| Author | Post |
|---|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30th, 2007 03:05 pm |
|
Tinkerbelle wrote: My nephew is a federal officer in DC and said that the march or protest was definitely orchestrated. Yes, there were the red flag wavers. The crown was estimated to be between 8 and 10 thousand. The promise was for 100,000 and the protest organizers expected that number. They called it a successful protest but they fell 90 thousand people short of a success. That's something you will not read in the NY Times. A interesting comparison between photos taken by the news media and the government discloses that the news people took photos from an angle that made the crowd seemingly of endless numbers. The government photos showed that the crowd seemed sparse in comparison. The anti-war crowd will definitely spin this in their favor. Yes, my dear little Tink. The protests were more than orchestrated and as usual the news didn't give it full coverage. It took a foreign news service to pick up the fact that the Capitol steps were spray painted as were several other government buildings. There were also acts of vandalism on the buildings and, of course, a FOX News truck. The disturbing thing was that the Capitol Police were instructed NOT to make any arrests and to let the vandalism go even though arrests were within their reach. An Army amputee who was part of the counter demonstration was spit upon by marchers. The counter demonstration crowd, peacefully stationary on the sidewalk, has trash and cigarette butts thrown at them. The crown was furious when they say the counter people with a hanging effigy of Jane Fonda wearing a t-shirt with the word BITCH on it. Just as Tank said, it was the same old crap again as with the Viet Nam anti-war demonstrations. The Red crown is alive and well and successfully leading the sincere demonstrators (useful idiots) around. This was not even on FOX news. Why does it take a foreign telecast to bring this to light?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30th, 2007 01:18 pm |
|
Good news out of Iraq (and y'all said none of it was ever covered). The Iraqi government squashed a Shiite Doomsday cult. Granted, they were a bit overwhelmed and needed US air and tank support, and they were a group that all sides agreed were waaaay out there (yes, people, Muslims are not all alike) , but it is a start. They at least took the initiative in an area they control.
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 226 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2007 05:58 pm |
|
| My nephew is a federal officer in DC and said that the march or protest was definitely orchestrated. Yes, there were the red flag wavers. The crown was estimated to be between 8 and 10 thousand. The promise was for 100,000 and the protest organizers expected that number. They called it a successful protest but they fell 90 thousand people short of a success. That's something you will not read in the NY Times. A interesting comparison between photos taken by the news media and the government discloses that the news people took photos from an angle that made the crowd seemingly of endless numbers. The government photos showed that the crowd seemed sparse in comparison. The anti-war crowd will definitely spin this in their favor.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2007 03:19 am |
|
Be it the military or the anti-war crowd, there are those who lead, and there are those who follow. It is interesting to see Jane Fonda back.....35 years since her last appearance. Don't know what she really offers, however, and her downside wipes out any positives she might add.
Did you join the counter-protest, Tank?
|
Tank
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 309 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29th, 2007 12:46 am |
|
I had the opportunity to go to DC this weekend and took some time to observe the democnstrations against the Iraq war. Good enough. That's every American's right to do. No qualm there. But I did see a few things that did disturb me. Just like during the Vietnam era protests, there were a significant number of people there waving the solid red flag. There were also the guys with the push-to-talk cell phones (something like Nextel) orchestrating the chanting and directing the herd minded to lock step their antics. During the VN era they used walkie-talkie radios. There were also some of the younger people shouting (to the orchestrators) "Hell no, we won't go!" Deja Vu. I could hardly distinguish the time frames. One could flash from the 60's and early 70's to now and not know the difference. Yeah, there were a few military types (out of uniforms due to the current regs) protesting too just like back then. What made my blood boil was the sight of Hanoi Jane Fonda on the podium but this time she didn't dis the troops, but everything else is the same. America is bad, they destroyed Iraq (VietNam), they cause the death of inocent Iraqis (Vietnamese)...everything almost the same. There were those sincere about their opposition to the war but it looked like they were being led by the guys with the red flags. What the hell did they have to bring them for? Back in the day we used to cal them "commie, pinko, fags". With todays PC police around I don't know what to call them today, not that I care about that PC crap anyway. I call them as I see them. God Bless America and Semper Fi!
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18th, 2007 02:54 am |
|
Another reason to worry....
