Misguided Loyalties and the Military

[SoCalRC]

Ah, you love to sling the accusations around, don’t you?

Well, losing $8B outright and having the GAO report that another $240B have been tracked so poorly that an accounting cannot be done all seem like a pretty big deal to me. But I notice that you are still not explaining how Iraqi driven reconstruction or coallition building would increase profiteering. All the evidence that we have would seem to suggest otherwise. The funds making it to Iraqis seem to be reasonably well spent.

Massive no bid contracts to multinationals? Not so much…

 

[txsoldier94]

the American soldier is going to spray and pray first, and I don’t blame them.

As an American Soldier, I object strenuously to the above generalization. There has been no military in history that has taken so great of measures to ensure the minimization of civilian casualties.

Yes, there have been incidents where some Americans have reacted that way, but they are noticible by their rarity. Unlike past wars, the US military has not operated using the traditional tactics of blowing the **** out of an area prior to moving in. With precision airpower (e.g. the JDAM that can hit within 10 feet of its intended target) to laser-guided missiles (inches) to GPS guided artillery (rocket and tube) the US military has taken great pains (sometimes at the cost of our own Soldiers lives) to reduce the damage and destruction of civilian areas and the loss of civilian life.

While that can, at times, put my own life in greater danger; it is a danger that I accept. I have no desire to kill anyone, especially someone that has done nothing to warrant my killing them.

As for the Draft…that is not going to happen anytime soon.

There is no real support for the draft, in the military or Congress. Even Charlie Rangel, who sponsored the bill, voted against it. The military does not want a draft because it would be a drain on funding and resources needed at the front. (It takes experience and money to train those draftees, doncha know?) Not to mention, I want people watching my back that want to be there.

 

[SoCalRC]

And what is that end? And how do you get everyone else on board?

Perhaps not premptively invading on faulty intelligence, driving international weapons inspectors out of the country would have been a good start. Not persuing permanent bases against the wishes of the Iraqi people and most their neighbors would be a good first step now.

Let me point out that our most successful efforts (WWII and Korea) resulted in an American presence in Europe and the Far East for generations. Our least successful efforts (such as WWI and defeating the Soviet invasion Afghanistan) involved a quick pull out, followed by a disaster a decade or two later.

Let me point out that our ‘military phase’ in Iraq and Afghanistan have now lasted longer than WW-II, and we have yet to secure the road from the airport to the Green Zone.

And, if Korea is such a success, why is it part of the ‘axis of evil’ and a legitimate nuclear threat which we essentially bribe for peace?

There is not point in ‘staying’ if you are not accomplishing anything. It simply spends blood and treasure. Our ‘surge’ was nothing more than putting in US troops to offset the troops lost from our disintigrating coalistion. And the security ‘gains’ were principally bought by switching sides and helping Sunni Militia and reversing course on ‘de-bathification’. By all appearances, those gains were short lived. Violence is back on the rise and the military has informed us that we are in no position to reduce troops without serious upticks in violence.

There is an old adage, when an excuse gets used long enough you will know the real purpose. Look at tax breaks. When Bush took office, the argument was ‘hey, there is a surplus…’. Then it became ‘we have to encourage growth’. Now we are in a state of perpetual war and running structural deficits, so we can see, the tax breaks for those of us who are most fortunate were an end unto themselves. Everything else was just rationalization for the desired end.

The same appears to be true in Iraq. The ‘surge’ was supposed to create a window for political progress. Everyone, including the president, agrees that there has been none. So, using the rationalization given, the surge has been a failure. But the only reason we ‘ended’ it was logistical reality. There simply aren’t enough armed forces to maintain the deployment schedule. So troop levels are dropping to what we can sustain, but no more. Just like the rationalizations for the war (WMDs! 9/11! Democracy!), the only common denominator is US occupation. Notice the President’s signing statement on Congress’ attempt to inhibit permanent base construction.

So it seems pretty reasonable that everything else is just excuses and we are still running the PNAC playbook from 1997. But that playbook still has the same stupid oversights. We are talking about a Shia majority, so any form of legitimate self rule is going to result in an Islamic government with strong ties to Iran. The alternative to that is a US backed Sunni strongman - like Saddam. But those sorts of ‘friends’ tend to blow up in our faces, like Bin Laden.

 

[txsoldier94]

…I would have went and probably came back in a bodybag.

Joe, odds were that if you went to Vietnam, you would have come home alive. 2,700,000 members of the military served in Vietnam over the course of the conflict. 58,193 were killed by all causes. 313,616 were injured.

