Thursday, August 31, 2006
Comments
We’re Nearing The Completion Of The Mission In Iraq
Let’s just now have Mission Achomplished II ok?
now = not
When that maps gets all green it means our mission in Iraq is complete?
When that maps gets all green it means our mission in Iraq is complete?
No, look at those little blue boxes on the side.
I think the small numbers are the Iraqi’s and the big numbers are the Americans.
But I don’t speak DoD-gibberish.
No, look at those little blue boxes on the side.
..When it’s all blue our mission is complete?
..When it’s all blue our mission is complete?
No, the mission will never be comeplete so quit suggesting we cut and run.
Rob: You mean the second mission, don’t you? The first mission was to depose Saddam and defeat his army. We got that done pretty quickly, as I remember.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
When Baghdad is quieted, then the insurgency will have lost.
That is why they are fighting so desperately to prevent total control by the US & Iraqi forces. Without Baghdad, they will be unable to keep the attention of the international media, and they know that.
The international media has been their biggest weapon all along. After all, without their help, who would ever have declared Hezbullah the victor in the recent conflict with Israel?
Carrick: Good point. Not only that, but who would have kept up the lying about how we are losing the war, that it is a disaster, a quagmire, all the rest?
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
When Baghdad is quieted, then the insurgency will have lost.
Well, it theory, once it become quiet that means the fight has moved on since we are “fighting them there instead of here.”
Hopefully it hasn’t moved here, but for the fighting to end in Iraq it has to go somewhere because the world isn’t gonna run out of terrorists any time soon - new ones are born, trained, and activated each day.
No, the mission will never be comeplete so quit suggesting we cut and run.
cutting and running at this stage would be ludacris..
When Iraq is stabilized, we “redeploy” to Iran. Unless they cooperate, of course. Full inspection, no nukes, no more support of Hez, and no more dictator.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
When Iraq is stabilized, we “redeploy” to Iran. Unless they cooperate, of course. Full inspection, no nukes, no more support of Hez, and no more dictator.
and lets hope and pray to Allah it turn out that simple, lol
When Iraq is stabilized, we “redeploy” to Iran. Unless they cooperate, of course. Full inspection, no nukes, no more support of Hez, and no more dictator.
Yeah, well declaring that Iran is X years away from having the bomb isn’t going to work this time I am afraid.
It worked with Saddam yes, but even people my age are old enough to remember that tactic. I don’t see it working that way again.
and the Iraqi Army will be shooting at us.“redeploy" to Iran
THe Iraqis are not our allies.
If I had to pick the next fight, it would be with Syria. That would go a long way to stabilizing the main Middle East conflict. Whether it is entirely militarily, entirely diplomatic or a mixture remains to be seen. Without the Syria conduit, there would be no way that Iran could effectively support Hezbollah.
Iran is a much more pluralistic nation than many people give it credit for. Diplomacy there (long term, not short term) has a shot of working, but it requires more intelligence and acumen in our State Department than we’ve had in at least 40 years.
Free: I know this is a foreign concept to you, but it depends on what the truth is. I didn’t mention any speculation as to schedules, you notice. That might be your agenda, but it isn’t mine. We go in, we take away whatever he has, and we depose him. It’s war, not your fantasy politics.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Carrick: I think Israel should take care of Syria, while we are taking care of Iran. Diplomacy in the ME, as long as it is in the grip of dictators, is a joke. We cut off the head of the snake(figuratively speaking), and let the people form their own pluralistic govt.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Free: I know this is a foreign concept to you, but it depends on what the truth is. I didn’t mention any speculation as to schedules, you notice. That might be your agenda, but it isn’t mine. We go in, we take away whatever he has, and we depose him. It’s war, not your fantasy politics.
I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. I just don’t see the public and Congress going alone with these CIA guesses at stages of development.
We went thru this already, people aren’t that naive.
From the totals on the graphic it would appear that the IA/NP force structure numbers are doubling every 6 months.
Training is something that our military does very well. Great job to our guys (and gals)!
I haven’t given much thought to whose we attack next, but my initial gut reaction is why attack anyone, yet. Israel is the primary target of its Islamic neighbors. It will likely be their fight first, especially since they have already been attacked by Iran & Syria via Hezbollah. If Israel is to keep what land it has left she will have to fight to win sooner or later, and likely sooner than us. We would then come along side Israel to support her efforts against the terrorist states. IMO
None of that is relevant to my point about a real strategy. You are focused on public image, I am focused on getting results. Your path never yields results, just more dancing around while the warriors get it done in the real world. I do agree that you talkers need something to talk about. Just don’t confuse what you do with what is really needed to make the world work.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
WOOF:
and the Iraqi Army will be shooting at us.
THe Iraqis are not our allies.
