U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy

[lily]

The Iraqi army that it's taken almost 4 years to build. The Iraqi army that we are sending in more troops to do their fighting for them. I don't doubt that we'll soon read about fragging, more than IEDs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011102219.html?referrer=email)

U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Jan. 11 -- A few hours before another mission into the cauldron of
Baghdad, Spec. Daniel Caldwell's wife instant-messaged him Thursday morning.
President Bush, Kelly wrote, wanted to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops and
extend deployments in Iraq. Eight weeks pregnant, she was worried.

Caldwell, a tall, lean 20-year-old from Montesano, Wash., wondered whether
he would miss the birth of his child. He walked outside and joined his
comrades of Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker
Brigade. They, too, had heard the news.

Moments before he stepped into his squad's Stryker -- a large,
bathtub-shaped vehicle encased in a cage -- Caldwell echoed a sentiment
shared by many in his squad: "They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi
army can't stand up on their own."

Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq rests on a key
assumption: that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can
produce a well-disciplined, impartial army capable of taking the lead in
securing Baghdad. U.S. troops, the president said, would now play more of a
background role.

The day after his speech, the soldiers of Apache Company went on a mission
to the volatile neighborhood of Hurriyah that underscored the challenges
confronting U.S. troops as they attempt to clear neighborhoods of sectarian
fighters and keep them that way under Iraqi control.

Across Baghdad, Iraq's mostly Shiite security forces have proved unable to
keep neighborhoods secure on their own. Sunni Arabs deeply mistrust the army
and police, viewing them as a sectarian weapon of the Shiite-led government.
Iraqi army commanders say their soldiers lack training and equipment, while
some U.S. officials worry that Iraq's troops are too dependent on their
American counterparts and will become even more so with the expected surge.

The Stryker rolled through the mud of Camp Liberty and made its way to
Hurriyah, a mostly Shiite area nestled west of the Tigris River. Apache
Company's mission: to search a few houses for weapons caches based on
intelligence reports. Caldwell and his soldiers worried about the
intelligence they had been given. It had come from an Iraqi army -- or "IA,"
in U.S. soldier lingo -- officer a week ago. They wondered whether they were
being set up for an ambush.

"It's a joke," said Pfc. Drew Merrell, 22, of Jefferson City, Mo., shaking
his head and flashing a smile as the Stryker rolled through Baghdad.

"They feed us what they want," said Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif.,
referring to the intelligence. "I guarantee that everyone in the city knows
where we're going. Because the IA told them. The only thing they don't know
is how big a force we're coming with."

On this morning, 22 U.S. soldiers were in the Stryker convoy along with one
Iraqi interpreter, whom the soldiers called Joey. He didn't want his real
name used for security reasons.

"Pretty soon the Shiites will be tired of our presence, just like the
Sunnis," said Lake, noting that the squad now makes almost daily trips to
Hurriyah.

"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here,"
Caldwell said. "We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's
an ongoing battle. It never ends."

[ECW]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.

[Waffletush]

Too funny.

lily, you do realize there in noting in your article that supoports the premise of this thread yes?

On the flip side, did you see your own article SUPPORTS Bush's plan?

"This is good news. We have a weak government and a weak army. We need training, we need more equipment," Fetlawi said. "We need the Americans to help us go forward. Iraqi army soldiers are not ready to do all this themselves. At the moment, 20,000 is a good number to help us to bring security."

You spin me right round baby, right round like a record baby right round, round round.

[alias]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq. When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything? When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is? Kerry thinks they're stupid. The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job. It's all BS.

[lily]

Waffletush



lily, you do realize there in noting in your article that supoports the premise of this thread yes?

How easily you dismiss the soldiers on the ground, when they say something you don't agree with waffeltush.

On the flip side, did you see your own article SUPPORTS Bush's plan?

"This is good news. We have a weak government and a weak army. We need training, we need more equipment," Fetlawi said. "We need the Americans to help us go forward. Iraqi army soldiers are not ready to do all this themselves. At the moment, 20,000 is a good number to help us to bring security."

Ah yes........an Iraqi major says we need the Americans to help us go forward........hell I would say the same thing if they were doing the fighting and dying for me.

[lily]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


I'm curious, how did you come to the conclusion that the soldiers that were speaking in the article were liberals?

[Waffletush]

Waffletush
lily, you do realize there in noting in your article that supoports the premise of this thread yes?

How easily you dismiss the soldiers on the ground, when they say something you don't agree with waffeltush.

Take note.Â*Â*I didn't dismiss anything the soliders said, I dismissed you claiming they see flaws in Bush's strategy when they said nothing of the sorts.Â*Â*You flat out made that up.Â*Â*THAT is what I am dismissing.

On the flip side, did you see your own article SUPPORTS Bush's plan?

"This is good news. We have a weak government and a weak army. We need training, we need more equipment," Fetlawi said. "We need the Americans to help us go forward. Iraqi army soldiers are not ready to do all this themselves. At the moment, 20,000 is a good number to help us to bring security."

Ah yes........an Iraqi major says we need the Americans to help us go forward........hell I would say the same thing if they were doing the fighting and dying for me.


Gee, heasily you dismiss the soldiers on the ground, when they say something you don't agree with, lily.

[lily]

[quote]Take note. I didn't dismiss anything the soliders said, I dismissed you claiming they see flaws in Bush's strategy when they said nothing of the sorts. You flat out made that up. THAT is what I am dismissing.

Would you like me to highlight the statements, waffel? When you bother to actually read it, get back to me, ok?

Gee, heasily you dismiss the soldiers on the ground, when they say something you don't agree with, lily.

Do I dismiss the Iraqi soldier that would rather Americans fight this war for him..........you bet your ass I do.

[Viper2]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


And your personal experience with Vietnam is ???

[lily]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


And your personal experience with Vietnam is ???


History?

[Viper2]

lily:

I know you are as most of us are frustrated by the length of the war in Iraq.

However, the griping by our soldiers in the article concerns what has not been done since the ground war began - and has nothing to do with what President Bush stated in his speech.

Consider this, and see the connection:

"Battleplan Iraq"

Objective(s):

Long Term:

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

Short Term: See below

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.

This is what they are complaining about and rightfully so. They are being given some sort of intelligence about weapons and when they get there, there's nothing - now had we done what I suggested above - our troops wouldn't be running around chasing "ghosts" because there would not be any to chase.

Now in President Bush's speech, he mentioned search, clear and HOLD - that is what these men are mentioning and what I mentioned in my plan.

Yes it is late in comming, however, if these missions are prosecuted properly, and Maliki lives up to his word that no area is off limits, then we will all see a drastic change for the better.

[Viper2]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


How regretfully true your statement is. However, have a listen:

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=12512&rootVideoPanelType=1

Sean Hannity - Candid interview with US troops in Mosul, Iraq, 12 Dec 2006

[Viper2]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


And your personal experience with Vietnam is ???


History?


I asked a direct question. Too many people are comparing Iraq with Vietnam and doing so wronfully.

