[von Wrangell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4894148.stm

Good article which basically says what most of the world has been saying since day one of this whole mess.

[abe]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4894148.stm

Good article which basically says what most of the world has been saying since day one of this whole mess.

NM.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4894148.stm

Good article which basically says what most of the world has been saying since day one of this whole mess.

"The US and British troops would be bogged down in Iraq for years. There would be civil war between Sunnis and Shias. The real beneficiary would be the government in Iran.

"And what do the Americans say when you tell them this," I asked? "They don't even listen," he said."

UM the president FROM DAY ONE, said this would a long ongoing affair.
What are you talking about?

[abe]

nm.

[mania]

wtf abe?

I like this quote from the article:

Just over three years ago, when I interviewed the Saudi foreign minister, I asked him why he thought the US was determined to invade Iraq.

He said he had put the same question to Vice-President Dick Cheney. Mr Cheney had replied: "Because it's do-able."

sounds a lot like dick.

[Landos Mustache]

I know, it is almost a joke watching it all play out

[abe]

Originally Posted by mania

wtf abe?

I like this quote from the article:


sounds a lot like dick.

Sounds like you're a guy with lots of face-to-face time with dick.

What's it like to go eyeball to eyeball with dick?

Was he ever rude to you? Is that why I sense pent-up frustration and hostility from you? Did he ever spit in your eye or something?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I know, it is almost a joke watching it all play out

SWG you really have no clue what is going on. None.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mania

wtf abe?

I like this quote from the article:


sounds a lot like dick.

That is called the old "He said she said" trip.

This article hasn't brought anything NEW to the plate. He basically said nothing that Bush did not say before we invaded.

IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME.

People with short memories.... purposely or not.

[ironknee]

mission accomplished!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by abe

Sounds like you're a guy with lots of face-to-face time with dick.

What's it like to go eyeball to eyeball with dick?

Was he ever rude to you? Is that why I sense pent-up frustration and hostility from you? Did he ever spit in your eye or something?

Great post, man. I'm glad to see you're really adding to the thread – three posts, and nothing but some mild insults, toilet humour and rhetoric to show for it.

It's certainly a well-done and perhaps tired topic, but the article has some good points. That there is still no valid government in place, or even worse no person who's yet shown the ability or gonads to actually lead Iraq, must be quite worrying to the US/Western forces.

greg

[mania]

Originally Posted by abe

its not pent up - I am letting it out. now you on the other hand - posting NM twice for what reason? then resorting to name calling.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Great post, man. I'm glad to see you're really adding to the thread – three posts, and nothing but some mild insults, toilet humour and rhetoric to show for it.

It's certainly a well-done and perhaps tired topic, but the article has some good points. That there is still no valid government in place, or even worse no person who's yet shown the ability or gonads to actually lead Iraq, must be quite worrying to the US/Western forces.

greg

The problem with criticism like this is not so much the immediate effect. The things that may be true in the article must not be trivialized or ignored.

However, when used in a certain manner by the administrations's opponents, by the war's opponents, by the GOP's opponents, by the USA's opponents and by those who act (wittingly or not) as TOOLS of said opponents, the effect of a steady diet of these kinds of reports is not a good thing at all.

The USA had won in Viet Nam by the early 1970's. There were only 50,000 troops in country and the efforts of the South Vietnamese to completely assume the prosecution of the war was being handled adequately as long as we were there to help with the things which only we could do. And those things we were being relied upon to do were only what we had PROMISED we would do.

It's like when your dad sent you up a ladder to paint under the eaves of your house. He was too big and heavy, but you could do it as long as he was there to steady the ladder and give you instruction and assurance.

Well, what would happen to you if Dad just left you there alone at the top of the ladder?

Maybe you'd try to do the job without him and you'd do an admirable job by yourself. But you couldn't be expected to do the job by yourself as well as you could with him there to help. Without him you'd lose your direction and you'd miss his stabilizing effect. Without his support you'd fall.

And that's what happened in Viet Nam.

The US pulled out just when the South Vietnamese was in the home stretch. The race was almost over. Our side was in the lead by a great amount. But pulling out was the wrong thing to do even at that point in the race. The South Vietnamese still needed our help, not as much help as had been needed at the height of the war. FAAAAAR from it!

But help, nonetheless, was still crucial and it was help we had constantly and continually assured them we would provide.

And then one day...we were gone.

And they were there, alone, to fight an enemy it had taken the COMBINED armies and efforts of the US and allies to beat down.

And that was all the help the enemy needed. And the rest is history.

But why did the US leave just at the point when our ultimate objective was almost finally achieved? What enabled the enemy to snatch victory from the mouth of defeat?

The anti-war movement's final blow was to the funding for the war.

The US Senate voted to deny any more funds to continue the war.

And THAT is what could happen here.

Contrary to popular belief the 'formula' has been found to win this war and, now, as it is being implemented and results are finally being seen in the lowest number of US combat related death tolls since the fighting began, articles and reports are used by the usual 'opponents' or their TOOLS to focus on all of the shortcomings that exist.

In and of themselves, these shortcomings may have credibility and can be useful in figuring out what is still needing to be done or what could be done differently.

But in the context of the protests to date and the Viet Nam experience articles like this take on a whole new ominous spectre.

In the fall elections the Democrats will use any and every vulnerability to gain greater power in Washington. When these Dem pols and would be office holders try to get a sense of where the GOP and the Administration is weak they will zero in on the war.