Clueless as usual.
HG: Yep.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
None of that is relevant to my point about a real strategy. You are focused on public image, I am focused on getting results. Your path never yields results, just more dancing around while the warriors get it done in the real world. I do agree that you talkers need something to talk about. Just don’t confuse what you do with what is really needed to make the world work.
Ha, yeah. Lets just go galivanting around the planet with a miliarty that war gutted for a decade and then thrown into a multi-theatre war for 5 years.
All talk eh?
Speaking of talk, I heard a DoD spokesman say that they will be moving people out of support roles into combat role - that doesn’t sound so good.
BTW Robert, I’m know I’m a chicken hawk for advocating war and not being willing to fight myself. At least I admit it.
Free: That has nothing to do with what I said. Your guilty conscience is none of my concern. Your cynical attempts to reduce real world issues to partisan politics is what I was referring to.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Free: That has nothing to do with what I said. Your guilty conscience is none of my concern. Your cynical attempts to reduce real world issues to partisan politics is what I was referring to.
What partisans? Please explain since I am of the President’s party and have supported the war from day one.
What partisan politics is that smartass?
Because I support the war I am not allowed to factor in the public’s support in how we operate?
Every Republican Presidential candidate on our side has their own criticism of the war’s progress...wheres the partisanship?
Is having a debate so f’n bad as to whether our role in the world is to fix problems?
Free: What I’m trying to explain to you is that it’s not about a debate. If the Islamofascists had the superior military and technological achievements, it would all be over by now. They would have marched right in here during the weak-kneed Clinton administration, and if you still had a head, it would be bowing to Mecca five times a day. Our might, and the willingness to use it, are all that are keeping them at bay right now. Our willingness to play politics, on any level, is to their advantage. Defeating them will never come by talking, only by bringing them to their knees and keeping them there until they accept modern civilization. Talkers are important for after the military victory.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Robert108:
Carrick: Good point. Not only that, but who would have kept up the lying about how we are losing the war, that it is a disaster, a quagmire, all the rest?
But in a funny way, this attitude by the press probably contributed to George Bush’s reelection. There were people, including me, who were genuinely angry with what we saw as mismanagement in Iraq, but never bought the media garbage about an unwinnable war. I for one would have voted for a Democrat who could manage the war better, but accept the importance of what was being fought for, and who would recognize that failure was no option in this case. (Does he exist? Perhaps not...)
The media story contributed to the nomination of Kerry and the adoption by the Democrats of their current defeatist policy. Both of these have been gifts that have kept on giving. The take home message is that lying, and siding with liars, has its very visible price tag that is carried with it.
What I’m trying to explain to you is that it’s not about a debate. If the Islamofascists had the superior military and technological achievements, it would all be over by now.
Good thing they don’t.
Good thing Clinton didn’t have a chance to upgrade their ICBM capabilities like he did China.
They would have marched right in here during the weak-kneed Clinton administration, and if you still had a head, it would be bowing to Mecca five times a day.
Unlikely, but a good fish tale none the less.
Our might, and the willingness to use it, are all that are keeping them at bay right now.
But at what point does that willingness bite us?
Our power during the Cold War was derived partially from our restraint. (And having a President THAT COULD TALK helped a lot too.)
Our willingness to play politics, on any level, is to their advantage.
I don’t buy that argument, I don’t see anything wrong with the debate. If we lose the ability to publicly, and as a nation, determine our policies, then what are we fighting for?
Defeating them will never come by talking, only by bringing them to their knees and keeping them there until they accept modern civilization.
Correct. We must destroy them where they are a threat and contain them where we can’t do anything about them.
Talkers are important for after the military victory.
Too bad the President is focused on a Political Victory and not a Military Victory huh?
What I’m trying to explain to you is that it’s not about a debate. If the Islamofascists had the superior military and technological achievements, it would all be over by now.
Good thing they don’t.
Good thing Clinton didn’t have a chance to upgrade their ICBM capabilities like he did China.
They would have marched right in here during the weak-kneed Clinton administration, and if you still had a head, it would be bowing to Mecca five times a day.
Unlikely, but a good fish tale none the less.
Our might, and the willingness to use it, are all that are keeping them at bay right now.
But at what point does that willingness bite us?
Our power during the Cold War was derived partially from our restraint. (And having a President THAT COULD TALK helped a lot too.)
Our willingness to play politics, on any level, is to their advantage.
I don’t buy that argument, I don’t see anything wrong with the debate. If we lose the ability to publicly, and as a nation, determine our policies, then what are we fighting for?
Defeating them will never come by talking, only by bringing them to their knees and keeping them there until they accept modern civilization.
Correct. We must destroy them where they are a threat and contain them where we can’t do anything about them.
Talkers are important for after the military victory.