Sources
Michigan Vietnam Memorial
Government Archives

Negotiating is a great and useful tool…so long as both sides negotiate in good faith. We have negotiated with the Kurds, to great effect, to the Shiites in Iraq with somewhat lessened success, due in large part to the influence of pro-Iranian clerics like al-Sadr.

For examples of great failures in negotiation, I present to you the Munich Accords of 1938 and the Oslo Accords of 1993. For each of these accords, one side did not negotiate in good faith, whilst the other did. The sides that operated in good faith gave away land to the other to secure peace…and in turn lost both land and peace.

The 1977 Camp David accords had a somewhat better outcome, except, of course, that Sadat lost his life to disgruntled citizens of his own country as a result.

No one prays for peace harder than the Soldier, because we know that to secure the peace, our lives may be the coinage used to purchase it.

Even so, the Soldiers are willing to give up our lives to secure that peace for our families back home.

God bless,

 

[txsoldier94]

The same appears to be true in Iraq. The ‘surge’ was supposed to create a window for political progress. Everyone, including the president, agrees that there has been none. So, using the rationalization given, the surge has been a failure. But the only reason we ‘ended’ it was logistical reality.

Heh…

There has been some political progress, not as much as we originally hoped, but it has happened. The Iraqi parliament recently passed three significant laws that are steps in the right direction. So, not everyone, including the president agrees that no progress has been made.

From the Chicago Tribune.

The surge has not yet ended, but drawdowns are projected to begin this summer. Areas that were hotbeds of the insurgency are remarkably quiet, even in the Sunni triangle.

Even AQI’s own leaders regard the Surge as a success in crippling their efforts.

Mik

 

[RobbyS]

Actually, that is only marginally true at best. And, it is still misleading. Remember, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. So you are going to have “Jewish” terrorist groups (Kahane Chai), “Aum” terrorist gruops (Aum Shinrikyo), and groups that divide on other lines, like ethnicity (Ku Klux Klan) or even anarchy (Black Star).

There are quite a few Islamic and Arab terrorist groups, but it is misleading to lump them all together. Osama Bin Laden belongs to a very specific sect (Qutbism) which has one set of objectives (supposedly to drive foreigners out of Arab lands and establish a caliphate instead of the current kingdoms). But it would be a gross mistake to even generalize Al-Qaeda to other Sunni militant groups or sects. For example, the US is currently providing aid to Sunni militant groups in Iraq who, in turn, are using terrorist tactics to ‘cleanse’ areas of Shia Muslims and Christians. But I doubt you would ever propose that the US and Bin Laden have identical objectives!

****I am quite aware the terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology, although ends and means do tend to merge in anarchism or the jihadism practiced by Al Qaeda but neither the tactice nor the sect are widely condemned condemned by Muslims.

****Now you are branching into the blatantly false. Militant extremism is a very tiny percentage of practicing Muslims. This is akin to calling all priests pedophiles. The incidence of such abuse was no higher among priests than any other occupation, but the stereotype entered conventional wisdom nonetheless.

And I will throw a comparison at you: Only a small minority of Germans were ardently Nazi before Hitler took over the country.

What you are describing is not terribly different from the long standing “troubles” in Ireland. But I’ve never heard anyone refer to, say, the IRA as ‘Catholic terrorism’. However, Irish Catholics, and their descendants in the US, certainly experienced significant discrimination.

No, they called it Irish terrorism, it being understood that the terrorists were generally Catholics.

COLOR=“red”]I don’t see anyone expressly approving of barbaric actions. Your dispute seems to be rather or not these events happen in a vacuum. They do not. Western money flows for oil. That money props up some pretty corrupt regimes. It also makes us a target for hate. Occupying a Muslim country, having secret prisons and an offshore detention camp, suspending rights like habeus corpus, and getting caught using torture all just make the anti-American rhetoric seem true.

You seems to be justifying thse actions, which are done deliberately. As to the oil, do you condemn us for using the oil? Those corrupt regimes are corrupt only because they take western money? When the British discovered oil back in 1916, when DeGoyer discovred the Saudi fields, those regions were already in the hands of “corrupt” governments: Turkey, in the first case; the Houae of Saud in the other. During the first world war, the Turks lost control of the Irak, and the British set up an Arab regime that was not quite a colony and which became nominally free after about ten years. During the second world war, it wwas run by a pro-Axis government, and was “liberated” by the British. It remained under the monarchy until the Suez Debacle forced the British out of the Middle East as a major player. Thereafter, military dictatorship and tyranny. Yes, corrupt. We overthrow it and you are unhappy and your fields howl: better a corrupt Arab tyranny than…What? Saudi Arabia is more problematical, and I have always wondered how we can stomach such a regime. IAC, ts money has been used to spread its view of Islam all around the around including the United States. It claims to support the purest form of Islam, and with this much financial power, it cannot be simply dismissed as
a minor player. As you say" terror is a tactic, but the religion of the Saudis is indistinguisable from that of Bin Lauden. From Morrocco to The Phillipines, it has its adherents.

