Get out AND impeach the bastards.

Is there any sense from your friend that in addition to killing more insurgents we are doing anything to make Iraqis have better lives now?

Only looking at our losses.  Are you aware of anyone who is keeping track of the Iraqi "friendly" losses.

What's that famous quote from Ho Chi Minh, something like, "You will kill a thousand of our men, and we will kill one of yours, and in the end, it will be you who will tire of it"? I'm sure I could find the exact quote, but that's close.

Scary stuff.

HCM quotes

Maybe someone at the Pentagon saw the magic number coming---by this summer we would have seen as many soldiers killed as New Yorkers died on 9/11.

Who's designating the targets now? Sy Hersh said the Air Force was unhappy with handing that off to Iraqis.

Since Sy Hersh is being mentioned for the acumen of his judgment,  I'll mention something else he said recently:   Our top military commanders in Iraq consist of generals who should have never risen past the rank of lieutenant colonel. Their recent statements seem so disconnected from reality (e.g., "insurgency dying out"), one really wonders whether it's worth paying any attention to what they say.

I know it is hard to get good help these days, particularly in war zones, but I would agree with the posters above, particularly Luigi Vampa.  Killing people is not going to calm Iraq, the homeland of Islam. It is only going to increase the blood debt and endanger Americans for decades.

For starters it would have been a good idea to secure the 370 tons of high explosives looted after the US invasion at Al Qaqaa. Sadistic torture done in Saddm's old prison was the final crime, and ensured failure, along with the hundred other mistakes of the Bush administration.

William Lind (anti-war,com) and the recent piece by Israeli military historian Martin van Crevald both say the war is lost. Lind says it was lost even before the first bomb was dropped. As former terrorism czar Richard Clarke said in an NPR interview on his new book, Iran has achieved all it's goals in Iraq. The US and the US economy will pay the tab, dead, wounded, & US image down the drain, and the dollar headed down as the debt piles up.

Dear Lord - they didn't anticipate the insurgency. I worked with 9th & 10th graders in March 2003 who anticipated the insurgency - but our fearless leaders didn't. Heaven help us all!

Can you believe that they screened "The Battle of Algiers" (a great movie) in the Pentagon before we invaded Iraq? The military leadership should have resigned en masse rather than let Bush take us into the preventable quaqmire of Iraq.

There is no limit to how "f"ed up things are now.

Yes, of course. If we had followed Shinseki's recommendation of 400,000 troops there would have been no insurgency--no ammo. Of course, there also would have been no looting, and quick restoration of services.

I still can't decide if the continuing free-for-all that allowed corporate looting and a convenient scare subject ("we're fighting there, not here") was incompetence or Machiavellian genius. I suspect incompetence. 

everyday i pray that more of the gangsters in us uniforms become kilties.

it is what is deserved by invaders.

Chimp sent troops into Afghanistan on the basis of a war plan 'gamed out' on Clinton's watch.  The plan worked well (so long as you ignore the fact that bin Laden escaped).  The goals were direct, simple, and easy to determine whether they were successful.

The invasion of Iraq has been described as having been well-planned, but beyond an invasion there was no real plan for anything, except getting Halliburton in as soon as possible.  And today, a report that Paul Bremer, in an upcoming NBC interview, admitted that the insurgency was 'not anticipated' because it had not been planned for.

What Larry's CIA friend tells us is more of the same.  The cabal continues to flail around in Iraq, and domestically -- it's dispiriting, and sickening, and what's worse is that no one seems to have the strength, ability, or organization to stop the forced deterioration of our country -- and the damage we continue to do to others.

And, costing the American People $1 to 2 Trillion dollars.   

