Battleplan Iraq

[Viper2]

Okay, this is my personal take on how we should have prosecuted the ground war:

Objective(s):

Long Term:

1 - To completely secure Iraq militarily and eliminate all major resistance within six months.

2 - To begin establishing relations with the Iraqi people, and assist in reconstruction of the infrastructure – as each city, town, etc., is declared a green-zone – within six months.

3 – As each town or city is declared a green-zone, begin to establish humanitarian aid, hospitals, food, water, electricity, etc.

4 - To begin reestablishing Iraqi Police and Army forces, including training and equipping as necessary within 12 months.

5 - To encourage and help establish a viable and representative Iraqi government within eighteen months.

6 – To hold democratic elections representing all factions of society in twenty-four months.

7 - To have Iraqi Police and Armed Forces in place and operational within twenty-four months.

8 – To have a total functioning Iraqi government and Iraqi Constitution in place within thirty months.

(At this time US State Department along with representatives from the Iraqi government together begin to contact Arab nations in region to attempt to negotiate and establish peaceful relations –

NOTE: This is done from a position of “strength� and not from weakness or conciliatory)

9 - To begin returning US Forces within thirty months.

10 - To have all major US Armed Forces units out no later than thirty-six months after start of initial operations.

Short Term: See below

Prior to start of ground war operations – 5 days of intensive aerial bombardment aimed at all Iraqi forces positioned facing south.

For the ground war, start with 550,000 Combined US Army and US Marine Corps soldiers.

Day 1 Ground Assault:

0600 Hrs

US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16’s commence bombing and strafing runs outside Ramadi, Falluja, Karbala and Barqubah – if military targets are sighted then they are eliminated. This is meant as a decoy action to confuse elements of the Iraqi Army that are positioned just outside Baghdad and facing south toward Kuwait, where our ground forces have been staging. Additionally, this is meant to flood whatever lines of Command & Control communications that the Iraqis still have working with so much traffic they will be unable to make any sense out of what is happening. This is to continue until 0700 at which time it ceases.

0615 Hrs:

Utilizing a combination of all US Air Force C-130 HERCULES, C-141 STARLIFTER, C-17 GLOBEMASTER III and C-5 GALAXY transports which have already been in flight, from Diego Garcia begin deploying:

1 complete US Army Infantry Mechanized Division w/ 1 Company of Force Recon Marines between Ar Rujbah and Jordanian border

1 complete US Army Infantry Mechanized Division w/ 1 Company of Force Recon Marines at Al Qaim

1 complete US Army Infantry Mechanized Division w/ 1 Company of Force Recon Marines at Sinjara

This is to cover the Iraqi border from Jordan thru Syria and will overlap the Turkish and Saudi Arabian borders.

The 82nd Airborne Division and 1 Company of Force Recon Marines at Rawanduz

The 101st Airborne Division and 1 Company of Force Recon Marines at Khanaqin

The 10th Mountain Division and 1 Company of Force Recon Marines at Halabjah

This is to cover the Iraqi / Iranian border.

Each military unit will be responsible for establishing their main base of operations, and border patrols, and spreading out toward each other to effectively seal the entire country off from the outside. The mission objectives are – no one in and no one out.

0900 Hrs:

The drive from Kuwait into Iraq commences, with:

1 US Army Mechanized Brigade and1 Company Force Recon Marines moving and taking positions along the Saudi Arabian border

1 US Army Mechanized Brigade and 1 Company Force Recon Marines moving and taking positions along the Iranian border.

2 complete US Army Infantry Divisions Mechanized to follow the route that was employed by CENTCOM.

Military personnel with appropriate armament, etc., are deployed by air and are to secure all Iraqi oil fields using whatever force is necessary.

1200 hrs:

All units that were airlifted and deployed on the Iraqi borders to have established offensive and defensive perimeters along with complete lines of communication with headquarters in Kuwait and each other. The next objective is to seal off the borders so that no one in and no one out.

Once Baghdad is reached:

Declare Martial Law – no civilian vehicles allowed on the streets at any time, or they will be destroyed.

Establish military patrols throughout the city to ensure the above.

Set up military medical stations in various sections guarded by troops – establish communication areas where civilians can report medical emergencies and be transported to the military med stations for treatment using military vehicles only.

Divide the city into sections like a graph, and begin searching section by section confiscating all weapons and bomb making materials – use deadly force to deal with resistance.

Continue this until Baghdad is 100% under military control and is secured.

Use this same procedure with all other major cities.

While the above is going on in Baghdad, initiate offensive operations in all known Baathist and terrorist strongholds, like Tikrit, Falluja, etc., and employ the same methods to clear out each.

See Objective(s) Long Term.

The above operations and various missions properly initiated would have achieved significant goals that could have been reported to the American people by the embedded reporters in a timely manner.

They would have been swift and efficient offensive operations that would have denied the terrorists and loyal Baathists time, etc., to group and attempt to confront our forces, and would have completely eliminated any and all methods of obtaining weapons and necessary supplies, and reinforcements from outside Iraq.

Our military casualties would have been significantly reduced to under 500, and collateral damage to less than accepted numbers for this type of operations.

We'd almost be totally out of there by now.

[Nitrus]

Have you been in the militray?

I like that idea, but theres one MAJOR flaw in it.

Justification to the people of the world. Bush and Blair will NEVER be able to justify this. Its the way people are, and dont get me started on the UN.

In theory its a very good idea, and should quickly achieve a long term objective, yet the one thing that holds these plans back, is the one thing that is needed to make it work.

[Waffletush]

Have you been in the militray?