Articles like this, which may not suggest how hopeful things are but how dismal things remain will be ammo for them to use to win votes. And when Senate committees convene to determine funding priorities, it could be the public's most recent news of how the war was going - news that, like this article could imply a less than accurate outlook - that will prompt the politicians to vote to stop funding the war.

And if that happens the pieces will finally be in place for the fight you've never before experienced and surely don't want, to take place.

It will be the fight of our lives.

Literally.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You know, you should really try being overly dramatic sometime. I think it'd be a good look for you.



greg

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I know, it is almost a joke watching it all play out

Almost. Except, unfortunately for all of us, it's playing out this way for real.

I feel safer!

[abe]

This is taken out of conext to how he meant it at the time, but this quote well fits the bill in this case.

...in the darkness it’s easy to get disillusioned and frustrated. It can make you want to holler. But also in the dark lies the prospect for change. I don’t mean “change” in some syrupy, inspirational-video kind of way. I mean what history has proven. Dark ages have historically preceded periods of enlightenment and progress. And while it’s dark, it’s hard to imagine it may ever get light again. But it is during dark times that people seek change. And sooner or later, good or bad, it comes—just never when you expect it. Chou En Lai, Foreign Minister under Mao’s China, was once asked what he thought of the French Revolution. “Too soon to tell,” he replied.

writer/director Eugene Jarecki

The benefits of Iraq may not manifest in your lap today or tomorrow. The absence of attack may not show up on your readout of war benefits. But there are people who know things you don't. Who are committed to things you vaguely know exist. These people allow you the luxury of nonchalance.

I'm nonchalant about my computer. There are thousands of people who know ten times (+!) more than I do about computers. These people are the ones who do their jobs and are concerned with and aware of computer things that I'll never know. These folks are responsible for my not being required to learn programming in order to do the things I want to do with a computer.

And they started thinking about it and designing it long before I even heard the word, iMac.

So, when people who know nothing about war, nothing about Iraq, nothing about propaganda and who knew nothing about terrorism before 9/11 or the invasion try to judge Iraq using their limited knowledge and abbreviated attention spans, it raises questions in my mind. If it's too soon to tell the impact of the French Revolution, how can someone who knows almost literally nothing about the situation pronounce a negative outcome while the issue is slowly but surely being won. It is clearly winnable and yet the opponents and their tools would have you hear NONE of that.

And when these people use their limited knowledge to adversely affect things they have no knowledge of, things that are designed to benefit THEM and the rest of us and they can't even understand the danger their actions can pose to US, them or me, I get really confused.

What's the matter with self preservation? And why can't they understand self preservation???

The only thing I can think of is they are fuzzy brained.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by abe

And they started thinking about it and designing it long before I even heard the word, iMac.

Damn, you are right. George is simply prepping to introduce the iRaq! Seriously though, don't expect people to have the faith that you do in what's going on. Given the history of the last 3 years, I'd say people who are skeptical are anything but fuzzy-brained (the definition of which I'm not sure of, but am fairly certain that it's a disparaging remark of sorts).

[Kevin]

Some of you need to go back and read what Bush originally said about the time it was going to take.

Seriously.

[abe]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Damn, you are right. George is simply prepping to introduce the iRaq! Seriously though, don't expect people to have the faith that you do in what's going on. Given the history of the last 3 years, I'd say people who are skeptical are anything but fuzzy-brained (the definition of which I'm not sure of, but am fairly certain that it's a disparaging remark of sorts).

Hey, the iRaq! It has a ring to it!

They needn't have faith. They just need to do their homework.

I'll post some info and links here in this space and anyone who reads it will understand that it's not a matter of faith. The keys to victory are in our hands and all we need to do is just drive the route that is indicated on the map and we will get to the promised land.

Whatever one made of the Iraqi war, Hitchens’ book is most thought provoking for its tentative exploration of American power. First, despite seemingly global opposition, the war took place more or less according to the United States’ timeline. France-led Europe proved incapable of uniting Europeans against the war, and Europe split along old fracture lines. Second, the wide range of apocalypses (“enraging the Muslim world,” “quagmire”) invoked by the Peace Movement didn’t materialize and the peace movement itself proved short lived. Thirdly, and perversely, one may now speak meaningfully of the “effective and efficient use of force” -- an idea deemed insane by the generation marked by the Vietnam War.

These things all suggest that it is necessary to rethink the nature of power and the nature of opposition in the world today. Is it useful to distinguish between “opposition” to the government -- defined as the systematic and effective resistance to a government policy -- and the “culture of dissent,” that amorphous aspect of any modern society which comes from the simple fact that modern society by nature possesses differing views on most anything? As American power emerges in the twenty-first century unchecked, it appears we still have yet to seriously understand what this means, let alone how to stop it.