"In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time”. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of “some kind of crisis situation” in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses. Mr al-Maliki conceded that his administration had made mistakes over the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But he refused to accept all criticism over the execution. When asked about the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s attack on Iraq’s capital punishment laws, Mr al-Maliki cited the Italians’ summary killing of Benito Mussolini and his stringing-up from a lamppost. "
Not about the comments themselves, but their comparing of an execution from 60 years ago to what happened a week or so ago doesn't make sense to us, but to a culture that fights over issues from 1,500 years ago, 60 years is a blink of an eye.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12th, 2007 06:57 pm |
|
Another interesting change to the policy....the military says it will compress the entire deployment process into a 12 month window, from the time you step into a uniform until you are done.
I am sure there will be exceptions, but this is a good thing, especially if one faces multiple deployments. A typical reservist usually faces the following schedule....
Several months of increased activity, but still in a non-activated status.
One week to one month activated at your home station;
Six to twelve weeks at a mobilization site, training and going through medical and equipment checks;
One to three weeks in Kuwait, getting equipment ready for the movement;
Two weeks in Iraq/Afghanistan with the unit you are replacing, getting the lay of thte land;
10-12 months in country;
Two weeks with the incoming unit, getting them ready;
One to two weeks in Kuwait, shipping equipment home;
One to two weeks at the mobilization site, getting medical checks and all paperwork in order.
As one can see, the current "one year" deployment can easily stretch to 16-18 months. This change is a good one.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12th, 2007 01:52 pm |
|
It was the draft that caused Vietnam to crumble on the home front. Let's hope this huge negative, will not do the same. But, in every soldier's defense, who can blame them when after their job terminates them, their spouses divorce them, their children disown them, and nothing really changes on the ground, who can blame them when they question why they are there at all? As those of you know, once the question starts asking itself in their brain, the outstanding morale of the troops so far, can begin to become shakey.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12th, 2007 12:37 pm |
|
DoD announced that their policy of Guardsmen/Reservists being deployed for no more then 24 months total for an operation is no more. It was one of the few reasons that made my deployment a bit more bearable when I was extended in theater, and it is no more. What it means is that Guardsmen/Reservists can now be redeployed a year after they return.
Although a few of us on here are directly affected, it does make sense. The policies were designed for short term conflicts; it has been a long time since we have been in a conflict that has, and will, last as long as this. I am surprised it took this long, but am betting it came on the heels of the speech as the most politically acceptable way to announce this change.
The negative effects are going to be on the relationships, both professional and personal. If I get the call again, I am lucky, as my employer fully supports what I do, but I know quite a few people who lost their job after one tour....what happens after their employer finds out that they might be gone every third year or so?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11th, 2007 01:54 pm |
|
"We are not on the brink of success"? Dang, David, you ARE a politician...or at least you talk like one.
I also think we can get there, but do not believe this plan, which really is a regurgitation of previous attempts, is going to work. Interesting how he tried to pin the success or failure of the plan on the Iraqis. It does ultimately fall on them, but there is serious doubt in the military community if the Iraqis can get anywhere near where the President said they would be any time soon.
I think the other aspects of the plan, the diplomacy and economic infusion, might work...of course, KBR has taken their cut of previous economic plans, so I am not sure that this is not another case of too little, too late.
Heck, even the UK gave us the "good luck in your future endeavors" bit last night after the speech.....and they may cut some troops in the southern part of Iraq in a few months.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11th, 2007 11:13 am |
|
I do agree with you that we are not on the brink of success. I do believe we can get there. Time will tell if we will. The basis of the President's plan at least matches some military doctrine as opposed to the New approach of Sec. Rumsfeld which eschewed traditional ratios. I hope the Congress has the sense to stay out of the way until next FY.
Last edited on Thu Jan 11th, 2007 11:17 am by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11th, 2007 03:15 am |
|
I am not a guru in any sense of the word. I am a bit better trained and educated in military strategy then the average person, and I tell you with no qualms that it is THE question at the upper military education courses. I can also tell you that it is very amusing to see the politicians use and confuse (on purpose, I suspect) tactical, operational, and strategic plans and overviews.
The President didn't even go as far as it was leaked he would. I guess, of course, that the right wing will say that he did admit to mistakes, but it was of the "mistakes were made" with no attribution to specifics. Great bit of speechwriting, but it was not what people wanted to hear, I believe.
Now.....the bottom line is that the situation is FUBAR'ed beyond belief, as a direct result of the President and the administration's actions. If I had heard an honest admission of responsibility, and an even more honest assessment of the chances of this plan working, in addition to the consequences of failure, I would have thought it would have been a sign of real leadership. What we got was pretty much same old, same old.