Oh no, please, not on this board too.

How are you doing Grim?

[Nitrus]

What are you talking about?

[Viper2]

Have you been in the militray?

I like that idea, but theres one MAJOR flaw in it.

Justification to the people of the world. Bush and Blair will NEVER be able to justify this. Its the way people are, and dont get me started on the UN.

In theory its a very good idea, and should quickly achieve a long term objective, yet the one thing that holds these plans back, is the one thing that is needed to make it work.


Thank you.

Military and combat experience - HELL YES

IMHO, who gives a damn about world consent - France, Russia, Germany, Belgium and China were all fighting to keep us out - and the reasons should be obvious.

Hey, as far as the UN is concerned they have, are and always will be as worthless as breasts on an iceberg.

It's the way we should have gone in, and this has been confirmed by Vet friends I have who served in WW II, Korea, Nam and Gulf War I. I drafted this up six months after we went into Iraq.

[Viper2]

Have you been in the militray?

Oh no, please, not on this board too.

How are you doing Grim?


Oh yes - you can run, but you cannot hide :P

I'm doing fine thank you very much - here I was not being my normal self - being calm and collected and approaching the subjects in a more debative manner, and you blow my cover.

And I know you from where ?? Under what name ???

[Viper2]

What are you talking about?


Please refer to my response above

[Cobra]

I'm Blue a PD Grim if you remember me.

Pretty good plan seems kinda like a waste of time though since we get no say over the situation.

[Viper2]

I'm Blue a PD Grim if you remember me.

Pretty good plan seems kinda like a waste of time though since we get no say over the situation.


Hey, been a long time - I was beginning to think you uped and enlisted :D Yes, I do remember you - how's it going ?????

We did have full control at the beginning, however, when politicians get into the act, the military gets screwed.

What I can't understand it after Gulf War I, we encouraged various Iraqis to revolt and said we'd help - they did but we didn't and countless thousands got slaughtered.

So, why was it thought that once we toppled Saddam mostly everyone would come running out waving flags ????? Common sense would dictate IMHO this would not be the case.

[Viper2]

Come on - where are all of you ?????

[Drocket]

France, Russia, Germany, Belgium and China were all fighting to keep us out - and the reasons should be obvious.

Because it was an unnecessary war started under false pretenses that was guaranteed to start a civil war in Iraq and inflame the middle-east, cause long-term conflicts as well as hundreds of thousands of deaths?

Just a guess.

Anyway, nice plan, 3 years too late, utterly irrelevant now.

[piratemonkey]

Anyway, nice plan, 3 years too late, utterly irrelevant now.


You have to realize, Drocket, that this plan is coming from someone who thought we should have stayed in Vietnam until we won, too.

[ECW]

The only battle plan for Iraq should be the plan that gets us out of that country before one more soldier dies trying to stop a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni. Anything else is throwing good money after bad. But given that your illustrious WAR president has never confessed to a mistake during his presidency he could never back down, say that this war was a mistake, and get us the hell out of there. Such is the way of the Chickenhawk.

[Drocket]

The only battle plan for Iraq should be the plan that gets us out of that country before one more soldier dies trying to stop a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni.

I would disagree with you *IF* I thought it would be possible to avoid the civil war by doing so. The time where that was possible has most likely passed entirely, though, and even if it weren't, Bush more than shown that he would never, ever, EVER be willing to do the political negotiations that would be needed to make it happen. So given that an all-out civil war is unavoidable at this point, and that our troops are going to be sitting ducks between the two sides, yeah, its time to get the hell out of Dodge. That, unfortunately, isn't going to be happening either...

[ECW]

The solution is the Arab League but, as you said, that ain't happening either because he wants those troops to be under American command when there is no need for them to be. Yep! It's a quagmire all right!

[Viper2]

France, Russia, Germany, Belgium and China were all fighting to keep us out - and the reasons should be obvious.

Because it was an unnecessary war started under false pretenses that was guaranteed to start a civil war in Iraq andÂ*Â*inflame the middle-east, cause long-term conflicts as well as hundreds of thousands of deaths?

Just a guess.

Anyway, nice plan, 3 years too late, utterly irrelevant now.


Consider the fact that the above mentioned countries were all selling Saddam weapons, weapons systems and technology that were forbiden by the very same UNSC Resolutions they signed during the 12+ years before we went in. That my friend was the primary reason why they were attempting to keep us out - that plus the billions of dollars that Saddam owed them.

Now, something else that needs to be remembered is that the numerous intelligence agencies that we confered with all said the same thing. Yes there were intelligence flaws and that's another thread. So, we weren't the only ones. Additionally, even the UN stated that Saddam moved the WMD's out of the country.

Thank you for your complement about the plan.

[Viper2]

Anyway, nice plan, 3 years too late, utterly irrelevant now.


You have to realize, Drocket, that this plan is coming from someone who thought we should have stayed in Vietnam until we won, too.


Perhaps you should stick to subjects where you actually have some knowledge. You want to talk about Nam - bring it on, otherwise there's an old saying that you should consider:

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt".

[Viper2]

The only battle plan for Iraq should be the plan that gets us out of that country before one more soldier dies trying to stop a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni. Anything else is throwing good money after bad. But given that your illustrious WAR president has never confessed to a mistake during his presidency he could never back down, say that this war was a mistake, and get us the hell out of there. Such is the way of the Chickenhawk.


Your points are well taken - and it grieves me to see the casualty numbers going up as they are. IMHO, we never should have allowed the civilian government to take over until we had the country 101% under military control, and that would have prevented all this sectarian fighting, assassinations, and killing of those who have and are lining up to join the Iraqi Police Force and Army. But that's history at this point.