Consider this - a small portion:

http://www.policyreview.org/134/kagan.html

Iraq Is Not Vietnam
By Frederick W. Kagan
Frederick W. Kagan is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

WHEN AMERICAN GROUND forces paused briefly during the march to Baghdad in 2003, critics of the war were quick to warn of a “quagmire,� an oblique reference to the Vietnam War. Virtually as soon as it became clear that the conflict in Iraq had become an insurgency, analogies to Vietnam began to proliferate. This development is not surprising. Critics have equated every significant American military undertaking since 1975 to Vietnam, and the fear of being trapped in a Vietnam-like war has led to the frequent demand that U.S. leaders develop not plans to win wars, but “exit strategies,� plans to get out of messes.

There is no question that the Vietnam War scarred the American psyche deeply, nor that it continues to influence American foreign policy and military strategy profoundly. CENTCOM’s strategy for the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq is an attempt to avoid making Vietnam-like mistakes. Proponents of other strategies, like “combined action platoons� or “oil spot� approaches, most frequently derive those programs from what they believe are the “right� lessons of Vietnam. It is becoming increasingly an article of faith that the insurgency in Vietnam is similar enough to the insurgency in Iraq that we can draw useful lessons from the one to apply to the other. This is not the case. The only thing the insurgencies in Iraq and Vietnam have in common is that in both cases American forces have fought revolutionaries. To make comparisons or draw lessons beyond that basic point misunderstands not only the particular historical cases, but also the value of studying history to draw lessons for the present.

Now, I do have 5+ pages of Vietnam Stats from:

Â*Â*Subject: Fw: must read: Vietnam stats December 13, 2005
Â*Â* Nick Bacon USA 1SGT (RET.) Medal of Honor Recipient

if you would like to review them - and this is on the "acknowledged" involvement by the US, and does not include any covert operational information.

[lily]

=Viper2

I know you are as most of us are frustrated by the length of the war in Iraq.

However, the griping by our soldiers in the article concerns what has not been done since the ground war began - and has nothing to do with what President Bush stated in his speech.



Ah, I see.........when the soldiers are speaking out, they are griping........gotcha.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

"Battleplan Iraq"

Viper.........no offense, but this isn't a game.

[lily]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


How regretfully true your statement is. However, have a listen:

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=12512&rootVideoPanelType=1

Sean Hannity - Candid interview with US troops in Mosul, Iraq, 12 Dec 2006


These soldiers are not griping?

[Viper2]

=Viper2

I know you are as most of us are frustrated by the length of the war in Iraq.

However, the griping by our soldiers in the article concerns what has not been done since the ground war began - and has nothing to do with what President Bush stated in his speech.

Ah, I see.........when the soldiers are speaking out, they are griping........gotcha.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

"Battleplan Iraq"

Viper.........no offense, but this isn't a game.


Do you want to play at simantics ??? Wouly you want me to say complaining, moaning and groaning or to use a few choice military terms that would violate the forum rules.

And by the way lily - what you so flipently refer to as a "game" just happens to be sound military combat operational objectives.

[Viper2]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


How regretfully true your statement is. However, have a listen:

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=12512&rootVideoPanelType=1

Sean Hannity - Candid interview with US troops in Mosul, Iraq, 12 Dec 2006


These soldiers are not griping?


Gripe, complain, pissing-and-moaning, etc. You choose the word or phrase that floats your boat and makes you happy.

The inference that "all" the troops feel that way is incorect - and as has already been pointed out - the title you chose for this thread is absolutely incorrect - reread what they are saying, and then read President Bush's speech where he refers to holding the positions after they are cleared. And I stated that this is what should have been accomplished from day one of the ground war. To borrow a motto from the 504th Combat Infantry 82nd Airborne - "STRIKE HOLD" is that a concept that makes sense to you ??

[Thirdparty]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


How can it, ECW? It seems you and many others have not really wanted us to succeed in Iraq.

Of course, the Nam analogy has to happen too..............:rolleyes:

[Thirdparty]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


How regretfully true your statement is. However, have a listen:

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=12512&rootVideoPanelType=1

Sean Hannity - Candid interview with US troops in Mosul, Iraq, 12 Dec 2006


These soldiers are not griping?


Gripe, complain, pissing-and-moaning, etc. You choose the word or phrase that floats your boat and makes you happy.

The inference that "all" the troops feel that way is incorect - and as has already been pointed out - the title you chose for this thread is absolutely incorrect - reread what they are saying, and then read President Bush's speech where he refers to holding the positions after they are cleared. And I stated that this is what should have been accomplished from day one of the ground war. To borrow a motto from the 504th Combat Infantry 82nd Airborne - "STRIKE HOLD" is that a concept that makes sense to you ??



Way to say it Viper...sometimes I wonder, if we succeed in Iraq, is that wanted more than proving Bush wrong by those who hate him?

[Thirdparty]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


How regretfully true your statement is. However, have a listen:

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=12512&rootVideoPanelType=1

Sean Hannity - Candid interview with US troops in Mosul, Iraq, 12 Dec 2006


These soldiers are not griping?



Some soldiers will gripe. We call them whiny asses. ;) That is a nice term.

[Thirdparty]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


And your personal experience with Vietnam is ???


History?



This wasn't, and never will be, Vietnam.

[lily]

And by the way lily - what you so flipently refer to as a "game" just happens to be sound military combat operational objectives.


Viper, we've been through this before. It might be sound advice, which this president didn't follow, but it's still a game you play with your vet friends.

[Viper2]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


How can it, ECW? It seems you and many others have not really wanted us to succeed in Iraq.

Of course, the Nam analogy has to happen too..............:rolleyes:


I would conclude that too many Americans have been spoiled by instant spuds, instant credit, Have it your way at Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, etc. Especially in-as-much as America has not been required to sacrifice a damn thing (except our service members and their families). Since Gulf War I was over in a snap and there were only 378 Coalition casualties 175 of whom were American - most people got the false sense that an actual shooting war equates to a combat video game with 35 levels. Go figure.

[Viper2]

And by the way lily - what you so flipently refer to as a "game" just happens to be sound military combat operational objectives.


Viper, we've been through this before. It might be sound advice, which this president didn't follow, but it's still a game you play with your vet friends.


lilly - I am going to be polite and respectful in my response, however, to be honest, my patience is wearing thin.

I consider what you just said to be a personal insult to me, Thirdparty, and any other combat veterans on this forum.

You have absolutely no military, let alone combat experience - and are therefore woefully inadequately incapable of truely analyzing the plan.

Do you think "combat" or planning "combat operations" is a game ???

[Viper2]

Thirdparty:
Way to say it Viper...sometimes I wonder, if we succeed in Iraq, is that wanted more than proving Bush wrong by those who hate him?

IMHO, NO.

I constantly hear the DemLibSocs in Congress attack President Bush on what's gone wrong - and there have been mistakes - but never have I seen an intelligent, rational viable solution offered.

Oh we support the troops - then we are not going to provide funding for the additional forces :rolleyes::rolleyes:

What do you do when a police officer calls for backup ???

What do you do when your troops in combat need additional help and supplies ???

The DemLibSocs have two solutions:
1 - Cut & Run, and
2 - Redeploy to Okinawa

And this country was stupid enough to put them in control of Congress.

I really do wish I was back in combat.

[lily]

lilly - I am going to be polite and respectful in my response, however, to be honest, my patience is wearing thin.

