Journey,
The media is not reporting the truth. This has been a very sucessful operation. Maybe these people cannot live in peace and the group that cuts the most throats will rule like always. Face the truth the media will not cover the good things that have happened. If the media covered what's going on right here in Washington DC or LA Americans would flee to Cuba for free healthcare. When I see the media trying to run Rummy out of town for such silliness it makes one think Iraq is going much better than the jackels report. The media made a big deal about the Humvees not being armoured up and it turns out 90% of the Humvees are armoured up. I believe 90% of the war effort is going well, but when the media focuses daily on the other 10% it's as if all is going wrong. It flat out isn't.
The media is not reporting the truth. This has been a very sucessful operation. Maybe these people cannot live in peace and the group that cuts the most throats will rule like always. Face the truth the media will not cover the good things that have happened. If the media covered what's going on right here in Washington DC or LA Americans would flee to Cuba for free healthcare. When I see the media trying to run Rummy out of town for such silliness it makes one think Iraq is going much better than the jackels report. The media made a big deal about the Humvees not being armoured up and it turns out 90% of the Humvees are armoured up. I believe 90% of the war effort is going well, but when the media focuses daily on the other 10% it's as if all is going wrong. It flat out isn't.
What the Heil does the media have to do with this taking so much longer? If it wasn't for bush worrying about getting reelected Fullujah could have been delt with last spring. Instead we paid twice when we should have paid once. And if things are going so great, why increase troop strength? Just more of your bushivik spin.
Why is anyone suprised?
Bush is an idiot ....
Cheney is a Nazi warlord who wants to drop nukes whenever possible ...
Dumbsfeld is completely hated by the Military brass ....
Bush blew off all military advice on this operation .... Rumsfeld should have been **** canned along time ago but that would make Bush look like he has made a mistake and he dont make mistakes if ya recall from the debate ...
I dont know how any American can support what is going on in Iraq right now ... totally mystifiies me and I really have to wonder who the true traitors to what this country used to stand for really are?
Bush is an idiot ....
Cheney is a Nazi warlord who wants to drop nukes whenever possible ...
Dumbsfeld is completely hated by the Military brass ....
Bush blew off all military advice on this operation .... Rumsfeld should have been **** canned along time ago but that would make Bush look like he has made a mistake and he dont make mistakes if ya recall from the debate ...
I dont know how any American can support what is going on in Iraq right now ... totally mystifiies me and I really have to wonder who the true traitors to what this country used to stand for really are?
It wasn't a PC decision not to finish Fullujah it was a purely POLITICAL decision. And he should have to go to each and every parent of the personel that lost their lives or the soldiers that lost arms or legs or sight, and he should try and explain why he pulled them back. Why he was afraid continuing would hurt his reelection chances. Someone explain why he did this. If you recall public support was for killing every Arab in sight after the mercinaries were killed and strung up. They could have leveled that city and no one would have cared. If he would have allowed the seige to continue the loss of life would have been much less. The insurgents had another 7 months to build defenses and plant traps. Where was the outrage?
If we we have to fight every battle twice we will never get out of there.
If we we have to fight every battle twice we will never get out of there.
Jinn beat me to the punchline:
If things are going so well why are things taking so much longer?
Why are so many more troops needed if the resistance is on the verge of caving in?
Why all the extended tours of duty then, and talk of a draft because there aren't enough soldiers to suck up all the depleted uranium? (This DU thing would be funny if it wasn't so tragic)
This is like taking your car down to the shop to get your tires rotated and still not getting your car back after two weeks.........
.....but the mechanic says things are going well.....
arty:
If things are going so well why are things taking so much longer?
Why are so many more troops needed if the resistance is on the verge of caving in?
Why all the extended tours of duty then, and talk of a draft because there aren't enough soldiers to suck up all the depleted uranium? (This DU thing would be funny if it wasn't so tragic)
This is like taking your car down to the shop to get your tires rotated and still not getting your car back after two weeks.........