Too bad the President is focused on a Political Victory and not a Military Victory huh?
What I’m trying to explain to you is that it’s not about a debate. If the Islamofascists had the superior military and technological achievements, it would all be over by now.
Good thing they don’t.
Good thing Clinton didn’t have a chance to upgrade their ICBM capabilities like he did China.
They would have marched right in here during the weak-kneed Clinton administration, and if you still had a head, it would be bowing to Mecca five times a day.
Unlikely, but a good fish tale none the less.
Our might, and the willingness to use it, are all that are keeping them at bay right now.
But at what point does that willingness bite us?
Our power during the Cold War was derived partially from our restraint. (And having a President THAT COULD TALK helped a lot too.)
Our willingness to play politics, on any level, is to their advantage.
I don’t buy that argument, I don’t see anything wrong with the debate. If we lose the ability to publicly, and as a nation, determine our policies, then what are we fighting for?
Defeating them will never come by talking, only by bringing them to their knees and keeping them there until they accept modern civilization.
Correct. We must destroy them where they are a threat and contain them where we can’t do anything about them.
Talkers are important for after the military victory.
Too bad the President is focused on a Political Victory and not a Military Victory huh?
Crap, sorry about that.
Just a thought:
If a good democrat can support the troops but campaign against the war, can’t a good democrat support Lamont’s candidacy but campaign for Lieberman?
Another try:
If a good democrat can support the troops by campaigning against the war, can’t a good democrat support Lamont’s candidacy by campaigning for Lieberman?
I don’t entirely agree with your viewpoint, Robert108. Clausewitz describes war fighting as being a triangle composed of three parts: an adequate force and leadership, efficient logistical support, and the support of the populace.
I think what Freep is addressing is this third vertex. Without public support, invasion of Iran is not tenable no matter how desirable you may see it to be. And I agree with Freep that of the problem is the general incompetence of our intelligence services (thanks, Bill, you were very helpful). The populace is well within their rights to take anything the CIA has to say about Iran with a big grain of salt.
Realizing we all may have different definitions for success, at least twice as many as there were reasons to invade Iraq. I have a few questions.
(1) I noticed that the graph shows 0 or a ‘clean slate’ on Jan 2005, I believe that on May 2, 2003 President Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ and the transition from dictatorship to democracy begins. This graph starts over a year and half later. This is a long handled hockey stick of a graph. What happened during that long flat period? This was a period of instability due to poor post-war planning (and the ditching of long in development state department plans in favor of quick work in the DoD with Gen Gartner told to start all over), chiefly because Powell said we need more troops and Rumsfeld said we did not. The looting and the insurgency were not to be unexpected unless it was slap-dash planning, of which it was. This period of instability led to the rise of the insurgency and panicky interrogations of insurgents which led to the Abu Ghraib tortures (something that President Bush admitted as being a black eye in the Arab world that will be with us for a long time). This was also the period of the questionable process of full de-Baathification and the dismissing of the Iraqi army. This is a long lesson being learned in front of the rest of the world on how to nation re-build. Perhaps we are finally getting it? We’ll cross our fingers.
(2) What does the details behind these colors and numbers really mean? What does it mean to be Iraqi Army or Police led? Does that imply fully independent of US troop support, and even US logistical (e.g. targeting) support? I believe “BN” is battalion and “BDE” is brigade. Jul 2005 shows 4 brigades and 10 battalions that are “Iraqi Army or Police led"… yet in Sept 2005, General Casey agreed after being questioned by Senator McCain that only 1 battalion was really independently ready.
(3) Are we satisified with the outcome of the war that we will have military bases in various locations throughout Iraq that we will neeed to continue to keep secure? What will be the cost of this not just financially but politically? Will there be a continued high tension, us versus them security around the bases like there is for the “green zone”. Having bases in the middle east especially in Saudi Arabia, but in other Muslim countries does not sit well with not just the fundamentalist muslims but a fair number of more general muslims. They have nationalistic and regional pride… in fact many countries continue to resent having bases in their countries (we have over 700 that we publically admit to).
So, while I hope for a successful conclusion in Iraq, I’m not optimistic about the data behind this graph, and I’m not to sure whether there is a consensus on what success might be.
Our power during the Cold War was derived partially from our restraint. (And having a President THAT COULD TALK helped a lot too.)
LOL
Perhaps we are finally getting it?
I’M pretty confident that we are..
Perhaps we are finally getting it?
I’M pretty confident that we are..
Confidence can be a good thing. Besides a gut feel, what is it that makes you confident? The graph?
The problem in Iraq right now, as I see it, it not weather we are doing the right thing or not. (I believe we are to a great extent indeed doing the right thing)
That the future depends on the Iraqis and their leader and most influential people seem pretty inept to me (i.e. to close to Iran, more about power and solving the problem of their country, pandaring to ethinic group, etc.)