I consider what you just said to be a personal insult to me, Thirdparty, and any other combat veterans on this forum.

You have absolutely no military, let alone combat experience - and are therefore woefully inadequately incapable of truely analyzing the plan.



Do you think "combat" or planning "combat operations" is a game ???


Then by all means, report me. I stick by what I said, what you posted is from this thread, a game you play, not me:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2777

[ECW]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


This wasn't, and never will be, Vietnam.


I wish you were right. I truly do. But I am seeing too many similarities to stop me from making the comparison.

[ECW]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


How can it, ECW? It seems you and many others have not really wanted us to succeed in Iraq.


Nothing could be further from the truth. Had "combat operations" really been over when your president stood underneath that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, I would have piled my plate high with cold crow. But, that was not the case. The mission was not accomplished for all the reasons that you have already heard me explain on far too many occasions to count. The reality of sectarianism had been unleashed without the force that kept it bound up under Saddam's dictatorship. It was stronger than any sense of community or nationalism that Bush was trying to foster within Iraq and it quickly spun out of control.

The stick was taken to the hornet's nest and once they came out of the nest there was no going back in the nest. There was no plan to deal with this eventuality. It was reaction after reaction after reaction instead of proactive procedures. Smart money said put a quarter million troops in country quickly but the person who advocated that was cut off at the knees and forced to retire. *cough*shinseki*cough*

After Bush decided to fight this war on the cheap, all bets were off. I remember your anger at me when I called this a quagmire back in 2004. It's even worse now. The actions that could be taken that could ease tensions and make this situation less difficult are being ignored by your president and the "solution" that no one wants is being pursued instead: more troops. It was LBJ's solution for a few years as well. Look where THAT got us.

We got out of Nam by "talking to the terrorists," the North Vietnamese. That f***ing liar Henry Kissinger even won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so (even though he decided that it was better to leave our POWs there than to pay to get them out) and the war for us ended.

The end result in Iraq will not be any better no matter what Bush does now. The time to solve this dilemma passed us by three years ago and nothing was done because none of the neocons running the war had the foresight to understand what they were doing when they disbanded the army, the police, the border guards, and let all the civil servants go without one thought about who would replace them. The resulting chaos and looting of the armories set forces in motion that we are not going to be able to stop with 21,000 more troops in Baghdad and 4,000 more troops in Anbar province. I wish it were not the case. I would be happy to eat crow here if our troops came home by the time Bush leaves office and we leave a peaceful, tranquil, democratic Iraq in it's place. I just don't see it.

[Nemo]

So shall it be written: that during the presidency of George W. Bush, the greatest nation on earth was led into an unjust war against Iraq under the false pretense of liberation and to impose democracy upon its peoples; who, after much struggle, declared for themselves an Islamic state, and drove the invading infidel from their land in humiliation and defeat.

[Waffletush]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


How regretfully true your statement is. However, have a listen:

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=12512&rootVideoPanelType=1

Sean Hannity - Candid interview with US troops in Mosul, Iraq, 12 Dec 2006


These soldiers are not griping?


lily, the soliders in the original posting of this thread are in no way griping about what you claimed (Bush's Strategy). Stop trying to obfuscate what others are saying by turning the blame on them. It is obvious the prupose of this thread is a weak attempt to throw back in the Repubs face on this site "so you just criticize soliders who disagree with you huh?"

Why not admit you got caught with your partisan, sorry, independent, pants down, and say your original premis is flawed and admit you are wrong?

[Viper2]

lilly - I am going to be polite and respectful in my response, however, to be honest, my patience is wearing thin.

I consider what you just said to be a personal insult to me, Thirdparty, and any other combat veterans on this forum.

You have absolutely no military, let alone combat experience - and are therefore woefully inadequately incapable of truely analyzing the plan.



Do you think "combat" or planning "combat operations" is a game ???


Then by all means, report me. I stick by what I said, what you posted is from this thread, a game you play, not me:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=2777


Report you for what ?? Attacking something that you are unable to comprehend and call a game ??? That's rediculous.

What I posted from the thread I started deals directly with the title of this thread that you started - and in comparrison proves your thread title incorrect, false and otherwise void of substance.

Should you take the time to read both, it will become very obvious to you - your intelligent.

President Bush's comments stated the intention - new mission - will include Strike - Clear - HOLD,, where as before after a while the troops would move on to another area to clear it out without actually securing the area they just left, leaving it open for the terrorists to return. This is not the President's fault it's the fault of the Commanders in the field.

So, please for once admit your error, and stop attempting to avoid same.

[Viper2]

ECW:
I wish you were right. I truly do. But I am seeing too many similarities to stop me from making the comparison.

Please explain.

[Viper2]

ECW:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Had "combat operations" really been over when your president stood underneath that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, I would have piled my plate high with cold crow. But, that was not the case. The mission was not accomplished for all the reasons that you have already heard me explain on far too many occasions to count. The reality of sectarianism had been unleashed without the force that kept it bound up under Saddam's dictatorship. It was stronger than any sense of community or nationalism that Bush was trying to foster within Iraq and it quickly spun out of control.

Okay, would you please consider this – when President Bush made that statement, in actuality the “invasion combat missions� were accomplished. What ensues afterwards and what we are supposed to be in is the “mop-up re-establishment� phase. However, as we failed to secure the borders of Iraq to prevent any terrorists in or out, and disarm everyone as we should have, we have the situation as it is today.

Can we agree on that ?????

We got out of Nam by "talking to the terrorists," the North Vietnamese. That f***ing liar Henry Kissinger even won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so (even though he decided that it was better to leave our POWs there than to pay to get them out) and the war for us ended.

Actually, it was because LBJ and McNamara f’d up big time, Kerry’s f’d up speech before Congress and the panty-waisted wimps in Congress, and the attitude of the population :Hippy – free-love – make love not war – et’al� that took us out of Nam. And then Kerry’s subsequent betrayal by shredding the vital records that would have brought most of our POW’s and MIA’s home if not dead then alive, but at least home.

[Viper2]

Waffletush:
lily, the soliders in the original posting of this thread are in no way griping about what you claimed (Bush's Strategy). Stop trying to obfuscate what others are saying by turning the blame on them. It is obvious the prupose of this thread is a weak attempt to throw back in the Repubs face on this site "so you just criticize soliders who disagree with you huh?"

Why not admit you got caught with your partisan, sorry, independent, pants down, and say your original premis is flawed and admit you are wrong?

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

It’s an honest mistake in the heat of the moment in attacking President Bush once again that her enthusiasm to post the scoop won out.

[Waffletush]

No worries Viper2.

It takes a lot of courage for someone to admit they are wrong, especially when they are one of the one's who so often ask for others to admit they are wrong. We shall see if lily follows her pattern and does the same.

This thread has been exposed for being faulty from the get go, so I am moving on to other topics.

[Thirdparty]

So shall it be written: that during the presidency of George W. Bush, the greatest nation on earth was led into an unjust war against Iraq under the false pretense of liberation and to impose democracy upon its peoples; who, after much struggle, declared for themselves an Islamic state, and drove the invading infidel from their land in humiliation and defeat.


Nice you are writing history before it happens. What a pessimist.

[Thirdparty]

Damn. This is sounding more and more like Nam everyday.