.....but the mechanic says things are going well.....
arty:
Although a single soldier is too much in my eyes the body count is extremely low for what has been done. I'm for many more bombs and less troops.
Taking so much longer? What was the time frame? I only heard it would take a long time. The elections are soon.
I have to agree Fallujah should have been leveled the first go around and yes it wasn't done because of the pending election. Not ideal, however, the jackels would have undermined the entire operation and in the end cost more lives.
Taking so much longer? What was the time frame? I only heard it would take a long time. The elections are soon.
I have to agree Fallujah should have been leveled the first go around and yes it wasn't done because of the pending election. Not ideal, however, the jackels would have undermined the entire operation and in the end cost more lives.
posted by GAMEFACE:
<!--StartFragment --> <TR><TD colspan="3">
Bush says Iraqi troops not ready
</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top" width="416"><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
Iraq dominated the news conference at the White House
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- E IIMA -->Iraqi forces are still not ready to keep order, US President George W Bush has said, warning that next month's election would not be "trouble-free".</TD></TR>
<!--StartFragment -->
It was unacceptable that some Iraqi government units had deserted during combat with militants, President Bush told reporters in Washington.
He said car bomb attacks were having an "effect" but he insisted that Iraq was on course for democracy.
A senior Iraqi official said Iraqi forces had made "huge progress".
Twin bombs killed more than 60 in Iraq's holiest Shia cities on Sunday.
Etc etc etc.
Just a reminder boys and girls, it's now been nearly two years since we started "shocking and aweing" the Iraqis. It's also been about fifteen years since the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq told Hussein that Iraqi-Kuwaiti border disputes were none of our business, which lest we forget is how this shite got started.
Phaedrus
What do the elections have to do with anything?
<!--StartFragment --> <TR><TD colspan="3">
Bush says Iraqi troops not ready
</TD></TR><TR><TD valign="top" width="416"><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- E IIMA -->Iraqi forces are still not ready to keep order, US President George W Bush has said, warning that next month's election would not be "trouble-free".</TD></TR>
<!--StartFragment -->
It was unacceptable that some Iraqi government units had deserted during combat with militants, President Bush told reporters in Washington.
He said car bomb attacks were having an "effect" but he insisted that Iraq was on course for democracy.
A senior Iraqi official said Iraqi forces had made "huge progress".
Twin bombs killed more than 60 in Iraq's holiest Shia cities on Sunday.
Etc etc etc.
Just a reminder boys and girls, it's now been nearly two years since we started "shocking and aweing" the Iraqis. It's also been about fifteen years since the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq told Hussein that Iraqi-Kuwaiti border disputes were none of our business, which lest we forget is how this shite got started.
Phaedrus
BTW, in an aside, the WYSIWYG editor and I are clearly having some relationship problems. Sorry for the bizarre and disjointed appearance of some of my posts since the forum changeover. I'm sure it's a enough of a pain to read my posts without them looking like they were edited by Picasso.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus
I'm kind of curious to know where the dire projections of a minority insurgency on this scale were before March of 2003. As I seem to recall, the armchair experts on the Left spent most of their time bleating about Baghdad being the next Stalingrad (among other misguided and wrongheaded prognostications).
For those of you who believe we rushed to war and didn't have a plan in place, please note the invasion plans originated under the Clinton administration and date back to 1995. We've been preparing for action in Iraq for a long time. What has since unfolded after the conventional phase of the war has surprised both the Left and Right. There simply wasn't a projection of what's going on now, by anyone.
When the Left accuses the Bush administration of poor planning, they fail to realize this war wasn't planned in the Oval Office by the president and the NeoCons. W didn't wake up one morning and say "ah, what the hell...lets go invade." This war was planned a long time ago by the same civilian and military bureaucrats who worked for the government for some time...under many presidents.
The war planning wasn't partisan. The preparations never called for armed Humvees, which partially defeats the purpose of them. They're light trucks. Thousands of GIs were killed in the old school jeeps, but there was never a call to turn them into tanks. It's not lack of foresight on anyone's part. Wars are evolving entities, and we learn from each one (or should at least).