A Long Short War is available on Amazon.com. Visit Christopher Hitchens' web site here.

http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3113.html

Is the U.S.-Led War With Iraq Just? Matt Perman & Justin Taylor
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delp.../iraq_war.html

Iraq Is Not Vietnam, Part XXVII
http://rapidrecon.threatswatch.org/2...am-part-xxvii/

How Clinton Let Al-Qaeda Go
By Richard Shultz Jr.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=11811

U.S. Can’t Afford to Lose
Iraq, the hinge of world history.
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...nger090903.asp

A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. By Lewis Sorley. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999. 507 pages. $28.00. Reviewed by Colonel Stuart A. Herrington, USA Ret., author of Stalking the Vietcong: Inside Operation Phoenix, and Traitors Among Us: Inside the Spy Catcher's World.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/p...mn/aut-rev.htm

Draining the Swamp:
The British Strategy
of Population Control
WADE MARKEL
From Parameters, Spring 2006, pp. 35-48.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/p...ing/markel.htm

NARRATOR: Madrid-based security analyst Charles Powell's institute quickly drew the government's attention to a chilling document on the Internet. Months earlier, researchers had discovered this al Qaeda strategy paper entitled "Iraqi Jihad: Hopes and Risks."

CHARLES POWELL: And in particular, it had five pages on Spain, which are really very interesting and quite surprising because of the level of sophistication involved. The author basically identified Spain as the weakest link in the chain in the "coalition of the willing" that the Bush administration had constructed.

LOWELL BERGMAN: So this was, in a sense, a political scientist of the jihad laying out a roadmap for why you should do something.

CHARLES POWELL: Yes. I think it's uncanny and quite alarming.

NARRATOR: If it was a political strategy, it paid off. Spain was just days from elections, and in the emotional aftermath of the tragedy, the conservative government that had supported the Iraq invasion was pushed out of power.

As Spanish authorities began to round up suspects, a portrait emerged of the cell: Moroccans, not particularly religious, from the country's large North African population.

GUSTAVO DE ARISTEGUI, Member of Parliament, Spain: They were people that were— had been established in Spain for some years— middle-low-class people that had small businesses, some of them, people that had not been known in the past for their radical tendencies, but in the past, in the recent past, had changed dramatically and started seeing people of the radical spheres and circles in Spain and elsewhere.

NARRATOR: Amongst the evidence seized, authorities found records of contacts with other radical groups across Europe, loose connections in a web of associations.

CHARLES POWELL: I would see this as a sort of franchise, a group which acts locally but is in contact with elements abroad who probably didn't determine the precise timing of the attacks, but who did give the overall project some sort of meaning and significance.

NARRATOR: Immediately after the Madrid bombing, Europeans tightened security, fearing another attack. Jean-Louis Bruguiere is one of Europe's most experienced counterterrorism experts, an investigating judge who has been handling terrorist cases for over 20 years.

JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE, Chief Anti-Terror Judge, France: I think that the terrorist threat, just let me say, is today more globalized, more scattered, and more powerful and efficient than it was in the— before September 11 and just after September 11. We have to face a worldwide threat.

LOWELL BERGMAN: It's more powerful, the threat?

JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE: Quite more powerful because more scattered. It looks like a web. You don't have any direct connections. We have one cell with another cell, and we don't know why these individual have direct meeting or why in connection with the others.

LOWELL BERGMAN: There's no one giving orders?

JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE: It is a mutating system.

LOWELL BERGMAN: Mutating?

JEAN-LOUIS BRUGUIERE: Yes. Absolutely. Looks like a virus, you know?

[...]


NARRATOR: The power of this religious message became clear to police in Milan, Italy, in the summer of 2004. Acting on a tip from Spanish police, they had mounted a surveillance operation, putting bugs in every room of an apartment on Via Cadore. They listened as two men played religious tapes. They were overhearing the recruitment of a suicide bomber to go to Iraq. These are official transcripts of their conversations.

[Spanish police transcript]

AHMED RABEI: These are very special tapes. They indicate the way of the martyr. They enter your body, but you must listen to them constantly. I listen to them all the time.

NARRATOR: The recruiter was a 32-year-old Egyptian named Ahmed Rabei. His recruit was a 21-year-old named Yahia Payumi.

AHMED RABEI: This tape has an indescribable voice. It enters your veins.

NARRATOR: On May 28, police overheard the two men download a jihadi video from Iraq. A transcript reports that Rabei became very excited as they watched 26-year-old American hostage Nicholas Berg kneel before his captors.

AHMED RABEI: Watch closely. This is the policy of the sword. Slaughter him! Cut his head off! God is great!

YAHIA PAYUMI: Isn't that a sin?

AHMED RABEI: It's never a sin! It's never a sin for the cause. Everyone must end up like this.

(sounds of Nicholas Berg screaming)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...tc/script.html

The Reluctant Hawk - The skeptical case for regime change in Iraq.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea....marshall.html

Overthrow Saddam? - A Debate
http://www.meforum.org/article/462

CRS Report: Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations
Author: Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster
November 1, 2005
A senior British officer offers a scathing critique of the U.S. military and its performance in Iraq, accusing it of cultural ignorance, moralistic self-righteousness, unproductive micromanagement, and unwarranted optimism. The article appears in Military Review, which is published by the U.S. Army.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9544/...dcrumb=default

Q: Did Saddam Hussein and his regime pose a threat to the United States and its allies?
http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/proc....1365671904665

[abe]

Best Practices in Counterinsurgency
In this essay, Sepp examines 20th century insurgencies to determine the most successful and unsuccessful counterstrategies.

Building Iraqi Security Forces
Sepp's March 14, 2005, testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations in which he outlines the key role of Iraqi security forces in combating the insurgency and stabilizing Iraq.

