Iraq Revisited

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

All I heard in that post was 'blah blah blah'

I know it was. That's all you ever hear because you're just waiting for your turn to talk. Doesn't really matter what anyone else actually says - you don't read it anyways.

[CptSternn]

Pentagon says pre-war intel not illegal

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070209...n_intelligence

ASHINGTON - A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."

The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the
CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal. The report was to be presented to Levin's panel at a hearing Friday.

The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that. Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.

Levin has asserted that
President Bush took the country to war in Iraq based in part on intelligence assessments — some shaped by Feith's office — that were off base and did not fully reflect the views of the intelligence community.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Levin said the IG report is "very damning" and shows a Pentagon policy shop trying to shape intelligence to prove a link between al-Qaida and Saddam...

Hrmm...who was it just a couple pages back arguing the link between sadaam and al-queda? I wonder who that was...

[CptSternn]

This article written by an Army officer who just returned from Iraq from training the new Iraqi troops is probably the second best I have read on the current conflict. He actually quotes much of gates new strategy, which oddly enough is quite realistic in comparison to what the bush admin had been saying.

http://www.slate.com/id/2159460?nav=tap3

There Are Four Iraq Wars

I came home from Iraq in September 2006 with a paradox ($) on my mind: How was it that we were making tangible progress in developing Iraq's security forces, government, and economy, yet the overall security situation was worsening?

Thanks to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, I now have an answer: Our strategic stagnation results from the fact that we are fighting four wars, not one. According to Gates: "One is Shi'a on Shi'a, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al Qaida, and al Qaida is attacking, at times, all of those targets." The multifaceted nature of these four wars has frustrated American strategy since 2003. Successes in one area produce setbacks in the others, with al-Qaida hovering above the fray to spoil progress whenever it threatens to bring stability to Iraq, as they did by bombing the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 after the successful Iraqi elections. Consequently, any strategies implementing the "counterinsurgency playbook," smart as those plans may be, will necessarily prove insufficient because we aren't just fighting an insurgency anymore...

He lays out the current situation, as gates did before congress recently, explaining there are actually four separate wars going on in Iraq and that making progress in one area causes major set backs in the other three. He doesn't say how to fix this, just that continuing down the current path will lead to failure. Worth a read.

[knightmare]

I think Bush's "War on Terror" is unecessary. What better way to discourage violence against American infidels than bombing the crap out of their civilians?
According to Muslim analysts, about 26 percent of Muslims are exremist. This percentage is growing thanks to the turnover of traditionalist Muslims to extremist Muslims (the fact that we are murdering several thousands of their people may have to do with it). We should concentrate on converting extremists into traditionalists instead of this "war on terror" since there will always be terrorists.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

On top of that, the american military is in shambles. They couldn't invade anywhere in the state they are currently in.

Really? What basis do you have supporting this claim?

[CptSternn]

Knight - thats a pretty bang on assement there, but your forgetting, without an extremist population to facilitate the funding for the war on terror, there is no war on terror and the defence industry suffers. It being the largest industry in america, needs to be funded and therefore needs reasons to be funded.

If people actually sat down and tried to negotiate about issues you can't stir up international incidents and start conflicts.

Bombing innocent women and children civilians, tourturing innocent people, 'renditioning' suspects to countries so they can have confessions beaten out of them - this is what drives the other side to become extreme and what then causes the people to ban together to stop, therefore counter actively allowing the various western government to claim their is a real threat.

[Binkie]

Selective answering. Gotta love it.

"I don't feel the need to back up anything I say that's called into question by anyone."

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

this is what drives the other side to become extreme and what then causes the people to ban together to stop

Who are, "the people?" Please tell me you're so completely naive that you think Mujahideen in any conflict are unified.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

Really? What basis do you have supporting this claim?

There have been numerous articles...

Top General: Army Near Breaking Point

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2266367.shtml

Or Google it...

http://www.google.ie/search?q=americ...ient=firefox-a

There have been more recent articles I have them saved - will dig them up.

[nuksaa]

The US military has been strained since the cold war ended and military downsizing has been occuring. Strange how the bigheads want to continue all support in areas supported during the Cold War with less personnel and equipment. This article appears to me to be the lead in for a request for more money by a General.

[ArtificialOne]

I still don't know what the dems mean by "redeployment". They never explain it or hash out a plan publicly about it. I say my the kurds in the north their own country, thats what they want, I think the south does too. Put our guys on the border and shoot anything that moves. We could also arm everyone to the teeth, pull out for a few years and see who climbs to the top of the pile and then deal with them.

Just some thoughts.

[ArtificialOne]

*make

sorry, it's dark and I'm on a laptop in my car

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

The US military has been strained since the cold war ended and military downsizing has been occuring. Strange how the bigheads want to continue all support in areas supported during the Cold War with less personnel and equipment. This article appears to me to be the lead in for a request for more money by a General.

Oddly enough, thats one of the same things I noticed in that article. If you think about it though, from a profitability stand point it makes sense. Pumping in more money for R&D into 'new' technologies that allow automation as well as mass control with less personnel seems to be the big sell these days. Companies like GD are making a killing in R&D for the defence department.

