insurgents in Iraq. According to military intelligence, the insurgency has grown larger over the last 3 years, not smaller. Winning their hearts and minds relates to keeping the insurgency from growing and winning the people over so they don't support the insurgency.

[Evil]

Not hiding behind any party. As you figured out, I'm unaffiliated. I did speak my mind and without any talking points. "Hearts and minds" is very relevent to Iraq. In case you didn't know, there are many different types of insurgents in Iraq. According to military intelligence, the insurgency has grown larger over the last 3 years, not smaller. Winning their hearts and minds relates to keeping the insurgency from growing and winning the people over so they don't support the insurgency.

That is the point I was making to your earlier post, there is no winning the "Hearts & Minds" of these people, that time has come and past. As we all saw early in the war it did indeed happen but now there are these insurgents crossing borders from both sides, the people of iraq have little choice when it comes to supporting it. We are dealing with well financed, middle aged barbarics, that are'nt going to stop anytime soon.

[manu1959]

I'm a NY'er born and raised ... I was totally cool with going after the SOB's who took down the buildings. Bush took his eye off the ball, plain and simple.

Where did the terrorists go? How 'bout Saudi Arabia, where they're being trained in the Madrassas; How 'bout Syria, Iran, etc.? But they didn't go to IRAQ. Iraq was not a place that welcomed fundies. That was something they decided to do before 9/11 even happened. Go back to the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton as far back as 1998... it was just an efficacious means of pursuing the PNAC agenda.

We know that Saddam gave money to Palestinians who died as Suicide bombers attacking Israelis. But the Palestinians had nothing to do with Al Queda... There has never been any proof whatsoever that Saddam funded Bin Laden and, in fact, Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. It's about proportionality and whether it was worth the billions in debt we've incurred and the 3,000 military personnel who have died thus far. Did we really get bang for our buck by that criteria?

don't jump ahead...and assume i am implying something...i think you know me well enough that i pick my words very carefully even if i can't type or spell them....

all the countries you named with the exception of iraq and iran cooperated with the us and either killed, arrested, expelled or cooperated with the US to the best of their ability....and al queda folks did seek refuge in iraq after the Afghan invasion....

saddam did funded hammas and gave money to suicide bombers as you said, i never said he funded al queda nor did i say he participated in 9/11, i asked did he fund any groups that were a threat to the US or our allies. the answer is yes he did.

also you seem to have avoided addressing saddams violations of the cease fire of the kuwait war....would those violations unto their own been cause for you?

the point i am making, and will always make is; don't intermix the two they were two different things .... two different wars caused by two different things ....

the war against OBL began in Somalia and moved to Afghanistan, i mean, he did declare war on the united sates during the clinton years ...

the war against saddam was simply a continuation of the kuwait war ....

i think there were reasonable grounds to invade both countries

none the less .... i would have invaded neither ..... i would have had obl killed however

i have long advocated closing all foreign bases and letting the world police itself i would cut all foreign aid, outsource to middle America and invest in America.

[manu1959]

Not hiding behind any party. As you figured out, I'm unaffiliated. I did speak my mind and without any talking points. "Hearts and minds" is very relevent to Iraq. In case you didn't know, there are many different types of insurgents in Iraq. According to military intelligence, the insurgency has grown larger over the last 3 years, not smaller. Winning their hearts and minds relates to keeping the insurgency from growing and winning the people over so they don't support the insurgency.

yes they are called bath military and mercenaries from iran syria somalia etc.........you will not win them over....you must kill them

then there are the opportunists....they are fighting a low grade religous war....the same one they fought under saddam just this time the mass media is not there to report it and the offenders are not gassed or fed into wood chippers......then there are the criminals.....neither of these groups can be won over they must be killed

last we have the local guy....i doubt that the local pub owner with a wife and two kids suddely wakes up in the morning and wants to go take on an M1A1....

[dirt mcgirt]

yes they are called bath military and mercenaries from iran syria somalia etc.........you will not win them over....you must kill them

then there are the opportunists....they are fighting a low grade religous war....the same one they fought under saddam just this time the mass media is not there to report it and the offenders are not gassed or fed into wood chippers......then there are the criminals.....neither of these groups can be won over they must be killed

last we have the local guy....i doubt that the local pub owner with a wife and two kids suddely wakes up in the morning and wants to go take on an M1A1....
Oh right let's just go in there and kill them all. Should be pretty easy since they're all wearing uniforms that make them stand out from the rest of the population.

And yeah, about that local guy. Who does he blame and what does he do when his wife and kids get killed because of sectarian violence or is a casualty of war? The US, that's who.

BTW, they are taking on our Abrams and our uparmored Humvees with IED's.

[manu1959]

Oh right let's just go in there and kill them all. Should be pretty easy since they're all wearing uniforms that make them stand out from the rest of the population.

And yeah, about that local guy. Who does he blame and what does he do when his wife and kids get killed because of sectarian violence or is a casualty of war? The US, that's who.

BTW, they are taking on our Abrams and our uparmored Humvees with IED's.

so ya can't kill them and you can't negotiate with them .......

was my sarcastic streak that obvious in that post.....damn

[dirt mcgirt]

It's all good. It might take a little while for me to figure out everyone's personality, sarcasm, and writing styles. I apologize. I don't take any of this personally and it's all in good fun. I'm gonna bow out the thread for now. I think some of us agree on a lot of the points and are hung up on semantics and technicals. Good discussion though.

[manu1959]

It's all good. It might take a little while for me to figure out everyone's personality, sarcasm, and writing styles. I apologize. I don't take any of this personally and it's all in good fun. I'm gonna bow out the thread for now. I think some of us agree on a lot of the points and are hung up on semantics and technicals. Good discussion though.

i just like to argue the opposite of whatever anyone is saying .... sorry i gave up smoking and need to do something with my hands .....

[TheSage]

The SURGE idea is just so more of our troops will be killed in the melee. It's an effort to overextend our army so our enemies within can destroy us easier. We don't need more troops, we need to use our ballistics, lasers, and the top secret shit. This administration doesn't care about america. If they did, they would close our border.

[Evil]

The SURGE idea is just so more of our troops will be killed in the melee. It's an effort to overextend our army so our enemies within can destroy us easier. We don't need more troops, we need to use our ballistics, lasers, and the top secret shit. This administration doesn't care about america. If they did, they would close our border.

Oh boy, maybe they'll shoot the secret death ray from a satellite, or maybe send in Rambo. Anymore brilliant conspiracies brewing up in that clay pot you call a brain?

And really, the only surge you are familiar with is the one you feel when ya boyfriend is over! :D

[manu1959]

The SURGE idea is just so more of our troops will be killed in the melee. It's an effort to overextend our army so our enemies within can destroy us easier. We don't need more troops, we need to use our ballistics, lasers, and the top secret shit. This administration doesn't care about america. If they did, they would close our border.

can't use any of our double secrete chit as clinton during the blow jobs years cut all the funding....

[TheSage]

can't use any of our double secrete chit as clinton during the blow jobs years cut all the funding....


They don't call it the Oral Office for nothing.

Oral Roberts? Oral?

[Gaffer]

There is a battle for iraq, not a war in iraq. Its a battle front of the global war going on. We now have a front in Somolia as well. There's one in Afganistan. Its world wide and to center on just iraq is silly and tunnel visioned.

I found an interesting article. Its pretty long so I'll just link it instead of posting it. I think you will find it interesting. As its all about limited warfare.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/07/will-we-learn-from-the-past/#more

A note to Jilly. Al queda was in iraq, there were a number of the members hiding out there. And they had a training camp in the north. bin laden and saddam were both sunni. saddam wasn't liked because he was a greedy bastard who didn't practice islam the way he was suppose too. But he was a source of support and financing. He didn't keep iran in check. He kept the shea in his country in check. If he had remained iran would have instigated an uprising and probably tried to enter the conflict themselves. Like they are doing now.