What war has the United States ever been fully prepared and equipped to fight? In 1942, we sent our forces into battle with the bolt-action 1903 Springfield rifle, 75-mm cannon, Stuart tanks, and the P-39 Aircobra...all of which were outdated for a war on the horizon for years. It was all eventually replaced with better equipment because we learned from our experiences. That's what happens in war. So to point out that Humvess (which have been around for what, 20 years now?) are not armored and should have been displays an ignorance of military history, theory and application.
In Iraq, we sent the best equipped force in all history into the field. It's responded with the lowest death-to-wound rate in history.
The problem in Iraq isn't equipment, doctrine, allies, politics, or religion. It's time and patience. We know how to fight and win. The Iraqi resistance is primarily the minority Muslim sects. All we have to do is hold on until there are enough decently trained Iraqi troops, and then avert our eyes when then lay the smack down after the election. If we were facing a national resistance, our troops would all be dead. They're not, and much of the country is secure (last time I checked, 14 of the 18 Iraqi provinces are ready for elections). There will always be violence in Iraq, just as there is in the rest of the world.
For those of you who believe we rushed to war and didn't have a plan in place, please note the invasion plans originated under the Clinton administration and date back to 1995. We've been preparing for action in Iraq for a long time. What has since unfolded after the conventional phase of the war has surprised both the Left and Right. There simply wasn't a projection of what's going on now, by anyone.
When the Left accuses the Bush administration of poor planning, they fail to realize this war wasn't planned in the Oval Office by the president and the NeoCons. W didn't wake up one morning and say "ah, what the hell...lets go invade." This war was planned a long time ago by the same civilian and military bureaucrats who worked for the government for some time...under many presidents.
The war planning wasn't partisan. The preparations never called for armed Humvees, which partially defeats the purpose of them. They're light trucks. Thousands of GIs were killed in the old school jeeps, but there was never a call to turn them into tanks. It's not lack of foresight on anyone's part. Wars are evolving entities, and we learn from each one (or should at least).
What war has the United States ever been fully prepared and equipped to fight? In 1942, we sent our forces into battle with the bolt-action 1903 Springfield rifle, 75-mm cannon, Stuart tanks, and the P-39 Aircobra...all of which were outdated for a war on the horizon for years. It was all eventually replaced with better equipment because we learned from our experiences. That's what happens in war. So to point out that Humvess (which have been around for what, 20 years now?) are not armored and should have been displays an ignorance of military history, theory and application.
In Iraq, we sent the best equipped force in all history into the field. It's responded with the lowest death-to-wound rate in history.
The problem in Iraq isn't equipment, doctrine, allies, politics, or religion. It's time and patience. We know how to fight and win. The Iraqi resistance is primarily the minority Muslim sects. All we have to do is hold on until there are enough decently trained Iraqi troops, and then avert our eyes when then lay the smack down after the election. If we were facing a national resistance, our troops would all be dead. They're not, and much of the country is secure (last time I checked, 14 of the 18 Iraqi provinces are ready for elections). There will always be violence in Iraq, just as there is in the rest of the world.
Thinktanks slam US Iraq strategy
Iraq has been convulsed by violence since the 2003 invasion
Two influential thinktanks have roundly criticised US strategy in Iraq.
The Wasington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIC) said on Wednesday that the US is facing increasingly deadly attacks in Iraq because it has failed to honestly assess facts on the ground.
And in a report published on the same day, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group said Iraqi hostility towards the US-led "occupation" means that Washington can no longer achieve its pre-war goals.
The CSIC report, prepared by senior fellow Anthony Cordesman, said administration spokesmen had appeared to live "in a fantasyland" when giving accounts of events in Iraq.
Cordesman, a former Pentagon official who has made several trips to Iraq, said Iraqi spies are a serious threat to US operations and there is no evidence that the numbers of anti-US fighters is declining despite vigorous US and Iraq attacks.
After the 2003 invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, the US "assumed that it was dealing with a limited number of insurgents that coalition forces would defeat well before the election" of a new Iraqi government, Cordesman said.
