Well, this is going to suck

[GreenZoneLT]

Stand by for two more years of death and frustration. Here's why, based on my six months (and counting) experience in Iraq, and 22-plus in the military.

Bush has turned to some smart guys who think they know more about Iraq than they do in Adm. Fallon and Gen. Petraeus. Petraeus literally wrote the book on insurgency fighting, the new manual that just came out. So, he's going to be all red-hot to show that this job isn't impossible, it was just impossible for a dumbass like George Casey.

Petraeus's philosophy, which does make a good bit of sense, is that we've been fighting this all the wrong way, by hunkering down in big, protected FOBs and only venturing forth in patrols, like the 7th cavalry in Indian country. He wants to spread the troops out in towns and neighborhoods, to keep a constant eye on things and prevent bad guys from taking over as the de facto government, all the while doing a lot of humanitarian relief and economic redevelopment to win hearts and minds.

The only problem is, he's three years late and about 100,000 troops short of that strategy being workable (and it's debateable whether it would have worked in 2004 even with those resources; Iraqis are ORNERY).

Initially, this is going to mean a big increase in U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties, because there are dug-in "armed men" (as the Iraqi media call them) in all those towns and neighborhoods we so blithely would like to spread out in, and they're not going to just dissipate. They'll adapt away from planting IEDs, since we'll be watching, and move more to hit-and-run sniping and small-unit attacks, which will be more viable tactics once we're not all hunkered in bunkers. We'll probably kill more of them than we're doing now, but big whup; they're not gonna run out of mujahedeen any time soon.

It will probably take Petraeus at least a year to 18 months to get discouraged and move to a minimalist, "good enough for Iraq" solution (which is where Casey wound up by the end of last year). And it will be a year after that before we can extract everyone and "hand over" to the tender mercies of the Iraqis, who will get back to the ethnic cleansing they so desperately desire.

The Democrats aren't going to do anything but bitch, since their only power is to wreck the military with budget cuts. Lots of good-hearted hippies will go march in the streets, which will speed Bush along about as much as it did Nixon in the late '60s and early '70s (a secret plan to end the war by LOSING, in only FIVE years!).

I hate to be such a negative nabob, but that's my prediction, fwiw.

[ellisonz]

1. I think you're right about Iraq/Petraeus and wrong about Congress.

We aren't going to cut off the money, but we are going to put tremendous pressure on the Whitehouse and unlike many around here I realize that Pelosi/Reid have to say impeachment is off the table. What they don't say is that all that really means in Washingtonspeak is that it's off the table only for now, meaning until we have majorities, which we now have. There are going to be more than a dozen hearings alone on Iraq in the next few weeks. Investigate, present the findings to the public, impeach and then convict. It's going to take time but it is a possibility provided we smash the GOPers unity in Congress w/an angry public (and I don't mean hippies marching in the street). This is not Vietnam all over again, this Iraq and I think we can all agree America has changed since 1968 (the silent majority are now 35% give or take as opposed to 50-60%.

Great military analysis, K & R.

:thumbsup:

[Eric J in MN]

2. Two practices which make the US hated by the Iraqis include:

a) Surprise road checkpoints where anyone who doesn't stop when a US soldier waves gets his car shot up.
b) Dropping bombs on houses where a suspected terrorist lives, killing everyone inside the house.

If the new military leadership spreads out these practices to more parts of Iraq, the US will be hated by even more Iraqis.

[ixion]

3. the Brits and the Romans both used the strategy Petraeus' is proposing

so it's not really anything new or untried. The key, of course, is to be able to win over the populace. It worked for the Romans for quite some time, and had hit-or-miss success with the Brits.

Now, if, when we illegally invaded their country we had set about trying to win over the populace, this strategy may have worked quite well. However, we've abused the populace for so long now, I don't think a 'healthy' relationship is possible. Too much animosity, too much death in the wake, too much blood spilled for the Iraqis to make nice anytime soon.

That's not to say we're probably not going to try something like this, just that we should have tried it sooner rather than later as timing is everything.

[fasttense]

16. Your analysis of Romans winning the hearts and minds

of the people they conquered leaves out one very important strategy they used. They crucified or otherwise murdered, anyone who tried to usurp their newly acquired authority. They frequently turned their opposition into slaves.

The Brits were kinder but even they routed out insurgencies before they had a chance to get too strong (They didn't do too well with Gandhi).

The insurgents in Iraq have had too much time to develop and grow. It is too little too late. I don't see Congress buying it. Especially since the "Generals on the ground" during hearings all said more troops would not help the situation. Just cause the bushes went and got new generals, and an admiral, to tell him something else does not mean the first set were not accurate.

[ixion]

19. I agree. I never said they weren't brutal

I don't think I can recall any benevolent empire anywhere in history, can you?