[TheSage]

There is a battle for iraq, not a war in iraq. Its a battle front of the global war going on. We now have a front in Somolia as well. There's one in Afganistan. Its world wide and to center on just iraq is silly and tunnel visioned.

I found an interesting article. Its pretty long so I'll just link it instead of posting it. I think you will find it interesting. As its all about limited warfare.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/07/will-we-learn-from-the-past/#more

A note to Jilly. Al queda was in iraq, there were a number of the members hiding out there. And they had a training camp in the north. bin laden and saddam were both sunni. saddam wasn't liked because he was a greedy bastard who didn't practice islam the way he was suppose too. But he was a source of support and financing. He didn't keep iran in check. He kept the shea in his country in check. If he had remained iran would have instigated an uprising and probably tried to enter the conflict themselves. Like they are doing now.


If saddam was against the shia, we did the shia a favor in getting rid of saddam. I assert again, the goal of the iraq war was mostly to consolidate the region, with Iran as the leader. Persian Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews) are interesting.

[Evil]

If saddam was against the shia, we did the shia a favor in getting rid of saddam. I assert again, the goal of the iraq war was mostly to consolidate the region, with Iran as the leader. Persian Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews) are interesting.

Yeah we know your interest in the Jews Mary but that is not what this topic is about.

[Gaffer]

Yeah we know your interest in the Jews Mary but that is not what this topic is about.

He's back to thread stealing again.

[TheSage]

He's back to thread stealing again.

Yes. I stole the thread. Nobody can use it now. It's all mine, MINE I tell you!

[TheSage]

Yeah we know your interest in the Jews Mary but that is not what this topic is about.

Im sorry. The Zionist control of our nation has EVERYTHING to do with the mid-east and the jews.


Half you fools are admittedly Zionist. You believe it's every christians duty to help build Israel to hasten prophecy. It';s really fucked up, the way you guys think. Fucked up and dumb.

[Gaffer]

Im sorry. The Zionist control of our nation has EVERYTHING to do with the mid-east and the jews.


Half you fools are admittedly Zionist. You believe it's every christians duty to help build Israel to hasten prophecy. It';s really fucked up, the way you guys think. Fucked up and dumb.

Well I'm an athiest so I don't fit into your zionist catagory. And I know from the way you use it you don't know what zionist means.

[Evil]

Im sorry. The Zionist control of our nation has EVERYTHING to do with the mid-east and the jews.


Half you fools are admittedly Zionist. You believe it's every christians duty to help build Israel to hasten prophecy. It';s really fucked up, the way you guys think. Fucked up and dumb.
:lol:

What a joke! Hey all, think like thesage or you are all f*cked up!

I'm not even religious but you have me admitting to being a zionist, but not until you first assume that I am a christian. Dude, get of the computer and resume life for a bit, it will do you some good!

[Gunny]

I've been saying they needed more troops from the beginning. But I don't know if more troops is going to do anything at this point either. They need an Iraqi face on security and it's time for the Iraqis to step up. IMO, they need to decentralize the troops, spread them out to the borders within Iraq, and let the sectarian violence subside or escalte without an American presence to fuel the fires. General Petraeus, who now takes over in Iraq, is a superstar from the 101st and a very competent leader who knows what he's doing. He may not be able to fix this but at least you have good and tested leadership in there now.


Comparing Bush to Kerry doesn't vindicate Bush in the least. The administration said we were in the last throes of the insurgency a year ago. Hell just a couple of months ago, we were winning in Iraq according to Bush. Now Gates says the situation in Iraq is dire and Bush acknowledges it and just stated that we're neither winning nor losing in Iraq. That has about as much consistency as diarrhea.


The military knew that they'd be in police mode- lessons learned in Haiti and Bosnia in the 90's. They knew that they'd have to play peacekeepers after they defeated the Iraqi Army on the battlefield. That's why there was all this talk about how many troops were needed and what strategies needed to be employed to win their "hearts and minds." Disbanding the Iraqi Army, not sealing the borders, Ahmad Chalibi, and not sending enough troops for security were bigger problems than cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

What the military "knew" is irrelevant to what it is trained to do. All the talk of "how many troops" and "winning hearts and minds" was being done by politicians.

Of the three mentioned problems, only not sealing the border even comes close cultural sensitivity and political correctness. They are what is driving the train, and disbanding the Iraqi Army, not sealing the borders, not keeping religious fundamentalists isolated as they already were are all the RESULT of cultural sensitivity and political correctness, not instead of.

[Gunny]

Me, too. I thought we should have focused on Afghanistan but if they were insistent on Iraq, they should have done it with overwhelming force, IMO, particularly in light of State Department warnings to Daddy Bush that if we went into Baghdad in Gulf I, we were going to destabilize the country and an insurgency and civil war would ensue.



I don't know anything about General Petraeus. But I hope you're right. And it sounds like you're dead on in terms of what's needed.

It doesn't matter how good Petraeus is as long as politicians are calling the shots based on unrealistic goals.

[Gunny]

Iraq was a moderate country. Saddam, although a viper, kept the fundies at bay. He hated them. And, lest you forget, Saddam was the one we used as our surrogate to fight Iran. We were perfectly happy to have him do that.

We weren't attacked by Iraqis. We were attacked by Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan. So, no... I don't think there was ever any reason to go into Iraq and I don't think it was ever possible to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq without there being an insurgency and tossing the country into civil war. And any hope there was of avoiding those things was destroyed because Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and didn't listen when he was told AT THE BEGINNING that we needed more troops.

Iraq was a moderate country? Are you high? I guess if you discount the fact that he invaded first one country that bordered Iraq, then another, both for oil, or that he was practicing genocide against the Kurds, or that he terrorized his own citizens, or that he was thug who seized power by force, I guess you could call him "moderate."

Nothing was done "on the cheap" either. That's BS. More than enough military force was used to depose Saddam and send one of the largest army's in the world running for its life.

Where the administration screwed up was thinkin a bunch of Arabs were going to welcome Americans with open arms and embrace a political ideology (democracy) they did not understand.

Get your accusations straight, if you're going to make them.

[jillian]

It doesn't matter how good Petraeus is as long as politicians are calling the shots based on unrealistic goals.

Right.... someone should tell that to Bush.

[Gunny]

You used the phrase here, I stated my opinion, so if you really wanna think the the "hearts & minds" is of any relevance at all be my guest. What I do find funny though is how quick you were to apply Bush & Cheney's name to the equation as though I just made a post in absolute backing. Yes, in all fairness I lean right but I can actually say that, and at the same time voice my own opinions without making it about a particular phrase from some politician.
So don't hide behind a secret party dirt, we don't care if you are a lib, just speak your mind.

Put a loaded .45 to almost anyone's head and you can win his "heart and mind." Tell some ignorant wretch he's supposed to embrace something he doesn't understand becuase wants to and like as not you'll get the finger.

The Marshall Plan worked because it was backed by force.

[jillian]

Put a loaded .45 to almost anyone's head and you can win his "heart and mind." Tell some ignorant wretch he's supposed to embrace something he doesn't understand becuase wants to and like as not you'll get the finger.

The Marshall Plan worked because it was backed by force.


The Marshall Plan worked because it focused on the economic rebuilding of Germany and Japan. They didn't have to "win hearts and minds" because people had infrastructure, food, jobs.

[Gunny]

Not hiding behind any party. As you figured out, I'm unaffiliated. I did speak my mind and without any talking points. "Hearts and minds" is very relevent to Iraq. In case you didn't know, there are many different types of insurgents in Iraq. According to military intelligence, the insurgency has grown larger over the last 3 years, not smaller. Winning their hearts and minds relates to keeping the insurgency from growing and winning the people over so they don't support the insurgency.

What you call an "insurgency" is mostly tribal thug warfare, with AQ operating on both sides to keep the shit-pot stirred.