Kalev I. Sepp is a former special forces officer and an authority on counterinsurgency wars. He has been on four missions to Iraq, the latest in December 2005, as a consultant on intelligence operations, counterinsurgency, and theater strategy. He is currently an assistant professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School's Special Operations Program. Here, he discusses the insurgency and how long it might last, the lessons of past counterinsurgency wars, and what will be the Iraq war's legacy for America's military. This e-mail interview was conducted in February 2006.

What have we been confronting with the insurgency in Iraq over the past three years?

The makeup and nature of the insurgency has evolved from the invasion and the fall of Saddam Hussein to the present. This is natural in wartime. The insurgency has always been primarily a Sunni-sponsored resistance effort, with renegade Shi'a militias, foreign terrorists, and organized criminals adding to the violence. In the past three years, the insurgency has grown larger, more sophisticated and experienced, better organized, and more competent. Dexter Filkins's reporting in The New York Times and Ahmed Hashim's new book Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq describe the enemies of the new Iraq with singular clarity and accuracy.

The insurgents are not wholly unified, which presents the coalition and the Iraqi government with both an advantage and a disadvantage. On the one hand, the insurgents don't have a common strategy or doctrine, and can't act in unison to concentrate their strikes. However, there is no high command or single leader for the government to attack and capture, or centralized strategy to defeat. So there is not one battle, but a hundred separate and disconnected battles to be fought -- what Dr. Conrad Crane of the Army War College calls a "mosaic war."

Because of the disaggregate quality of the insurgency, it's not possible for its components to destroy the Iraqi security forces and drive out the coalition military. But the insurgents could make the country essentially ungovernable, and deny the population the security and basic needs expected by them from their newly elected government. This could undermine and de-legitimize the democratic process, and set the conditions for return of a "strong-man" leader in Baghdad. If threatened by unrelenting bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings, the Iraqi people may opt for personal security over personal liberties.

Given your knowledge of past counterinsurgency wars, how does this one compare in terms of the challenges and complexity? What mistakes are we repeating? What is unique about the insurgency in Iraq?

Political issues are almost always complex, and insurgencies, which are fundamentally political struggles, reflect that characteristic. Since these conflicts are usually grounded in social, political and economic failings attributed to a sitting government, these factors are all part of what fuels the violence, and so must all be addressed to quell the violence.

The chief initial mistake repeated from our engagement in Vietnam was the failure to recognize the true nature of the war. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz posits that the first and supreme act of judgment for the statesman and commander is to understand the kind of war on which he is embarking. For over a year after the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the senior U.S. political and military leaders and their staffs inside Iraq failed to grasp that they faced a growing armed resistance. This misapprehension is described in detail in George Packer's eyewitness account The Assassin's Gate. Fortunately, the current coalition leadership in Iraq does comprehend the reality of the fight they're in, which didn't happen in Vietnam until too late in the war to reverse the outcome.

What makes the Iraqi insurgency somewhat unique is its continuing disorganization. Only now, after three years, are the insurgents coalescing and carrying out more cohesive and coordinated actions. Beyond resistance against the occupation troops and the new Iraqi security forces, there has been little to unify the estimated 60 to 100 major insurgent groups. The insurgent leaders have apparently not attempted to establish a shared strategic goal and political vision, because they likely know one could never be agreed to. Such a discourse would turn insurgents against each other and weaken their overall anti-government and anti-coalition effort. So, their tacit objective is not to expel the coalition forces and defeat the Iraqi army and police, but to make as much of Iraq as they can ungovernable.

This makes the current war unique because most counterinsurgency theory is based on examples of highly centralized political-military insurgencies. Mao Zedong's Chinese communists, the Irish Republican Army, the Viet Cong, the Peruvian Sendero Luminoso, to name a few, represent such insurrectionist movements with a single common doctrine, strategy, objective and often a supreme leader or directing council. The Iraqi insurgency does not fit this model.

A continuing error by some commanders is over-reliance on massive firepower, particularly aerial bombing, which has killed large numbers of innocent civilians. These killings drive family and community members into the insurgency, and create lifelong antagonisms toward the United States. Some units have been very restrained in their use of artillery and bombing, but others have not. This problem is exacerbated by "air power" proponents who advocate substituting bombs for coalition troops as they withdraw.

What would be the effect were the United States to withdraw from Iraq before the country is stabilized? Why don't you like the term "exit strategy"?

The disingenuous term "exit strategy" implies that it is more important to leave than it is to win. It provides a convenient political excuse to withdraw from a mission before it is completed, under the false rationale of the priority to quickly finish a job and leave, and not loiter needlessly. It also infers that the remaking of Iraq -- the reordering of society and government after 30 years of dictatorship -- can be completely accomplished in the next year or so, and then the Iraqis can be left on their own, assured of peace and prosperity, with no need of oversight.


There is no historical basis for an "exit strategy" providing any sort of policy success. Dr. Andrew Erdmann's New York Times essay After Withdrawal, Engagement proposes the most promising approach to achieve U.S. objectives in Iraq and the region. He calls for broader and more meaningful involvement by the U.S. government as time goes on, not a rapid "exit" of Americans and American influence. What is going on elsewhere in the world that is more important that ensuring our success in Iraq?

Based on past insurgencies, how long do you expect this one might take?

There is no way to predict the life expectancy of the Iraqi insurgency. There are simply too many variables that bear on the outcome of the fight. During the 20th century, the average duration of an insurgency -- and there have been over 50 of note -- has been about 10 years. Some insurgencies are striking in their brevity. The 1920 rebellion in Iraq was suppressed in less than a year. By contrast, the insurgency in Northern Ireland has been ongoing since 1968 -- that's 38 years. Colombia has been fighting the FARC rebels for over 40 years.