Actually ljohnson's comment about the dilemma we face (either kill Sunnis or get out) makes me think that maybe the third option put forth by Congressman Murtha (deploy to the periphery, i.e. off Iraqi soil, but *promise* to come back if the Shiites start massacring the Sunnis) is a lot wiser than I had originally given it credit for. It seems like it would have the best chance of threading the needle (appeasing the Sunni insurgents by leaving Iraq, but making sure no wholesale genocidal affair can happen in the wake of the pullout). The only x-factor here is that the terrorists operating in Iraq will still continue their attacks - but it is probably true that they have almost no sympathisers in Iraq so they can be quickly isolated politically (though not militarily right away).




Where's the hole in the logic here?

Noblesse:

....one really wonders whether it's worth paying any attention to what they say.

... which means what?

I just bottom-rated #27, for a couple of reasons. Partly because it s incoherent, and partly because the sentiment is unacceptable.

Speaking for myself, I feel a conflict. I do want all troops to come home, eventually, whole and happy with stories of accomplishment.

But I feel a continuing rage at the administration for its foolish enthusiasm in risking those troops. It has not been shown, still, that the invasion was either necessary or helpful to us.

Certainly it stands a decent chance of being a good thing for Iraq in the long run but it seems I have to again bring up the arguments for war, as offered before the invasion. We simply cannot accept the ends justifying the means. We cannot accept the cheap way it was done, which endangered those troops unnecessarily. We cannot accept the non-plan which allowed the looting and collapse of essential services, thus endangering those troops and the supposed beneficiaries, Iraqis.

War was not the only choice; it was a preference. Internal thinking, on paper, included theorizing about transformative events as well as arguments that "they only understand force"; unmentioned was the corollary "they have institutionalized revenge". Now our country is at least somewhat disgraced by the horrible embarassment of there being no WMD, and the true criminal, Osama, seems to have escaped justice. Why should I be happy?

The soldiers are caught in the middle 

Dude, read the enrty above yours, the author understands what I was trying to say. Oh and if you think Joseph Stalin was a civil rights activist, maybe it's you who should go back to school and take a history class.

FC Wallace quiz, who said:

1. Saddam Hussein HAS WMD.

2. I believe we will be treated as liberators.

3. We did not anticipate an insurgency.

4. Mission accomplished.

5. US is withdrawing troops in 2006.

6. Bring 'em on.

7. islamic fundamentalists are 'freedom fighters'

8. shook hands with Saddam and helped arm him in 1980's.

9. we are fighting the ruthless foreign killers in Iraq

a. George Bush and Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran

b. Dick Cheney and  Ayman al-Zawahiri

c. Paul Bremer

d. George W. Bush and Ayman al-Zawahiri

e. George W. Bush and Ayman al-Zawahiri

f.  Ronald Reagan when the USA and Suadi fundamentalists formed and funded al Queda in the 1980's

g. rummy

h. George W. Bush and Ayman al-Zawahiri

People here don't hope our troops lose, whatever that means in thie context of Iraq.. Bush has put them (including my wounded ex-Marine nephew who was hurt the first day into Iraq from Kuwait in March 2003) in a no-win situation. So either you don't understand that, or you are a liar. I don't think you are a liar, but I think you're wasting a lot of your energy supporting a clueless administration that is harming our country. So most of us just flat out disagree with you. Does disagreeing with you make people unpatiotic? I don't think so and my guess is neither do you.

I read #27 again after I typed my last reply. I'm not sure I understand it, but if that poster said American troops should be killed than I'm with you on this one SFC. That's awful. However, 99.9% of posters on this site aren't like that.

irishkg:  yep.   "yes-men" promotions

Olden:    excellent point!  :-)

While I'm not a military historian, I've done a bit of reading on the subject, and I remember seeing the generalization that air campaigns alone (I'm not talking about the German Blitzkrieg, which was supported by the simultaneous Panzer invasions) are an abysmal failure.  They're meant to demoralize and weaken the civilian population as well as the military, but they have the opposite effect.  They failed for the Germans in their Blitz of the UK in WWII and they failed for the Allies in their bombing of Germany, where they only induced a stubborn fatalism in the population.  It wasn't until the land war caught up with the Germans that their armies collapsed.