[Gunny]

The Marshall Plan worked because it focused on the economic rebuilding of Germany and Japan. They didn't have to "win hearts and minds" because people had infrastructure, food, jobs.

The Marshall Plan was a paper tiger without the US military first kicking those countries' asses, then TELLING them how it was going to be.

[jillian]

The Marshall Plan was a paper tiger without the US military first kicking those countries' asses, then TELLING them how it was going to be.

Which is what deposing Saddam and going into Baghdad did.

After that, nada for the Iraqis.

Voting is fine. Democratic values is fine. But what people want is to feed and educate their kids and not get blown up when they leave their homes. The ball was dropped.

[Gunny]

Right.... someone should tell that to Bush.

Just can't help yourself, can you? If you don't think Bush is swayed by all the crap he sees from the left and MSM, you're just fooling yourself. Political correctness and political appeasement is a disease that has infected us from the top to the bottom.

We go into Iraq. Libs whine, bitch, moan and complain.

We don't go into Darfur after the aforementioned verbal abuse, and "Bush won't help those poor unfortunate souls."

GMAFB, and just be honest. It doesn't matter WHAT Bush does ...y'all will spin it as the wrong thing.

[Kathianne]

The Marshall Plan worked because it focused on the economic rebuilding of Germany and Japan. They didn't have to "win hearts and minds" because people had infrastructure, food, jobs.

You really think the people of Europe, particularlly Germany had infrastructure, food, jobs? Hello?

The Marshall Plan worked because the US took care of those shortfalls. D'oh! England paid us back last week the last payment of this.

[Gunny]

Which is what deposing Saddam and going into Baghdad did.

After that, nada for the Iraqis.

Voting is fine. Democratic values is fine. But what people want is to feed and educate their kids and not get blown up when they leave their homes. The ball was dropped.

Incorrect. We deposed Saddam and disbanded his Army. We have not installed and enforced martial law as we did in Germany and Japan because we've been too busy trying to porive what stand-up guys we are.

[Gunny]

Which is what deposing Saddam and going into Baghdad did.

After that, nada for the Iraqis.

Voting is fine. Democratic values is fine. But what people want is to feed and educate their kids and not get blown up when they leave their homes. The ball was dropped.

So if the US military installs martial law and enforces it with force, that'll make you libs feel better?

Why don't I believe you?

[Gunny]

You really think the people of Europe, particularlly Germany had infrastructure, food, jobs? Hello?

The Marshall Plan worked because the US took care of those shortfalls. D'oh! England paid us back last week the last payment of this.

Shit, Germanies major cities had been bombed into rubble. And we just obliterated Japan's cities completely.

[Gaffer]

The MacAuther plan was used in Japan. After bombing them into the stone age we occupied the country. We then drafted a Constitution with them. But the important thing we did was eliminate their government run religion.

Individuals were allowed to have any religion they wished but the shinto religion was not to be government sponsored. No religion could be attached to the government. They were force to have a sectarian government. Then the rebuilding began and was successful. That is the first thing that needed to be done in iraq. ALL of the problems there now are because of islam.

And there were a lot of insurgents in Germany at the end of the war. Insurgencies continued for years after the war was over. They were dealt with with bullets.

When we and England and Russia finished with Germany and Japan there was no infrastructure left either of those countries. We had to build their infrastruture. As we are doing in iraq.

The big difference in Japan and Germany verses iraq is they had no one to supply the insurgents and no outsiders coming in to stir things up and join in the fighting. Nazism and shintoism were banned.

We are fighting a halfass war....AGAIN.

[dirt mcgirt]

What the military "knew" is irrelevant to what it is trained to do.
Soldiers train for peacekeeping scenarios all the time. It's more than just the battlefield tactics and warfare now. JRTC at Fort Polk has been providing that kind of training since the 90's when we deployed to Bosnia and Haiti. And they've been training for peacekeeping scenarios in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/deploytraining_3.htm


All the talk of "how many troops" and "winning hearts and minds" was being done by politicians.
No. A plan to win the peace (hearts and minds) was talked about amongst the military brass. Generals Shinseki, Wallace, and Franks talked about whether troop levels were sufficient enough to win the peace for reconstruction. This was all BEFORE the war and when the majority of Dems all backed the invasion. Bush talked about winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis when there was no political pressure on him. Blaming the "politicians" about winning their hearts and minds is a cop out. We weren't there to bomb the place, annhilate their armies, pack up, leave, and then write them a check for reconstruction. It was clear before we went in that the US was going to take an active role in helping reconstruct Iraq and shape it into a Democracy. Thus a two pronged plan, one to win the war and one to win the peace, was formulated by the Pentagon, not the politicians.


Of the three mentioned problems, only not sealing the border even comes close cultural sensitivity and political correctness. They are what is driving the train, and disbanding the Iraqi Army, not sealing the borders, not keeping religious fundamentalists isolated as they already were are all the RESULT of cultural sensitivity and political correctness, not instead of.
????????????????

Made no sense. Sounds like you're trying to take the actual problems of Iraq and throw them under one umbrella of cultural sensitivity and political correctness. If you're saying that disbanding the army, not sealing the borders, etc., etc., are all the same as political correctness then I guess you've invented a way to not be wrong. Fair enough, I'm not going to debate semantics with you...especially when you've redefined it to be all inclusive. :)

[Gunny]

Soldiers train for peacekeeping scenarios all the time. It's more than just the battlefield tactics and warfare now. JRTC at Fort Polk has been providing that kind of training since the 90's when we deployed to Bosnia and Haiti. And they've been training for peacekeeping scenarios in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/deploytraining_3.htm

That's all fine-n-dandy ON PAPER. Soldiers are trained the same as Marines (just not as well:2up: ) to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat. That is PRIMARY mission of the Marine rifle squad.

Training for "peacekeeping scenarios" (playing cop) is appeasing the PC, and the strategy and tactics are directly opposed to the aforementioned primary mission. You may as well take every technological and training advantage the US military person has and throw them out the window and paint a bright red bullseye on their utility jackets.

And I can tell you right now that as of 2000, if and when Marines are trained for "peacekeeping missions," it's last minute, bare-minimum crap. We take ground and kill or destroy anything in our way.


No. A plan to win the peace (hearts and minds) was talked about amongst the military brass. Generals Shinseki, Wallace, and Franks talked about whether troop levels were sufficient enough to win the peace for reconstruction. This was all BEFORE the war and when the majority of Dems all backed the invasion. Bush talked about winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis when there was no political pressure on him. Blaming the "politicians" about winning their hearts and minds is a cop out. We weren't there to bomb the place, annhilate their armies, pack up, leave, and then write them a check for reconstruction. It was clear before we went in that the US was going to take an active role in helping reconstruct Iraq and shape it into a Democracy. Thus a two pronged plan, one to win the war and one to win the peace, was formulated by the Pentagon, not the politicians.

The military brass talked about "winning the hearts and minds" after that strategy was shoved down their throats as official US policy. Blaming it on politicians is spot on because they came up with the idea and left the military to implement it. I don't know how they do it in the Army, but in the Marines we just took what we got stuck with and tried to make it work.

Trying to shift blame off of appeasing politicians onto the military is just bullshit.



????????????????

Made no sense. Sounds like you're trying to take the actual problems of Iraq and throw them under one umbrella of cultural sensitivity and political correctness. If you're saying that disbanding the army, not sealing the borders, etc., etc., are all the same as political correctness then I guess you've invented a way to not be wrong. Fair enough, I'm not going to debate semantics with you...especially when you've redefined it to be all inclusive. :)

You DO understand English? I've redefined nothing. Obviously, you don't want to debate because you don't want to defend untenable ground.

Ther's nothing to invent. Logical conclusion provided the only logical answer to why the aforementioned actions were taken. It is in NO military strategic planning I have ever seen to just turn an army loose with its weapons after defeating it.