I’d love for Karzaid to be the President of Iraq and for Karzaid to be their top military general, unfortunatly this isn’t possible.
the Iraqis choose their own inept leader and we just have to leave with it and do the best we can under such a constrained circumscante. I believe that to a great extent we are currently doing the best we can, unfortunatly, I worry that may not be enough..
..we’ve carried them to the lake, but from now on all we can really do is to encourage to drink, i.e. we can’t really force them to drink..
aNON,
Would agree that the time is nearing where we need to determine whether the Iraqi’s will pick up arms and defend themselves while we are there to back them up to see how they will act once we are gone?
"I noticed that the graph shows 0 or a ‘clean slate’ on Jan 2005,”
No. It shows that no Iraqi forces were in control of any Iraqi territory.
“I believe that on May 2, 2003 President Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’”
Then you believe incorrectly. He “declared” no such thing. At that point in time, Saddam Hussein’s rule was over and US efforts were then shifted toward creating a democoratically elected government in Iraq. For the air craft carrier he spoke on, their mission was accomplished. Further, Bush mentioned that there was much left to be done in Iraq, and he was right. That a bunch of childish idiots seized on a banner and ignored what the man said speaks more of their inability to grasp the situation in Iraq than it does his administration’s. If you feel that you are correct, then by all means find the speech and provide a quote that supports your contention.
“and the transition from dictatorship to democracy begins.”
Indeed.
“This graph starts over a year and half later. This is a long handled hockey stick of a graph. “
What makes you think that laying the groundwork for democracy happens in the blink of an eye?
“What happened during that long flat period? “
The insurgency formed, the hunt for Saddam Hussein continued, foriegn terrorists set up shop with the intention of fomenting the insurgency and thrwarting democracy in Iraq, coalition forces began rebuilding, began laying the foundation for a transitional government, began incorporating Iraqi forces into stabilization efforts and adapting to the developing insurgency and terrorist attacks.
“This was a period of instability due to poor post-war planning “
There is no doubt that coalition forces did not forsee every single developement that they faced in transforming Iraq and it is also without doubt that mistakes were made. The important part is that coalition forces adapted to the changing circumstances and moved forward toward their goals. This has produced an amazing string of uncelebrated successes. The Iraqi elections increased participation among the Iraqi population and forced the insurgents to choose cooperation or bloodshed. That is why Iraq has formed a coalition government that was democratically elected according to a constiution ratified by the Iraqi people. They have better infrastructure, better economic condistions, and a fundamentally different security situation (both from the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein and the chaos that resulted from his removal). So it isn’t like nothing was done. It’s that what was done was extremely difficult and virtually unreported. Conditions that persist into the present. You can, via the luxury of hind-sight, critique the mis-steps of efforts taken by coalition forces in Iraq thus far, but that offers nothing in the way of completing their objectives. It is self serving and counter-productive.
"the Iraqis choose their own inept leader “
As Iraq’s new government is a parlimentary system, he has to share his authority with the elected representatives of the Iraqi government. This differentiates Iraq’s leadership from that of Iran and Syria because they are accountable to the Iraqi people. I’m sure that will not assuage your fears to any great extent, but it is worth mention as it is likely to moderate their actions to a far greater extent than say the Mullah puppet Ahmadinejad.
“Would agree that the time is nearing where we need to determine whether the Iraqi’s will pick up arms and defend themselves while we are there to back them up to see how they will act once we are gone?”
It seems you place no value in the information repesented in the graphic at the lead of this discussion. If the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have “picked up arms and defended themselves” thus far and to varying degrees does not influence your determination in the least, then whatever arbitrary deadline you set to finalize that assessment is irrelevant. You have already made up your mind.
Free: “Our power during the Cold War was derived partially from our restraint.”
Our power during the Cold War was derived from the size of our arsenal, combined with our resolve to use it. You apparently don’t know anything about the Cold War, either.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Unbelievable, we nearing completion of our mission? LOL>
Unbelievable, we nearing completion of our mission? LOL
Great comment with tinges of that old diane character thrown in along with the mindless taunting.
WHOOSH:
I believe that on May 2, 2003 President Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ and the transition from dictatorship to democracy begins
Bush declares “End of major combat”. Banner on carrier Abraham Lincoln declares “mission accomplished.” Carrier returning home, their mission was accomplished. Bush’s speech says “Our mission continues.”
I love being lectured by people who can’t get their fundamental facts straight.
Are we satisified with the outcome of the war that we will have military bases in various locations throughout Iraq that we will neeed to continue to keep secure?
We still have troops stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea and Kuwait.
The question of whether we have troops there is no measure of success.