It was interesting to hear part of the blame laid on the "rules of engagement". I can tell you from first hand knowledge that they generally are annoying, that changes are often more puzzling then enlightening, but the overall message of when you can and can't shot is still pretty clear.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11th, 2007 01:17 am |
|
As an alleged military guru, you should have the answer, not the question.
Fred wrote:
Should be a very interesting speech tonight.
The briefing on the speech to reporters indicate that the President will basically say that mistakes were made, and he will acknowledge that not enough troops went in, that they underestimated the mission, and that the current way of doing business has failed, among many of the MFUs that have created the quagmire.
Sounds like he is going to try to lay the whole problem on the military and civilian leadership that he has replaced. Interesting, but I do have a question, especially for those who have had the knee-jerk reacton to any presidential pronouncement about how well things are going over in Iraq, the belief in any of the variety of reasons given for going over there...
If the President is now saying that the mission and strategy have failed, and this failure was brought about despite the advice and warnings of those who counselled a different path, which resulted in many being fired or forced to resign because of their views, and that others, including the Iraq Study Group and the military commanders in theater say that the additional troops will not help....
What confidance does one have that he has the right plan now?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 11:46 pm |
|
Should be a very interesting speech tonight.
The briefing on the speech to reporters indicate that the President will basically say that mistakes were made, and he will acknowledge that not enough troops went in, that they underestimated the mission, and that the current way of doing business has failed, among many of the MFUs that have created the quagmire.
Sounds like he is going to try to lay the whole problem on the military and civilian leadership that he has replaced. Interesting, but I do have a question, especially for those who have had the knee-jerk reacton to any presidential pronouncement about how well things are going over in Iraq, the belief in any of the variety of reasons given for going over there...
If the President is now saying that the mission and strategy have failed, and this failure was brought about despite the advice and warnings of those who counselled a different path, which resulted in many being fired or forced to resign because of their views, and that others, including the Iraq Study Group and the military commanders in theater say that the additional troops will not help....
What confidance does one have that he has the right plan now?
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 10:31 am |
|
Now i understand why LCR had a post that was all blank................
One click on send,,,,, two posts.................
See post below.
Last edited on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 10:36 am by kavips
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 10:31 am |
|
Halvah wrote: Iran, still far from possessing an independent nuclear bomb, has big-mouthed itself into the position of a nuclear power, while Israel, which is the genuine article, is brushed aside as a non-player. I
Knowing how Arabs respect power, what would happen, and I am being provocative here, if we the US had handled Iraq differently. When faced with an insurrection in a major metropolitan area, instead of playing the game by their rules, we had eliminated the entire city with one bomb.
Realising they had nothing in their arsenal that could prevent another one, and another one, would they give up and work for us, as opposed to against us?
Japan was subdued. And tolerated our occupation. And very little animosity remains. What are your thoughts on any subsequent fallout, on any subsequent benefits, that this tough love approach would bring.
I would appreciate your comments because I have been toying with this idea for over two or three years now. I believe Clauswitz called it "using one's military advantage."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 01:04 am |
|
Interesting parallel that you draw, Halvah....What is also interesting is, if I recall correctly, the Israeli military, most specifically the Reserves, not being real happy with the strategy that was used, most notably the lack of drawing upon their experience versus the highly trained but young active force. I heard some stuff on this, but never heard anything more after they were demobilized.
Our Reserve forces have been key to the struggle, and they were used quite well, especially but not exclusively in the combat support and combat service support roles. In many ways the Reserve was very glad to be part of the fight, especially given the transformation that Rummy was pushing tended to ignore or slight the Guard and Reserve (at least in the eyes of them). On the upside, the use of the Guard and Reserve assured early support and an outflow of patriotism that I have not seen in years. On the downside, the exposure to the experience obviously provided a lot of people to the negative aspects of the campaign, including the shenigans of Halliburton. Worse, these people generally were big supporters of the war and the President, but there experience, while in many ways rewarding, has shown many the first hand futility of wanting something more for the Iraqis more then the Iraqis want it themselves.
Was there any similar or opposite feeling among the Israeli reserves after your war?
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 9th, 2007 09:27 pm |
|
Yes, Fred. Perhaps at this point in time he is heading in the wrong direction, politically at least. Speaking militarily there may be a different issue. Pulling out now would be a disaster. Sending in more troops would also be a disaster, but maybe a lesser one. We suffer the same attitude towards Olmert (our PM) as you do with Bush, only for opposite reasons. You want out and we want in. Many of us felt that we should have responded to the attacks from Lebanon with more troops, an assessment that duplicates Iraq. Now it’s too late for Bush and Lebanon is done for now. Hisballah still exists when we could have done more. The insurgency in Iraq still exists when Bush could have done more. In fact, on both sides of the globe, the situation has worsened. Now we face the constant Iranian promise to nuke Israel. This threat promises an equal dilemma for the Western powers as it does for Israel.