In my heart, I wish that this was the right call and that we could finally get a handle on this but my gut feeling says it ain't gonna happen.


How can it, ECW? It seems you and many others have not really wanted us to succeed in Iraq.


Nothing could be further from the truth. Had "combat operations" really been over when your president stood underneath that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, I would have piled my plate high with cold crow. But, that was not the case. The mission was not accomplished for all the reasons that you have already heard me explain on far too many occasions to count. The reality of sectarianism had been unleashed without the force that kept it bound up under Saddam's dictatorship. It was stronger than any sense of community or nationalism that Bush was trying to foster within Iraq and it quickly spun out of control.

The stick was taken to the hornet's nest and once they came out of the nest there was no going back in the nest. There was no plan to deal with this eventuality. It was reaction after reaction after reaction instead of proactive procedures. Smart money said put a quarter million troops in country quickly but the person who advocated that was cut off at the knees and forced to retire. *cough*shinseki*cough*

After Bush decided to fight this war on the cheap, all bets were off. I remember your anger at me when I called this a quagmire back in 2004. It's even worse now. The actions that could be taken that could ease tensions and make this situation less difficult are being ignored by your president and the "solution" that no one wants is being pursued instead: more troops. It was LBJ's solution for a few years as well. Look where THAT got us.

We got out of Nam by "talking to the terrorists," the North Vietnamese. That f***ing liar Henry Kissinger even won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so (even though he decided that it was better to leave our POWs there than to pay to get them out) and the war for us ended.

The end result in Iraq will not be any better no matter what Bush does now. The time to solve this dilemma passed us by three years ago and nothing was done because none of the neocons running the war had the foresight to understand what they were doing when they disbanded the army, the police, the border guards, and let all the civil servants go without one thought about who would replace them. The resulting chaos and looting of the armories set forces in motion that we are not going to be able to stop with 21,000 more troops in Baghdad and 4,000 more troops in Anbar province. I wish it were not the case. I would be happy to eat crow here if our troops came home by the time Bush leaves office and we leave a peaceful, tranquil, democratic Iraq in it's place. I just don't see it.


Here is hopeing you have a big helping of crow. :)

[lily]

lily, the soliders in the original posting of this thread are in no way griping about what you claimed (Bush's Strategy).Â*Â*Stop trying to obfuscate what others are saying by turning the blame on them.Â*Â*It is obvious the prupose of this thread is a weak attempt to throw back in the Repubs face on this site "so you just criticize soliders who disagree with you huh?"Â*Â*

Why not admit you got caught with your partisan, sorry, independent, pants down, and say your original premis is flawed and admit you are wrong?


Let me help you out, waffel.

Moments before he stepped into his squad's Stryker -- a large,
bathtub-shaped vehicle encased in a cage -- Caldwell echoed a sentiment
shared by many in his squad: "They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi
army can't stand up on their own."




Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq rests on a key
assumption: that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can
produce a well-disciplined, impartial army capable of taking the lead in
securing Baghdad. U.S. troops, the president said, would now play more of a
background role.



Across Baghdad, Iraq's mostly Shiite security forces have proved unable to
keep neighborhoods secure on their own. Sunni Arabs deeply mistrust the army
and police, viewing them as a sectarian weapon of the Shiite-led government.
Iraqi army commanders say their soldiers lack training and equipment, while
some U.S. officials worry that Iraq's troops are too dependent on their
American counterparts and will become even more so with the expected surge.

Caldwell and his soldiers worried about the
intelligence they had been given. It had come from an Iraqi army -- or "IA,"
in U.S. soldier lingo -- officer a week ago. They wondered whether they were
being set up for an ambush.

Big hint here........the ones that are trained, the soldiers don't even trust.


"Pretty soon the Shiites will be tired of our presence, just like the
Sunnis," said Lake, noting that the squad now makes almost daily trips to
Hurriyah.

"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here,"
Caldwell said. "We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's
an ongoing battle. It never ends."

Oh and in the future, waffel, when you accuse me of something, be sure I am the one that is saying it, ok? Grim was the one that accused them of griping, not me. If I may use your own words?

Stop trying to obfuscate what others are saying by turning the blame on them.

[Viper2]

No worries Viper2.

It takes a lot of courage for someone to admit they are wrong, especially when they are one of the one's who so often ask for others to admit they are wrong.Â*Â*We shall see if lily follows her pattern and does the same.

This thread has been exposed for being faulty from the get go, so I am moving on to other topics.


Don't go this may yet become a debate, instead of a correctional exercise

[Viper2]

So shall it be written: that during the presidency of George W. Bush, the greatest nation on earth was led into an unjust war against Iraq under the false pretense of liberation and to impose democracy upon its peoples; who, after much struggle, declared for themselves an Islamic state, and drove the invading infidel from their land in humiliation and defeat.


Nice you are writing history before it happens. What a pessimist.


I wonder if it's pessimisn or a hope that we lose in Iraq :rolleyes:

[Viper2]

Thirdparty:
Here is hopeing you have a big helping of crow. ;)

Broiled, baked, grilled - with or without BBQ sauce - salt & pepper ?????

I would like to see this as well. Can we have pictures of the event ??

[Viper2]

lily:

Gee, you are stiff-necked aren't you - is it so hard to just admit your error, or is it your aim to loose creditability ?

Let's attempt this one more time - using logic and already stated facts:

You named the thread:

"U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy"

The aim of this thread is an attempt to use statements grom GI's in attacking the speech President Bush gave during Prime-Time TV announcing the changes he is making while sending additional troops to Iraq - which IMHO fails miserably to make the point you were hoping for.

Additionally, you attempt to use "one" units remarks and those of the reporter to infer that this is the opinion of all military personnel in the Baghdad area. Oops

This portion of the article you used addresses the crux of the problem and complaint:

"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here," Caldwell said. "We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's an ongoing battle. It never ends."

An excerpt from President Bush’s speech:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6250687.stm

Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

An excerpt from the thread I started – Battleplan Iraq:

"Battleplan Iraq"

Objective(s):

Long Term:

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

Short Term: See below

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.

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.

As you can readily see, observe, view and realize the GI's were not seeing flaws in the new operations - they were stating facts that the previous procedures were not accomplishing the desired results of preventing the terrorists from regrouping and resupplying and being able to continue their attacks - and that this was extremely frustrating.

Now, the portion of the article that addresses 21,500 additional troops is not a statement by any of the troops - so it is added in by the reporter.

Is it possible that you may finaly see light, or will further details be necessary ?????

[lily]

Viper2


Gee, you are stiff-necked aren't you - is it so hard to just admit your error, or is it your aim to loose creditability ?

No, I'm not afraid of loosing credibility. You've known me a long time, when had I not admitted when I was wrong?



Additionally, you attempt to use "one" units remarks and those of the reporter to infer that this is the opinion of all military personnel in the Baghdad area. Oops

Oh, I see now.......the word of one soldier is not good enough for you. Ok......I see where I was wrong.

Oh wait.........Caldwell and his soldiers.

This portion of the article you used addresses the crux of the problem and complaint:

"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here," Caldwell said. "We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's an ongoing battle. It never ends."