Now, something else that seems to fade away when discussing this subject is that Congress gave the President the authority to deploy the troops - that includes Democrats - and if I'm not mistaken, Senator Reif admitted he didn't read the intelligence reports - Oops.

[Viper2]

The only battle plan for Iraq should be the plan that gets us out of that country before one more soldier dies trying to stop a civil war between the Shia and the Sunni.

I would disagree with you *IF* I thought it would be possible to avoid the civil war by doing so.Â*Â*The time where that was possible has most likely passed entirely, though, and even if it weren't, Bush more than shown that he would never, ever, EVER be willing to do the political negotiations that would be needed to make it happen.Â*Â*So given that an all-out civil war is unavoidable at this point, and that our troops are going to be sitting ducks between the two sides, yeah, its time to get the hell out of Dodge.Â*Â*That, unfortunately, isn't going to be happening either...



Perhaps what many fail to consider, or even know is that the Shiites and Sunnis have been fighting one another since 632 AD after Muhammed's death - you know the age old my way is better than yours. So this conflict is nothing new, it's been festering for over 1300 years - that's 13 centuries (almost 14).

That being said, I find the term "civil war" inappropiate as do I the term "quagmire" when referring to Iraq.

[Viper2]

The solution is the Arab League but, as you said, that ain't happening either because he wants those troops to be under American command when there is no need for them to be. Yep! It's a quagmire all right!



Perhaps you need to understand why the President and military generals do not want our troops under anyone elses command authority. Consider why the US pulled out of the UN's international court system. Consider some of the problems we encountered during the 33+ UN peace-keeping missions that Clinton sent our troops on. There is much more behind the door than the knob.

[piratemonkey]

Perhaps you should stick to subjects where you actually have some knowledge. You want to talk about Nam - bring it on, otherwise there's an old saying that you should consider:

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt".


hee hee.Â*Â*Go for it, Grim.Â*Â*Then everyone will understand you are still fighting that war instead of this one.

Tell us all how it was the American Media and a Lack of Will that lost Vietnam... not, say, the idea that it was a stupid war to begin with.

I've been to Vietnam in the past year.... when's the last time you were there?

[Viper2]

piratemonkey:
hee hee. Go for it, Grim. Then everyone will understand you are still fighting that war instead of this one.

Just the kind of response I've come to expect from you, which proves your ignorance of the subject.

Vietnam is past history, and the lessons learned should be used today to avoid the mistakes of the past. Problem is our politicians have a way of forgeting, and repeating those mistakes.

Tell us all how it was the American Media and a Lack of Will that lost Vietnam... not, say, the idea that it was a stupid war to begin with.

Perhaps you should go back into your liberal think tank, where facing reality isn't on the list of things to do. And I've explained the screw-ups of Vietnam to you before - is your memory that short ??? or is it more of the selective kind ???

I've been to Vietnam in the past year.... when's the last time you were there?

Physically - 9/60 thru 6/61 CIAMICO combat - Mentally and Emotionally - every time I remember the men who died in my arms or have a daytime flashback or a nightmare where I wake up at 2 or 3 AM sweating.

What did you do there sightsee ???

[Viper2]

piratemonkey

By the way, we could have come home with a complete victory in Vietnam as in Korea - problem was politicians.

[piratemonkey]

piratemonkey

By the way, we could have come home with a complete victory in Vietnam as in Korea - problem was politicians.


BINGO!

Thanks, Grim. That's all I needed.

[Viper2]

piratemonkey

By the way, we could have come home with a complete victory in Vietnam as in Korea - problem was politicians.


BINGO!Â*Â*

Thanks, Grim.Â*Â*That's all I needed.


Needed for what - anyway, you failed to answer my question - or was it that you purposely disregarded it ?????

[Viper2]

Okay all - with all things considered, and not getting into the "we should / should-not be there" - had the Generals in the field been given the authority to act militarilly without "political / civilian interference" as was General H. Norman Schwarzkopf by Bush 41 we would not be in the situation we are today.

The battleplan that I started this thread with is a sound military plan for victory.

Now we must contend with the Murtha / Pelosi crowd who would tie the hands of our troops.

Question - what do you do if a police office calls for backup ???

[Drocket]

Please provide documentation of exactly what it was that the 'Murtha / Pelosi crowd' did between, say, 2003 and 2005 that tied the hands of the generals. I suspect you're you're to come up pretty much empty. The reality is that Bush/the military had pretty much free reign to do whatever they wanted during that period, and they completely fucked it up. The 'politicians intervening' that you seem to dread so much is something that pretty much only started after it became quite apparent that the operations in Iraq were in a shambles.

[Elrathin]

Just remeber the Conservative motto to Victory (Until the Public wises up) "STAY THE COURSE". It is something the conservatives voted on for YEARS.

[Viper2]

Please provide documentation of exactly what it was that the 'Murtha / Pelosi crowd' did between, say, 2003 and 2005 that tied the hands of the generals.ÂÂ*ÂÂ*I suspect you're you're to come up pretty much empty.ÂÂ*ÂÂ*The reality is that Bush/the military had pretty much free reign to do whatever they wanted during that period, and they completely fucked it up.ÂÂ*ÂÂ*The 'politicians intervening' that you seem to dread so much is something that pretty much only started after it became quite apparent that the operations in Iraq were in a shambles.


First off, I stated "Now we must contend with the Murtha / Pelosi crowd who would tie the hands of our troops." At this point the operative word is "now".