We've already looked at how effective the bombing of N. Vietnam was higher up in this thread.  There's no reason to think Iraq will prove different.  I don't know if it will be possible to alienate the Iraqis from us any further, but I imagine an air campaign is the way to do it.

And to the various trolls on this thread who want to shout "treason" and defeatist":  you might want to consider how far you're willing to dig before the law of holes kicks in.

The only one I can think of that may have worked was the NATO bombing of Belgrade when Clinton was in office (and we hit the Chinese embassy accidentally).

I hear friends over there generally saying they feel more secure, but that's relative -- most don't mix with the population. There are areas that are secure and where efforts are helping the population; I've been approached about possibly contributing to the educational system in one area.

I'd argue that many generals (and I'll throw in some colonels) definitely warrant their rank. As far as acumen, let me suggest reading books by some of the people.

COL HR Masterman's Dereliction of Duty is the best single book I have seen on the failures of US political leadership with respect to Viet Nam, including getting into the situation, micromanaging the war, and the chaotic exit. Masterman commands an armored cavalry regiment.

BG Daniel Bolger has written extensively on training, motivation, and doctrine -- I'd guess at least 6 books.

LTG Dave Petraeus has returned from heading the training effort, and now is in doctrinal development, commanding the Combined Arms Center. While I haven't read it, he is coauthor of NATO at Forty: Change Continuity, & Prospects.

Here I agree on what was probably the worst policy-level mistake once the decision to invade was made. It's not that the US hadn't prepared for potential insurgency.

Apparently, no one at the civilian policy level bothered to consider the detailed planning, considering different cases of insurgency, that was done for the WWII occupation of Germany. See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/cossac/Cossac.htm with special regard to OPERATION RANKIN CASE C, which was a plan for a situation similar to what was faced in Iraq.

From the people I know over there, training Iraqis is the top priority.

First, I have far more problems with the civilian leadership than the generals in the field. I see them primarily doing a decent job within the constraints and policies available in a situation that was not, by any means, in an optimal state once the high-intensity combat is over.

I'd like to see some specific evidence that Rumsfeld is involved in promotions, at least below the four-star level. Historically, the promotion board process is something the uniformed services guard jealously from the civilian side, and even from officers not on the boards. For example, LTG Buster Glosson, architect of the Desert Storm air war and presumably with a lock on four stars, retired early, and the general buzz was that he tried to influence promotion boards.

... but Seymour Hersh's accuracy is a hell of a lot better than the Bush administration's.

hc - add me to the confused list. You seem to be giving me "1"'s (and one "2") when you don't agree with me and "4"'s when you do. Giving a "1" when you disagree is not what you should be doing.

I don't argue that the Bush administration is not the most credible in history, but you seem to be changing the subject from technical characteristics of weapons to political opinion. I do agree that there is no particular reason for US aircraft to bomb from what is, militarily, called "high altitude". Hersh or others may be using technical terms rather casually.

In the original post, I believe, there was a comment about moving from close air support to high-altitude bombing. This doesn't make sense, with a knowledge of specific weapons. In Afghanistan, Special Forces units were designating targets at "danger close" ranges, to be hit with JDAM guided munitions from B-52 aircraft at high altitude. Close support is the mission, which is independent of the specific weapon type or optimal delivery altitude.

This IS NO "tipping point".

Not in a tribal society where everybody in someone's family is obligated to revenge their death.

Try to get it through the thick skulls of US troops and intelligence people: YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE! 

What the hell are we going to do when the US and Israel bombs Iran in the next three to six months? What do you think the Shia in Iraq are going to do? Sure, they remember the Iran-Iraq war. They also remember that the Iranians are Shia. They KNOW that the US is attacking Iran for no good reason, just as the US attacked Iraq. They will ALSO see the Iranian counterattack as the perfect opportunity to get rid of the US.