Matter of fact, I sat in on more than one meeting of senior staff officers at the Pentagon while I was incarcerated doing my ticket-punch tour in DC where sealing the borders, keeping the Islamic fundamentalists isolated as they were, and sealing the borders were all considered basic "must haves."

So pull your head out of your PC butt and pay attention: Politicians, not the military, are concerned with public opinion. Basic tenets of military strategy and tactics were violated in an attempt to make us look like the "good guys," swooping in to bring freedom to the Iraqis, and punctuating the point that we were only after Saddam and members of his regime, not the Iraqi people.

Those are political decisions based on appeasing the PC, not military decisions based on any tactical or strategic doctrine I have ever been taught.

Your argument flies in the face of logic and common sense.

[dirt mcgirt]

That's all fine-n-dandy ON PAPER. Soldiers are trained the same as Marines (just not as well ) to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat.
No, we were trained well. The higher ups just give Soldiers a little more leeway than the Marines when it comes to making decisions. It’s because Soldiers can think on their feet, unlike jarheads. :2up:


That is PRIMARY mission of the Marine rifle squad. Training for "peacekeeping scenarios" (playing cop) is appeasing the PC, and the strategy and tactics are directly opposed to the aforementioned primary mission. You may as well take every technological and training advantage the US military person has and throw them out the window and paint a bright red bullseye on their utility jackets.
Sure if we're on a battlefield and we're going up against a uniformed enemy not hiding out among a civilian population. But the actual combat that you’d like us to be engaged in only lasted a week. Unfortunately our mission now is to rebuild Iraq, provide security, and train the Iraqis so they can police themselves.


And I can tell you right now that as of 2000, if and when Marines are trained for "peacekeeping missions," it's last minute, bare-minimum crap. We take ground and kill or destroy anything in our way.
I can see how the concepts of peacekeeping and nation building are lost on a supertrooper like you, you’re so hardcore :D. But as I said earlier- Haiti and Bosnia. We were there in the 90's and we didn't kill everything that moved. Most of the troops now receive MOUT training and train under similar conditions and scenarios that they face in Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes checkpoints, riot control, security patrols, cultural intelligence gathering, and reacting to IED’s.


The military brass talked about "winning the hearts and minds" after that strategy was shoved down their throats as official US policy. Blaming it on politicians is spot on because they came up with the idea and left the military to implement it. I don't know how they do it in the Army, but in the Marines we just took what we got stuck with and tried to make it work.

Trying to shift blame off of appeasing politicians onto the military is just bullshit.
No. It’s part of a philosophy that the modern military recognizes. But I understand where you’re coming from. You’re old school. Nation building and winning the peace is 21st century warfare. It’s a proactive philosophy so we don’t have to keep fighting the same wars every 20 years. The military knew that it couldn’t go into a country of 28 million plus people with a force of 180,000 and say, "you aren’t Kurds, you aren’t Shia, you're all the same, now go out there and be a Democracy." Going in there with that kind of mentality subjects our troops to more attacks, puts more civilians at risk, and undermines our nation building objectives. These are all things we knew going in. Military leaders knew that we were going to have to be Soldiers for the combat operations and security forces for the peacekeeping operations. But there were problems from the get go, all internal. There were military readiness problems. There were equipment problems. There were CIA reports warning the military that there was a chance of civil war if the sectarian differences weren’t addressed. And Shinseki warned of not having enough troops to win the peace. This was all done at the Pentagon level and not the Congressional level. I’m not saying that the politicians aren’t blame free for some of the mistakes in Iraq, but you’re trying to shift Pentagon level mistakes unto the politicians.

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=35156&archive=true
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20060727-1326-cnsconway.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/prez.iraq/index.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm


[COLOR="olive"]You DO understand English? I've redefined nothing. Obviously, you don't want to debate because you don't want to defend untenable ground. Ther's nothing to invent. Logical conclusion provided the only logical answer to why the aforementioned actions were taken. It is in NO military strategic planning I have ever seen to just turn an army loose with its weapons after defeating it. Matter of fact, I sat in on more than one meeting of senior staff officers at the Pentagon while I was incarcerated doing my ticket-punch tour in DC where sealing the borders, keeping the Islamic fundamentalists isolated as they were, and sealing the borders were all considered basic "must haves."

So pull your head out of your PC butt and pay attention: Politicians, not the military, are concerned with public opinion. Basic tenets of military strategy and tactics were violated in an attempt to make us look like the "good guys," swooping in to bring freedom to the Iraqis, and punctuating the point that we were only after Saddam and members of his regime, not the Iraqi people.

Those are political decisions based on appeasing the PC, not military decisions based on any tactical or strategic doctrine I have ever been taught.

Your argument flies in the face of logic and common sense.
You’re so old school, Gunny. My comments jibe with logic and common sense. We’ve never had a war like this before. You’re just looking at this from the perspective of a dinosaur warrior. The mistakes of Iraq have been documented and analyzed internally- obsolete tenets of military strategy and tactics were ignored by leaders in the field because if applied they’d undermine the objective. The military has recently published a counterinsurgency doctrine to apply to future wars and in it they recognize a concern for public opinion. Please skim this and tell me what you think- it’s the new FM for Soldiers and Marines regarding Counterinsurgency:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf

An old-timer like you may not like it, but it’s going to be the new guidelines for Soldiers and Marines in future wars.

[Evil]

You’re so old school, Gunny. My comments jibe with logic and common sense. We’ve never had a war like this before. You’re just looking at this from the perspective of a dinosaur warrior. The mistakes of Iraq have been documented and analyzed internally- obsolete tenets of military strategy and tactics were ignored by leaders in the field because if applied they’d undermine the objective. The military has recently published a counterinsurgency doctrine to apply to future wars and in it they recognize a concern for public opinion. Please skim this and tell me what you think- it’s the new FM for Soldiers and Marines regarding Counterinsurgency:



Ok dirt, did'nt read the link because I have'nt the time at the moment so this in reply just to your final paragragh quoted above. Afew things come to mind right away, Perspective of a dinosaur warrior? who do you think we are fighting, some sort of modern day warrriors? Nah, we are fighting throwbacks with the mentality of the middle ages, barbaric criminals, not a army of a nation, but a army of thugs. I don't care what mistakes have been documented and analyzed, thoughts & documentations buys you a pile of dookie when what appears to be a normal citizen creeps up on you, and blows themselve up.

Recognizing public opinion is another pile of horse shit, in fact if the public would take a moment, put themselves in the shoes of the soldiers, think really hard about what they face everday they may not be so quick to state stupidity so often. Public opinion plays to large of a roll already, they are not the ones fighting in this shitstorm, so they obviously have'nt a clue of what it's like.

[Gaffer]

As another dinosaur warrior I agree with Gunny. You can't fight a war with pc attitudes and politicians and lawyers running things.

I would suggest the government establish a special branch of the military that is geared to winning hearts and minds and peace keeping. Garrison forces that secure the country help re-establish its soveriegnty. Leave the soldiers and marines to fight as they are suppose to do. Once a country is conquored then the garrison troops move in and can bring the politicians and lawyers with them.

Us dinosaur warriors already dealt with one politically run war and we know what letting politicians run things will result in. And we know what its like to fight an enemy that hides behind the population, attacks from ambush and uses IED's (boobytraps). We know all about having our hands tied while we try to carry out our mission. We see the same road ahead that we went down 40 years ago. I don't want to revisit that road. And I see the same inside enemies of this country operating now as they did then. The media and liberals that control them.

[Evil]

As another dinosaur warrior I agree with Gunny.

Damn dinosaurs are taking over the joint! :D

[Gunny]

No, we were trained well. The higher ups just give Soldiers a little more leeway than the Marines when it comes to making decisions. It’s because Soldiers can think on their feet, unlike jarheads. :2up:


Sure if we're on a battlefield and we're going up against a uniformed enemy not hiding out among a civilian population. But the actual combat that you’d like us to be engaged in only lasted a week. Unfortunately our mission now is to rebuild Iraq, provide security, and train the Iraqis so they can police themselves.