The Olmert government’s stance shifts the onus for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat to the international community. However, when they are impotent, as they have been regarding Lebanon, other measures for the security of a nation must be taken to ward off an impending invasion. I realize that our position on deterrence presages drastic US policy changes in three spheres which bear profoundly on Israel’s military and diplomatic situation: Iran, its nuclear program and a Middle East nuclear arms race. You must realize that the time has come for Israel to talk as though it has arrows in its quiver and is capable of using them. Its vanished deterrence can be retrieved, for instance, by press leaks or even an announcement that a new surface missile has been launched, which foreign media would disclose is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, or the firing of a new Israeli cruise missile from a Dolphin submarine cruising at the Indian Ocean’s point of convergence with the Arabian Sea. This is the sort of publicity tactic Tehran employs; it works.
The effectiveness of its provocative talk depends on Israel shrinking back, instead of marching forward and hitting back in kind. Iran’s radical leaders don’t always bother with new or even true shockers. Recently Ahmadinejad recycled an oft-used claim that Iran has started installing 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment at a plant in central Iran, the first step towards industrial production. Nuclear experts immediately seized on the threat embodied in this statement (as was intended) and predicted that within two years, if the centrifuges spin smoothly, Iran will be able to turn out 3-4 small nuclear bombs a year.
Iran, still far from possessing an independent nuclear bomb, has big-mouthed itself into the position of a nuclear power, while Israel, which is the genuine article, is brushed aside as a non-player. In the past, there was a certain amount of free interplay in public discourse among civilian and military officials on strategic matters. Not today. Olmert exercises tight control over all pronouncements and holds them strictly to his guidelines. Since innovative thinking is not exactly the prime minister’s forte, as indicated by his messages to the US, public discourse in Israel is starved of dynamic ideas.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 9th, 2007 08:39 pm |
|
George Will and Ollie North are among those who believe the President is headed in the wrong direction....
From George Will....
Well, we don't have to settle the question. Either way, what's clear is the enormous price our nation is paying for President Bush's character flaws.
I began writing about the Bush administration's infallibility complex, the president's Captain Queeg-like inability to own up to mistakes, almost a year before the invasion of Iraq. When you put a man like that in a position of power -- the kind of position where he can punish people who tell him what he doesn't want to hear, and base policy decisions on the advice of people who play to his vanity -- it's a recipe for disaster.
Consider, on one side, the case of the C.I.A.'s Baghdad station chief during 2004, who provided accurate assessments of the deteriorating situation in Iraq. "What is he, some kind of defeatist?" asked the president -- and according to The Washington Post, at the end of his tour, the station chief "was punished with a poor assignment."
On the other side, consider the men Mr. Bush has turned to since the midterm election. They constitute a remarkable coalition of the unwilling -- men who have been wrong about Iraq every step of the way, but aren't willing to admit it.
As for Ollie?
"Messrs. McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior noncommissioned officers I covered for Fox News during my most recent trip to Iraq. Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me they wanted more 'U.S. boots on the ground.' In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: 'We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops,' was a common refrain. They are right.
North believes the U.S. troops should spend the vast majority of their time training Iraqis to take over their own war. He thinks sending more U.S. troops to Iraq is just a method of sending more "targets."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 7th, 2007 02:09 am |
|
Halvah wrote: If the US armed forces fail to deliver, Bush will be in exactly the same position as he is today, namely, heading for the history books as the American president who lost the Iraq war and the struggle against terror. So he therefore has nothing to lose and everything to gain by staking his all on victory.
Excellent point, especially if you look at it from the President's view. There are other options, but they are less then the total victory he expected from it, so he can't accept them. From his point of view, he has to gamble and go "all in" to salvage his future reputation.
If he fails, however, it is more then his reputation that suffers....that might be the biggest issue, in that it is not just about him.