This does not equate to approval of suicide bombers, it is just acceptance of the seemingly obvious reality that if you employ violent Pinochet thugs and turn them loose in, say, Iraq, lots of people are going to hate you. Some of them even enough to kill themselves hurting you back.

Why Pinochet and not Castro? You just showed your red flag. In any case, who has turned thugs loose? Only Al Qaeda, and yes, the people in the Anbar have to have come to hate them.

 

[joe_clark]

To: TXSOLDIER:

I apologize and did not mean to offend you or any soldier in reference to the spray and pray line. As I said, the soldier is being put in an impossible situation unecessarily. I want our leaders seeing that there is no other alternative first, before putting one of our own in harms way. There are major problems with this administration and the numerous circumstances that surround them.

On stratedgy: The army war college in Carlisle, Pa. creates senerio’s for war against all enemies, if and when the time comes. It is updated every year. Handed from one President to another. The operation for Iraq read that to take the country we would need approximately 320,000 soldiers to secure the country and it’s borders. The current President had 150,000 reservist and went with it. He was warned of the results we now see. This is derelict or criminal at the least. I think this is what infuriates people. Was America compelled for any reason to undertake this invasion and if they proceeded, why put your soldiers at a disadvantage? I think because he didn’t care or was ignorant.

Like I said in my previous post, we need to have a real plan to be successful. We need to want peace enough to go out and negotiate for it. I do not fear the terrorrist as much as I fear what we are capable of doing to them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

On stratedgy: The army war college in Carlisle, Pa. creates senerio’s for war against all enemies, if and when the time comes.

The Army War College does no such thing. It is an educational institution, not an operational one.

Warplans are created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The operation for Iraq read that to take the country we would need approximately 320,000 soldiers to secure the country and it’s borders.

You have access to highly-classified war plans?

Give us a cite.

The current President had 150,000 reservist and went with it. He was warned of the results we now see.

Pardon me?

Are you claiming the war in Iraq has been fought only with Reservists? That the Active Army did not participate?

This is derelict or criminal at the least. I think this is what infuriates people. Was America compelled for any reason to undertake this invasion and if they proceeded, why put your soldiers at a disadvantage? I think because he didn’t care or was ignorant.

If we’re going to throw around terms like that, you might think on the one we’d apply to someone who claims the Army War College does our war plans, or that only Reservists fought in Iraq.

Like I said in my previous post, we need to have a real plan to be successful.

And to do that, we need to have someone who knows how plans are made – something that seems to be lacking here…

 

[txsoldier94]

To: TXSOLDIER:

I apologize and did not mean to offend you or any soldier in reference to the spray and pray line. As I said, the soldier is being put in an impossible situation unecessarily. I want our leaders seeing that there is no other alternative first, before putting one of our own in harms way. There are major problems with this administration and the numerous circumstances that surround them.

Accepted, but please consider that a lot of people are represented here.

Yes, this administration has made mistakes in its handling of the Iraq campaign, but not of the plans that I have heard from the Democratic candidates fill me with any great hope. As someone that has nearly 100% chance of heading off to Iraq in the near future…I still say that we need to stay. The changes in tactics and operational strategy have been effective in giving the IP time to negotiate needed laws.

Some point to the fact that the IP has not yet passed a permanent oil bill as a negative, but I think that it is a good thing, because that means that it will be renegotiated every year, and thus be changeable enough to deal with future developments. No matter which way it goes, it will be the Iraqi’s that decide what comes from their own oil.

Mik

P.S.
While the DoD does draft war plans that deal with a great number of exigencies, it cannot outline every single possibility. Obviously the number of Soldiers and Marines tasked to the initial take down of the Saddam regime were sufficient to the task, their rapid success was well in advance of all planning.

The number of troops tasked for rebuilding afterwards…well that did not work so well at the time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The number of troops tasked for rebuilding afterwards…well that did not work so well at the time.

And a significant part of that may be laid at the door of those who convinced the enemy that if they could hang on, and kill enough Americans, they could win politically, even if they lost on the battlefield.

What was done to my generation of American soldiers must not be repeated on this generation.

 

[txsoldier94]

What was done to my generation of American soldiers must not be repeated on this generation.

Heh…Vietnam…by all objective measures won by the South and their American allies.

Then defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory by Congressional refusal to honor our promises to the South…but that is for a different thread.