An excerpt from President Bush’s speech:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6250687.stm

Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.
You see the difference is..........this is the 5th time he's done this. So, now that he says it again, I'm suppose to belive him? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.By now you would have thought he would have a different strategy, you know........something that would work?

An excerpt from the thread I started – Battleplan Iraq:

Seriously Viper.........if you don't get my point about that by now, then you never will.

[Viper2]

lily:
No, I'm not afraid of loosing credibility. You've known me a long time, when had I not admitted when I was wrong?

How about now

Oh, I see now.......the word of one soldier is not good enough for you. Ok......I see where I was wrong.

Oh wait.........Caldwell and his soldiers.

You see - there you go again - I did not say "one soldier" I said "one unit" - there is a difference you know.

You see the difference is..........this is the 5th time he's done this. So, now that he says it again, I'm suppose to belive him? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.By now you would have thought he would have a different strategy, you know........something that would work?

Seriously Viper.........if you don't get my point about that by now, then you never will.

Damn lily you're obstinate.

The 5th time he's done this - okay - I covered that more than once thus far - what did President Bush state in his speech about changing this ?????????

This is exactly what in the hell these soldiers are talking about that they want done - so how in the hell is that showing "flaws" in President Bush's new strategy :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Please before you respond read the President's speech, and your original article.

[gpruitt54]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq. When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything? When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is? Kerry thinks they're stupid. The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job. It's all BS.


OK, what should solders do?

[Nemo]

"Benteen—Come on—Big village—Be quick—Bring packs. W. W. Cooke. P. S. Bring pacs."

[gpruitt54]

We love our solders, God bless them. They are our sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers and not the relatives of those who sent them to the train wreck that is Iraq.

But solders are not trained to do political analysis, they are trained to kill and break things. Lets face it, there are times when this is what must be done. Also note that people have a tendency to do what they are trained to do.

This is why we have civilians in control of the top-level command structure. Because people have a tendency to do what they are trained to do. Solders are the instruments of military policy; they do not make the policy. Civilians do that.

If someone is trained to blast the hell out of everything in his way, and you ask him what he should do, he will likely say blast the hell out of everything. Sometimes this is exactly the right thing, but not always. The skill is to know when, how, and where to blast the hell out of everything and have a plain for what happens next.

[Viper2]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq.Â*Â*When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything?Â*Â*When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is?Â*Â*Kerry thinks they're stupid.Â*Â*The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job.Â*Â*It's all BS.


OK, what should solders do?


Exactly what we are trained to do - but, without the shackles the politicians labor us with.

Every armed conflict Amercia has not achieved a "victory" leads right back to the politicians - plain and simple.

"[In war], there is no alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory."
—General Douglas MacArthur

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
General George S. Patton

"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting."
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it."
George Washington

[Viper2]

We love our solders, God bless them. They are our sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers and not the relatives of those who sent them to the train wreck that is Iraq.

But solders are not trained to do political analysis, they are trained to kill and break things. Lets face it, there are times when this is what must be done. Also note that people have a tendency to do what they are trained to do.

This is why we have civilians in control of the top-level command structure. Because people have a tendency to do what they are trained to do. Solders are the instruments of military policy; they do not make the policy. Civilians do that.

If someone is trained to blast the hell out of everything in his way, and you ask him what he should do, he will likely say blast the hell out of everything. Sometimes this is exactly the right thing, but not always. The skill is to know when, how, and where to blast the hell out of everything and have a plain for what happens next.


You make excellent points.

One thing to remember though is, although the soldier is trained in a specialty with respect to war - today's Armed Forces are more educated than before, and have all the necessary reasoning powers to analyze and decide. So, it just isn't "blow em up", there is reason and rationale involved.

[gpruitt54]

Liberals will tell us what the soldiers are thinking because they know all, yet are not doing the work in Iraq. When do the liberals ask the soldiers anything? When do liberals report what the soldiers are thinking if it disagrees with what the liberal agenda is? Kerry thinks they're stupid. The liberals in Hollywood think the soldiers are soldiers because they can't get a job. It's all BS.


OK, what should solders do?


Exactly what we are trained to do - but, without the shackles the politicians labor us with.

Every armed conflict Amercia has not achieved a "victory" leads right back to the politicians - plain and simple.

"[In war], there is no alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory."
—General Douglas MacArthur

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
General George S. Patton

"I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting."
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it."
George Washington

==============================================
First of all let me say that this forum is excellent, I appreciate the reasoned discussion of people more intelligent that I am. I learn a lot from you folks.

Now to my point:

You are making my point. Every one of your quotes were memorable, but for a totally different era. Ask a solder what to do and he will revert to his training.

I think it is important to understand that we cannot kill everyone. In a city the size of Bagdad, where unconventional fighters live next to and with civilians, killing everyone is a silly statement (not saying that you are advancing such an argument) that demonstrates a total ignorance of the realities.

Case in point; I ask you to look at the German military experience in WWII during the siege of Leningrad (now called Saint Petersburg). The Germans shelled the city at the first sign of resistance and killed thousands in the process. The siege lasted from September 1941, until January 1944. Did they succeed in taking the city? Not really. What Hitler did was provide more resolve to the Russian people as word reached the people of what was happening there. Secondly, It generated intense hate of the German army such that when the tide eventually turned the Russian solders sought vengeance upon the German solders.

There are no magic bullets in such things as war. You cannot kill everyone. If you try, there can be terrible consequences. People caught-up in the middle of war cannot step back to see the larger scope. This is why civilian leadership needs to be in charge of military planning and execution, but follow the sound advice of military experts who in our military academies have learned the mistakes made by planners of past wars (like the mistakes the Germans made in Leningrad).

It is so easy to look for the simple answer “like kill them all and lot God sort them out�. This is a notion best suited for a time when our weapons were swards and arrows. But now our weapons are Bio-chemical, Nuclear, and radiological and they are not limited to us alone.

We need to be wise and not delusional.

[gpruitt54]

You make excellent points.

One thing to remember though is, although the soldier is trained in a specialty with respect to war - today's Armed Forces are more educated than before, and have all the necessary reasoning powers to analyze and decide. So, it just isn't "blow em up", there is reason and rationale involved.

It is (not that I doubted it) encouraging to hear that there is still reasoned thinking on this subject and I appreciate your point of view.

Where this could head (if we are not smart in what we do next) is beyond anything we have ever envisioned. Things have a tendency to slowly creep, and suddenly jump to untended places.

[Viper2]

gpruitt54:
First of all let me say that this forum is excellent, I appreciate the reasoned discussion of people more intelligent that I am. I learn a lot from you folks.

IMHO, don’t underrate yourself.

Now to my point:

You are making my point. Every one of your quotes were memorable, but for a totally different era. Ask a solder what to do and he will revert to his training.

Perhaps that is your opinion to which you are entitled – however, they are just as applicable today as when they were first spoken.

Now, in answer to your question / statement – as a combat Vet, I did react as I was trained, and there were many times when it only took a nano-second – however, I was never trained “not to think, evaluate, analyze and decide�.

I think it is important to understand that we cannot kill everyone. In a city the size of Bagdad, where unconventional fighters live next to and with civilians, killing everyone is a silly statement (not saying that you are advancing such an argument) that demonstrates a total ignorance of the realities.