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 7th, 2007 01:52 am |
|
Interesting points of view, people. I find that I am unable to sleep tonight so I thought I would ponder this a bit. It is 3:40AM in Haifa (8:40PM in Delaware) I think, LCR, that withdrawl so soon is not the case. My take is that President Bush is poised to stake every US resource to hand on a no-holds-barred military operation all the way to victory in Iraq, after first bringing Baghdad under control. The chips should all be lined up by the time he goes public next week on his new strategy for Iraq and the Middle East at large. The new Bush policy will brook no look-in for Iran, Syria or Hizballah in Iraq’s affairs. Exceptionally offensive US military resources have been marshaled to bar any interference with the White House’s plans for Iraq. They will under the hand of the military command for instantaneous responses. To this end, the shakeup of military leaders the US president set in motion over the weekend moves into forward position one of the toughest and most hawkish US military leaders. So you wonder why an Admiral? Admiral Fallon, supreme commander in the Pacific theater, takes over from General Abizaid as commander of the US central command which is in charge of the US fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan and against global terrorism. The admiral specializes in deploying large-scale navy, air and Marines forces simultaneously in different arenas. That should tell you something.
Bush’s desire to build up troop strength in Iraq is to make sure that Adm. Fallon has plenty of resources to deploy, a veritable buildup, the second in four months, in the Persian Gulf and other waters opposite Iran. If you remember I posted about a large naval buildup in the Persian Gulf region last November. The USS John C. Stennis strike group is heading for the Persian Gulf with a hell of an air arm of 9-10 fighter-bomber squadrons. Another task force, the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group, was ordered out of Sand Diego on Jan. 4 and is heading in the same direction. Curious Fred?, or does that confirm my contentions? They are going to join the USS Dwight Eisenhower aircraft carrier group and USS Boxer strike force in the Gulf and is supposed to act “as a warning to Syria and Iran” in face of acts that are seen as provocative. Is is also to give commanders more flexibility in the region.
This massed naval, air and marine forces assembled should provide credible evidence of the lengths that America is prepared to go to keep Iran, Syria or Hizballah from interfering with the all-out American attempt to stabilize Iraq. Israel might face extreme danger should Tehran and Damascus target the Jewish state in retaliation for US strikes. You think your government has troubles? Israel is ruled by a volatile, shaky government; its military command under fire for its Lebanon War mistakes. Both may decided to take advantage of Israel’s low state. In fact US and Israeli military leaders do not rule out possible Iranian, Syrian or Hizballah assaults on the pretext that they are really aiming for US military installations in Israel. There are some here but I gather that many of you were not aware of that. They may also direct their fire on American locations in Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and its fleet in the eastern Mediterranean.
Now for the political aspect. Bush’s willingness to go all the way in Iraq is prompted by a simple line of reasoning. If it ends in victory, he'll end his presidency on a high note and be able to boast that American "doggedness and courage" prevailed over the enemy in the long haul. If the US armed forces fail to deliver, Bush will be in exactly the same position as he is today, namely, heading for the history books as the American president who lost the Iraq war and the struggle against terror. So he therefore has nothing to lose and everything to gain by staking his all on victory.
I expect, as do you, that Bush faces intense opposition from the new Democratic majority. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are harping on Bush to reject US troop increases in Iraq and opt for redeployment. Turning them down would also reject the bipartisan spirit embodied in the Baker-Hamilton Iraqi Study Group report. Developments should be interesting.Last edited on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 02:02 am by Halvah
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 6th, 2007 10:58 pm |
|
| Perhaps placing the troops under the command of an Admiral is a precursor to what we might expect. Withdrawl and Big Guns....................................
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 6th, 2007 09:16 pm |
|
Actually, I can...if his changes are wrong. And as for the criticism....my posting should indicate that if this turns out to be true, I can see some reasonings behind it, but you should at least concede what that does to Army and Marines on the ground when it appears he does not have any confidence in any of his senior generals to put a squid in charge. He DOES have the background in dealing with problems areas, has some experience in counterinsurgencies, but they are of a different level.
Another reason for the change is the possibility of naval action in the area. Can you think of any country in the area (cough, cough, "Iran") that might have that kind of engagement?
I grant that the President wants to win this on his own terms. He IS looking at the long term, and believes, all evidence and most advice to the contrary, that he can still pull it off. I also think there is more then a grain of truth in Biden's charges that he doesn't want to make any major changes in policy during the remainder that would even hint at backing down. The question is who is going to be ultimately right, and are we willing to be go "all in" on a strategy that will leave us bankrupt in more ways then one if we don't have the stronger hand.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 6th, 2007 06:43 am |
|
davidlanderson wrote: You can't criticize Bush for not changing and then blast him for changing and expect me to take that as objective.
Wow, great line by the way.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 6th, 2007 06:41 am |
|
In the Civil War there was much consternation over Grant's promotion to head of the Virginia army. There were second and third and fourth in commands under McClellan who thought they had earned the right to "be the leader"
To discredit Grant they brought up the moral issue of his drinking, to which Lincoln brought up the greatest retort in military history. .. "This general wins battles. I should like to find what brand of whiskey he drinks and send it to all my generals."