"It did not see the threat level that would emerge if it did not provide jobs or pensions for Iraqi career officers or co-opt them into the nation-building effort ... . It acted as if it had years to rebuild Iraq using its own plans, rather than months to shape the climate in which Iraqis could do it."
Vietnam analogy
Cordesman said in the first year of the US occupation, Washington "failed to come to grips with the Iraqi insurgency ... in virtually every important dimension".
Under the heading "Denial as a method of counter-insurgency warfare", the report accused the US of minimising the anti-US and criminal threat in Iraq and of exaggerating popular support for US-led efforts.
"It [the US] did not see the threat level that would emerge if it did not provide jobs or pensions for Iraqi career officers or co-opt them into the nation-building effort"
Anthony Cordesman,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington "in short ... failed to honestly assess the facts on the ground in a manner reminiscent of Vietnam", Cordesman wrote.
He said that as late as July 2004, administration spokesmen still lived "in a fantasyland in terms of their public announcements", including putting the core anti-US fighting force at 5000 individuals when experts in Iraq knew the correct number to be 12,000 to 16,000.
Sympathisers within the Iraqi interim government and Iraqi forces, as well as Iraqis working for US-led forces, media and non-governmental organisations, "often provided excellent human intelligence [about US-led operations] without violently taking part in the insurgency", the report said.
Cordesman said US attempts to vet these Iraqis cannot solve the problem because "it seems likely that family, clan and ethnic loyalties have made many supposedly loyal Iraqis become at least part-time sources".
Soaring resentment
Meanwhile, the International Crisis Group (ICG), a conflict-resolution organisation, said on Wednesday that Iraqi confidence in the US "is in free fall".
Soaring resentment feeds anti-US violence, making the transition process a source of, not the solution to, Washington's legitimacy deficit.
Bush said Iraq would become a model for the region.
The US said its initial objective was to turn Iraq into a model for the region - a democratic, secular and free-market oriented government, sympathetic to US interests, not openly hostile towards Israel, and possibly home to long-term American military bases.
But the Bush-administration now needs to limit its ambitions and focus on achievable goals, the ICG said.
Specificially, it should gradually disengage politically and militarily from Iraq and let Iraq disengage politically from it.
Legitimacy defecit
"Washington has to realise - you occupy the Iraq you have, not the Iraq you might wish to have later," said Robert Malley, director of the IGC's Middle East/North Africa Programme.
"The credibility of Iraqi institutions depends essentially on their ability to respond to the Iraqi population's needs and aspirations, which inevitably will entail distancing themselves from the US-led occupation"
Peter Harling,
International Crisis Group
Moreover, the IGC said the US should design a counter-insurgency strategy which is less focussed on militarily eliminating its opponents in Iraq, thus gaining more support within the country.
The report said Iraqis must believe they are building a unified, independent state which must define itself at least partially in opposition to US policies or risk provoking the ire of many of its own citizens.
"The credibility of Iraqi institutions depends essentially on their ability to respond to the Iraqi population's needs and aspirations, which inevitably will entail distancing themselves from the US-led occupation," said Peter Harling, the IGC's Middle East analyst
Iraq has been convulsed by violence since the 2003 invasion
Two influential thinktanks have roundly criticised US strategy in Iraq.
The Wasington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIC) said on Wednesday that the US is facing increasingly deadly attacks in Iraq because it has failed to honestly assess facts on the ground.
And in a report published on the same day, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group said Iraqi hostility towards the US-led "occupation" means that Washington can no longer achieve its pre-war goals.
The CSIC report, prepared by senior fellow Anthony Cordesman, said administration spokesmen had appeared to live "in a fantasyland" when giving accounts of events in Iraq.
Cordesman, a former Pentagon official who has made several trips to Iraq, said Iraqi spies are a serious threat to US operations and there is no evidence that the numbers of anti-US fighters is declining despite vigorous US and Iraq attacks.
After the 2003 invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, the US "assumed that it was dealing with a limited number of insurgents that coalition forces would defeat well before the election" of a new Iraqi government, Cordesman said.