No soldier in combat looks or wants to kill everyone, just the enemy.

Case in point; I ask you to look at the German military experience in WWII during the siege of Leningrad (now called Saint Petersburg). The Germans shelled the city at the first sign of resistance and killed thousands in the process. The siege lasted from September 1941, until January 1944. Did they succeed in taking the city? Not really. What Hitler did was provide more resolve to the Russian people as word reached the people of what was happening there. Secondly, It generated intense hate of the German army such that when the tide eventually turned the Russian solders sought vengeance upon the German solders.

It is fact that no one actually wins a protracted war. And I understand the correlation to what is happening in Iraq today. And that is why "civilian" leadership has its place, but not on a battlefield. I hold Rumsfeld responsible for not allowing the JCOS to proceed as they would have prefered.

This is why civilian leadership needs to be in charge of military planning and execution, but follow the sound advice of military experts who in our military academies have learned the mistakes made by planners of past wars (like the mistakes the Germans made in Leningrad).

Yes and no. Our Constitution stipulates that the President is the CIC, and we do have civilian leadership – Congress has the power to declare war / authorize deployment of the Armed Forces.

Now, once Congress gives approval to the President -> to the Secretary of Defense -> to the JCOS ->to the General / Admiral Staff – at this point in time Congress should keep their noses out of the military operations. Their concern at this time other than domestic matters is making damn sure the Armed Forces are equipped and given all that they need to gain the victory – plain and simple. Consider this:

“The fighting of the wars should be left to the Generals in the field, and Congress should concern themselves with domestic matters�
5-Star General of the Army – Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe – President of the United States Dwight David Eisenhower.

I don’t know if you have viewed it yet – However, I started a thread “Battleplan Iraq� I prepared this six months after the ground war started. Perhaps you might consider the aspects of this as it also has an exit strategy included.

[Viper2]

gpruitt54:
It is (not that I doubted it) encouraging to hear that there is still reasoned thinking on this subject and I appreciate your point of view.

Thank you. I appreciate your debating in a reasonable and intelligent manner.

Where this could head (if we are not smart in what we do next) is beyond anything we have ever envisioned. Things have a tendency to slowly creep, and suddenly jump to untended places.

Where this "WILL" lead is in the hands of the Democraptic Congress - and this is where I have serious doubts.

The type of warfare "urban guerrilla" that we face today is not really a new thing - however, it is much more highly intense - it is with non-recognizeable enemies - and we're fighting it in the midst of civilian areas.

Plus we're in the middle of a f'd up sectarian problem that has been brewing since 632 AD, and they are killing each other without a second thought or remorse.

[lily]

Viper2


You see - there you go again - I did not say "one soldier" I said "one unit" - there is a difference you know.
You're the expert. A brigade is not a unit?

Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker
Brigade. They, too, had heard the news.



Damn lily you're obstinate.

The 5th time he's done this - okay - I covered that more than once thus far - what did President Bush state in his speech about changing this ?????????

This is exactly what in the hell these soldiers are talking about that they want done - so how in the hell is that showing "flaws" in President Bush's new strategy :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I've already replied to this.

Please before you respond read the President's speech, and your original article.

I both watched and read it.......neither time did I believe it. What's that quote Bush is so famous for? Fool me once......

[gpruitt54]

Viper2
Where this "WILL" lead is in the hands of the Democraptic Congress - and this is where I have serious doubts.

The type of warfare "urban guerrilla" that we face today is not really a new thing - however, it is much more highly intense - it is with non-recognizeable enemies - and we're fighting it in the midst of civilian areas.

Plus we're in the middle of a f'd up sectarian problem that has been brewing since 632 AD, and they are killing each other without a second thought or remorse.

Where this will lead is in the hands of a president who holds in contempt, our representative form of government. This country just completed an election that completely rejects this president’s domestic and foreign policy over the last six years. What then does the president do? During the last presidential address he infers that he may attack another country (Iran).

The same day as his address the U.S. military (which acts under the authority of the president) attacks the Iranian embassy in Iraq. An embassy is considered a country’s sovereign territory. This president has proven that his judgment is dangerously flawed. As such, it is my opinion that the president is attempting to create a situation in order to attack the country of Iran. The president’s actions threaten a cascade of events that may likely result in a nuclear exchange in the middle east.

An exchange in Middle East would do incalculable damage to the economic well being of every developed nation on this planet. Nations in that region also have allies. What happens if those allies involve themselves on behalf of their allies in the region? What we have is world war 3. It’s called un-intended consequences.

Sort of like our current situation… or should I say exactly like our current predicament in Iraq, a series of un-intended consequences.

[Viper2]

lily:
You're the expert. A brigade is not a unit?

Once again you are incorrect, and yes a Brigade is a “UNIT� - here’s a lesson in military jargon and terminology -

A unit is any part of or the entire organization to which a military person is assigned. Example, when I was stationed in England, the following variations would apply if I was asked what “UNIT� was I from:

1 – Detachment 1, 10th Combat Support Group, RAF Station Molesworth, UK OR

2 – Detachment 1, 10th Combat Support Group, 10th Tactical Combat Reconnaissance Wing, RAF Station Molesworth, UK Or

3 – Detachment 1, 10th Combat Support Group, 10th Tactical Combat Reconnaissance Wing, 3rd Air Force, Tactical Air Command, RAF Station Molesworth, UK Or

4 – United States Air Forces Europe, Tactical Air Command, 3rd Air Force, 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, 10th Combat Support Group, Detachment 1, RAF Station Molesworth, UK.

Do you finally understand this aspect at least ?????


I've already replied to this.

No you haven’t – What the soldiers are talking about is what has been going on – you know, like past history. In-as-much as the additional troops are not yet deployed, and the “new strategy� was not yet implemented – they (the troops) are unable to comment on that, and only had past experiences to use.

So, once again, your premise is proven incorrect, invalid, false and otherwise defunct.

So, please stop majoring in the minors and minoring in the majors and admit your error.

Oh and by the way, my 18 year old granddaughter understands completely what I am attempting to impart to you - so I know I'm not crazy.

[Stoner]

U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy


Everyone has their opinion. The point of this article is to make neolibs think that because a few people out of the hundreds of thousands serving in our military said it that it must be true.

[Viper2]

gpruitt54:
Where this will lead is in the hands of a president who holds in contempt, our representative form of government. This country just completed an election that completely rejects this president’s domestic and foreign policy over the last six years. What then does the president do? During the last presidential address he infers that he may attack another country (Iran).

I would have to disagree respectfully. What you say is what the media and Democrats want you to think.

Consider that since prior to the 2004 election and after, the Dempcraptic party with the help of the liberal left-wing mass media has been doing nothing but attacking President Bush and his Administration. This, that and the other is wrong – yet all during this, and even up to and including today, none of these “so-called servants of the people� have advanced a logical, reasonable or otherwise intelligent solution – and to top it off, have never said “let’s put politics aside, America is at war and we need to unite and deal with it as a country�

The Democrats were able to make the local elections a national one, and again with the media painted nothing but gloom and doom, every hour of every day, 24-7-365. And regretfully, most of the voters failed to review the actual voting records of those they voted for – not a wise thing to do.