During the first engagement the newly appointed Grant was involved in, fierce fighting occured for three days and it resulted in a draw. The soldiers, used to resting weeks after a battle under McClellan, were settling down, when General Grant rode up and said "Pack up, we moving out. "What, we're retreating" asked the men. "No, Johnny Reb is wounded, We're hunting him down to kill him". They say a ripple went through the army that night, as the story got passed down the lines, and before dawn, the army went on the offensive for the first time.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4037 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 6th, 2007 05:23 am |
|
davidlanderson wrote: In World War 2 and the Civil War, I seem to remember that we changed Generals to get one who could win. In Viet Nam, Johnson handed the war over to Mac and the experts until it was too late for him. You can't criticize Bush for not changing and then blast him for changing and expect me to take that as objective.
Ike was not in the top 20 generals of senority. The Civil War was almost universally seen as lost. Lincoln finaly got fed up with McClellan and started a revolving door of generals until he found one that could win it. The electorate handed the Republicans major losses in the midterm and that was his wake up call to shake things up. Thank God Lincoln was determined to win and lead not surrender and follow or I would likely be saying Yessum to whatever you say.
Guess what David? Living on DelMarVa I'm not inclined to like the idea of wearing a burqua..........So, I'm with you.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 6th, 2007 04:19 am |
|
In World War 2 and the Civil War, I seem to remember that we changed Generals to get one who could win. In Viet Nam, Johnson handed the war over to Mac and the experts until it was too late for him. You can't criticize Bush for not changing and then blast him for changing and expect me to take that as objective.
Ike was not in the top 20 generals of senority. The Civil War was almost universally seen as lost. Lincoln finaly got fed up with McClellan and started a revolving door of generals until he found one that could win it. The electorate handed the Republicans major losses in the midterm and that was his wake up call to shake things up. Thank God Lincoln was determined to win and lead not surrender and follow or I would likely be saying Yessum to whatever you say.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 6th, 2007 01:44 am |
|
There have been many comparisions between this war and Vietnam. Now there is one more.
The war was supposed to be left to the generals, it is now moved to the forum of politicians.
It is time to pull the troops out, even it just temporarlily, just to save their lives until we figure out what we want to do.
Anything less, means one is giving only lip service when tney say they support the troops. No American fighting man or women should ever again be put in that situation where they are not allowed to do what they are there to do.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 5th, 2007 10:50 pm |
|
Thanks for sharing the DIME acronym. It shows that lack of foresight in three of the four categories, will ultimately lead the fourth to fail as well.
Diplomacy information military economic
Compare the last gulf war's handling with this one, in each of the above categories.
Last edited on Fri Jan 5th, 2007 10:52 pm by kavips
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 5th, 2007 07:57 pm |
|
Interesting development that the President is speeding up the departure of the top GIs in Iraq, replacing GEN Abizaid with.....an Admiral?
I looked at this from several different angles. There is a concept regarding the use of national power in an operations that require 4 areas, called the DIME. These are 4 areas of power that we have to leverage, and they are Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic. It doesn't matter which leader you have, it is still taught the same in all military colleges, so, on the one hand, any top military leader should be able to handle the top role in Iraq.
However....I see parallels to when GWB picked the head of the Army, in that he passed over many very qualified generals to pull back a guy who had retired. This is unusual, possibly more so during wartime, when many others were much more plugged into the current operations, but the feeling in the military is that no current 4 star general wanted to take the job given the President's "conditions" for getting selected for what is the capstone of one's military career.
The Army has a very deep bench. There are about 30 full time active duty 4 star generals, and probably about double that of three star generals. To get to that rank, most have had a very long and varied career, and most would probably do well in Abizaid's role.
Sooo...the President passed over quite a few Army guys and the Marines to go with a Navy guy. Could it be for a similar reason as last time, as more and more military officers are becoming outspoken of their criticism of the operation? I can see some reasons for putting a different branch in charge, but the symbolism might be very telling.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 5th, 2007 03:13 am |
|
It is similiar to the plan he proposed. There are some flaws with it, but it might be the best solution on the table.