On the other hand - in part:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1524010/posts

Hastert Saddened by Rep. Murtha's Comments Says Democrats have adopted a policy of "cut and run"

Posted on 11/17/2005 12:21:30 PM PST by HastertFan
(Washington, D.C.) House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) released the following statement in response to comments by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) regarding the War on Terror.

“I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha. It is clear that as Nancy Pelosi’s top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180751,00.html

Pace: Murtha's Comments About Iraq Hurt Troop Morale
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Associated Press

WASHINGTON � A Democratic congressman's remarks about the military are damaging to troop morale and the Army's efforts to rebound from a recruiting slump, the nation's top general said Thursday.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a Pentagon news conference to comment on remarks by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a Marine Corps veteran who has become a leading voice in Congress advocating an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Murtha told ABC News this week that if he were eligible to join the military he would not, nor would he expect others to join.
"That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country."

Pace called the news conference to discuss his weeklong trip to Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region. He said he found good troop morale and a "quiet confidence" that U.S. efforts in Iraq were on the right track.

In commenting on Murtha's remarks, Pace praised the congressman's record but criticized his remarks.

When a respected leader like Mr. Murtha, who has spent 37 extremely honorable years as a Marine, fought in two wars, has served the country extremely well in the Congress of the United States � when a respected individual like that says what he said, and 18- and 19-year-olds look to their leadership to determine how they are expected to act, they can get the wrong message," Pace said.

And more current:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121689,00.html
Demos Will Fight Iraq Troop Surge
Associated PressÂÂ*ÂÂ* |ÂÂ*ÂÂ*January 05, 2007

WASHINGTON - Congress' new Democratic chiefs criticized plans President Bush is considering to boost U.S. troop strength in Iraq as the White House reshuffled its military leaders in the Middle East and its national security team.

In a letter sent to Bush on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged him to begin pulling troops out of Iraq in four to six months. They also asked the president to begin shifting the mission of U.S. forces there from combat to training and logistical support of the Iraqis.

"We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq," Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reid, D-Nev., wrote a day after their party took control of Capitol Hill.

The Democrats' criticism of a troop buildup was not new. But the letter underscored a new reality for Bush: With the new congressional leadership, his Iraq policy will be challenged at every turn by lawmakers.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/murtha-troop-escalation/

Murtha Plans To Deny Bush Funding For Troop Escalation
Headline should read: "Murtha Plans to Deny American Troops Body Armor, Weapons, ... So, Murtha is going to cut off funding before debating anything, ...

President Bush is widely expected to announce a plan next week to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by at least 20,000. Congress may not cooperate.

In an interview with Arianna Huffington, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, said he intends to block funding for any escalation plan. An excerpt:

When we asked about the likelihood of the president sending additional troops to Iraq, Murtha was adamant. “The only way you can have a troop surge,� he told us, “is to extend the tours of people whose tours have already been extended, or to send back people who have just gotten back home.� He explained at length how our military forces are already stretched to the breaking point, with our strategic reserve so depleted we are unprepared to face any additional threats to the country. So does that mean there will be no surge? Murtha offered us a “with Bush anything is possible� look, then said: ]“Money is the only way we can stop it for sure.�[/color]…

Now the Democrats in the House have passed a non-binding resolution to prevent the increase in troops and the weapons they need to succesfully complete their in-field missions.

And don't forget that Murtha wanted to redeploy the troops originally to "Okinawa" - but hey, that's only 6,000 miles away and in Japan :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Viper2]

Just remeber the Conservative motto to Victory (Until the Public wises up) "STAY THE COURSE".ÂÂ*ÂÂ*It is something the conservatives voted on for YEARS.


If we had stayed the course in Korea and Vietnam we would have achieved military victories plain and simple.

The problem with Iraq is simple:

1 - It was thought that the Iraqis would run out declaring us as liberators from Saddam. but failed to consider - see 3 below.

2 - We (President Bush & Rumsfeld) failed to properly use "shock & awe" tactics and go in with overwhelming force.

3 - We (President Bush & Rumsfeld) failed to remember that during and after Gulf War I, we Bush 41 encouraged the Iraqis to revolt against Saddam saying that we would help them (supply arms, etc.). Well, the Iraqis did and we didn't, and hundreds of thousands died as a result.

Now - you can't say you support the troops and attack the reason why they are there. You (DemLibSocs) in Congress voted to authorize the President to deploy the troops - the Constitution is clear on this, and as the President in Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces during wartime, he and only he has the Constitutional authority to determine the deployment of troops - not Congress.

IMHO, it would be more prudent for members of Congress to stop the partisan-bullshit, sit down in a bi-partisan manner and agree on how to equip our forces with everything they need to accomplish what should be "mopping-up" missions, allow them to actively in force go into Sadir city and anywhere else necessary to disarm the sectarian militias and all weapons not in use by the coalition forces, or Iraqi police and army.

Again, if the plan that I started this thread with had been employed at the start of the ground war - we'd be home.

[Drocket]

The challenge was to find specific things that the Democrats did during the first two years of the war in Iraq. All you found was a couple of attacks from the end of 2005 by Republicans who were 'saddened' by Murtha's comments (whatever those may have been, since they didn't even bother to quote him out of context.)

It sounds to me like you're admitting that the entirety of the Democrat's 'interference' in the war in Iraq was some comments that didn't even happen until more than 2 years after the war started (long, long, LONG after Bush declared 'victory', I think its worth pointing out.) Yeah, those Democrats were REALLY obstructing the military.

[Churchel]

Physically - 9/60 thru 6/61 CIAMICO combat - Mentally and Emotionally - every time I remember the men who died in my arms or have a daytime flashback or a nightmare where I wake up at 2 or 3 AM sweating.