Having bases in the middle east especially in Saudi Arabia, but in other Muslim countries does not sit well with not just the fundamentalist muslims but a fair number of more general muslims.
That has something to do with Mecca being there. But there will be haters that are angry at us in general and will want to attack us regardless of whether we have a presence in Saudi Arabia.
In any case, I don’t think a troop withdrawal from the Middle East solve a thing. Are you proposing that as a solution???
Yeah. That’d really fix things.
Likwid:
Great comment with tinges of that old diane character thrown in along with the mindless taunting.
With the emphasis on mindless.
I’m pretty sure that if we pulled out of Germany and Japan, they would still function just fine, their governments wouldn’t collaspe.
Oh and Lik and Carrick, my comment was simply to point out the asinine headline and mindless drolls who think that things are going swimmingly in Iraq. Not even the prez thinks that since he didn’t say one whit about our “progress” in Iraq in his speech yesterday.
Bush declares “End of major combat”. Banner on carrier Abraham Lincoln declares ”mission accomplished.” Carrier returning home, their mission was accomplished. Bush’s speech says ”Our mission continues.”
I hate being lead by an idiot who cant figure out WTF he stands for.
I hate being lead by an idiot who cant figure out WTF he stands for.
You must have serious inner discussions.
Why would take the voices in his twisted head seriously? Nobody else does.
Let me help you RBB. The Mission Accomplished banner was put up by the sailors on the AB, and referred to their mission to Iraq. Which as I mentioned was accomplished, since they were returning home.
Bush was speaking of the war on terror and the war in Iraq in general. He was right that major combat operations were over (seen any tank battles recently?), but that the mission in Iraq was not completed.
Not that this will stop you or any of the other Bush-haters from repeating the lie that Bush said or was otherwise responsible for “mission accomplished”.
They’re still bitter that it was a great photo-op for Bush.
The Mission Accomplished banner was put up by the sailors
A bunch of us swabbies from the engine room were sitting around and decided a really big Mission Accomplished banner is what we need .
Were gonna keep the ship out an extra day and turn it around so we can get some really heroic at sea pictures.
White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln’s crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.
Regardless the mission of the Abe Lincoln was accomplished. They had every right to be told that.
Let me help you RBB. The Mission Accomplished banner was put up by the sailors on the AB, and referred to their mission to Iraq. Which as I mentioned was accomplished, since they were returning home.
Bullshit.
That banner was placed there at the direction of the White House so they could use the footage in a campaign ad. That’s all the men and women of our armed forces are to the Bush regime---cannon fodder and background to be exploited.
The story you refer to is the post-event spin, and you swalloed that BS hook line and sinker. just like you’ve swallowed the “everything ios great in Iraq” BS.
I hate being lead by an idiot who cant figure out WTF he stands for.
RBB,
That’s a quote from John Kerry, isn’t it?
There are still Muslims alive in Iraq. We aren’t close to completing our mission.
That banner was placed there at the direction of the White House so they could use the footage in a campaign ad. That’s all the men and women of our armed forces are to the Bush regime---cannon fodder and background to be exploited.
Don knows this because he was in on all the talks concerning the banner.
Either that or he’s just listening to the voices in his head again.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Don,
This was the President’s first words on the deck of the Lincoln:
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. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in
securingandthat country.reconstructing
You all want to focus on the banner and not place it in the context of the Presidents words.
Don spreads his “Bullshit”
That banner was placed there at the direction of the White House so they could use the footage in a campaign ad. That’s all the men and women of our armed forces are to the Bush regime---cannon fodder and background to be exploited.
Whereas anyone with a service background knows that such banners are common on vessels returning from deployments that include high visibility operations, especially combat operations.
Which is why the President stated:
Our mission continues.
Don’s (appropriately) self described “Bullshit” continues:
The story you refer to is the post-event spin, and you swalloed [sic] that BS hook line and sinker. just like you’ve swallowed the “everything ios [sic] great in Iraq” BS.
As counter insurgencies go, Iraq is going very well indeed, as anyone who has read the history would know. The modern record for supressing such an insurgency, btw, is seven years. Most have run in the 10 to 15 year range.
A wise man (not to be confused with Don) would limit his comments to those areas in which he had some small understanding, vice the total ignorance on display.
Out Here
Rodney Graves
There are still Muslims alive in Iraq. We aren’t close to completing our mission.
A bit radical, but interesting.
Mr. or Ms. HG:
I keep forgetting---most far right-wingers value words over actions.
We in the reality based community value actions over words.
So how is this
White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln’s crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman
inconsistent with this
The Mission Accomplished banner was put up by the sailors
And it was requested by the crew on the carrier… obviously addressing their mission, and not Bush’s upcoming speech, which clearly they would not have been privy to.