Mik

 

[vern_humphrey]

Heh…Vietnam…by all objective measures won by the South and their American allies.

Indeed. After Tet of '68, my company fought several “Viet Cong” units – and all the dead and captured “VC” had North Vietnamese Army Geneva Convention cards.

Then defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory by Congressional refusal to honor our promises to the South…but that is for a different thread.

Mik

It was – and it cost almost 60,000 lives in my generation.

 

[abu_kamoon]

The only winners of the Viet Nam war were the Council on Foreign Relations corporate members who made billions of dollars on that fiasco. Do you think these people care how many Americans are killed or disabled? As long as they continue to make money, they don’t care.

The same can be said about our involvement in the Middle East. Why can’t the American people learn that it is our politicians who get us into these wars. Their benefactors make lots of money on them.

For this reason, I would never vote for any candidate who was a member, or in any way, affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. It is the CFR who controls our foreign policy, and they are the primary beneficiaries of it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The only winners of the Viet Nam war were the Council on Foreign Relations corporate members who made billions of dollars on that fiasco. Do you think these people care how many Americans are killed or disabled? As long as they continue to make money, they don’t care.

The same can be said about our involvement in the Middle East. Why can’t the American people learn that it is our politicians who get us into these wars. Their benefactors make lots of money on them.

For this reason, I would never vote for any candidate who was a member, or in any way, affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. It is the CFR who controls our foreign policy, and they are the primary beneficiaries of it.

Before you go to sleep tonight, check to be sure the CFR isn’t hiding under your bed.

 

[txsoldier94]

They’re after me!!!

They’re after me!!!

:bigyikes:

 

[vern_humphrey]

They’re after me!!!

They’re after me!!!

:bigyikes:

Quick! Grab that chalk and make a pentagram around your bed – while I run out to Wal-Mart for some CFR Repellant Spray.

 

[markomalley]

The Army War College does no such thing. It is an educational institution, not an operational one.

Warplans are created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

You have access to highly-classified war plans?

Give us a cite.

Pardon me?

Are you claiming the war in Iraq has been fought only with Reservists? That the Active Army did not participate?

If we’re going to throw around terms like that, you might think on the one we’d apply to someone who claims the Army War College does our war plans, or that only Reservists fought in Iraq.

And to do that, we need to have someone who knows how plans are made – something that seems to be lacking here…

Actually strategic war plans are created by the appropriate combatant command (such as CENTCOM, EUCOM) based on national guidance contained in the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan.

If you’d like to see the basic process, FAS has the slides from a 10-year old version of the Contingency Wartime Planning Course, taught at Maxwell AFB AL (the AF equivalent to Carlisle Barracks), to prepare officers for joint staff duty.

Although the slides are seriously dated, the process is basically the same as it has been for 20+ years.

 

[RobbyS]

And a significant part of that may be laid at the door of those who convinced the enemy that if they could hang on, and kill enough Americans, they could win politically, even if they lost on the battlefield.

What was done to my generation of American soldiers must not be repeated on this generation.

And where planning is concerned, I think that what Saddam learned about our plans from French, German and Arab sources led him to plan for an after-battle resistance, probably knowing from those sources that we did not intend to occupy the country. I would like to know what assurances he got for Saudi help in this resistance. Certainly there seemed to have been a significant contribution in men, and money beginning in the Fall of 2003. The adamantine refusal of the French and Germans to contribute forces to Iraq makes me believe that our putative allies were not to be trusted.They did not want us to succeeed.

 

[txsoldier94]

And where planning is concerned, I think that what Saddam learned about our plans from French, German and Arab sources led him to plan for an after-battle resistance, probably knowing from those sources that we did not intend to occupy the country. I would like to know what assurances he got for Saudi help in this resistance. Certainly there seemed to have been a significant contribution in men, and money beginning in the Fall of 2003. The adamantine refusal of the French and Germans to contribute forces to Iraq makes me believe that our putative allies were not to be trusted.They did not want us to succeeed.

Putative…nice turn of phrase!

The French and Germans were long-time supporters and business partners with Saddam. Many jets of the Iraqi air force were French, as were many of his armored vehicles. (The bulk of both were of Soviet origin, but not all). The French were also instrumental in Saddam’s subversion of the “Oil for Food” program.

Not to mention the investments that both countries had in Iraq’s oil fields.

It was not so much that they wanted us to fail…they didn’t want us to try.

Mik

 

[abu_kamoon]

“Before you go to sleep tonight, check to be sure the CFR isn’t hiding under your bed.”

There’s no money to be made under my bed. Smart criminals go into government. That’s where the real money and power are.