[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:
Well if they can redefine “winning” to mean “getting our asses kicked by the natives using low-tech weaponry”, they’ll be able to declare having “won” and come back.
Many of them, anyway.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan is also going to Hell in a handbasket.
No wonder Iran and North Korea are feeling swell. The US can topple a regime with little problem, but the aftermath leaves the place worse off than before.
Yup, Bush and Rumsfeld: Using the world’s greatest Armed Forces to fail repeatedly. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted in vain. Good job, morons.
pookie, let’s get you on record here. Would it have been better if saddam was still in power?
Make sure yes and no are clearly elucidated.
Secondly, I think north korea isn’t feeling “swell” at all. Bush has been consistent with them since before Iraq was invaded. He’s played this one right!!! I support him 100%. It has to be China or it isn’t going to work.
Oh, see bill clinton’s approach.
Third, iran shows the inherent hot air in many of the europeans. Remember all the fuss about “unilateralism?”
Bush is going nearly totally multilateral with iran. How’s that working out?
Be careful as you respond as I set a trap for you on the last point.
You’re welcome for the warning.
JeffR
[/quote]
The war was about weapons of mass destruction you dumb fuck. You have completely bought into the propoganda bullshit. Perhaps Iraq would have been better off with a stabalized dictatorship than with a foreign occupying force, 600 000 dead civilians and a raging civil war that is only getting worse.
Stay the course" didn’t mean not changing tatics. “Stay the course” has been used to mean, don’t “cut and run.”
Cutting and running refers to leaving before loyal Iraqi forces can reasonably take full control of the fight.
"MYTH: The Defense Department has pursued a ?stay the course? strategy that does not allow for adjustments in strategy.
FACTS: The suggestion of a static and unyielding approach to Iraq fails to take into account continuous adjustments in strategy that have been made on the battlefield.
Some examples:
The program for training and equipping the Iraqi army was revised substantially to stand up a force better suited to internal security and fighting terrorists.
The Coalition Provisional Authority?s (CPA) initial plan to transfer sovereignty and hold elections was moved up to an earlier date, in response to the desire of the Iraqi people to take charge of their own country.
The reconstruction and aid program for Iraq was adjusted to focus less on large, long-term infrastructure to funding smaller projects that could be implemented quickly with immediate impact in the community, while also providing jobs for young men who might be tempted by the insurgents or militias.
On Oct. 24, General George Casey, Commander, Multi-National Force ? Iraq, described how the coalition has adapted to realities on the ground: ?People are rightfully asking, ?How are you changing? What are you doing differently?? I can tell you that we have continuously adapted to stay ahead of the enemy and to ensure that our service men and women have the proper tools and support they need to accomplish their missions.? See the full transcript here."
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Stay the course” didn’t mean not changing tatics. “Stay the course” has been used to mean, don’t “cut and run.”
Cutting and running refers to leaving before loyal Iraqi forces can reasonably take full control of the fight.
[/quote]
And of course staying the course refers to keeping overall troop sizes the same (basically) as they presumably stand up Iraqi forces, while providing “security” at the same time. That some tactics may change is obviously besides the point, because the problem is, staying the course is not working, hence we will soon be changing the course.
For some insight as to why staying the course hasn’t been working:
The Iraqi police are not the only ones who feel unsafe. The American soldiers and civilians who train the Iraqis are constantly on guard against the possibility that the police might turn against them. Even in the police headquarters for all of western Baghdad, one of the safest police buildings in the capital, the training team will not remove their body armor or helmets. An armed soldier is assigned to protect each trainer.
“I wouldn’t let half of them feed my dog,” 1st Lt. Floyd D. Estes Jr., a former head of the police transition team, said of the Iraqi police. “I just don’t trust them.”
Jon Moore, the deputy team chief, said: “We don’t know who the hell we’re teaching: Are they police or are they militia?”
The trainers agree that Ani, the new police chief for western Baghdad, is an honest cop who is trying to get the police force in order. But Ani acknowledged in a meeting with U.S. officials that he does not plan to root out and fire militia members.