"It did not see the threat level that would emerge if it did not provide jobs or pensions for Iraqi career officers or co-opt them into the nation-building effort ... . It acted as if it had years to rebuild Iraq using its own plans, rather than months to shape the climate in which Iraqis could do it."
Vietnam analogy
Cordesman said in the first year of the US occupation, Washington "failed to come to grips with the Iraqi insurgency ... in virtually every important dimension".
Under the heading "Denial as a method of counter-insurgency warfare", the report accused the US of minimising the anti-US and criminal threat in Iraq and of exaggerating popular support for US-led efforts.
"It [the US] did not see the threat level that would emerge if it did not provide jobs or pensions for Iraqi career officers or co-opt them into the nation-building effort"
Anthony Cordesman,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington "in short ... failed to honestly assess the facts on the ground in a manner reminiscent of Vietnam", Cordesman wrote.
He said that as late as July 2004, administration spokesmen still lived "in a fantasyland in terms of their public announcements", including putting the core anti-US fighting force at 5000 individuals when experts in Iraq knew the correct number to be 12,000 to 16,000.
Sympathisers within the Iraqi interim government and Iraqi forces, as well as Iraqis working for US-led forces, media and non-governmental organisations, "often provided excellent human intelligence [about US-led operations] without violently taking part in the insurgency", the report said.
Cordesman said US attempts to vet these Iraqis cannot solve the problem because "it seems likely that family, clan and ethnic loyalties have made many supposedly loyal Iraqis become at least part-time sources".
Soaring resentment
Meanwhile, the International Crisis Group (ICG), a conflict-resolution organisation, said on Wednesday that Iraqi confidence in the US "is in free fall".
Soaring resentment feeds anti-US violence, making the transition process a source of, not the solution to, Washington's legitimacy deficit.
Bush said Iraq would become a model for the region.
The US said its initial objective was to turn Iraq into a model for the region - a democratic, secular and free-market oriented government, sympathetic to US interests, not openly hostile towards Israel, and possibly home to long-term American military bases.
But the Bush-administration now needs to limit its ambitions and focus on achievable goals, the ICG said.
Specificially, it should gradually disengage politically and militarily from Iraq and let Iraq disengage politically from it.
Legitimacy defecit
"Washington has to realise - you occupy the Iraq you have, not the Iraq you might wish to have later," said Robert Malley, director of the IGC's Middle East/North Africa Programme.
"The credibility of Iraqi institutions depends essentially on their ability to respond to the Iraqi population's needs and aspirations, which inevitably will entail distancing themselves from the US-led occupation"
Peter Harling,
International Crisis Group
Moreover, the IGC said the US should design a counter-insurgency strategy which is less focussed on militarily eliminating its opponents in Iraq, thus gaining more support within the country.
The report said Iraqis must believe they are building a unified, independent state which must define itself at least partially in opposition to US policies or risk provoking the ire of many of its own citizens.
"The credibility of Iraqi institutions depends essentially on their ability to respond to the Iraqi population's needs and aspirations, which inevitably will entail distancing themselves from the US-led occupation," said Peter Harling, the IGC's Middle East analyst
"In Iraq, we sent the best equipped force in all of history into the field. It's responded with the lowest death-to-wound rate in history."
Tell that to Mr Doug Rokke and the 100 or so men used during depleted uranium cleanup operations after Gulf War I.....
But you can save a few stamps because 30 of them are dead, and Doug and a majority of the rest of them are trashed from uranium poisoning.
That was just from the first war......figure out how long some of the tours of duty have been for our boys and you'll get a better appreciation of how many of them are walking dead.
Tell that to Mr Doug Rokke and the 100 or so men used during depleted uranium cleanup operations after Gulf War I.....
But you can save a few stamps because 30 of them are dead, and Doug and a majority of the rest of them are trashed from uranium poisoning.
That was just from the first war......figure out how long some of the tours of duty have been for our boys and you'll get a better appreciation of how many of them are walking dead.