Also, I never said it wasn’t approved by the White House, or even suggested how it was made originally.
Nor did I say it was a great idea...in fact, I think it’s symptomatic of just how bungled the White House’s public relations have been under Bush.
You lefties are hilarious.
FreeRepublicans.Com,
By thhat “DoD gibberish” I believe you are referring to the abbreviations in the lower left hand box of each slide?
If so, those are the universal (in English at any rate) abbreviations for units:
DIV = Division (XX), 2 or more (usually 3, plus smaller attached units of up to Battalion size) Brigades
BDE = Brigade (X), 2 or more (usually 3 or 4, plus smaller attached units of up to company size)
Battalions.
BN = Battalion (III), 3 or more Companies (plus smaller attached units of up to Platoon Size).
Drink Deeply…
Out Here
Rodney Graves
I think you have right-wingers confused with those on the left.
Don,
17 UN resolutions against Iraq before Bush did something.
How many resolutions in Lebanon?
Don, You value actions over words. Then why all the huf’n and puf’n over words on a banner?
Don:
“We in the reality based community...”
Coming from a far-left extremist hate-filled marxist, that is really funny!
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
We in the reality based community value actions over words.
Somebody call animal control while I scrape up this pile of dog shit.
Somebody call animal control while I scrape up this pile of dog shit.
Mr. or Ms. Bat:
Like many right-wingers on this blog, you seem to delight in throwing feces and those who disagree with you.
How typical…
Like many right-wingers on this blog, you seem to delight in throwing feces and those who disagree with you.
How typical…
Don,
I haven’t heard a comeback this intelligent since the 4th grade.
There are still Muslims alive in Iraq. We aren’t close to completing our mission.
LOL
..sad, but to some extent true
Like many right-wingers on this blog, you seem to delight in throwing feces and (sic) those who disagree with you.
Don,
I suppose that I should apologize if my remark, a reference to my comment yesterday about you, offended your sensibilities or hurt your feelings. But quite frankly, I can’t seem to muster the concern for either.
I come back to this thread with the hope to hear what others might thoughtfully consider on my questions, and it seems that people here are doing the classic ‘speck’ nitpick over the plank in the eye debate.
I was referring to the “mission accomplished” for the very fact that it was the end of major combat operations, and in fact quoted President George Bush’s phrase about the need to transform the dictatorship to a democracy. So nitpicking on who did the sign, and whether it was referring to the carrier’s mission is a fools errand from the questions I was asking.
I was using May 2, 2003 as a date where reconstruction work is clearly being declared by our president, I am saying nothing more than that. Wisely, one would assume that long-term security would now become a top priority. But what we see instead is a long-handled hockey stick that goes for easily 2 years without a blip on the graph.
How do you reconcile Bremer’s unilateral decision on May 23 where he dismissed the army and canceled their pensions. Even the quickly whipped up replacement plans under Garner (that replaced Powell’s more thoughtful “Future of Iraq” prewar planning) didn’t propose that, but instead would have used them as a fundmental instrument in securing Iraq and as a source of intelligence. Garner and others were shocked at such a move. Bremer latter regretted it and tried to reverse it but it was too late and many former iraqi soldiers became the backbone of the insurgency.
Also, why are we debating who paid for the sign on the carrier. Why are we not more interested in understanding the real data behind the graph. Casey testified to congress that there was only one battalion truly ready to independently operate but this graph indicates there was 12 during that time. I suspect the answer is getting into the details of what does it mean to have the “Iraqi army lead” versus be able to operate independently.
This also led to my last question are we satisified that the outcome of the war is that we may find ourselves operating ‘permanent’ bases in yet another land under what is very likely a high tension situtation? Is this a success outcome from where the original decision to go to war?
Don is a funny guy; he screeches his hatespew at the real Americans on this blog, strictly from a partisan political viewpoint, then acts all hurt when he gets a fraction of it back. Poor baby!
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."-Ike Newton
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Don Myers has found a subject to comment upon which is well suited to his expertise:
...throwing feces…
Out Here
Rodney Graves
Whoosh: Frankly, your recitation of the leftie Monday Morning quarterbacking monologue is boring. It’s ever so much easier to nitpick after the fact, and to criticize those who took action when action was called for, than to make those decisions in the first place. It would be much more interesting and constructive if your type would turn your claimed superior intellect to dealing with the situation as it is, instead of simply complaining and backbiting. Give it a try.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
R108: exactly.
Hmm… I read this before posting, and wonder if I should bother replying to some recent postings.
Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
I am being told by at least one poster and one who seconds it, that my postings are inappropriate for this site (or possibly at any time).
I can not ask for clarification of the data and trying to correlate it back to what actions may best explain the data.