Now consider this if you would – America is at war, not one we started – and the President’s job is to lead us through it – the job of Congress is advice and consent – not attack, fight, obstruct and make the President’s job more difficult – yet the Democrats have done nothing but that.

Has the President made mistakes – yes and he admitted that – however, if America is to have a victory, additional troops are needed – and the military has to do what they should have been doing all along – but didn’t have the forces to accomplish it – strike – clear and HOLD. Thus, the additional forces being deployed to Baghdad along with Iraqi forces will give the force strength necessary to finally do this and disarm the radicals.

Also, note that 96% of the fighting is going on in Baghdad alone – which means that the majority of the country is basically peaceful – that’s something not too many people think about, and it sure as hell isn’t anything the liberal left-wing mass media will report on either, and the Democraptic party won’t admit to and hold news sessions on as well.

Now, President Bush stated what his intensions were and are, and has had the balls and integrity to stand his ground even when the shit hit the fan and hasn’t ducked or run away. That my friend takes guts, resolve and commitment. Would you prefer he pull a Kerry ?????

Iran has been on our radar for years. Now in face of Ahmadinejad’s ranting about wiping Israel off the map, inflicting harm and pain to the United States, flagrant dismissal of the United Nations SC sanctions, actively funding, training, giving aid and support to the terrorists what do you expect the President to do ??? ask him over for tea and crumpets ??? Iran as well as the world in general has to know that the United States has options and that all of them are viable if the need arises, or until Iran decides to wake up and become part of the world community.

The same day as his address the U.S. military (which acts under the authority of the president) attacks the Iranian embassy in Iraq. An embassy is considered a country’s sovereign territory. This president has proven that his judgment is dangerously flawed. As such, it is my opinion that the president is attempting to create a situation in order to attack the country of Iran. The president’s actions threaten a cascade of events that may likely result in a nuclear exchange in the middle east.

The President after Congress approves it, issues orders to the SecDef who then authorizes the JCOS who then tells the various military chains-of-command to initiate operations – Now does any of the afore mentioned levels of command above the field commanders know every military operation being planned and those in progress ?? NO.

Now, the Kurdish area in Iraq is among the most peaceful – however, with Iran using their Embassy as a staging point from which to continue terrorist operations and keep Iraq unstable (which is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants so he can make Iran the center of Islamic authority and power in the region), it would be ludicrous not to invade that building. Consider Iran’s invasion of the US Embassy and taking of hostages when Carter was President, and the subsequent failed operation to invade Iran and free the hostages. President Bush is not attempting to create any more problems then he already has, especially in the face of a Congress who voted for the war before they decided to change their minds for purely political reasons. However, neither can he ignore a possible pending danger to our forces either.

An exchange in Middle East would do incalculable damage to the economic well being of every developed nation on this planet. Nations in that region also have allies. What happens if those allies involve themselves on behalf of their allies in the region? What we have is world war 3. It’s called un-intended consequences.

Your point is well taken – the Israeli / Palestinian problem is volatile and can still ramp up into a very dangerous situation. However, President Bush through Condi Rice and the State Department are attempting to enlist the cooperation of the moderate Islamic countries in the region – and from what I hear with a level of success.

One point you have to realize when dealing with the Islamic Societal-Religion is that any sign of weakness, and regretfully, this includes negotiations just emboldens them to more actions, and is a recruiting tool – see, the Great Satan weakens, we are winning, Jihad in the name of Allah – and kill Muslims who favor and cooperate with them as well, they are traitors.

BTW, thank you for your reasonable approach - although we may disagree, I am enjoying our discourse.

[lily]

Once again you are incorrect, and yes a Brigade is a “UNITâ€� -Â*Â*here’s a lesson in military jargon and terminology -

Viper 2 wrote:
You see - there you go again - I did not say "one soldier" I said "one unit" - there is a difference you know

Well, then why is this brigade not a unit???

No you haven’t – What the soldiers are talking about is what has been going on – you know, like past history. In-as-much as the additional troops are not yet deployed, and the “new strategy� was not yet implemented – they (the troops) are unable to comment on that, and only had past experiences to use.

Oh.......I see what you are saying........they don't know what they are talking about. I guess if you say so. I mean who would know what works and what doesn't but the men actually doing it? Viper you act like this is this units first time around the block. Somehow I don't think so. If you choose to believe that this is the first time Bush has done this, and these soldiers not only know it, but more than likely with multiple trips to Iraq, then there is nothing else I can say, besides have a nice day.

[Anti-Racism]

The Iraqi army that it's taken almost 4 years to build. The Iraqi army that we are sending in more troops to do their fighting for them.

This strategy didn't work in Viet Nam, and it won't work anywhere unless the local population is united against an invader. They don't see the grand reasons of democracy and happiness we have promised; it's like Heart of Darkness all over again. We justify our colonialism with profit just like they justify their vengeance against us with fear.

[Viper2]

U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy


Everyone has their opinion.Â*Â*The point of this article is to make neolibs think that because a few people out of the hundreds of thousands serving in our military said it that it must be true.


Which is exactly why, more Americans should not accept being spoon fed this outright bullshit in the first place.

The Constitution gives people the right to be and act like utter asses - the problem is that so many decide to exercise that right.

[Viper2]

lily:

You have been proven wrong - why not just be a woman and admit it - it's very simple you know.

You major on the minors and minor on the majors and attempt by the use of ploys and red herrings to squeak out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

And please, don't attempt to put words in my mouth, and if you're going to quote me, do it verbatum.

[Stoner]

No one in my unit back in my Marine days would have spoken out against our CIC publicly.Â*Â*It's tasteless and classless.Â*Â*Those soldiers need an ass-whippin.Â*Â*

These soldiers get paid to do their job...not give their opinions on policy.Â*Â*There's far better and more qualified people in the military for that.

[gpruitt54]

Consider that since prior to the 2004 election and after, the Dempcraptic party with the help of the liberal left-wing mass media has been doing nothing but attacking President Bush and his Administration. This, that and the other is wrong – yet all during this, and even up to and including today, none of these “so-called servants of the people� have advanced a logical, reasonable or otherwise intelligent solution – and to top it off, have never said “let’s put politics aside, America is at war and we need to unite and deal with it as a country�

“Liberal Left-wing mass media� it is so disappointing to have good debate turn into unthinking Partisanism. Don’t forget to add the ACLU and the NEA to the blather. By not filing articles of impeachment against the President and Dick Chaney, this Democratic Senate and Congress have shown restraint that the Republicans were unable to when they took control. You may not like the people in Congress, but they are there because of a Democratic vote. I can only hope that you still believe in the vote and our representative form of government.

Or, maybe you believe that King Bush should abolish the Constitution and rule in the bumbling manner that we and the world have seen.

The Democrats were able to make the local elections a national one, and again with the media painted nothing but gloom and doom, every hour of every day, 24-7-365. And regretfully, most of the voters failed to review the actual voting records of those they voted for – not a wise thing to do.

We do after all live in a Representative Republic. Oh and by the way, the President, Chaney, Rice, Fox News and every Right-Wing mouth-peace and media source spent months using fear and mushroom clouds to their political advantage. But you only heard Democrats talking about doom and gloom. Right!