I agree on the relatively minor effect the Saddam execution will have on the situation, but still don't see the value in posting the video. Regardless of who posts it, it is still a snuff film. Maybe I am too "old school" but I feel the same way when someone showed me the video of the PA Senator who shot himself on camera. I got the picture, I don't need the details.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 4th, 2007 05:18 pm |
|
Well, Senator Biden should be happy. It sounds sort of like his plan. I thought it would have to head toward a federal state all the way back at the first Gulf War. I can't see any other way. We were trying to please the Sunni factions by avoiding this option, but their demands are contradictory. If indeed Sunni leaders have found a plan that works for them too, that indeed is a great coup.
I think we are all rooting for this one. As for whether the Saddam video will undermine this, no. The execution is the main event. Seeing it has pluses and minuses, but in the end will have little net effect. It will be interesting to see if the guard was paid by Arab media for the footage. I think that would have more lasting impact on the relation with the government and independent Arab media.
Saddam had many critics even in the Sunni community. If Sadir's militias can be brought under control, I believe they could cut a deal even now. The Sunni leaders are starting to realize it is a new day. To be relevant, they have to work with the Shiites.
By the way Military.com has added the video and sent out emails. Good company to be in by my judgment.
Last edited on Thu Jan 4th, 2007 09:45 pm by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 4th, 2007 02:04 pm |
|
Really not the worst plan, at least in the short term, especially given that there are few alternatives. Securing Baghdad is not going to be easy, given that 25% of the population of Iraq is there, but if you concentrate the troops there, it could probably be done, or at least drive them out of the city.
The oil revenues are the primary concern of all factions over there. Getting their fair share, whatever that is, might be very difficult to determine for each of them.....the Kurds are going to want to hold on to their production in the North, and the Shiites are going to want to hold onto the facilities in the South, and since it all hinges on giving some to the Sunnis in the central part, it will be difficult to get it to work.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 4th, 2007 01:22 pm |
|
Halvah wrote: Saddam Hussein’s execution was a stage in the newly-crafted Iraq strategy your President Bush has promised to unveil in the New Year. This new strategy, already in the works, was first revealed by Israeli intelligence on Dec. 22, 2006. It hinged on the cooperation of two key national religious figures: the most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and the Sunni cleric with the most influence on the Sunni Arab insurgency and the Baath, Sheik Hares al-Dari, head of the Sunna Scholars Council. The plan as conceived by the US president is not contingent on engaging either Iran or Syria. The next stage, possibly the toughest, is to bring a form of stability and security to Baghdad, for which an infusion of troops will be required, followed by the partition of Iraq into three semi-autonomous Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni regions. Baghdad will serve as the federal capital. Its key role will be the administration of Iraq’s oil resources. Oil revenue will be distributed equitably to all three regions by a higher oil authority, whose members will not be Iraqis but Iraqi federal government appointees backed by the national army. These arrangements which depend largely on the continuing cooperation of the two clerics are intended to pave the way for the orderly exit of US forces from Iraq.
With the bootleg video circulating throughout the Sunni Arabs, isn't this master plan beginning to unravel, just as it gets off the ground? Any word yet from Sistani or Al-Dari? All I have heard was silence.
At least now I understand the rational for more troops into Bagdad.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 11:31 pm |
|
Thank you for your well wishes. I hope for everone's sake that your wish of resolution comes to pass. You are very thoughtful.
I don't think war and politics particularly relate in Delaware anymore. I don't particularly think that it is politically advantageous or harmful. Anyone that would do something like that for political reasons needs their head examined.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 11:24 pm |
|
I don't have great regard for hiding behind anonymous web postings, if something is controversial, I am not afraid to stand by it. The issue is relevant and important. At the time it looked as if it would be covered up and the revisionism would take place. I had people ask where they could find it. I am proud to keep the truth available. Now of course with national talk show hosts and major news organizations putting it on their sites, mine is unimportant. I will remove it in time to make room for other issues.
I do not do anything for shock value and take a conservative approach to choosing what goes up.
I look for conversational value, informational value, truth, and value to society.
I know this is controversial, but I find that it fulfills all of the above. 1st, I favor the death penalty. 2nd, I did not find the shots to be particularly graphic. I may be a little jaded because I have seen people die including children at the scene of accidents or medical incidents. One child in particular, I was involved with CPR and first aid. He came back, but died anyway. That was tough. It took me days to deal with that. Saddam not so much. 3rd, I believe that the mistique the media is trying to put around him is wrong. 4th it is set up in way that only people who want to see it will. 5th, it is only up as long as it is newsworthy. 6th, My judgement was obviously correct because most major news organizations have come to the same conclusion. It is history. I would put the collapsing towers in the same catagory.
It appears for good or ill a good number of people have decided to see it by my program count. Unlike the media, I do not plan to troll for more such videos to get up traffic. I do not need to worry about that. I just put up whatever interests me and has value to the community.