I can see how the concepts of peacekeeping and nation building are lost on a supertrooper like you, you’re so hardcore :D. But as I said earlier- Haiti and Bosnia. We were there in the 90's and we didn't kill everything that moved. Most of the troops now receive MOUT training and train under similar conditions and scenarios that they face in Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes checkpoints, riot control, security patrols, cultural intelligence gathering, and reacting to IED’s.


No. It’s part of a philosophy that the modern military recognizes. But I understand where you’re coming from. You’re old school. Nation building and winning the peace is 21st century warfare. It’s a proactive philosophy so we don’t have to keep fighting the same wars every 20 years. The military knew that it couldn’t go into a country of 28 million plus people with a force of 180,000 and say, "you aren’t Kurds, you aren’t Shia, you're all the same, now go out there and be a Democracy." Going in there with that kind of mentality subjects our troops to more attacks, puts more civilians at risk, and undermines our nation building objectives. These are all things we knew going in. Military leaders knew that we were going to have to be Soldiers for the combat operations and security forces for the peacekeeping operations. But there were problems from the get go, all internal. There were military readiness problems. There were equipment problems. There were CIA reports warning the military that there was a chance of civil war if the sectarian differences weren’t addressed. And Shinseki warned of not having enough troops to win the peace. This was all done at the Pentagon level and not the Congressional level. I’m not saying that the politicians aren’t blame free for some of the mistakes in Iraq, but you’re trying to shift Pentagon level mistakes unto the politicians.

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=35156&archive=true
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20060727-1326-cnsconway.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/prez.iraq/index.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm


You’re so old school, Gunny. My comments jibe with logic and common sense. We’ve never had a war like this before. You’re just looking at this from the perspective of a dinosaur warrior. The mistakes of Iraq have been documented and analyzed internally- obsolete tenets of military strategy and tactics were ignored by leaders in the field because if applied they’d undermine the objective. The military has recently published a counterinsurgency doctrine to apply to future wars and in it they recognize a concern for public opinion. Please skim this and tell me what you think- it’s the new FM for Soldiers and Marines regarding Counterinsurgency:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf

An old-timer like you may not like it, but it’s going to be the new guidelines for Soldiers and Marines in future wars.

So we're never going to win another war? You can put all the face-paint on that "stuff" you want, but it's nothing more than political appeasement and it isn't going to work. And using the finest military on Earth as rent-a-cops gripes my ass, period.

We face an enemy that understands nothing but force, and you want to win him over with words. One can be as civilized and politically correct as one wants, and it doesn't mean a damned thing when the enemy is a barbarian whose answer to eveything is using force.

[TheSage]

Woo hoo! Gunny's a nationalist! Cool! maybe now he'll quit supporting these corpocrats who are destroying america, and butchering our boys for Israel.

[dirt mcgirt]

So we're never going to win another war? You can put all the face-paint on that "stuff" you want, but it's nothing more than political appeasement and it isn't going to work. And using the finest military on Earth as rent-a-cops gripes my ass, period.

We face an enemy that understands nothing but force, and you want to win him over with words. One can be as civilized and politically correct as one wants, and it doesn't mean a damned thing when the enemy is a barbarian whose answer to eveything is using force.
You're projecting. I don't tell the military where to go and who to fight. If I had it my way, we'd have done things differently in Iraq and we wouldn't think about going into places like Darfur or Liberia. But that's not the reality of the situation right now. We've committed ourselves to a nation building project and we can't leave until it's stable.

The military intelligence reports say that the mentality of lumping the insurgency into one big group is a problem. The military intelligence reports say that your old school way of thinking is uniting the different insurgent groups against the military and escalating the violence. The military intelligence reports say that engaging the enemy within the civilian population just makes the insurgency grow because of all the civilian casualties. This is analysis from the military; it's not about any ideal of mine about being PC or being culturally sensitive. This is based on a review of the situation and how to reduce IED attacks and snipers attacking our troops and curbing the sectarian violence that could lead to a civil war. We're there to provide security and rebuild Iraq, not to engage an Army on an open battlefield. If you've got a better plan to reduce IED's and sniper attacks while not compromising the mission objectives then let's hear it.

[dirt mcgirt]

As another dinosaur warrior I agree with Gunny. You can't fight a war with pc attitudes and politicians and lawyers running things.

I would suggest the government establish a special branch of the military that is geared to winning hearts and minds and peace keeping. Garrison forces that secure the country help re-establish its soveriegnty. Leave the soldiers and marines to fight as they are suppose to do. Once a country is conquored then the garrison troops move in and can bring the politicians and lawyers with them.
The military police already take on that role. The problem is what do we do with 120,000 MP's during peace time? That equates to a lot of bored MP's and a lot of parking tickets back in garrison.

[Gunny]

You're projecting. I don't tell the military where to go and who to fight. If I had it my way, we'd have done things differently in Iraq and we wouldn't think about going into places like Darfur or Liberia. But that's not the reality of the situation right now. We've committed ourselves to a nation building project and we can't leave until it's stable.

Merely responding to you.

The military intelligence reports say that the mentality of lumping the insurgency into one big group is a problem. The military intelligence reports say that your old school way of thinking is uniting the different insurgent groups against the military and escalating the violence. The military intelligence reports say that engaging the enemy within the civilian population just makes the insurgency grow because of all the civilian casualties. This is analysis from the military; it's not about any ideal of mine about being PC or being culturally sensitive. This is based on a review of the situation and how to reduce IED attacks and snipers attacking our troops and curbing the sectarian violence that could lead to a civil war. We're there to provide security and rebuild Iraq, not to engage an Army on an open battlefield. If you've got a better plan to reduce IED's and sniper attacks while not compromising the mission objectives then let's hear it.

You mean can I figure out we can have our cake and eat it too? Because THAT is exactly what you're saying. A military operation that incurs not casualties to us, no casualties to civilians, and kill onlt the bad guys hiding out amongst the civilians.

My "old school way" of thinking would produce a victory. Yours produces nothing but an impossible situation. And so it appears to be.

[dirt mcgirt]

You mean can I figure out we can have our cake and eat it too? Because THAT is exactly what you're saying. A military operation that incurs not casualties to us, no casualties to civilians, and kill onlt the bad guys hiding out amongst the civilians.

My "old school way" of thinking would produce a victory. Yours produces nothing but an impossible situation. And so it appears to be.
Victory in Iraq can only be achieved if the Iraqis adopt Democracy and become stable. Those are the objectives. Achieving victory "your way" is no better than what they had under Saddam.

[Gunny]

Victory in Iraq can only be achieved if the Iraqis adopt Democracy and become stable. Those are the objectives. Achieving victory "your way" is no better than what they had under Saddam.

Bull. Achieving victory my way removes most of the unstable element.

I don't disagree that the Iraqis themselves are part and parcel to this working. I also agree that if they don't start doing their part, at some point, we need to leave them on their own.

But I believe they at least should have a fighting chance and its the least we can do since we created this mess by trying to fight a PC war.

[dirt mcgirt]

Bull. Achieving victory my way removes most of the unstable element.
Man, you're so stubborn. I've cited sources about mistakes made at the Pentagon level that have nothing to do with being PC. I've cited the new counter insurgency manual that the military is following after a thorough internal analysis of mistakes made in Iraq. And you respond with bull- wow, that's so convincing.

Here's an article that pretty much sums up what we've been talking about:
Pentagon studying its war errors
Analysts assess tactics in Iraq, Afghanistan

WASHINGTON -- The US military establishment has quietly undertaken a wholesale reassessment of its war strategy with a goal of identifying the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and remedying them before the next conflict.