I can not assert anything that questions assumptions from which a couple posters feel are being done from a “leftie” perspective.
So far I have seen no one tackle answers to these questions. Just a bunch of postings that led to who paid for the banner on an aircraft carrier, and then the rest just a lot requests for me to shut up and accept the data as is.
Well, I hope who ever set the policy in poem above, as the guts to say it wasn’t delivered here. And I proved unwise to respond to trolls.
Being labor day weekend, I’m gone from future postings and unlikely to return anytime.
Good luck on your search for the courage to debate with honest opponents.
Wow Whoosh…
Why don’t you just go climb up on a cross and nail yourself to it.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Why don’t you just go climb up on a cross and nail yourself to it.
Indeed, Rob. Especially considering that I addressed Whosit’s initial offering directly and Whosit completely ignored my response. Shows how interested in debating Whosit’s ignorant arm-chair QBing Whosit really is.
Don...If you actually believe these guy’s are “far right wingers”? Reality is further away from your community than you know. Typical of the far out, radical left!
Turns out I had an extra hour before leaving and scanned the mail and saw the responses… so now you can say I’m a flip flopper. 
Ok, I forgot to put my smiley in my last post, I was not intending to express a personal affront but could see how it was read that way. I was intending to give a challenge to stay on track to the questions by the use of a little irony (if that’s the right word). So as far as nailing myself to a cross, I’ll have to let others do that, I’m not “feeling” nailed by the responses that were given.
So back to “bin laden“‘s comment that I didn’t respond to his post. Actually I did respond to a fair amount of it, I just didn’t do the excerpt pasting bit.
Bin laden’s comments was the one that triggered the whole rabbit trail on “mission accomplished”. I clearly addressed that by saying I was misread. So here is the straightforward question/comment: On May 2, 2005 President Bush made a speech that indicated that major combat operations were over, and the transition from dictator to democracy now begins. I think we all agree with that, unless I am mistaken. So then I simply used that as a safe start date for trying to understand the graph… no political spin or jabs were intended.
What I pointed out was that there is a long handle to the hockey stick that this graph is not showing since it starts in Jan ‘05. I was asking what was happening before the graph.
Bin laden said:
What makes you think that laying the groundwork for democracy happens in the blink of an eye?
Well, that is my question… what happened then?
My question was if the original post-war plans for Iraq called for reforming the army then why did it take nearly two years to show any battalions ready to lead (especially if it looks like it might be a loose definition of being “ready to lead”. I offered things that I have encountered as to what happened and whether the data on the graph was consistent to it.
bin laden then said:
The insurgency formed, the hunt for Saddam Hussein continued, foriegn terrorists set up shop with the intention of fomenting the insurgency and thrwarting democracy in Iraq, coalition forces began rebuilding, began laying the foundation for a transitional government, began incorporating Iraqi forces into stabilization efforts and adapting to the developing insurgency and terrorist attacks.
I did bring up the question of how the insurregency strengthened in my initial post, and in fact in my followup post was even more explicit the fact that it looks like the insurregency was fueled by the same decision that slowed down the ability to create an independently functioning Iraqi security force.
I didn’t address the foreign terrorists bit because the US government has said that they make a small minority of the insurrgency. It was more that the insurgency surprised those who took charge in the post-war operations. I shared that that the “Future of Iraq” plans did account for that as well as looting, which is where the lawlessness began to get out of hand under Garner and where we began to lose some of our ‘liberator’ goodwill gains.
Anyway before assuming I have to address other peoples responses point by point, I think it is far to verify whether the basic ones I asked have been responded to. I would say that they were not, and only rhetorical responses and side nitpicks were given.
My questions are: What does it mean to be “Iraqi army or police led”? What does it mean to have 10 battalions on the chart at a time when General Casey said there was only 1 battalion operating independently? Are we satistied with the possible state of maintaining ‘permanent’ bases in Iraq under an uneasy tension with the nation?
Finally, what do you think are definitions for success?
Well take care.
PS: this all got started when I asked Rob about a post 17 months ago that he made, where he gave a positive response to the military’s proclamation that in 18 months the Iraqi security forces will be standing up and the US standing down… well I was just saying they are asking for another 18 months… then what another 18? I contend that we should be ready to have permament bases in Iraq and ongoing tensions as the war outcome.
"So back to “bin laden“‘s comment that I didn’t respond to his post. Actually I did respond to a fair amount of it, I just didn’t do the excerpt pasting bit.”
Perhaps you an show me where exactly you addressed anything beyond being corrected for the your “unintentional” mischaracterization of what Bush said on the Lincoln.
“So here is the straightforward question/comment: On May 2, 2005 President Bush made a speech that indicated that major combat operations were over, and the transition from dictator to democracy now begins. I think we all agree with that, unless I am mistaken.”