If the right steps are taken in Iraq, the current insurgency could be brought to heel and the levels of political violence contained in a few years. Some of the major steps must be: to create a functioning national government, which is not achieved just by holding elections; to revitalize the Iraqi economy, which goes beyond small-scale construction projects; and to constitute an effective police force and intelligence service. Along with these, the court system must assert itself to establish rule by law. This will collectively undermine the insurgents' influence in the population.

The next major issue will then be fighting the organized crime syndicates operating in collusion with the insurgents. These mafia-like criminal groups are taking advantage of the lawlessness and social chaos to loot, smuggle, steal, kidnap and murder-for-profit, among other illegal activities. Numerous incidents of criminal violence will almost certainly continue after a political settlement is reached.

Some warn of a scenario in which the insurgency wanes but sectarian violence escalates and leads to civil war in Iraq. What are your thoughts on this scenario? What could the U.S. military do? Would it even choose to intervene in a civil war?

Many analysts and observers believe that civil war is already underway in Iraq, kept in check by the presence of coalition military forces. It is another of the contradictions of insurgencies that as much as U.S. forces are disliked by most Iraqis, the senior Iraqi political leaders -- particularly among the Sunnis -- have quietly indicated their preference for the American troops to not leave immediately. They are the guarantors of the safety of the Sunnis from violent retaliation by revengeful Shi'as, and the force restraining non-governmental militias from fighting each other for political standing.

What do you think will be the legacy of this war on the U.S. military? It's been a sharp learning curve for them, true? How well prepared were they to take on such an opponent? How fast and well have they learned?

It's worth noting that the counterinsurgency most often cited as a model of success, the British-led fight against the communist insurgency in colonial Malaya after World War II, began with great difficulty. In the first three years of what became a 12-year war, serious errors were made, high-ranking leaders had to be replaced, and the communist movement grew in military and political power. Then the British started getting it right, and nine years and several elections later they were able to grant independence to the new, mostly peaceful and politically stable country of Malaysia. An excellent study of the Malaya and Vietnam conflicts and the U.S. military's institutional capacity to usefully assess its own experiences is John Nagl's Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife.

Three years into the battle for Iraq, the U.S. military has shown a remarkable adaptation to the demands of the conflict. Junior officers in particular, lieutenants and captains, have quickly comprehended the nature of the insurgency and its context and are very flexible, intellectually and organizationally, in carrying out their missions. There is an internal recognition in the armed forces that supporting U.S. global interests in the future will require the ability to do more than launch blitzkrieg-type forays to topple unpopular regimes. However, this view is not universally held, and debate on the subject is ongoing.

The legacy of the war in Iraq will hopefully be the end of the 20th century Cold War mentality and wishful thinking in the planning of military operations, and the rise of a new generation of veteran officers who understand how to wage war and win peace in the 21st century.

Do you think the United States has been held back in fully fighting this war due to insufficient forces on the ground, or Americans' aversion to taking high casualties, or the political controversy surrounding the origins of the war?

All these self-imposed restraints, and more, such as the exceeding use of marginally capable contractors and lack of rigorous fiscal auditing, have detracted from the prosecution of the counterinsurgency campaign by the United States government and its armed forces.

The central issue which has been the focus of analysts' criticisms has been a paucity of competent American civil and military leadership at the senior-most level in the period before and then after the invasion. The arrival of Gen. George Casey in Iraq was the beginning of the improvement of the American military effort, and the appointment of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to the embassy in Baghdad markedly enhanced U.S. diplomatic engagement and activities with the emerging Iraqi government.

Vast resources and monies are committed to Iraq. The question is not one of limitations on forces and assets, but of their appropriate implementation and application. This is being resolved, although the financial wastage to this point has been staggering.

At this point in time, what are your thoughts on the most likely outcome?

I hope for the best, since both my sons will be serving in Al Anbar province by this spring. Travis is a Marine, and his twin brother Grant is an Army paratrooper.

I remain concerned but encouraged. We can't be defeated by the insurgents or their criminal and extremist allies. But we can fail to help build a new Iraq with viable economic, political and social institutions. Without these, civil war may consume the country, or a dictator may come to power, or Iran may intervene militarily. Looking back on each of my four tours of service in Iraq, from January 2004 to December 2005, I have seen distinct and steady improvement in the coalition and Iraqi counterinsurgency fight, from near-chaos to a disciplined, purposeful campaign. We may yet succeed. We certainly have the capacity; the question may ultimately be one of will.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/can/

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Some of you need to go back and read what Bush originally said about the time it was going to take.

Seriously.

Some of you might want to go back and read the original transcripts of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on why we were going into Iraq in the first place, and what we are supposed to accomplish as a result.

Seriously.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Some of you need to go back and read what Bush originally said about the time it was going to take.

Seriously.

I know what Donald Rumsfeld said: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

He also said: "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

Cheney said it would be "weeks rather than months."

I also know that Bush had a big "Mission Accomplished" photo-op banner. Three years ago.

[James L]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I know what Donald Rumsfeld said: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

He also said: "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

Cheney said it would be "weeks rather than months."

I also know that Bush had a big "Mission Accomplished" photo-op banner. Three years ago.

Apparently, you missed your serving of cool aid.