This summer, high-level Pentagon officials ordered a pair of secret studies to pinpoint the military's failures in the two conflicts, and, according to one of the authors, "The results won't be pretty" when the findings are produced this fall. Last week, the Defense Department invited about 50 of the nation's top counter insurgency specialists to a closed-door meeting outside Washington to critique recent operations and chart a way forward.

The studies, according to several Pentagon officials involved, have found serious deficiencies across the board. For example, US troops in Iraq have often used too much force when conducting operations in civilian areas, unnecessarily alienating local populations. They cite US commanders as being too slow to establish working relationships with local allies, and note that providing security and safety for the Iraqi people wasn't an early priority.

The military's continuing shortcomings in gathering accurate intelligence about insurgents has particularly hampered its missions: "We know relatively little about insurgent motivation and morale, leadership, and recruitment," according to an unpublished study produced in June by the government-funded RAND Corporation.

"This is a struggle for the soul of the Army," said Colonel Peter Mansoor , a former battalion commander in Iraq who now heads the newly established Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "A lot of work needs to be done to change the mind-set of the force. For decades, we focused on high-intensity combat. We are trying to shift the culture of the force and balance it better."

Top officers are literally re writing the book on how to conduct counterinsurgency operations -- a skill that has atrophied in the three decades since the Vietnam War but has become painfully relevant in Iraq and Afghanistan, where winning hearts and minds has proved far more difficult than killing enemy forces.

After preparing for generations to fight ``big wars" against large conventional armies, the military is absorbing its toughest lesson of the post- Sept. 11 world: It isn't prepared to wage small-scale, guerrilla wars that have become the hallmark of Islamic extremists and their allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

In classrooms, on training bases, and even on the battlefield, military scholars and combat veterans are struggling to teach the world's most lethal military force how to calibrate its immense firepower and avoid the kind of heavy-handed tactics and cultural insensitivity that have engendered so much ill will and helped fuel insurgencies in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq.

At the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., nearly half the curriculum this fall is focused on guerrilla warfare and tactics to counter it, marking the biggest academic overhaul in decades, according to military officials. A heavy emphasis is being placed on the foreign cultures where analysts believe US forces may find themselves operating in the coming years: failed states in Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia that may become breeding grounds for terrorists.

"We totally revamped the curriculum for 2006," said William Johnsen , dean of the war college, where hundreds of lieutenant colonels and colonels spend a year training to become top leaders. "We have adjusted the courses to look a lot more at stability and counterinsurgency operations so we can turn a conventional military victory into a larger one."

The Pentagon will also participate in a State Department conference on counterinsurgency later this year, the first step toward crafting a government-wide plan to remedy the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan and avoid them in future guerrilla conflicts.

But it is among the senior officer corps, which includes many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the soul-searching is most pronounced.

Mansoor, who is also author of a history of infantry divisions in World War II, is helping fine-tune a draft of the Army-Marine Corps field manual on counterinsurgency, which will become a 250-page bible for field commanders.

The document is designed to fill what generals acknowledge is a major gap in American military doctrine.

"It has been 20 years since the US Army published a manual devoted to counterinsurgency operations, and 25 years since the Marine Corps published its last such manual," write Army Lieutenant General David Petraeus and Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis in a draft of the document. "With our soldiers and Marines fighting insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is thus essential that we give them a manual that provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations."

The first draft of the manual combines a heavy dose of military science and basic soldiering with history and politics. Drawing on lessons of the past two centuries, it provides a blueprint for how to run a foreign occupation where the central government is either weak or nonexistent and well-armed insurgents are launching hit-and-run attacks from within civilian areas.

It outlines ways to understand local culture, locate interpreters, train a local police force and army to help provide security, bolster the nascent government, effectively handle detainees, gather intelligence about enemy forces from friendly citizens, and link combat operations with humanitarian and other aid to rebuild the war-torn country - and peel the local population away from the insurgents to cut off the enemy's source of support.

"The challenge is to train the force not what to think but how to think," Mansoor said in an interview, saying that troops must get inside the minds of the insurgents as well as those of the citizenry. "Counterinsurgency is a thinking soldier's war. It is graduate-level stuff. There is public relations, civil affairs, information operations. It is not easy."

Although the US military establishment has focused largely on fighting a conventional foe such as the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites, the armed forces have fought far more counterinsurgencies than armies throughout US history - from the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s to Vietnam and conflicts in Central America, Somalia, and Bosnia.

But the military as an institution - backed by a powerful arms maker - has nevertheless clung to the theory that its forces must be prepared almost exclusively to fight large-scale conflicts with multibillion-dollar weapon systems, specialists said.

"The military culture has been about the big war," said Andrew Krepinevich , a retired Army officer and counterinsurgency specialist who advises Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "That's been the case for a long time. West Point studied the Napoleonic wars while fighting the Indians after the American Civil War. These irregular wars were viewed as exceptions to the rule. They thought if you could fight a big war you could fight a little war."

But getting the military to apply the lessons of the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is proving to be a battle in itself.

"It is like if you had told General Motors to stop building autos in 1975 and then told them to start building cars again now, but build 2006 models," Krepinevich said. "It is not much of an exaggeration to say that is where the military is right now."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/16/pentagon_studying_its_war_errors/

[TheSage]

Dirt, these fascist bushbots have lost their minds. Fact and logic only cause them to escalate their irrational slogans and personal smears.

[Evil]

Dirt, these fascist bushbots have lost their minds. Fact and logic only cause them to escalate their irrational slogans and personal smears.


One only needs to look up your posts to see the difference between reality, and those in a world of fiction. You should join us some time when you need a break from that little fantasy world that you are so locked up tight within.

[Gunny]

Man, you're so stubborn. I've cited sources about mistakes made at the Pentagon level that have nothing to do with being PC. I've cited the new counter insurgency manual that the military is following after a thorough internal analysis of mistakes made in Iraq. And you respond with bull- wow, that's so convincing.

Here's an article that pretty much sums up what we've been talking about:
Pentagon studying its war errors
Analysts assess tactics in Iraq, Afghanistan

WASHINGTON -- The US military establishment has quietly undertaken a wholesale reassessment of its war strategy with a goal of identifying the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and remedying them before the next conflict.

This summer, high-level Pentagon officials ordered a pair of secret studies to pinpoint the military's failures in the two conflicts, and, according to one of the authors, "The results won't be pretty" when the findings are produced this fall. Last week, the Defense Department invited about 50 of the nation's top counter insurgency specialists to a closed-door meeting outside Washington to critique recent operations and chart a way forward.

The studies, according to several Pentagon officials involved, have found serious deficiencies across the board. For example, US troops in Iraq have often used too much force when conducting operations in civilian areas, unnecessarily alienating local populations. They cite US commanders as being too slow to establish working relationships with local allies, and note that providing security and safety for the Iraqi people wasn't an early priority.

The military's continuing shortcomings in gathering accurate intelligence about insurgents has particularly hampered its missions: "We know relatively little about insurgent motivation and morale, leadership, and recruitment," according to an unpublished study produced in June by the government-funded RAND Corporation.

"This is a struggle for the soul of the Army," said Colonel Peter Mansoor , a former battalion commander in Iraq who now heads the newly established Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "A lot of work needs to be done to change the mind-set of the force. For decades, we focused on high-intensity combat. We are trying to shift the culture of the force and balance it better."

Top officers are literally re writing the book on how to conduct counterinsurgency operations -- a skill that has atrophied in the three decades since the Vietnam War but has become painfully relevant in Iraq and Afghanistan, where winning hearts and minds has proved far more difficult than killing enemy forces.

After preparing for generations to fight ``big wars" against large conventional armies, the military is absorbing its toughest lesson of the post- Sept. 11 world: It isn't prepared to wage small-scale, guerrilla wars that have become the hallmark of Islamic extremists and their allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

In classrooms, on training bases, and even on the battlefield, military scholars and combat veterans are struggling to teach the world's most lethal military force how to calibrate its immense firepower and avoid the kind of heavy-handed tactics and cultural insensitivity that have engendered so much ill will and helped fuel insurgencies in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq.