Empires are creatures of death and destruction. It's how they are born and how they die, and in most respects, how they live.

[Kolesar]

22. The Russian state grew organically in countryside that did not have a state

As the Mongol era ended, the Russians moved their presence eastward into the remains of their domain. Then, when it came time to establish themselves as a modern player, the started fighting with the Swedes to gain access to the Baltic Sea. That is as close of an example of an empire forming without conquest.

[progressive_realist]

28. I think indigenous peoples everywhere might take issue...

with the claim that expansion into stateless areas does not involve conquest.

[genie_weenie]

47. Come on! NO ONE was living on the Volga

[knitter4democracy]

85. There are over one hundred ethnic groups in Russia.

What do you mean no one was living there?

St. Pete was built with slave labor and is one of the biggest graveyards in the world. When a serf (brought in from a totally different territory) died from the hard labor, his body was pushed down in the muck. There's a reason they were often having rebellions.

[genie_weenie]

88. My sarcasm tag was somehow deleted from my message.

Of course, by the time Rurik (if he even existed) conquered Novgorod and founded the Kiev Rus there were tribes living in that region.

[knitter4democracy]

91. Oh, sorry.

I should've known. Sorry. :hi:

[GreenZoneLT]

30. What have the Romans ever done for us?

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

I think empires, like multinational corporations, often get a bad rap from the local elites they replace. A lot of anti-imperial politics stems from the local satrap who was more brutal and corrupt, using nativist prejudice to whip up opposition to the foreign invaders, despite their more enlightened rule. See Iraq, Baath Party.

Here's another modern example: Locally owned companies in Southeast Asia who do NOT export are far, FAR more likely to exploit child labor than multinationals are. But who gets criticized?

[Kolesar]

39. Ask the victims of those trained in "The School of the Americas" about that

I think empires, like multinational corporations, often get a bad rap from the local elites they replace. A lot of anti-imperial politics stems from the local satrap who was more brutal and corrupt, using nativist prejudice to whip up opposition to the foreign invaders, despite their more enlightened rule. See Iraq, Baath Party.

The Americans taught Gestapo tactics to the soldiers of the client governments in S. America--like Pinochet's Chile.

[Autonomy]

42. LOL

thanks for the Python reference. Life of Brian is one of my all-time faves.

As far as your pro-imperial POV, I think you undervalue autonomy of the locals. An empire may implant some infrastructure, which can temporarily make life better, but, overall, the conquered region is worse off for having their own development retarded by hegemony.

[GreenZoneLT]

107. Oh, I'm not pro-Empire

I'm just pointing out that the "indigenous community leaders" suck, too.

That's the problem with imperialists. They KNOW they know more about enlightened governing than the jacked-up local elites, and they refuse to acknowledge that that doesn't matter. One snub, one murder, and all your cred goes south; the local boy can do ten times worse and he gets forgiven because he's local. Human nature; too bad the neocons haven't heard of it.

[bvar22]

51. Ask the Native Americans how well Imperial Expansion worked for them?

Well, some of the survivors now have casinos.

The Historical Benefits you refer to were written by the Conquistadors.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[GreenZoneLT]

104. Depends on the tribe

The prosperity and happiness of the Plains Indians, which we later destroyed, was largely based on obtaining horses from the Spanish. Before that, they were eking out a pretty wretched existence from an area that didn't have enough water to make hunting, gathering and farming viable.

A lot of Indians allied with the whites to fight their traditional enemies.

Empires are just bigger tribes. "Indigenous" people (how do you define that when human populations are constantly in motion?) were just as likely to attack, oppress and enslave their neighbors as the larger, higher tech empires from Europe. Look at the Aztecs; Pizzaro was able to beat them largely by allying with all the neighboring Indians that they'd enslaved and oppressed.

[Strelnikov_]

53. Sorry You Are Employed By Our Elites

in the global oil procurement and protection racket our military has been reduced to.

For myself, I would prefer living in a nation among equals (re: European Union), with a powerful enough military to prevent invasion (re: European Union).

Otherwise I pretty much agree with all of your points, particularly regarding Petraeus philosophy. I know I was impressed with his efforts. Probably could have worked, three years ago, but is now too little too late, Humpty Dumpty and all that . .

And his success in Mosul was noted and recognized at the time, it is just that it was not 'politically' acceptable (read Naomi Klein's 'Baghdad Year Zero'). Shows just how desperate they are that they are even considering such a plan now.


On edit: Here is a link. Enjoy your empire.

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

[barbtries]

96. thank you for this link

what a great article, and it explained a lot that til today i did not get. i mean i got that the neocons had invaded and occupied for greed, but this articale illustrated so well the toll that homicidal greed has demanded.