You must drink the cool aid my friend, and then you too will believe!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Some of you might want to go back and read the original transcripts of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on why we were going into Iraq in the first place, and what we are supposed to accomplish as a result.

Seriously.

Oh I have. Have you?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I know what Donald Rumsfeld said: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

He also said: "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

Cheney said it would be "weeks rather than months."

I also know that Bush had a big "Mission Accomplished" photo-op banner. Three years ago.

They were talking about taking control of Iraq. Not the WHOLE THING. Which they did say would take YEARS.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

They were talking about taking control of Iraq. Not the WHOLE THING. Which they did say would take YEARS.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that they failed to think about what would happen after the initial invasion. I'd like to see any statement from before the war in which someone from the administration said it would take years. I don't believe any of them ever said that. They were too busy trying to sell it.

[abe]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Some of you might want to go back and read the original transcripts of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on why we were going into Iraq in the first place, and what we are supposed to accomplish as a result.

Seriously.

Well, at least we avoided, "BLESSED JULY!"

[analogika]

Originally Posted by abe

The problem with criticism like this is not so much the immediate effect. The things that may be true in the article must not be trivialized or ignored.

However, when used in a certain manner by the administrations's opponents, by the war's opponents, by the GOP's opponents, by the USA's opponents and by those who act (wittingly or not) as TOOLS of said opponents, the effect of a steady diet of these kinds of reports is not a good thing at all.

You do realize that you're saying EXACTLY what dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam said, right?

Abe, it is YOUR DUTY AS THE CITIZEN OF A DEMOCRACY to question everything, to observe vigilantly, and to criticize.

Public discussion of *everything* political (note that things like a politician's sex life are NOT political; it's personal) is not a weakness. It is the BASIS of democracy.

Without a voter informed on all issues, you don't HAVE a democracy. And if your government explicitly conspires to DISinform voters, you're on the way to dictatorship.

Arguments like yours help pave the way.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

They were talking about taking control of Iraq. Not the WHOLE THING. Which they did say would take YEARS.

Well, which part of Iraq do they have control over?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh I have. Have you?

Yup, thanks for asking. As have many others. Hence the general displeasure with the Bush administration within the U.S. Only the hardest of the hardcore republicans are fully supporting the way this was pulled off (or not, as seems to be the case).

[abe]

Originally Posted by analogika

You do realize that you're saying EXACTLY what dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam said, right?

Abe, it is YOUR DUTY AS THE CITIZEN OF A DEMOCRACY to question everything, to observe vigilantly, and to criticize.

Public discussion of *everything* political (note that things like a politician's sex life are NOT political; it's personal) is not a weakness. It is the BASIS of democracy.

Without a voter informed on all issues, you don't HAVE a democracy. And if your government explicitly conspires to DISinform voters, you're on the way to dictatorship.

Arguments like yours help pave the way.

If taken to the extreme, yes, you are right.

But, on the other hand, if the criticism I'm talking about is realized to the extreme, funding for our efforts in Iraq might be shut off.

The dictatorship you fear seems a very distant threat. It has never happened. The public, of every political stripe, would oppose it and there are enough people who would see it if and when it was ACTUALLY happening.

The situation where the US walks away from it's commitment and backstabs an ally who is trusting us and depending on us to live up to our promise HAS happened before in Viet Nam and all the signs are present that the Democrats want to make it happen again after the fall elections if they can.

As I have said before, civil liberties always are tightened up during war because of security concerns. And a minority of citizens have always felt that squeeze greater than most and there is always a cry of dictatorship and civil liberty infringement. And after the war the liberties always return to normal.

The goal is NOT to be so safe that we are no longer free. But on the other hand, the goal is also not to be so free that we are no longer protected.

The criticism in opposition to the policy will not pose a problem, because anyone who looks objectively at the policy and the goals and the facts on the ground will conclude that we should stay the course.

It's the criticism that is political in nature, Left vs Right, Bush haters and people who make up the opposition culture who worry me. They won't bother to get the facts and if they do they are so ideologically dogmatic that they will stop at nothing to have their way.

And they won't know or care what it is we might lose in the long term if Iraq falls to the forces of totalitarian Islam. They won't know or care about the disadvantage yet ANOTHER example of American fickleness presents us in dealing effectively with other nations. They won't know or care about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who trusted us to keep our promise to stay the course and who might be killed for cooperating with us. They won't know or care about the momentum the al Qaeda forces would get from showing the world they were able to take on the leader of the free world AND WIN!

They won't know or care until the enthusiastic and highly committed jihadists turn their attentions NOT on the streets and highways of Iraq but to the Western democracies which are all abominations because we are ruled by secular laws and democratic governments.

I won't go into more detail here but the bottom line is that we mustn't bug out of Iraq.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by abe

The dictatorship you fear seems a very distant threat. It has never happened. The public, of every political stripe, would oppose it and there are enough people who would see it if and when it was ACTUALLY happening.

Remember that Hitler was democratically elected.

[abe]

Originally Posted by analogika

Remember that Hitler was democratically elected.

http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar7.htm

Summary
Hitler's rise to power was based upon long-term factors - resentment in the German people, the weakness of the Weimar system - which he exploited through propaganda (paid for by his rich, Communist-fearing backers), the terror of his stormtroopers, and the brilliance of his speeches.