What did you do there sightsee ???



As far as your plan for the invasion, your own quotes regarding the battles between whether there is a following of lineage after the profit mohammad or if mohammad was the last profit answer your own questions.Â*Â*I suggest the war plan should have taken that into account, and decided that a civil war would break out if we invaded. Saddam was a secualar ruler, his dictatorship was the only thing that kept this from happening over the last 30 years.

Congratuations for your service, I find it interesting that your years listed in vietnam account for a total of 25 deaths (from 1956-1961), (http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#year) and during your time there 13 people died.

The members here know that as a veteran who did little to nothing important during my 5 years active/3 reserve I take a personal intrest in veterans who make up stories of greatness or great sorrow.Â*Â*The only "men" that could have died in your arms was a special forces squad that went MIA in laos in april of 1961.Â*Â*Every other person killed besides Theodore Glen Feland (in south vietnam on april 20th) and Odis Daniel Arnold (in south vientam on june 30th) were air force.

You "support" sending troops back for their third or fourth tours in iraq.Â*Â*How patriotic.

I also find it ironic that the person who has fought the most for VA funding you continually quote and bash.Â*Â*Veterans know Jack Murtha supports them, he always has.

[Viper2]

The challenge was to find specific things that the Democrats did during the first two years of the war in Iraq.Â*Â*All you found was a couple of attacks from the end of 2005 by Republicans who were 'saddened' by Murtha's comments (whatever those may have been, since they didn't even bother to quote him out of context.)Â*Â*

It sounds to me like you're admitting that the entirety of the Democrat's 'interference' in the war in Iraq was some comments that didn't even happen until more than 2 years after the war started (long, long, LONG after Bush declared 'victory', I think its worth pointing out.)Â*Â*Yeah, those Democrats were REALLY obstructing the military.


Regardless of when the Democrats decided to attack President Bush over Iraq after they voted to allow him to deploy the troops - there is no getting away from the intense divisiveness they have caused by almost splitting the country in half.

Consider the following by Murtha only:

MURTHA'S IRAQ 2005-2006 STATEMENTS:

"It was, therefore, anything but a routine moment when the normally publicity-shy Pennsylvanian joined dovish House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at a Sept. 16 news conference criticizing the administration's handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath."
(Rep. John Murtha during the War in Iraq, Washington Post, September 27, 2003)

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."

(Rep. John Murtha on the War in Iraq, Congressman John Murtha website, November 17, 2005)

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk... It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America..."
(Murtha, from his congressional website, Nov. 17, 2005)

"Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started."
(Murtha, Nov. 17, 2005, News Hour with Jim Lehrer)

"80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops." and "The continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is "uniting the enemy against us."
(Murtha, Nov. 17, 2005. NOTE: Murtha quotes a bogus poll number - only 8 % of Iraqis say that foreign forces are the reason for the country going in the wrong direction.)

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha, a 37-year Marine veteran, said Thursday. "It's time to bring them home."
(Rep. John Murtha on the War in Iraq, News Max, November 19, 2005)

"The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction."
(Murtha, TAIPEI TIMES, Nov. 21, 2005)

"(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"The public turned against this war before I said it."
(Murtha, USA Today, Nov. 21, 2005)

"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning."
(Murtha, ABC News, Nov. 21, 2005)

"The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."
(Murtha, ABCnews, Nov. 21, 2005)

"The military has done everything they can do. So now it's up to the politicians, up to us in Congress. Only we can send people to war and it's up to us to find a way to solve this very difficult problem."
(Murtha, IHT, Nov. 21, 2005)

"I said a year ago we can't win this militarily."
(Murtha, IHT, Nov. 21, 2005)

"All of us want to support the president when he's at war."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"This is not a war of words, this is a war."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"I'm very hopeful that my proposal is something they'll take seriously, that he'll (Bush) get a few of us to the White House and talk to us about this."
(Murtha, ARABWORLDNEWS, Nov. 21, 2005)

"When I talk to the troops, I get a different story (than from those who call for continued military involvement). I get a story that we need to have a plan. And from the families, an outpouring from the families,."
(Murtha, ARABWORLDNEWS, Nov. 22, 2005)

"This war cannot be won militarily, ... cannot be won on the ground."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 22, 2005)

"When I talk to the troops, I get a different story [than from those who call for continued military involvement]. I get a story that we need to have a plan. And from the families, an outpouring from the families."
(Murtha, TAIPEI TIMES, Nov. 23, 2005)

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution."
(Murtha, ABC News, Nov. 23, 2005)

"All of Iraq must know Iraq is free -- free from United State's occupation."
(Murtha, Nov. 2005, Washington Times)

the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group
(Murtha, Dec. 1, 2005 AP article)

"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 2, 2005)

"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 2, 2005)

"When you fight an insurgency, you have to win the hearts and minds of the (Iraqi) people, and we've lost the hearts and minds of the people."
(Murtha, Dec 6, 2005)

"The Iraqis don't want us there."
(Murtha news conference, transcript, Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2005)
"I've seen damn little things that they have said [Joint Chiefs/Pentagon] was true turned out to be true."
(Murtha, RSS, Dec. 8, 2005)

"There's no question they're going to withdraw [US troops]. I predict that a big proportion of the troops will be out by next year."
(Murtha, Dec. 11, 2005)

"Since we've become enemies, since most of the people over there want us to be out of there, I advocate that we withdraw, we redeploy to the surrounding area,"
(Murtha, Dec. 12, 2005)