GWBUSH MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!

i scream that because i do agree with the original poster: it will not stop. he's going to do it without consulting congress. between the "catapulting the propaganda" and campaigning for a living, this bastard just doesn't have the time for respect or adherence to the rule of law, which is what has kept this nation together and prosperous thus far. not only does he have no clothes on, his skin is purulent with the weeping sores of hatred larceny greed and the mass murders he has ordered so he could dress up like a soldier and call himself a "war president???"

every time i hear his voice it is brought home to me that much more clearly that this man simply does not give a rat's ass: not for the dead and wounded, not for the displaced and disfigured, not for the needy whose lives are in peril, and ultimately, not for the laws of this or any land. while he's pretending to stall on making the right decision regarding this travesty of war - having conveniently let it leak that the citizens of the USA are not to be informed as to who is prowling around the people's house - and we wait like good kids for some fucking bullshit speech (has he EVER not bullshitted his way through a speech?!) - he's getting his fucking ducks in a row.

he has to be stopped!!!

i feel soiled and ashamed; the pure heartlessness that appears to characterize every fucking move these bastards make distresses me to my red white and blue soul.

once upon a time i felt truly thankful to be an american; once upon a time i believed that although our system - of, for, and by the people - while necessarily imperfect (considering that we are a nation of human beings, or so i believed)- was the best upon the planet.

and look what they've done to this country, to this nation's young, to countless innocent citizens of a previously sovereign nation that posed no threat to the USA. goodgawd they should be drowning in all the blood they have spilled, but instead: that goddam motherfucker installs a different set of warmongering yesmen and prepares to throw more and more bodies at the fire, and nobody's doing a fucking thing to stop this madness.

i'll be in a madhouse myself before this fearsome shit settles down....

[Strelnikov_]

97. Thom Hartman Often States That The Intent Was To Disprove FDR

/Truman administrations post WW2 economic policies in Germany/Japan that created regulated liberal democracies by creating a free-market/deregulated utopia in Iraq.

Seems it's back to the drawing board for that project . . .

[leveymg]

111. Seems it's going to take another World War to prove them right,

if this nightmare is allowed to spread to Iran.

[ruiner4u]

60. "what have the Romans ever done for us?"

They paved the way for EVOO

[progressoid]

70. The only people we hate more than the Romans

are the fucking Judean People's Front.

[roody]

71. Sanitation, medicine, education, public order, water,

public health and electricity might have won support from the Iraqi population. Like many have said, it is almost four years too late now.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Yeah especially seeing as they had all of those things

before we set about deliberately wrecking their advanced for the region infrastructure over the last 15 years. The Iraqis have so much hate for us and what we have done to them by now that there is no way they are going to sumbit to our authority, unless of course we are going to simply start lining them up for decimation on a regular basis.

[Bigmack]

41. I think it worked for the Romans...

because the Romans were so damned inevitable.

I've always pictured some grizzled centurion reading from a scroll to the mayor of a city the Romans had besieged. Feature Monty Python.....

"This Roman legion has besieged your town. Your choices are a)resist, and b) submit.

If you resist, you will be conquered. Your men and women will be enslaved and your old and infirm will be put to the sword. Your leaders will be crucified.

If you submit, you will be protected by Rome and become Roman citizens - with all the advantages that entails.

Which is your choice? Hurry up now, we haven't got all day."

The centurion - and Rome - didn't really give a shit which alternative the town chose, but they kept their word about slaughter or help.... every single time.

The US is incapable of either slaughtering the entire population, or keeping its promise to help and protect and give perks to our friends.

We need to get out of the Imperialism business.

[elehhhhna]

67. may I add that later, when the well-established Roman Empire hired locals into their mil,

the "locals" got po'd at the Roman's unfullfilled promises and caused the fall of the empire?

Sound familiar?

"When the Visigoths stand up, the Roman Army will stand down." LOL

[Autonomy]

4. One of the problems with military science

is that you have to have a war to test your theory. Gives the PsTB an interest in going to (or staying in a) war.

Despite what some are saying on this website, the Dems CANNOT defund the military to get troops out of Iraq. That's ridiculously, laughably naive. And outright stupid. We'll have to rely on the hippie method, what fat lot of good it did back then.

Thanks for the warning, Lt.

[Dammit Ann]

5. fantastic.

i'm going to bed on that one. peace, baby, you are an astute observer and obvious student of war, so i believe you are dead on. (i had a feeling this would not be simple.) thank you, i think...

[Philosoraptor]

6. I agree.

Unfortunately, I think you're right, I have little to no optimism about any of this. We are dealing with maniacs, and you don't sit and chat over tea with maniacs.

[monarch]

7. K & R

Nothing better than posts by people who can offer opinions on the basis of personal experience.

[salin]

8. how depressing

makes sense - but just sounds bloody tragic for all involved. Prayers to you and to all in that area. Stay safe - prayers to you and all who are there.