Now consider this if you would – America is at war, not one we started – and the President’s job is to lead us through it – the job of Congress is advice and consent – not attack, fight, obstruct and make the President’s job more difficult – yet the Democrats have done nothing but that.

Seriously now, this war in Iraq “IS� a war that we…, or rather Bush started. Like him or not, Sadam did not attack the United States on 911, it was the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan who did that. Revisionist history from you and a couple of others are attempting to espouse does nothing to help the honest debate. It is this President who has committed this mistake. You cannot blame anyone else.

Secondly, you say that the President’s job is to lead. Let’s look at the great leaders of this country. Great leaders have a common trait, which is that they inspire people. They ask people to expel fear and act to the greater good. This trait of greatness is absent in George W. Bush. I would add that President George W. Bush cares nothing of how much he damages the military or the people of country. The President seems to be doing the bidding of some persons or groups, but not for the well being of the United States or the American people.

No President in the last 50 years deserves impeachment more than George W. Bush.


Has the President made mistakes – yes and he admitted that – however, if America is to have a victory, additional troops are needed – and the military has to do what they should have been doing all along – but didn’t have the forces to accomplish it – strike – clear and HOLD. Thus, the additional forces being deployed to Baghdad along with Iraqi forces will give the force strength necessary to finally do this and disarm the radicals.

I read an article in a local news paper on the subject of troop strength. I found it interesting that for every 1000 troops, little more than 600 solders are actually engaged at the pointed end of the spear. The remaining solders are involved in the support, things like transportation, medical, supply, repair, food service, etc. Do the math. What this suggests is that out of 22,000 troops only about 13,200 solders would actually be involved in combat. But the facts are that 22,000 troops are still not enough and 13,200 troops to pacify a city the size of Bagdad is a fools wish.

Also, note that 96% of the fighting is going on in Baghdad alone – which means that the majority of the country is basically peaceful – that’s something not too many people think about, and it sure as hell isn’t anything the liberal left-wing mass media will report on either, and the Democraptic party won’t admit to and hold news sessions on as well.

So, thousands are not being killed in what is widely accepted to be a civil war? We all wish that was the truth. But, placing ones head in the sand helps nothing. Our so-called coalitions of the willing are pulling their troops out of Iraq? But, everything is just peachy in Iraq. RIGHT? It seems like truth is hard for some to honestly deal with? I guess this is what they call Partisanism. Your position here seems intellectually dishonest. It is not always easy to be convinced of something when you are vested in an entrenched in an ideology. But things are what they are.

Now, President Bush stated what his intensions were and are, and has had the balls and integrity to stand his ground even when the shit hit the fan and hasn’t ducked or run away. That my friend takes guts, resolve and commitment. Would you prefer he pull a Kerry ?????

You assume that I am a supporter of John Kerry. This statement also exposes a partisan slant on your part. Partisanism on the part of a Republican Senate, Congress, and Presidency is the reason we are in this predicament. What I am for, is someone who uses wisdom, experience (where ever that comes from), judgment, and common since. In these last 4 years, this president has simply talked the same talk over and over again, and expects a different result. Where I come from, there is a definition for this behavior (it's called insanity). Tough talk is cheap.

Iran has been on our radar for years. Now in face of Ahmadinejad’s ranting about wiping Israel off the map, inflicting harm and pain to the United States, flagrant dismissal of the United Nations SC sanctions, actively funding, training, giving aid and support to the terrorists what do you expect the President to do ??? ask him over for tea and crumpets ??? Iran as well as the world in general has to know that the United States has options and that all of them are viable if the need arises, or until Iran decides to wake up and become part of the world community.

Sounds like more of what we have been hearing from the president. Rattle rattle the sward and push countries into corners. If you think or believe that this is the only way of dealing with countries, I would ask you to look at what we did for almost 50 years during the Cold War. The nations we opposed real WMDs in the forms of ICBMs. We did a lot more than rattle the sward and push them into corners and look what it got us. It kept this country and this world out of nuclear destruction.

Put now you want us to believe that we should go ahead and play around the edges of nuclear conflict because some dude talks bad about Israel?

Seriously, I might have confidence in the leadership abilities of the Commander-in-Chief if he showed some amount of leadership. The shear volume of screw-ups by the president makes it hard to believe that he can lead this country.

The people stirring up this war fever in this country will not have to deal with the real aftermath of a nuclear exchange. They will be safe and sound in the bunkers protected by military guard. I for one refuse to be pointed in a direction like a trained dog, and be told to hate this person or hate that nation.

The President after Congress approves it, issues orders to the SecDef who then authorizes the JCOS who then tells the various military chains-of-command to initiate operations – Now does any of the afore mentioned levels of command above the field commanders know every military operation being planned and those in progress ?? NO.

So, the United States attacks the territory of another country (Diplomatic missions are sovereign territory) and the President of the United States does not know this? I believe that you are making my points. Who follows a leader who cannot lead? A fool!

One point you have to realize when dealing with the Islamic Societal-Religion is that any sign of weakness, and regretfully, this includes negotiations just emboldens them to more actions, and is a recruiting tool – see, the Great Satan weakens, we are winning, Jihad in the name of Allah – and kill Muslims who favor and cooperate with them as well, they are traitors.

Once again, you suggest that there is only one choice and that that only choice is what…? War? So then, you believe it is just fine that we continue to bleed our military in the Fiascos called Iraq. This ground-based conventional military prowess of this nation is hanging by a thread. Maybe you believe that this does not matter because we still hold all the cards with the use of specials (nukes). If you and our leaders believe this, then we are in serious, serious trouble. The first special that is released in that region has consequences that only a fool wants. Additionally, what are the chances that an exchange will be limited to the Middle East, the answer is NONE.

What happens when other nations in the Middle East start crossing the boarders of Iraq to claim their share of the nation that we broke? Will we attack those nations as well? What do you when nations in the Middle East and beyond start calling in their allies to help. Don’t think for a moment that this thing can or will be limited to region. None of us should take this lightly.

[lily]

lily:

You have been proven wrong - why not just be a woman and admit it - it's very simple you know.

You major on the minors and minor on the majors and attempt by the use of ploys and red herrings to squeak out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

And please, don't attempt to put words in my mouth, and if you're going to quote me, do it verbatum.


Six pages of the same thing, Viper and you still can't tell the difference between being wrong and not agreeing with you.

[Viper2]

No one in my unit back in my Marine days would have spoken out against our CIC publicly.Â*Â*It's tasteless and classless.Â*Â*Those soldiers need an ass-whippin.Â*Â*

These soldiers get paid to do their job...not give their opinions on policy.Â*Â*There's far better and more qualified people in the military for that.


Nor during my time in the service - they would have faced a Court Martial.

Anyone for a "blanket-party" or "code red" :D:D

[Viper2]

lily:

You have been proven wrong - why not just be a woman and admit it - it's very simple you know.

You major on the minors and minor on the majors and attempt by the use of ploys and red herrings to squeak out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

And please, don't attempt to put words in my mouth, and if you're going to quote me, do it verbatum.


Six pages of the same thing, Viper and you still can't tell the difference between being wrong and not agreeing with you.



Oh, I can - however in your disagreement you were proven wrong by a couple of other members besides me, so, the right thing to do is .....