“I don’t have that power,” he said. “There are people higher than me that control that.”
Among Ani’s bosses are the police chief for all of Baghdad, who has been linked to the Mahdi Army, and the minister of the interior, who is a member of Sadr’s political bloc.
“I think he’s trying to do the right thing,” said Lt. Col Aaron Dean, the battalion commander, as he walked to his Humvee after the meeting with Ani. “But I know they’re all under certain influences. If you take a big stand against the militias, they’re going to come after you.”
The difficulty of eliminating corruption and militias from the Iraqi police forces can be exasperating for the American soldiers who risk their lives day after day to train them. “We can keep getting in our Humvees every day, but nothing is going to work unless the politicians do their job and move against the militias,” Moore said.
Sitting in the battalion’s war room with four other members of his team, Moore estimated it would take 30 to 40 years before the Iraqi police could function properly, perhaps longer if the militia infiltration and corruption continue to increase. His colleagues nodded.
“It’s very, very slow-moving,” Estes said.
“No,” said Sgt. 1st Class William T. King Jr., another member of the team. “It’s moving in reverse.”
So of course, we’ll be changing course shortly(with Baker providing cover), hilariously Republicans are now forced to be democratic-lite on changing the course.
Actually troop size has always been on the table. If you look at the myths from the link I provided, that is demonstrated. The Administration and Generals have stated, in multiple press briefings, for quite some time now, that if more troops are asked for, they’ll be given. That’s well documented. Troop size is not the “stay the course” message.
Stay the course refers to not cutting and running. And I’m not seeing how that policy has changed.
Could you please provide a released statement by the administration as to what all “staying the course” encompassed? It wasn’t tactics, or troop levels, I’m sure. Tactics and troop levels have shifted since
damn near the beginning.
“Stay the Course” means not leaving before the job is done.
BUSH: If by stay the course they mean that we’re not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they,re flat wrong. [11/30/05]
I’ve never seen any statement, by the administration, saying troop levels were untouchable, ever.
BUSH: We will stay the course so that they can develop an army and police force of their own so they can defend themselves. [9/13/04]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
… The Administration and Generals have stated, in multiple press briefings, for quite some time now, that if more troops are asked for, they’ll be given…[/quote]
You understand that in military quarters people generally follow orders right?
I mean, it’s pretty hard to give much weight to statements like this, especially if the unspoken rule is that nobody ask for more troops or otherwise criticize the administration’s (e.g. Rumsfeld’s) judgment if they value having a career.
Wakey wakey slothy, you aren’t going to sleep through your entire life are you?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
… The Administration and Generals have stated, in multiple press briefings, for quite some time now, that if more troops are asked for, they’ll be given…
You understand that in military quarters people generally follow orders right?
I mean, it’s pretty hard to give much weight to statements like this, especially if the unspoken rule is that nobody ask for more troops or otherwise criticize the administration’s (e.g. Rumsfeld’s) judgment if they value having a career.
Wakey wakey slothy, you aren’t going to sleep through your entire life are you?[/quote]
It must be easy to be a conspiracy theorist. You imply the Administration has strong armed military leaders to lie about troop level requests. You imply that Bush has an absolute hard cap on troop levels, dictated to the Genearls and so forth. Yet, your evidence? Nothing. So before you act like a smart ass next time, make an arguement that has some verifiable facts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually troop size has always been on the table. If you look at the myths from the link I provided, that is demonstrated. The Administration and Generals have stated, in multiple press briefings, for quite some time now, that if more troops are asked for, they’ll be given. That’s well documented. Troop
size is not the “stay the course” message.
Stay the course refers to not cutting and running. And I’m not seeing how that policy has changed.
[/quote]
So long as the mission is defined as providing bare bones security and training troops, in other word “stay the course”, commanders won’t ask for more troops. (Troop size has never actually been on the table however, Rumsfeld would never allow a dramatic increase in troop size and has denied them in the past…General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied
General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied
Three retired soldiers slam Rumsfeld’s policies at a Democratic hearing in which the party tries to take the offensive on the war in Iraq.