"It's not going to get better with us over there."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 12, 2005)

"So I've finally come to the conclusion that we've become the enemy, and that there's no alternative."
(Murtha, Dec. 12, 2005)

"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military."
(Murtha, RSS, Dec. 14, 2005)

"Torture scars not only its subject, it scars those who perpetrate it and those who are witnesses to it."
(Murtha, TIMES OF INDIA, Dec. 15, 2005)

"There can be no waiver to the use for torture. No torture and no exceptions,."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 15, 2005)

"...They're [Bush Administration] giving people the impression, in Iraq we're fighting terrorism."
(Murtha, Dec. 22, 2005, Pittsburgh Tribune Review)
Asked during an interview broadcast Monday night if he would "join the military today," the decorated Vietnam combat veteran told "ABC's Nightline" - "No."
(Murtha, Jan. 2, 2006)

"We've become the enemy."
(Murtha, Jan. 5, 2006 during Arlington Forum)
"Peter Pace told me this last night: They know militarily they can't win this."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Jan 6, 2006)

"They're [US troops] frustrated by this mission."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Jan 6, 2006)

"I didn't have concerns like these when I enlisted in the Marines during the Korean War or volunteered to go to Vietnam."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Jan. 6, 2006)

"The military had no problem recruiting directly after 9/11 because everyone understood that we had been attacked. But now the military's ability to attract recruits is being hampered by the prospect of prolonged, extended and repeated deployments; inadequate equipment; shortened home stays; the lack of any connection between Iraq and the brutal attacks of 9/11; and — most importantly — the administration's constantly changing, undefined, open-ended military mission in Iraq."
(Murtha, CBS News, Jan 6, 2006)

"There is no reason in the world we couldn't do what we're doing (in Iraq) from the periphery."
(Murtha, ARAB WORLD NEWS, Jan 27, 2006)

"Our troops are the target."
(Murtha, ARAB WORLD NEWS, Jan 27, 2006)

"We can't win it militarily. That's the key,"
(Murtha, Jan. 27, 2006, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

"We're not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We're fighting a civil war in Iraq."
(Murtha, Jan. 27, 2006, Pittsburgh Tribune Review)

"We have to say to the Iraqis, 'This is your war. This is no longer our war. You've got an elected government. This is up to you now to settle this thing."
(Murtha, March 19, 2006)

REGARDING HADITHA and the U.S. MARINES:

"It [Haditha, Marines] is as bad as Abu Ghraib, if not worse."
(Murtha, May 2006)

"They [the Marines/Military] knew the day after this happened that it was not as they portrayed it. They knew that they (marines) went into the rooms, they killed the people in the taxi. There was no firing at all. And this comes from the highest authority in the Marine Corps, so there's no question in my mind,"
(Murtha, May 2006)

"... they [Marine] killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
(Murtha, May 17, 2006 at news conference)

"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood"
(Murtha, May 19, 2006)

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Times."
(Murtha, Reuters, May 19, 2006)

"Our troops over-reacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
(Murtha, ARAB WORLD NEWS, May 19, 2006)

"It's [Haditha, Marines] much worse than reported in Time magazine."
(Murtha, News.comAU, May 18, 2006)

BLITZER: The marines say they're still investigating. They don't know what happened yet. The pentagon says the same thing. How do you know what happened?

MURTHA: Wolf, you read the "Time" magazine articles. There are pictures, there are photos. You don't have to talk to the military about the proof.
(Murtha, on CNN/Wolf Blitzer, May 19, 2006... transcript)

"Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there, and 47 percent say it's OK to kill Americans," Murtha said. "Something like this happens, they knew about it. The Iraqis knew about it. The Americans pay them, and then it goes up the chain of command and somebody stifles it."
(Murtha, RSS, May 31, 2006)

He's [Karl Rove] making a political speech. He's sitting in his air-conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, 'Stay the course.' That's not a plan, "
(Murtha, NBC's "Meet the Press." , June 6, 2006)

''We can go to Okinawa. . . . We can redeploy there almost instantly.''
(Murtha, June 11, 2006, Meet The Press)

"We can't win this."
(Rep. John Murtha, Congressional Record, June 15, 2006, p. H4028)

"We are causing the problem."
Rep.John Murtha, Congressional Record, June 15, 2006, p. H4028)

Rep. Murtha Claims Americans Are Driving Iraqis Out Of The Country, Just Like Saddam Hussein:
"Almost 900,000 people left when Saddam Hussein was there... The time we have been there, 900,000 people have left the county."
(Rep. John Murtha, Congressional Record, June 15, 2006, p. H4027)
"If we prevail as I hope and know we will, and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the majority leader."
(Murtha said in a letter to his Democratic colleagues, June 2006)

"American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran."
(Murtha, June 24, 2006 South Florida Sun-Sentinel)

“An untimely exit (from Iraq) could rapidly devolve into a civil war, which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but its perseverance.�
(From Rep. John Murtha's 2004 book "From Vietnam to 9/11"...
where Murtha advocates that the U.S. should not pull-out or Iraq prematurely or create a timetable)

And:

http://newsbusters.org/node/2869

[b]Media Ignore Congressman Murtha’s Long History Of Opposition to the Iraq War]
Posted by Noel Sheppard on November 17, 2005 - 22:33.