Much better.
“Well, that is my question… what happened then?”
And I addressed that as well.
“My question was “
You use “my question” frequently, but you have asked several questions.
“if the original post-war plans for Iraq called for reforming the army then why did it take nearly two years to show any battalions ready to lead (especially if it looks like it might be a loose definition of being “ready to lead"."
And it was explained to you that the political and infrastructure issues impacted the security situation which included the formation of the Iraqi police and security forces.
“I did bring up the question of how the insurregency strengthened in my initial post, and in fact in my followup post was even more explicit the fact that it looks like the insurregency was fueled by the same decision that slowed down the ability to create an independently functioning Iraqi security force. “
Ok, let’s address your contention that disbanding the Iraqi army constituted a mistake. Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Republican Guard was like any other Iraqi instutution ruled by that Ba’athist thug. Fear and intimidation kept order and rewards were dispersed based upon who you were and how loyally and effectively you carried out Saddam’s oppressive agenda. The coalition forces would have been unwise to adopt such an organization as it would have hampered their efforts as much as it would have helped them if it helped them at all. Saddam’s thugs had brutally oppressed the Kurds in northern Iraq as well as the Shiites in the south. As the goal was to form Iraq into a cohesive political entity representing all cultures and peoples within it’s borders, this would not do.
“I didn’t address the foreign terrorists bit because the US government has said that they make a small minority of the insurrgency.”
Abu Zarqawi’s goals included fomenting strife between the sects of muslims in Iraq by attacking Shiite muslims thereby provoking them into waring with their Sunni countrymen. That effort persists to this day. While they may be smaller in number than the Iraqis they are recruiting, they are the driving force behind the insurgency.
“It was more that the insurgency surprised those who took charge in the post-war operations.”
What about the insurgency? That there was one? That it grew in strength? That it was coordinated? Lethal? Perhaps to some degree regarding each of those aspects, the coalition’s leadership was taken aback to some degree, but that doesn’t mean they were unable and overcome. They have indeed.
“I shared that that the “Future of Iraq” plans did account for that as well as looting, which is where the lawlessness began to get out of hand under Garner and where we began to lose some of our ‘liberator’ goodwill gains.”
There are 25 million people in Iraq. The coalition removed the Hussein regime and in doing so there was an inevitable vacuum that could not be replaced merely by sets of eyes and weapons. The inability of foreign forces to integrate and adapt to a dynamic society and serve as it’s guardians is fundamentally inhibited by language barriers, cultural ignorance, and having to build interpersonal relationships where trust is utterly essential from scratch.
“Anyway before assuming I have to address other peoples responses point by point, I think it is far to verify whether the basic ones I asked have been responded to. I would say that they were not, and only rhetorical responses and side nitpicks were given.”
Ah. Well, Whosit, the nit that was picked was one that deserved correction as it is an often repeated lie and dismissing the substantive responses you’ve received as “rhetorical” reflects poorly on you.
“My questions are: What does it mean to be “Iraqi army or police led"?"
It means what it says - When an operation is carried out, the Iraqi forces lead. They make command decisions and only call in coalition forces for back up.
“What does it mean to have 10 battalions on the chart at a time when General Casey said there was only 1 battalion operating independently? “
Independenty is not the same as “in the lead”. Independently means that they do not depend on coalition forces during their operations.
“Are we satistied with the possible state of maintaining ‘permanent’ bases in Iraq under an uneasy tension with the nation?”
Coalition forces are in Iraq now at the request of the Iraqi government. They will stay as long as the Iraqi people require their services and accept their presence (which will be dramatically reduced as the security situation improves).
“Finally, what do you think are definitions for success?”
A fully formed constitutional democracy capable of sustaining it’s own security against terrorist threats and the states that support them.
“PS: this all got started when I asked Rob about a post 17 months ago that he made, where he gave a positive response to the military’s proclamation that in 18 months the Iraqi security forces will be standing up and the US standing down...”
That is what is happening.
“well I was just saying they are asking for another 18 months...”
So be it.
“then what another 18?”
If that is what it takes.
“I contend that we should be ready to have permament bases in Iraq and ongoing tensions as the war outcome.”
If the coalition is fortunate, the Iraqis will allow them to keep bases in their country well after they can maintain their own security.
bin Laden: I fear you are wasting your energy with that one. He already announced he was cutting and running from this blog. Your answers are cogent and well-considered, which is probably way over his head, anyway. This whole exercise in backbiting and Monday Morning quarterbacking is, IMO, futile and useless. Those question cannot be answered with anything but speculation, as the questions are speculative in the first place. “Why did things happen this way?” is a child’s question, like “Why is the sky blue?” There is an answer, but the purpose of the question is to engage the parent, not to