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
September 26, 2006
WASHINGTON ? Adding to criticism of the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war in Iraq, a retired senior general who commanded an infantry division in the conflict said Monday that requests by commanders for more soldiers were repeatedly turned down.
“Many of us routinely asked for more troops,” retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste said, contradicting statements by President Bush and his senior aides that the administration had given the military all the resources it had asked for…
also, even the hapless Bremmer requested more troops:
In January, Pentagon officials acknowledged that Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. official in Iraq during the first year of the war, told Rumsfeld in May 2004 that a far larger number of U.S. troops were needed to effectively fight the insurgency, but his advice was rejected.
All agree for actual “success” in Iraq there would have to be more troops(impossible) or less troops.
As I said before, there will be a change of course, but naturally lives will continue to be needlessly sacrificed on the current non-working plan till after elections.
On September 20, 2006, General Abizaid, the current Commander of U.S. Central Command, explained:
?[T]he tension in this mission has always been between how much we do and how much we ask the Iraqis to do. The longer we stay, the more we must ask the Iraqis to do. Putting another 100,000 American troops in Iraq is something that I don?t think would be good for the mission overall, because it would certainly cause Americans to go to the front, [cause] Americans to take responsibility. And we?re at the point in the mission where it?s got to fall upon the Iraqis. They know that; they want responsibility. The key question is having the right balance, and I believe we?re maintaining the right balance.?
On October 11, 2006, General Casey, the Commander of Multi-National Force ? Iraq, was asked whether he needed more troops in Iraq. He responded:
?I don?t ? right now, my answer is no. ? if I think I need more, I?ll ask for more and bring more in.?
The whole “Rumsfeld Doctrine” is based around the idea of operating in a theater with reduced troop numbers, using technology to make up for the deficit. It calls (or called) for fast, nimble units to scout for enemy, who are then hit via precision airstrike.
It doesn’t work so well for urban guerilla warfare.
In fact, if you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the two places where the Rumsfeld Doctrine was implemented, I’d say it’s currently 0 for 2.
Rumsfeld wish was to be able to operate in 4 or 5 worldwide theater without having to recruit and support a massive number of troops.
Turns out it’s barely feasible to operate in 2 theathers; even when one of the two has a large contingency of NATO members (Afghanistan).
If only Rumsfeld was half as smart as he think he is…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, they are no longer going to use the mantra “stay the course” apparently.
Pretty soon we’ll all forget they ever said that and then the next thing you know, when it is finally time to draw down or redeploy, the phrase “cut and run” will no longer be part of their mantra either.
Funny how that works. You know, I wish politics didn’t require so much by way of retarded word games. So much disinformation is actually harmful for the nation. It’s really too bad.[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
The whole “Rumsfeld Doctrine” is based around the idea of operating in a theater with reduced troop numbers, using technology to make up for the deficit. It calls (or called) for fast, nimble units to scout for enemy, who are then hit via precision airstrike.
It doesn’t work so well for urban guerilla warfare.
In fact, if you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, the two places where the Rumsfeld Doctrine was implemented, I’d say it’s currently 0 for 2.
Rumsfeld wish was to be able to operate in 4 or 5 worldwide theater without having to recruit and support a massive number of troops.
Turns out it’s barely feasible to operate in 2 theathers; even when one of the two has a large contingency of NATO members (Afghanistan).
If only Rumsfeld was half as smart as he think he is…[/quote]
Actually, we went in to Iraq with the troop levels General Franks asked for.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sloth, it isn’t a conspiracy theory to be a little less naive about how the military command structure works. Sorry dude.
Ah, you should just say you have no evidence. [/quote]
Dude, try to relax a little bit. You aren’t getting paid anything to cheerlead like a little puppet are you? It’s embarrassing.
Evidence exists in terms of people that have spoken out about this. Of course, those are all written off as politically motivated, at least by those that are afraid to imagine that Bush isn’t a perfect saint.