Come back to the site this weekend. Saddam will be gone (old news) and something thought provoking and interesting will have replaced him. It will be the old boring (just kidding) site. We will disagree on this one, my friend. I guess I have the same poor judgement as American media. It must have been my time as politcal editor of a small paper.
Last edited on Thu Jan 4th, 2007 05:29 pm by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 10:57 pm |
|
Sorry, David, I am behind CR's sentiment on this one. I know that the video was out there if I wanted it, and it wasn't the sanctimonious anti-death penalty people who are offended...it was people who don't need to see a snuff film, as well as something that looks like it was carried out by a two-bit country.
On the one hand, I appreciate that you have volunteered to go. If YOU get your wish (and I know many who have volunteered, and most do get to go), let me know. The one thing I suspect, however, is that your world view, your experience, and your ambition (as indicated by your runs for political office) might make it a bit difficult for you to handle the tasks at your rank.
On the other hand....I hope that it doesn't come to you going. I've got a hint where you might be going (others from your unit were at my site), and while it wasn't the worst place, I hope we can figure out a resolution that we can reset the Guard and Reserves for a couple of years.
That being said....posting snuff films under your own name does not look good to the electorate. It shows poor judgement, if nothing else.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 10:53 pm |
|
The real question is what will our Iraqi friends do with the new start they gave themselves? Now is the time to bring new equipment in for the Iraqi Army. I hope we can avoid a civil war, but if we can't, we can at least choose which side wins.
I am impressed with the rule of law in Iraq. Fair trials, appeals, and swift and sure justice. I think they should be praised. The Saddam groupies are part of his legacy of terror. They must be pursued and defeated.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 10:46 pm |
|
Well, when you put your name on the list to go over to the middle east, I will care what you think. Maybe we will go over together. I won't hold my breath. I'll post pictures later if I make it. Oops, that might be offensive to your delicate sensibilities.
It is interesting that making something available in a way that you have to click twice (no accident) to get to is making you do something. I guess if I have that power than I say...go to the school of manners and common courtesy.com. Now I am just kidding.
For the record, I don't think it is "neat" or cool that anyone should die. I do think that it is just that a mass murder pays with his or her life. That is a good thing, it has not happened often enough. Fortunately, a just God will meet out justice to the unrepentant. Murderous tyrants will all face justice.
Last edited on Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 10:57 pm by davidlanderson
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 10:35 pm |
|
Last edited on Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 10:40 pm by
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 09:08 pm |
|
Yeah, LCR just like Google news, Yahoo news, Now Shawn Hannity, and Matt Drudge. No, I am just ahead of the curve by a day. What particularly concerned me was the distortion of what happen by the anti-death penalty left. It is an important part of history. He was not treated poorly (other than he was killed). A few people yelled back at him after he said something. The person in charge tried to quiet the few chanters. According to those who know the language, Saddam told them to go to hell and the chanted you go to hell and Al Sadir.
Americans who are sanctimonious should just imagine what we would feel like if Osama Bin Laden were tried and up for execution. Saddam is an hundred times worse by the numbers.
No, the only thing sad is we had to wait 3 years for justice. There is nothing particularly gruesome shown as hanging is not particularly gruesome if done correctly. As Mort Kondrake said, hanging was too good for him.
You will not get your wish. That I promise.
Last edited on Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 09:17 pm by davidlanderson
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 01:19 am |
|
You are twisted, may you never run your sorry a$$ for elected office again.
davidlanderson wrote:
http://dovercitizen.blogspot.com/
For those who may be interested, I posted the now famous Saddam execution. At least the insurgents can no longer have any illusion of his return to power. Justice has been well served. May the half a million children who died as a result of his diverting food for oil money to his palaces receive as much sympathy from the anti-death penalty left as they give him.
|
curiousindover
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 385 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 12:41 am |
|
OOPS. Sorry folks. Didn't mean to post three times.
|
curiousindover
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 385 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 12:39 am |
|
| I am a supporter of the death penalty. Problem is, we accomplished nothing other than what George H.W. Bush failed to do 15 years ago. It's cost more than 3000 American lives, $500 billion-plus and Osama Bin Laden is still at large and unaccounted for. Sadam was hanged and we saw it online. So, what! We could have done it with a well placed 30-06 shot by a sniper. The world is NOT a safer place. Iraq is worse off. Iraq is not a safe place and we are no nearer to peace in the Middle East. What have we REALLY achieved?
|
curiousindover
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
|
| | |