During the 'roaring twenties' Germans ignored this vicious little man with his programme of hatred. But when the Great Depression ruined their lives, they voted for him in increasing numbers. Needing support, and thinking he could control Hitler, President Hindenburg made the mistake in January 1933 of giving Hitler the post of Chancellor.

I'm not sure the same thing could happen here in this country, with these conditions, in this day and age.

I'm not saying such a thing is impossible, but the prospect of it seems so remote. And, if you aren't aware of it by now, I will announce to ALL of the civil libertarians among us that even the most die-hard Bushie DOES CARE about the Constitution, we do care about the rights that you THINK we are willing and eager to permanently cede to the government.

We are aware of the reigning in of the civil liberties but we see the restraint being exercised and we see the controls working by the system of laws designed to accommodate the government's need in special circumstances and we see how responsive our leaders are, not just to the threat they are trying to protect us from but to the concerns we have about their possible flagrant abuse or misuse of power.

And we don't see a problem, yet. And we doubt there will be a problem. But that doesn't mean we aren't concerned about rights and it doesn't mean we are blind or will just COMPLETELY trust ANY government to stay benign.

We know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. However, we know that there are checks and balances designed into our government by the wise old white men of yore.

There are greater, more likely dangers to our survival than fueling a new Führer.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Well, which part of Iraq do they have control over?

analog enough with the "footsie" games.

You know EXACTLY what I am talking about.

They were referring to the toppling of the Iraqi gov. How long it would take.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Yup, thanks for asking. As have many others. Hence the general displeasure with the Bush administration within the U.S. Only the hardest of the hardcore republicans are fully supporting the way this was pulled off (or not, as seems to be the case).

#1 I am not a Republican.
#2 I am not happy with the way they planned Iraq
#3 But that doesn't mean I am going to sit there and make crap up, and take things out of context. like what is going on here.

[analogika]

Abe, I'm not saying that Bush is a second Hitler.

I'm saying that your unthinking reiteration of the "critics = traitors" propaganda is a crock of sh¡t and flies in the face of the fundamental values you so proudly like to claim your Founding Fathers built your country to represent.

No matter how many hundreds of lines of text - quoted or otherwise - you try to cloud your actual points in.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

analog enough with the "footsie" games.

You know EXACTLY what I am talking about.

They were referring to the toppling of the Iraqi gov. How long it would take.

I think what you're talking about may be *technically* correct, but only in a Clintonian sense.

YOU SAY NOW that they were referring to the toppling of the Iraqi gov. YOU ASSUMED THEN (as did all supporters of the Iraqi invasion) that it referred to military action, i.e. war. The rebuilding would take much longer. The fact that Bush defined the war as being over when he stood on an aircraft carrier in front of a sunset-lit "Mission Accomplished" banner doesn't mean any more than Clinton not defining a blowjob as "sex".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

YOU SAY NOW

Just as I said then. They went onto say the actual rebuilding WOULD TAKE YEARS.

"Bush stated, "this recovery will take years." We pledge to respond with a long-term rebuilding effort"

YOU ASSUMED THEN (as did all supporters of the Iraqi invasion) that it referred to military action, i.e. war. The rebuilding would take much longer.

No no assuming was needed because they differentiated. Again, read what was said.

The fact that Bush defined the war as being over when he stood on an aircraft carrier in front of a sunset-lit "Mission Accomplished" banner doesn't mean any more than Clinton not defining a blowjob as "sex".

What a bizarro comparison

Again, He was talking about toppling the gov.

It looks to me that YOU are the one making assumptions.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I know what Donald Rumsfeld said: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

He also said: "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

"conflict".

You're going to claim that what's been going on in the past three years is "rebuilding", not "conflict", of course.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

"conflict".

You're going to claim that what's been going on in the past three years is "rebuilding", not "conflict", of course.

Again, Rumsfield was referring to ousting the Iraqi gov.

Spin all you wish.

"Bush stated, "this recovery will take years." We pledge to respond with a long-term rebuilding effort"

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, Rumsfield was referring to ousting the Iraqi gov.

You're assuming this?

[Kevin]

Nope. Esp with what was being said at the time by Bush as well.

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer disputes any suggestion that the president didn't adequately prepare the public for the task in Iraq. At recent news briefings, he has carried a list of Bush's comments in speeches before the war warning that it would be difficult. "There is no easy or risk-free course of action," Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, one of the lines Fleischer has cited.

[abe]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Yup, thanks for asking. As have many others. Hence the general displeasure with the Bush administration within the U.S. Only the hardest of the hardcore republicans are fully supporting the way this was pulled off (or not, as seems to be the case).

You haven't ONCE considered how democrats or others in the Administration or the D.C. bureaucracy might have sandbagged, dragged their feet, stonewalled, back stabbed, regarding this effort to invade Iraq and their efforts (or lack) could easily have contributed to some of the details being wrong, not being included or not being executed properly.

There have been quite a few people who have lost their jobs because they weren't ready, willing or able to serve their country by carrying out the policies and orders of this administration.

But rather than realizing that their ideology prevented their giving the President 100% of their talents and efforts and just asking for a transfer or resigning their job, instead they tried to keep their job but sabotage the end result.

If, like in the Caine Mutiny, this administration had been better served by the people who were entrusted to serve the President at HIS pleasure, I wonder if the way Iraq was "pulled off" would be an issue at all.

As an aside and completely unrelated to this line of discussion, I wonder why we don't much hear anything about Colin Powell since he left Government. Remember before the 96 election there were a lot of folks interested in his running for president. The consensus was that he needed some more high level and international political experience before he could make a serious bid. But since he bowed out of this administration we've heard almost nada.