As reported by the Media Research Center’s Brent Baker, the network evening news broadcasts tonight all lead with Congressman John Murtha’s (D-Penn.) call for the removal of American troops from Iraq. Yet, they seemed disinterested in focusing much attention on Rep. Murtha's “denouncement� of the Iraq war more than a year ago. (Please see a May 10, 2004 CNN story stating, “Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, in a news conference with Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said the problems in Iraq are due to a ‘lack of planning’ by Pentagon chiefs and ‘the direction has got be changed or it is unwinnable.’") Maybe most important, the networks totally ignored the fact that Rep. Murtha has been expressing disgust with the Bush administration’s prosecution of this war since six months after it started.

Rep. Murtha first voiced his displeasure with how things were going in Iraq on September 16, 2003, when he called for the immediate firing of President Bush’s defense leadership team. The network news organizations this evening chose not to inform their viewers of this, and, instead, implied that Rep. Murtha was a "hawk" that has always supported this war, and that his statements today were recent revelations.

Quite the contrary, the New York Times reported on September 17, 2003 (link courtesy of Common Dreams.org):

“One of the strongest Democratic supporters of the invasion of Iraq joined the growing offensive against the administration's postwar planning today, demanding that President Bush fire his defense leadership team.

[Viper2]

Churchel:
As far as your plan for the invasion, your own quotes regarding the battles between whether there is a following of lineage after the profit mohammad or if mohammad was the last profit answer your own questions. I suggest the war plan should have taken that into account, and decided that a civil war would break out if we invaded. Saddam was a secualar ruler, his dictatorship was the only thing that kept this from happening over the last 30 years.

I understand and appreciate your view in this area – however, if the battleplan I outlined had been put into operation – the secular violence would not have happened – or if it had, it would have been insignificant as they would not have had the weapons needed.

Congratuations for your service, I find it interesting that your years listed in vietnam account for a total of 25 deaths (from 1956-1961), and during your time there 13 people died.

The members here know that as a veteran who did little to nothing important during my 5 years active/3 reserve I take a personal intrest in veterans who make up stories of greatness or great sorrow. The only "men" that could have died in your arms was a special forces squad that went MIA in laos in april of 1961. Every other person killed besides Theodore Glen Feland (in south vietnam on april 20th) and Odis Daniel Arnold (in south vientam on june 30th) were air force.

Please note that I mentioned “CIAMICO combat�. You will not find any “available� records as these were covert operations that will never be unclassified.

I have no need at 66 to impress anyone, nor do I have a projected image to nurse. And please note that I am a 100% DAV with a service-connected-disability from PTSD, and still have to deal with “nightmares� from 46 years ago.

[Churchel]

yeah yeah, I knew you were "too classified" and all the rest of it. Great job.

as far as CIAMCO, if you feel like finding out how resourceful I can be, please drop the gauntlet.

You might impress yourself, but I am unamused. Every drunk in a bar has been in the CIA.

[lily]

Regardless of when the Democrats decided to attack President Bush over Iraq after they voted to allow him to deploy the troops - there is no getting away from the intense divisiveness they have caused by almost splitting the country in half.

You confuse criticizing and giving a different course that this war should be going in,Â*Â*with attacking. Also I don't think it was the Democrats that said you're either with us or against us, nor do I think it was Democrats who, when anyone said something that didn't toe this administrations line called anyone terrorists or traitors. If you don't consider that tearing a country apart, then I don't know what else to say.

Consider the following by Murtha only:

MURTHA'S IRAQ 2005-2006 STATEMENTS:

"It was, therefore, anything but a routine moment when the normally publicity-shy Pennsylvanian joined dovish House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at a Sept. 16 news conference criticizing the administration's handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath."
(Rep. John Murtha during the War in Iraq, Washington Post, September 27, 2003)

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."

(Rep. John Murtha on the War in Iraq, Congressman John Murtha website, November 17, 2005)

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk... It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America..."
(Murtha, from his congressional website, Nov. 17, 2005)

"Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started."
(Murtha, Nov. 17, 2005, News Hour with Jim Lehrer)

"80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops." and "The continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is "uniting the enemy against us."
(Murtha, Nov. 17, 2005. NOTE: Murtha quotes a bogus poll number - only 8 % of Iraqis say that foreign forces are the reason for the country going in the wrong direction.)

"Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily," Murtha, a 37-year Marine veteran, said Thursday. "It's time to bring them home."
(Rep. John Murtha on the War in Iraq, News Max, November 19, 2005)

"The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction."
(Murtha, TAIPEI TIMES, Nov. 21, 2005)

"(The Iraqis) are a proud people, they've been around a lot longer than we have. They've going to win this themselves, they're going to settle this themselves. They have to, there's no alternative."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"The public turned against this war before I said it."
(Murtha, USA Today, Nov. 21, 2005)

"We cannot win this militarily. Our tactics themselves keep us from winning."
(Murtha, ABC News, Nov. 21, 2005)

"The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."
(Murtha, ABCnews, Nov. 21, 2005)

"The military has done everything they can do. So now it's up to the politicians, up to us in Congress. Only we can send people to war and it's up to us to find a way to solve this very difficult problem."
(Murtha, IHT, Nov. 21, 2005)

"I said a year ago we can't win this militarily."
(Murtha, IHT, Nov. 21, 2005)

"All of us want to support the president when he's at war."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"I didn't want (the public) to think this was a Democrat position plotted from the left wing"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"Absolutely, we're the target. We're the enemy"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"This is not a war of words, this is a war."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 21, 2005)

"I'm very hopeful that my proposal is something they'll take seriously, that he'll (Bush) get a few of us to the White House and talk to us about this."
(Murtha, ARABWORLDNEWS, Nov. 21, 2005)

"When I talk to the troops, I get a different story (than from those who call for continued military involvement). I get a story that we need to have a plan. And from the families, an outpouring from the families,."
(Murtha, ARABWORLDNEWS, Nov. 22, 2005)