Which means, regardless of what our puppets in the Iraqi government want, the Shia of organizations like SCIRI and al Sadr's group, who have been quietly organizing in the south of Iraq for months, are going to join the Sunni insurgency - or more precisely, start their OWN insurgency while preparing to deal with the Sunnis after the US is driver out.

Which means US casualties are going to SOAR into the stratosphere. The US CANNOT fight an insurgency on the ground all around them AND fight six million Iranian militiamen at the same time - not without using tactical nuclear weapons and carpet-bombing entire Iranian and Iraqi cities off the map.

The result will make Vietnam look like a tea party. Expect casualty rates of several hundred a DAY - not per month. Expect ten thousand or more casualties in ninety days from the start of the Iranian retaliation. Expect fifty thousand casualties a YEAR if the war lasts that long. Remember - the Iranians sent thousands of teenage boys ahead of their troops to clear minefields during the Iran-Iraq war. How long do you think US troops are going to be happy about massacring teenagers? (Of course, I'm sure US troops will get used to it - they did in Vietnam.)

There is virtually no doubt that the neocons intend to start a war with Iran - and possibly Syria, too. There is also no doubt that Benjamin Netanyahu will authorize the bombing of Iran if he takes power now that Sharon is out of it - he has said he will do this publicly. Bush needs the distraction of a major war to keep the Republicans in power and to authorize further erosions of US civil rights.

What are you going to do about this? Better think fast - all the evidence indicates the Israelis want to move at the end of March or thereafter. That gives you three months tops to stop the biggest military disaster in US history.

For those of you who had trouble with the quiz, the correct answers are: 1)a  2)c  3)b  4)c  5)d.  

hc - add me to the confused list. You seem to be giving me "1"'s (and one "2") when you don't agree with me and "4"'s when you do. Giving a "1" when you disagree is not what you should be doing.
HELLO!!! Kettle, this is the Pot it doesn't get any blacker than You!!!!!

Dude, at least you're honest about it, I'll give you credit for that.

Fine, I won't make you laugh. Did you have any specific criticisms, or did you just want to flame in all directions? I cited written works by all officers i mentioned; you didn't criticize a single detail in any. You claim "constant crap quotes from this moron" in 2003, but you don't give any examples.

You are claiming that your experience,over 30 years old, qualifies you to state the Army is no different todayt Whether or not you served in the Civil War or Panama, there are recent references you could cite and criticize, on both sides of the issue.

It is responses like this that helps some of the Administration games, when the responses fail to have substance but can easily be dismissed as ad hominems. If one wants to attack Administration policy, specific criticisms are most likely to be useful. Tell me, is there anything in what you said that would at all interest a reporter, who then might write a critical story that might have political impact?

Lose in the sense of getting out of Iraq, not in the sense of being killed.

What are you talking about? I don't think I ever gave you a 1. Why are you so angry, just because we don't agree with you? If you think your angry approach to dialogue is going to make anyone rethink her/his ideas, I believe you're sadly mistaken. If all you want to do is vent and waste time - what's the point?
No anger, I was laughing sooo hard it may have appeared as anger, my eyes did roll out of the back of my head. It just cracks me up when you guys are soooo shocked that some one who doesn't like your opinion gives you a 1 or 2 rating... when my average for nearly 1000 posts hovers around the square root of 2. I'm soory, it just cracks me up.

This comment from an American in Iraq working for a news organization, posted to Informed Commen,t is chilling.

This appears to be an excellent summary of where to go next, in an appropriate way, with domestic politics and serious political debate.

[Just a side note -- I finally had to print it to get the full sense of the post; the generous use of blank lines made it hard to read].

I hope it triggers a focused discussion of talking points, appropriate in Congress and in campaigns.