Writing a book? Had his fill with politics? What could be going on there?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nope. Esp with what was being said at the time by Bush as well.

Ah yes, context - funny you should mention that.

Feb. 7, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy

Now, this was BEFORE the war, speaking to SOLDIERS.

Oddly, over 90% of all Coalition military casualties have occurred since George W. Bush stood in front of that goddamn "Mission Accomplished" banner on 1 May, 2003.

Context. Yes.


More context, in a USA Today article from 1 April, 2003 (before the "Mission" was "Accomplished"):

Confronting Iraq
April 1, 2003
Prewar predictions coming back to bite
Officials who forecast a brief conflict now say it'll be neither quick nor easy. That could open the administration to tough questions about credibility.

Just an example.

Who's spinning, Kevin?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Now, this was BEFORE the war, speaking to SOLDIERS.

RIGHT! He was speaking about the takeover.
(How many times do I have to repeat this?)

Oddly, over 90% of all Coalition military casualties have occurred since George W. Bush stood in front of that goddamn "Mission Accomplished" banner on 1 May, 2003.

Um when did Rumsfield say anything about how many soldiers would die?

Stop spinning.

More context, in a USA Today article from 1 April, 2003 (before the "Mission" was "Accomplished"):

Confronting Iraq
April 1, 2003
Prewar predictions coming back to bite
Officials who forecast a brief conflict now say it'll be neither quick nor easy. That could open the administration to tough questions about credibility.

No, no, no. Again, they were seperating the take-over and the Rebuilding.

BTW that looks like 4 separate links. It's just one.

One that basically has people saying what YOU are attempting to pin, and others saying what I am saying. So that article supports both sides. One is simply WRONG.

Takeover = Not take long. It did not.
Rebuilding = Take much longer. IT IS!

Who's spinning, Kevin?

You still.

Tell me analog, if this isn't the case, why were Bush and Rums separating the two instances before the war?

[abe]

Originally Posted by analogika

Abe, I'm not saying that Bush is a second Hitler.

I'm saying that your unthinking reiteration of the "critics = traitors" propaganda is a crock of sh¡t and flies in the face of the fundamental values you so proudly like to claim your Founding Fathers built your country to represent.

No matter how many hundreds of lines of text - quoted or otherwise - you try to cloud your actual points in.

[Decidedly cool] I'd say were you to re-read my posts you might recognize I didn't take your question to imply that you thought Bush was a second...

I'll thank you to expect the best and most cordial responses from me by refraining from using profanity. It is like a bull seeing red. (Yes, I know they're color blind.) You use one of the 'bad' words and it's like you are inviting me to respond from that OTHER part of me. I am in the mode where I want to exercise greater control of my scrapping urges. If you won't cooperate I will do what I feel is necessary and appropriate. Thanks again.

I have not iterated a critics = traitors sentiment nor have I re-iterated it. You can continue this without my participation for all the illumination my posts seem to bring to your corner of the belfry. You are making up both sides of what I thought was a discussion. And you are doing a poor imitation of me, if I might say so.

Ahhh, I always forget! You LOVE to get slapped around. Well, sorry. I don't feel like playing that today.

There's no stinkin chocolate.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

#1 I am not a Republican.
#2 I am not happy with the way they planned Iraq
#3 But that doesn't mean I am going to sit there and make crap up, and take things out of context. like what is going on here.

#1 I didn't say anything about you.
#2 Refer to #1.
#3 I'm very happy for you. Neither am I. See? A commonality after all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

#1 I didn't say anything about you.
#2 Refer to #1.

You were responding to me when I was supporting Bush in said actions you claim "Only hardcore republicans are fully supporting "

Neither am I.

That's debatable.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

RIGHT! He was speaking about the takeover.
(How many times do I have to repeat this?)

Um when did Rumsfield say anything about how many soldiers would die?

Um.

You are ASSUMING that he was speaking about the takeover. Now.

I'm assuming that the soldiers might have thought that he was talking about ACTUAL MILITARY ACTION. And that this is what he was actually talking about at the time. Because, you know, in the CONTEXT, that's what actually would interest a soldier before the invasion - when he's going to get to go home.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the actual question he was responding to, so all we have is the CONTEXT you so rightly wanted me to place it in.

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW that looks like 4 separate links. It's just one.

Hooray. You SO got me.

I talked about AN ARTICLE from the USA Today. I copy-pasted the headline and by-lines.

I'm sorry that managed to confuse you.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Takeover = Not take long. It did not.
Rebuilding = Take much longer. IT IS!

You seem to think that "Takeover" means ousting the government.

That's a rather arbitrary point to split it up - pure political opportunism to distract from your government's bald-faced lies and complete bungling of the operation.

If you don't mind, I'll stick with GEORGE W. BUSH's own definition:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

More than 90% of your casualties occurred AFTER that moment.

Something doesn't jive.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You were responding to me when I was supporting Bush in said actions you claim "Only hardcore republicans are fully supporting "

Responding, yes. Pointing to any individual, no. I have never honestly wondered what your affiliation is (why would I care?), and I didn't start today. I was speaking in general about the U.S., as I very clearly stated. Read much?

Originally Posted by Kevin

That's debatable.

As long as there is more than one perspective on an issue, then it can be debated. Your point?