"This war cannot be won militarily, ... cannot be won on the ground."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Nov. 22, 2005)

"When I talk to the troops, I get a different story [than from those who call for continued military involvement]. I get a story that we need to have a plan. And from the families, an outpouring from the families."
(Murtha, TAIPEI TIMES, Nov. 23, 2005)

"You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution."
(Murtha, ABC News, Nov. 23, 2005)

"All of Iraq must know Iraq is free -- free from United State's occupation."
(Murtha, Nov. 2005, Washington Times)

the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group
(Murtha, Dec. 1, 2005 AP article)

"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 2, 2005)

"I predict he'll [Bush] make it look like we're staying the course"
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 2, 2005)

"When you fight an insurgency, you have to win the hearts and minds of the (Iraqi) people, and we've lost the hearts and minds of the people."
(Murtha, Dec 6, 2005)

"The Iraqis don't want us there."
(Murtha news conference, transcript, Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2005)
"I've seen damn little things that they have said [Joint Chiefs/Pentagon] was true turned out to be true."
(Murtha, RSS, Dec. 8, 2005)

"There's no question they're going to withdraw [US troops]. I predict that a big proportion of the troops will be out by next year."
(Murtha, Dec. 11, 2005)

"Since we've become enemies, since most of the people over there want us to be out of there, I advocate that we withdraw, we redeploy to the surrounding area,"
(Murtha, Dec. 12, 2005)

"It's not going to get better with us over there."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 12, 2005)

"So I've finally come to the conclusion that we've become the enemy, and that there's no alternative."
(Murtha, Dec. 12, 2005)

"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military."
(Murtha, RSS, Dec. 14, 2005)

"Torture scars not only its subject, it scars those who perpetrate it and those who are witnesses to it."
(Murtha, TIMES OF INDIA, Dec. 15, 2005)

"There can be no waiver to the use for torture. No torture and no exceptions,."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Dec. 15, 2005)

"...They're [Bush Administration] giving people the impression, in Iraq we're fighting terrorism."
(Murtha, Dec. 22, 2005, Pittsburgh Tribune Review)
Asked during an interview broadcast Monday night if he would "join the military today," the decorated Vietnam combat veteran told "ABC's Nightline" - "No."
(Murtha, Jan. 2, 2006)

"We've become the enemy."
(Murtha, Jan. 5, 2006 during Arlington Forum)
"Peter Pace told me this last night: They know militarily they can't win this."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Jan 6, 2006)

"They're [US troops] frustrated by this mission."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Jan 6, 2006)

"I didn't have concerns like these when I enlisted in the Marines during the Korean War or volunteered to go to Vietnam."
(Murtha, The Guardian, Jan. 6, 2006)

"The military had no problem recruiting directly after 9/11 because everyone understood that we had been attacked. But now the military's ability to attract recruits is being hampered by the prospect of prolonged, extended and repeated deployments; inadequate equipment; shortened home stays; the lack of any connection between Iraq and the brutal attacks of 9/11; and — most importantly — the administration's constantly changing, undefined, open-ended military mission in Iraq."
(Murtha, CBS News, Jan 6, 2006)

"There is no reason in the world we couldn't do what we're doing (in Iraq) from the periphery."
(Murtha, ARAB WORLD NEWS, Jan 27, 2006)

"Our troops are the target."
(Murtha, ARAB WORLD NEWS, Jan 27, 2006)

"We can't win it militarily. That's the key,"
(Murtha, Jan. 27, 2006, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

"We're not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We're fighting a civil war in Iraq."
(Murtha, Jan. 27, 2006, Pittsburgh Tribune Review)

"We have to say to the Iraqis, 'This is your war. This is no longer our war. You've got an elected government. This is up to you now to settle this thing."
(Murtha, March 19, 2006)

REGARDING HADITHA and the U.S. MARINES:

"It [Haditha, Marines] is as bad as Abu Ghraib, if not worse."
(Murtha, May 2006)

"They [the Marines/Military] knew the day after this happened that it was not as they portrayed it. They knew that they (marines) went into the rooms, they killed the people in the taxi. There was no firing at all. And this comes from the highest authority in the Marine Corps, so there's no question in my mind,"
(Murtha, May 2006)

"... they [Marine] killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
(Murtha, May 17, 2006 at news conference)

"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood"
(Murtha, May 19, 2006)

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Times."
(Murtha, Reuters, May 19, 2006)

"Our troops over-reacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
(Murtha, ARAB WORLD NEWS, May 19, 2006
(Murtha, News.comAU, May 18, 2006)

I don't see any un-truths in any of these statments. Citizens as well as Congressmen are allowed to speak their minds, we haven't lost that yet.

Odd, I don't see any link to these quotes, odder still is I see a lot of them taken from Murtha's website, most on the same day. One would think that you pick and choose what you wanted to quote, instead of the entire content.

[lily]

Please note that I mentioned “CIAMICO combat�. You will not find any “available� records as these were covert operations that will never be unclassified.

I have no need at 66 to impress anyone, nor do I have a projected image to nurse. And please note that I am a 100% DAV with a service-connected-disability from PTSD, and still have to deal with “nightmares� from 46 years ago.


I don't think you want to do this again?

[ECW]

Also I don't think it was the Democrats that said you're either with us or against us, nor do I think it was Democrats who, when anyone said something that didn't toe this administrations line called anyone terrorists or traitors.

I can tell you exactly who it was that called us terrorists and traitors, Lily. Want to take a wild guess?