Hell, the entire Bush tenure has been one where they have worked very hard to control the message, the media, and make it difficult for people to speak out by any means possible. Shit, I think anyone who’s been near the military would find it easy to imagine the need or the pressure to present a unified message in order to maintain public confidence.
Shit, people brought up issues, Rumsfeld overrode them… he’s in charge and either does it his way, the president’s ways, or both.
Are you fairly young or something, you sound a bit naive about the games that are always being played in political circles.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sloth, it isn’t a conspiracy theory to be a little less naive about how the military command structure works. Sorry dude.
Ah, you should just say you have no evidence.
Dude, try to relax a little bit. You aren’t getting paid anything to cheerlead like a little puppet are you? It’s embarrassing.
[/quote]
Very, very, very ironic statement. I’m the cheerleading puppet? I need to calm down? Perhaps you should re-read your posts and then mine. I don’t believe I’ve made any emotional appeals. I don’t believe I’ve questioned your sincerity (cheerlead, puppet, eh?). I don’t believe I’ve questioned your age or maturity.
You got the conspiracy theorist remark from me, for being a smart ass when I requested you provide a little evidence to your accussations. “You gotta know that’s what’s happened,” doesn’t cut it for me. I made the request, and your response was?
Actually first, my question, fully quoted:
“Could you please provide a released statement by the administration as to what all “staying the course” encompassed? It wasn’t tactics, or troop levels, I’m sure. Tactics and troop levels have shifted since
damn near the beginning…I’ve never seen any statement, by the administration, saying troop levels were untouchable, ever.”
I’m see nothing to warrant a smart ass response.
Your response:
“Wakey wakey slothy, you aren’t going to sleep through your entire life are you?”
So, before you give advice to calm down, or question one’s maturity level, review your posts.
Furthermore, why is someone with an oppossing viewpoint, willing to debate with evidence, a cheerleading puppet? Or, young? Should I stoop to that level and call you an anti-Bush puppet?
MYTH: Secretary Rumsfeld ignored military advice to increase troop levels in Iraq.
FACTS: The opposite is true. Rather than ignoring the recommendations of senior military commanders, civilian leaders have relied heavily on their advice.
In the early planning phases of the Iraq war, for example, although Secretary Rumsfeld was ready to approve plans to deploy up to 400,000 troops if needed, General Tommy Franks opted instead for a campaign emphasizing speed rather than mass.
Whatever one?s views on troop levels it is absolutely false to suggest that civilian leaders ignored commanders? input.
General Franks described part of the Iraq war planning process on page 333 of his memoirs: ?As I concluded my summary of the existing 1003 plan, I noted that we?d trimmed planned force levels from 500,000 troops to around 400,000. But even that was still way too large, I told the Secretary.? General Franks also notes on a number of occasions that rather than ?rejecting? military advice, Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly listened to commanders? advice in designing a plan for Iraq. On page 313, for example, General Franks wrote, ?Don Rumsfeld was a hard taskmaster ? but he never tried to control the tactics of our war-fight.?
In the summer of 2003, General Franks testified that:
?There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of [Secretary Rumsfeld], that if more troops are necessary, this Secretary?s going to say ?yes.? I mean, we have talked about this on a number of occasions. And when the tactical commanders on the ground determine that they need to raise force levels, then those forces in fact will be provided.?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Furthermore, why is someone with an oppossing viewpoint, willing to debate with evidence, a cheerleading puppet? Or, young? Should I stoop to that level and call you an anti-Bush puppet?
[/quote]
It’s the politics forum, no other justification is needed down here… get used to it.
Anyway, I recall, in my own day, getting a healthy dressing-down for having the temerity to try and explain a mistake to superior.
I was taken aside and in no uncertain terms told that one did not argue with ones superiors in a military setting. I didn’t think that I had done so, but then it wasn’t my opinion that mattered.
So, considering that the military is a body of tradition and honor, I am pretty comfortable imagining that one still does not argue with ones superiors.
Anyhow, my “evidence” is as available as your “evidence”. Neither of us believes the other’s evidence, now what?