At the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., nearly half the curriculum this fall is focused on guerrilla warfare and tactics to counter it, marking the biggest academic overhaul in decades, according to military officials. A heavy emphasis is being placed on the foreign cultures where analysts believe US forces may find themselves operating in the coming years: failed states in Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia that may become breeding grounds for terrorists.

"We totally revamped the curriculum for 2006," said William Johnsen , dean of the war college, where hundreds of lieutenant colonels and colonels spend a year training to become top leaders. "We have adjusted the courses to look a lot more at stability and counterinsurgency operations so we can turn a conventional military victory into a larger one."

The Pentagon will also participate in a State Department conference on counterinsurgency later this year, the first step toward crafting a government-wide plan to remedy the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan and avoid them in future guerrilla conflicts.

But it is among the senior officer corps, which includes many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the soul-searching is most pronounced.

Mansoor, who is also author of a history of infantry divisions in World War II, is helping fine-tune a draft of the Army-Marine Corps field manual on counterinsurgency, which will become a 250-page bible for field commanders.

The document is designed to fill what generals acknowledge is a major gap in American military doctrine.

"It has been 20 years since the US Army published a manual devoted to counterinsurgency operations, and 25 years since the Marine Corps published its last such manual," write Army Lieutenant General David Petraeus and Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis in a draft of the document. "With our soldiers and Marines fighting insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq, it is thus essential that we give them a manual that provides principles and guidelines for counterinsurgency operations."

The first draft of the manual combines a heavy dose of military science and basic soldiering with history and politics. Drawing on lessons of the past two centuries, it provides a blueprint for how to run a foreign occupation where the central government is either weak or nonexistent and well-armed insurgents are launching hit-and-run attacks from within civilian areas.

It outlines ways to understand local culture, locate interpreters, train a local police force and army to help provide security, bolster the nascent government, effectively handle detainees, gather intelligence about enemy forces from friendly citizens, and link combat operations with humanitarian and other aid to rebuild the war-torn country - and peel the local population away from the insurgents to cut off the enemy's source of support.

"The challenge is to train the force not what to think but how to think," Mansoor said in an interview, saying that troops must get inside the minds of the insurgents as well as those of the citizenry. "Counterinsurgency is a thinking soldier's war. It is graduate-level stuff. There is public relations, civil affairs, information operations. It is not easy."

Although the US military establishment has focused largely on fighting a conventional foe such as the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites, the armed forces have fought far more counterinsurgencies than armies throughout US history - from the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s to Vietnam and conflicts in Central America, Somalia, and Bosnia.

But the military as an institution - backed by a powerful arms maker - has nevertheless clung to the theory that its forces must be prepared almost exclusively to fight large-scale conflicts with multibillion-dollar weapon systems, specialists said.

"The military culture has been about the big war," said Andrew Krepinevich , a retired Army officer and counterinsurgency specialist who advises Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "That's been the case for a long time. West Point studied the Napoleonic wars while fighting the Indians after the American Civil War. These irregular wars were viewed as exceptions to the rule. They thought if you could fight a big war you could fight a little war."

But getting the military to apply the lessons of the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is proving to be a battle in itself.

"It is like if you had told General Motors to stop building autos in 1975 and then told them to start building cars again now, but build 2006 models," Krepinevich said. "It is not much of an exaggeration to say that is where the military is right now."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/16/pentagon_studying_its_war_errors/

Whatever, dude. You're damned-right I'm stubborn when I'm right. I'm glad I'm not in the military now. Y'all are going to lose because you've forgotten how to win.

[TheSage]

One only needs to look up your posts to see the difference between reality, and those in a world of fiction. You should join us some time when you need a break from that little fantasy world that you are so locked up tight within.

You're just mad cuz I punked you raw. And now all you can do is insult.

[Evil]

You're just mad cuz I punked you raw. And now all you can do is insult.

:laugh: :laugh:

Now how was anything that I said insultive? I merely suggested that you step out of your warped vision of reality once in a while!

[TheSage]

:laugh: :laugh:

Now how was anything that I said insultive? I merely suggested that you step out of your warped vision of reality once in a while!

:laugh: You're a funny clown!

[Gaffer]

Whatever, dude. You're damned-right I'm stubborn when I'm right. I'm glad I'm not in the military now. Y'all are going to lose because you've forgotten how to win.


Seems to me they are writing manuals on how to fight politically correct wars. Not counter insergency. And they are gearing up for small actions rather than fighting a big war.

They need a new manual about how to WIN a war.

[TheSage]

Seems to me they are writing manuals on how to fight politically correct wars. Not counter insergency. And they are gearing up for small actions rather than fighting a big war.

They need a new manual about how to WIN a war.

You guys still don't get it. The goal is not to win. The goal is to make those countries accept the dick of mulitinational corporations up their ass, so they're citizenry is enslaved as well.

When you hear "safe for democracy" think "willing to guarantee corporations can never lose their investments".

[Gaffer]

You guys still don't get it. The goal is not to win. The goal is to make those countries accept the dick of mulitinational corporations up their ass, so they're citizenry is enslaved as well.

When you hear "safe for democracy" think "willing to guarantee corporations can never lose their investments".

Go back to your thread, your interupting an adult conversation here.

[TheSage]

Go back to your thread, your interupting an adult conversation here.

Not at all. You're having trouble reconciling the actions of the administration with your views. You're operating on the assumption that your goals are the same as the administration's goals, but they're not the same; they're different. If you could understand this, and address it, the conversation would be more productive. Stop being a little brat with your idiotic name-calling, ok, pumpkin?

"Stablility in the mideast" for the average american only means more of our jobs will be outsourced. It's not like the old days where winning a war meant more land and opportunity for the average joe. Our big mideast "allies" don't even allow bibles in the country. Our government is a shill for coroporate concerns.


http://www.jcpa.org/phas/Bush_cartoon.gif

[Gunny]

Seems to me they are writing manuals on how to fight politically correct wars. Not counter insergency. And they are gearing up for small actions rather than fighting a big war.

They need a new manual about how to WIN a war.

That's what it looks like to me. All of the reasoning I've seen so far amounts to dilluting tactics for political appeasement and nothign to do with winning.

[retiredman]

the right never seems to consider that many of the people who question the wisdom of this "new strategy" are doing so legitimately and not merely "bashing Bush".

[TheSage]

the right never seems to consider that many of the people who question the wisdom of this "new strategy" are doing so legitimately and not merely "bashing Bush".

It's global fascism or bust.

[Gunny]

the right never seems to consider that many of the people who question the wisdom of this "new strategy" are doing so legitimately and not merely "bashing Bush".

The left never seems to be able to legitimately question this "new strategy" WITHOUT "bashing Bush."

Matter of fact, the people actually legitimately questioning it on this board are on the right. Obviously, it isn't as much a problem as you think.

[retiredman]

the strategy is flawed, in my opinion, and would be so if John Kerry or John Kennedy or FDR were proposing it. The fact that it comes from a guy whose administration has a pretty incredible record of missteps regarding Iraq is another story entirely.

[Gunny]

the strategy is flawed, in my opinion, and would be so if John Kerry or John Kennedy or FDR were proposing it. The fact that it comes from a guy whose administration has a pretty incredible record of missteps regarding Iraq is another story entirely.

What strategy would that be?

[TheSage]

What strategy would that be?

The surge, sarge.

[retiredman]

sending 20K American troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province smack dab in the middle of a civil conflict that the sunnis and shiites of Iraq are bound and determined to get into.

That would be an idiotic thing to do, in my opinion, even if every democrat from the dawn of time thought otherwise.

[manu1959]

sending 20K American troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province smack dab in the middle of a civil conflict that the sunnis and shiites of Iraq are bound and determined to get into.