[Thanks for letting me respond to a comment. For some reason, I can't scroll down to the bottom of the page any longer; I get to a discussion by a Canadian poster and the page freezes]

Some of this is a matter of tradition as much as law. Ranks higher than 2-star (let's ignore the unique case of WWII 5-stars) are "temporary". The highest "permanent" rank of active duty officer is 2-star (major general [MG] or rear admiral/upper half [RADM]). Higher ranks are associated with the position rather than the individual. Normally, when an 3-4 star leaves a position, it is for one of the same or higher rank, or they retire. Unless they are retiring in disgrace -- and it happens -- the Congress usually makes the higher rank (and retirement pay) permanent. One such example is Poindexter, who was a 3-star as National Security Advisor, but reverted to 2-star.

The idea of temporary and permanent also applies to lower ranks, since typically one wants to retire in the highest paying rank possible. I've known a fair number of enlisted personnel who had been wartime temporary officers, served the rest of their time to retirement as enlisted, but showed up in officer uniform at retirement.

You ask why there are two systems, and I honestly can't give you much of an answer other than tradition, some literally dealing with issues such as the highest permanent rank accepted by George Washington. To give a modern answer, 3-and 4-star jobs are usually at a level where they make policy or represent the US, and, arguably, there will be a significant problem if they don't agree with the current administration. We see some of this, for example, when the two-year term of a service chief or JCS chairman (usually extended to four and rarely six) runs from one administration into another. There have been times where the conflict was so bad that the officer either was asked to retire, or to transfer to a very different assignment, such as an ambassador.

Shinseki retired from Army CoS, in the rank of full general. Most service chiefs do this, unless they become Chairman/Vice Chairman of the JCS, or go into a few prestigious posts such as the dual-hat Europe/NATO command. Many senior posts are considered the last one in a career. For example, heads of technical organizations, such as NSA or DISA, are three-star specialists and often retire from that slot. It's getting a little more common for the intelligence people to go to 4-star posts, although it happens. I worked for one former NSA director after his retirement at 3 stars.

Let me not go on too long, but I'll try to answer other questions. I just may not be able to see new original posts at the bottom of the page.

Howard

tlees asked:

... which means what?

It means quite a lot to the families and friends of the 2210 dead US service members that have died in this screwed up mess. It means the same to all the others who have perished in this tragic boondoggle.

And Nelson stated:

Saddam Hussein is going to die on the end of a rope this year .... Saddam may studied HCM, but so did General Abizaid.

We aren't fighting Saddam. Although we are engaged with Saddam prepared tribal organized insurgents. Saddam could could go belly-up tomorrow and the insurgency would still grind on.

Now the same insurgent tactics that HCM used are being used currently. Correct? And geez Nelson... Don't play me for a fool. There's no doubt Abizaid studied HCM. Although the first hurdle for Abizaid in Iraq is it's not his country he's fighting for. And he's fully aware of that. Abizaid also studied the tenets of the Art of War. There are two major tenets in the Art of War specific to the success of operating from the insurgent's side; Attack your opponent where he is unprepared and appear when you're not expected. [and] If slightly inferior in numbers, avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in ever way, flee from the enemy. Over and over and over and over. On the other hand, there are two other tenets of the Art of War that are very critical points related to engaging an insurgency such as we are facing; If the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. [and] There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolong warfare.

The facts on the ground continue to prove that the insurgent's tactics of HCM are still continuing to grind along and cause not only death to the soldiers and civilians in Iraq, but a continuing disruption of rebuilding Iraq's devastated infrastructure and thereby their economy. Although the major problem the continuing insurgency also causes, is a strain and a weakening of the will here at home in addition to a drain on our own economy. That's what this continuing insurgency is all about. Plus, in the meantime, the killing fields are begetting fresh recruits every single day....

Last point: Whether or not Saddam checks out on the end of a rope this year makes no difference to a zealot as he's proved to be. On the contrary. Most Western civilized bozos still can't get it through their soft brains what martyrdom is truly about and the effects on future generations ....

Blowback has been and will be hell to pay.

I seriously hope this has clarified my position.

And Goodnight!

~OGD~

.