'Unmanned' vehicles, robotic ordnance disposal, and crowd control devices that are use from an hundreds of feet above the crowds are where the money is at.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

We could also arm everyone to the teeth, pull out for a few years and see who climbs to the top of the pile and then deal with them.

Thats basically whats going to happen. In fact, on many levels it already is happening.

[Binkie]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7043110

"Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says he wants more military hardware from the United States.

...

The Pentagon is reluctant to give them too much weaponry, fearing it will fall into the wrong hands."

Sounds like the exact opposite of what you're saying because of those very concerns.

[ArtificialOne]

Unfortunately money talks and the first thing they would do if given weapons would sell them to anyone with a few dollars (ie hezbollah and other terror or so called jihadists groups).

[CptSternn]

More importantly, lets not forget during the first phases of the war hundreds of thousands of arms were rounded up and put in various holding areas, most all of which were unguarded or had Iraqi guards who left their posts or were on the other side, therefore meaning tens of thousands of guns have already made it back to the people, not to mentioned the fact even after rounding up all those weapons the bush administration bought 70,000 more firearms in 2003 which they distributed throughout Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1004-02.htm

'The pentagon is reluctant'. Hah - talk about a fig leaf. They are shipping in more arms daily. The place was already awash with guns before the war. Now, its a free for all there, if you haven't noticed.

Of course, judging by the most recent polls you may not have noticed.

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070224...AY9kD3pOas0NUE

Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll

WASHINGTON - Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in
Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.


Turns out most Americans think an equal number of Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war. Truth is, low number is 57,000 - high number is 650,000 - bush himself claimed over 200,000 in an interview.

Shows that most people in America are still unaware of the reality there.

[nuksaa]

Shows that most people in America are still unaware of the reality there.

The American death toll has been the trumpet and drum for the Democrats this entire time. The same agenda Sheehan brought to life is to push the Iraq war = Vietnam agenda. Most Americans can only remember the death toll from that war. Strange how the news reports over the TV continue to report the number of people who have been dying in these car bombs are Iraqi and not Americans. Equally strange is the Dems you have been heralding for their majority in Congress only talks about bringing US troops home and provides little as to the way of any long term strategy towards resolving anything in Iraq.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

The American death toll has been the trumpet and drum for the Democrats this entire time. The same agenda Sheehan brought to life is to push the Iraq war = Vietnam agenda. Most Americans can only remember the death toll from that war. Strange how the news reports over the TV continue to report the number of people who have been dying in these car bombs are Iraqi and not Americans. Equally strange is the Dems you have been heralding for their majority in Congress only talks about bringing US troops home and provides little as to the way of any long term strategy towards resolving anything in Iraq.

Strangely enough I agree with most of your response there. Of course one thing you must admit is that from the current repubs perspective, there is no resolution out there.

The only way to fix Iraq is to involve it's neighbors - something the bush admin abhors doing. To do so would lose face, and make bush look very weak, having to turn to a member of the 'axis of evil' to fix Iraq.

That being said, this is an election season. While the dems might want to involve Iran and consult with them diplomatically, the repubs are bound to jump on that and then claim they were siding up with of course 'the axis of evil' and once again the flag waving repubs will try and take the presidency claiming the dems are soft on terrorism.

So right now there is a stalemate - you have the repubs who won't fix it as they can't without losing the faith of their base, and the dems who won't touch it till after the elections as they know the repubs will turn it into a political football if they try and actually fix the problem with the only solutions available.

As I said, the status quo will stay the same until after the 2008 elections. Bush won't fix anything - the 'troop surge' will fail, billions more will be pissed down a bottomless pit, more body bags will by flown home - and until there is a new president, no one will actually try and fix this mess - do now to American politics more than Iraqi politics.

[nuksaa]

Bush won't fix anything - the 'troop surge' will fail, billions more will be pissed down a bottomless pit, more body bags will by flown home - and until there is a new president, no one will actually try and fix this mess - do now to American politics more than Iraqi politics.

You are very preemptive in your 'troop surge' will fail due to your complete bias towards the current administration. You continue to blame the President for everything, which is a bit short sighted. You should maintain equal disgust towards the Congress. They are not proposing anything viable for a solution all they want is to play the political control game thousands of miles away from the topic. Who is at the short end of the stick? The soldier. Now is the time the public needs to start comparing Vietnam to Iraq, not due to the US body count, but by comparing the political quagmire occuring.

Congress continues their pursuit of the plausible deniablility spin in order to pin everything on Bush as a scapegoat. The facts state Congress is just as culpable to the situation in Iraq.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

You are very preemptive in your 'troop surge' will fail due to your complete bias towards the current administration.

Actually I'm basing it on the fact that three times in the past year they have had 'troop surges' of the same amount, with no effect. What makes this one any different? Now they are making it public? Now they claim its the new magic bullet to end the war? Just because the public is blissfully unaware that they have tried this three times previously and failed does not make me bias - it makes me a realist.

You continue to blame the President for everything, which is a bit short sighted.