That would be an idiotic thing to do, in my opinion, even if every democrat from the dawn of time thought otherwise.

yes sending reinforcements into a war zone is pretty stupid stuff....

[TheSage]

yes sending reinforcements into a war zone is pretty stupid stuff....

Yes. It is when the problem is a civil war amongst the people.

"The rapture is not an exit strategy", just saw that on du. It describes most of you bushbots to a t.

[manu1959]

Yes. It is when the problem is a civil war amongst the people.

germany was a civil war....just one side did not have guns....we reinforced that....why do the middleastern people mean so little to you?

also....

there is not a civil war amongst the people .... there is religous killing and ethnic cleansing among two of the three relgious groups like ireland, bosnia, darfur and rawanda....there are mercenaries from outside the country fighting agianst the west...same people that blew up the cole wtc. madrid, london bali nigeria, somalia etc.... and then there is the gurellia war that the bathists are waging aginst the coalition military.

[TheSage]

germany was a civil war....just one side did not have guns....we reinforced that....why do the middleastern people mean so little to you?

I;m just not excited about having to compete with a new slave labor resource in the mideast, though it may be good for your portfolio.



also....

there is not a civil war amongst the people .... there is religous killing and ethnic cleansing among two of the three relgious groups like ireland, bosnia, darfur and rawanda....there are mercenaries from outside the country fighting agianst the west...same people that blew up the cole wtc. madrid, london bali nigeria, somalia etc.... and then there is the gurellia war that the bathists are waging aginst the coalition military.

Civil wars are often based on religion and ethnicity. Using different words doesn't change reality. You know that, right?

[manu1959]

"The rapture is not an exit strategy", just saw that on du. It describes most of you bushbots to a t.

bushbots? .... you moral high ground, intelligent, educated, tollerant, open minded, fair and accepting blue staters would never jump to insults or sweeping generalizations...must be a typo....cuz all yall are uniters not dividers

[Gunny]

sending 20K American troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province smack dab in the middle of a civil conflict that the sunnis and shiites of Iraq are bound and determined to get into.

That would be an idiotic thing to do, in my opinion, even if every democrat from the dawn of time thought otherwise.

That isn't a strategy .... it's an assumption. Whether or not 20K more military personnel will make a difference will depend on how they are deployed.

You assume automatically they will be deployed in some useless manner. There is new leadership, and supposedly different tactics going to be used, according to what is being said.

[TheSage]

bushbots? .... you moral high ground, intelligent, educated, tollerant, open minded, fair and accepting blue staters would never jump to insults or sweeping generalizations...must be a typo....cuz all yall are uniters not dividers




Im not a blue stater or a dem. Im a true conservative american nationalist. Screw the new world order mason-o-jewish corpocracy!

Bushbots are a clearly identifiable group, you're one.

[manu1959]

I;m just not excited about having to compete with a new slave labor resource in the mideast, though it may be good for your portfolio.
Civil wars are often based on religion and ethnicity. Using different words doesn't change reality. You know that, right?

what a great response .... disdane, insults and intollerance .... and to top it off, more distane for the people of the middel east ....

[TheSage]

what a great response .... disdane, insults and intollerance .... and to top it off, more distane for the people of the middel east ....

You sound like a liberal.

You think anyone in the middle-east wants us there, besides israel? My god, you believe your own propaganda.

[manu1959]

Im not a blue stater or a dem. Im a true conservative american nationalist. Screw the new world order mason-o-jewish corpocracy!

Bushbots are a clearly identifiable group, you're one.

define bush bot......conservative american nationalist = white supremest no

[TheSage]

what a great response .... disdane, insults and intollerance .... and to top it off, more distane for the people of the middel east ....

where is the disdain insult or intolerance in my statement below? I just don't see it, Goofy.




I;m just not excited about having to compete with a new slave labor resource in the mideast, though it may be good for your portfolio.
Civil wars are often based on religion and ethnicity. Using different words doesn't change reality. You know that, right?

[manu1959]

You sound like a liberal.

You think anyone in the middle-east wants us there, besides israel? My god, you believe your own propaganda.

thought i was a bushbot.....now i am a liberal? which is it

[TheSage]

define bush bot......conservative american nationalist = white supremest no

define "define". lol. cram it, bot.

a nationalist is one who believes that nations exist to provide the people of the nation certain rights and opportunities, Market protections, rights to resources etc. and it is not the legitimate right of corporations to erode these protections to fatten their bottom line. Got it?

[manu1959]

define "define". lol. cram it, bot.

a nationalist is one who believes that nations exist to provide the people of the nation certain rights and opportunities, Market protections, rights to resources etc. and it is not the legitimate right of corporations to erode these protections to fatten their bottom line. Got it?

bot? your other personality thinks i am a liberal....

some nations may exist for the reasons you state however, the documents this country was founded on actually prevents people from taking the rights and opportunities away from the people you nationalists feel do not belong here.....why should corporations be held to a different standard than you and your natinalist buddies....

[TheSage]

bot? your other personality thinks i am a liberal....

some nations may exist for the reasons you state however, the documents this country was founded on actually prevents people from taking the rights and opportunities away from the people you nationalists feel do not belong here.....why should corporations be held to a different standard than you and your natinalist buddies....

Illegal immigrants do not belong here, by the very defintion of the words illegal and immigrant. The constitution presumes the existence of an actual nation, which is defined by enforced boundaries. You can't pick and choose which aspects of the constitution you'd like to respect, ok bluto? This is like shooting fish in a barrell. You neocon bushbots are intellectually bankrupt.

[manu1959]

Illegal immigrants do not belong here, by the very defintion of the words illegal and immigrant. The constitution presumes the existence of an actual nation, which is defined by enforced boundaries. You can't pick and choose which aspects of the contitution you'd like to respect, ok bluto? This is like shooting fish in a barrell. You neocon bushbots are intellectually bankrupt.

i agree people that enter the US illegally should be arrested and deported ..... but what does that have to do with reinforcing our troops during war time?

why can't i pick and choose which part of the constitution i want to respect....you do....hell you made up a part where business that make money are bad.

[TheSage]

i agree people that enter the US illegally should be arrested and deported ..... but what does that have to do with reinforcing our troops during war time?

why can't i pick and choose which part of the constitution i want to respect....you do....hell you made up a part where business that make money are bad.

Im not against profit. I'm against slave labor. And I believe in basic worker protections. Im also against corporations that are ultimately unanswerable to any national authority, and threaten to withhold funds unless politicians do what they want. And im against the idea that it's a good idea for americans to lose their entire manufacturing base, and be thus, dependant on other nations.

[manu1959]

Im not against profit. I'm against slave labor. And I believe in basic worker protections. Im also against corporations that are ultimately unanswerable to any national authority, and threaten to withhold funds unless politicians do what they want. And im against the idea that it's a good idea for americans to lose their entire manufacturing base, and be thus, dependant on other nations.

fundamentally i agree with your concerns....reality is america lost its mfr base years ago.....and change is difficult....but if rome does not adapt to current conditions ...... you my dear senator will be very disapointed

any way i am off in my german car to get some chevron gas, french wine and chinese imported clothing...and see my broker about buying a bit more haliburton, and dutch gas options.....take care

thanks for the chat,

your bushbot liberal friend

[TheSage]

fundamentally i agree with your concerns....reality is america lost its mfr base years ago.....and change is difficult....but if rome does not adapt to current conditions ...... you my dear senator will be very disapointed

any way i am off in my german car to get some chevron gas, french wine and chinese imported clothing...and see my broker about buying a bit more haliburton, and dutch gas options.....take care

thanks for the chat,

your bushbot liberal friend

And this is a reality which can be reversed with concerted effort and willpower to look toward the longterm future of america's people instead of the short term gain of coporations which operate here. Everything is possible. What the globalists present as irreversible realities are not. They're liars.

Bye bye now.

p.s. congratulations on your war profiteering and disdain for americans.