Really? Do you think any other president would have allowed this? This of course is another hypothetical, but it is safe to say with the run up to war, made up evidence, and repeated drum banging bush has done for this war he is the main person behind it, well his administration. Who else can we say was responsible? Just because he refuses to take responsibility and say 'the buck stops here', does not make him any less culpable - just makes him more of a coward then before.

You should maintain equal disgust towards the Congress. They are not proposing anything viable for a solution all they want is to play the political control game thousands of miles away from the topic.

I agree - as I said in my last post about the presidential nominees the same goes for all of congress. Both sides have to moderate their actions else be used as a target for the opposing side in the same way as I stated above. They should share some of the blame. Of course the ones most responsible, the repubs who helped start this mess, are mostly out. The ones left are hanging by a thread and aren't doing much to help other than block any worthwhile legislation that makes them look bad.

Who is at the short end of the stick? The soldier. Now is the time the public needs to start comparing Vietnam to Iraq, not due to the US body count, but by comparing the political quagmire occuring.

But isn't that what always happens? Soldiers are pawns. The U.S. military has been used as a political football every since Vietnam. Even more so since the 80's. I agree, soldiers are getting screwed here. That being said, it's even more reason for them to act now, along with their families, to affect change. If a battalion refused to return to Iraq and all members requested CO status, that would make a statement bigger than any of the anti-troop-surge legislation that was currently voted on.

Congress continues their pursuit of the plausible deniablility spin in order to pin everything on Bush as a scapegoat. The facts state Congress is just as culpable to the situation in Iraq.

Once again I agree to some extent. However a majority of those who were instrumental in starting this war are now jobless as per the last elections. There are still MANY there who also do bear responsibility - and as things progress we will see them also pay some price.

[nuksaa]

What makes this one any different?

Why is it everyone is fixated on this number of troops? Overlooked is the fact the strategy for the employment of these troops and the current troop over there has also been change. Prior the troops were given limits to where they could go and who they could engage. The strategy change is where the success will be held if it occurs. The change which is currently showing progress, albiet not to the great a sudden grand effects everyone is demanding, with only 20% of troop numbers increased. Insurgent are already having to change their tactics. Will the success in this short time equate to a long term success? We will have to see.

Who else can we say was responsible?

Congress.

Just because he refuses to take responsibility

As Congress continues to not hold themselves accountable.

Of course the ones most responsible, the repubs who helped start this mess, are mostly out.

Strange how there are 31 Dems who cast there vote in favor of this action. HJR 114 passed with a vote of 77 to 23. Do the math. Who is more at fault in this situation, those who say yes or those who do not say no?

Just because he refuses to take responsibility

He doesn't take responsibility? When did he say this?

If a battalion refused to return to Iraq and all members requested CO status, that would make a statement bigger than any of the anti-troop-surge legislation that was currently voted on.

You are correct here. People doing something that means something; vice a group of people doing something that means nothing and knowing it means nothing while they are doing it. However, I would not herald this battalion as a group of hero but men and woman who renege on their word.

The U.S. military has been used as a political football every since Vietnam.

I hope you are being deliberately obtuse here.

[CptSternn]

US war-wounded scandal grows

http://news.**********/s/afp/2007030..._eR_13QI3MWM0F

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates sacked the civilian chief of the US Army Friday, saying he was "disappointed" with the service's defensive response to a scandal over the care of wounded troops at a top military hospital.

...In the stories, the Post exposed how convalescing soldiers were housed in rooms with mold-covered walls, holes in the ceiling and infestations of rodents and cockroaches....

Goes to show how much the bush administration actual values the U.S. military. With 20,000+ now living as permanate disabilities thanks to the war, one can expect this to get worse before it gets better. Why? Unless you overhaul the healthcare, your not going to see any improvements. They might fix up one building, but that building is merelt the last item in a line of things that need to be fixed with American healthcare.

I'm still trying to figure out why when bush and rumsfeld cut funding to military hospitals and the VA four years in a row, no one batted an eyelash. Now this story breaks, again - the Washington Post reported on in it in 2003, when another round of bush VA cuts were going through congress, and everyone now seems 'surprised'.

[ArtificialOne]

Well, there's not anyone like bush running this time around. And I think most candidates now are going to be burned out by election time. But spouting Bush Hatisms isn't going to solve any problems. Just like voting for someone because you hate the other guys is going to too. The worst thing of all is to be a one issue voter. Unfortunatley We have to many talking heads and pretty people running right now. I mean it's two years away..... Don't these poli's have other work to do that we pay them for? The whole first 100hrs bs is gone and nothings been done. Everythings still stuck in the house. All they want to do is argue amongst each other and not take care of the coutries business.

And lets not get stuck into who is whore and who is not. Both parties are made up of many diff people and groups. Not every rep is a neo con or even a conservative for that matter. Neither are most dems socialist communist scum.

Maybe we should bring back the multi party system. I liked how it worked in australia while I was there. Although i didn't like that the party picks the pm and not the people....

[CptSternn]

Wow. I agree with pretty much everything you said there. Sp00ky.