[lastknowngood]

9. Good analysis but don't disparage the hippies they were right

all along in the 60's and they were right all along with this debacle. At least they don't want you dieing for corporate greed and political grandstanding by a bunch of chicken hawks.

[Cha]

69. Yeah, don't disparage those of

us who got and protested all over the world on Feb 15, 2003 not to fucking bomb Iraq.

[Hardrada]

93. I have been out there marching too.

Had they listened to us, we would not have needed abstruse debates about OMG How the f*ck can we get out of here With Honor? And other such blah, blah...

[annabanana]

10. Valuable perspective, thank you.

I've read accounts of this new "out in the streets and roaming around" tactic, although it has not been front and center in the media. I'm afraid that even the increased casualties that are sure to follow implementation won't "get out there", except among those of us who are already aware.

[Rene]

18. Instead of militarism...what if we overwhelm the Iraqis with seriously rebuilding their country.

without all the halliburton-type corruption. speaking of corruption---paul bremer should be investigated/prosecuted thoroughly for his criminal managment of post war iraq.
As has been said "we're not going to bomb them into loving us".....lets show them what Americans can do to put the country back together again, with HONEST endevours, using their labor so they'll have jobs. We need huge public works projects run by very capable people. Any military over there should just provide protection where people are working on infrastructure.
There should be spy planes and/or satellites directly over Iraq....constantly sending images for a few years.....the military should be able to watch vehicle traffic patterns, and whenever an ied has gone off---trace them back to their original location and raid(or raze)those buildings.
Iraq reminds me of some of those movies we saw years back about people attempting to live in a destroyed world....desperate people will do some awful and horrific things to survive. The powerful people(with weapons/money) are usually always corrupt and murderous. Despots and black marketting rule......but good people will eventually win the day.

[Hubert Flottz]

21. Iraq reminds me of the countries the Nazis raided during WWII...

Abu Ghraib came straight out of the GESTAPO play book.

Bush wants to relpace America's respectable career officers with Waffen SS types!

Anyone who didn't see this coming in 2003, was a fool.

People have always fought to the end, to defend their homes and families...I know that I would...Wouldn't you?

I keep thinking of the The Warsaw Ghetto...


BTW...This has ALL sucked, since day one!

Edit...Did you not see all the people marching before the Iraqi invasion trying to tell the world it was the wrong move to make? Oh that's right, the News channels played that all down! They'd call a half million "Hippies" in the streets a couple of hundred Commies, back in 2003.

[druidity33]

23. lotsa shoulds there...

If we've already wasted aound 700 billion for what we've got now, what makes you think the BUREAUCRACY would allow this to happen?

Why not just give each and every Iraqi their share (approx. $18,000 each) and head home?

[cassiepriam]

11. Bush already wrecked the military.

And I would rather have temporarily military cuts
than watch the military be totally destroyed.

[bananas]

12. One day you will look back on this as the good old days

If Bush or Israel drops nuclear bunker-busters on Iran,
the past few years will seem like the good old days.

[izzie]

13. I think the plan is wrong. It is up to the people in Iraq

Who really care what some big wig in the service thinks when it will all end up going the way the people in Iraq want. We can pour Billions in and kill all sort of Iraq people and our service people but that is where it will end up as the next President gets the troops off the roof.

[EFerrari]

14. It won't happen. Start packing because this "war" is going to end.

The people here will NEVER allow this to continue for two more years. NEVER.

[Pirate Smile]

52. Are you familiar with the current lunatic in the oval office?

If a sane, reality-based person of either party was the President, I would agree with you. However, we all know that that is not the case.

[EFerrari]

61. Imho, it won't be up to him. Public opinion has turned

and the Thuggery will throw him under the bus.

[frogcycle]

65. deleted

[timtom]

15. Actually, I think the only strategic consideration at this point

must necessarily be: "Which is the optimum and most expedient manner of getting all the troops the f*** out of Iraq within the shortest period of time?"

I would liken it to the famous Vietnam Strategy of 1973 -- as in, "Sayonara!"

Any other proposal is, as we used to say in the Marine Corps, half-stepping.

[crispini]

17. Good analysis.

Disappointing, but has the ring of truth. Thank you.

[Kolesar]

20. Don't play into the construction of the Dems stabbing the military in the back

Please don't play into the right wing messages of my party not supporting the military. The other 20th century distortion is: "Could have WON if only those Democrats didn't force an end to the war". The Nazis used it and the post-Vietnam GOP used it.

The Democrats aren't going to do anything but bitch, since their only power is to wreck the military with budget cuts. Lots of good-hearted hippies will go march in the streets , which will speed Bush along about as much as it did Nixon in the late '60s and early '70s

Harpers Magazine, July 2006

http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html
Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

As the United States staggers past the third anniversary of its misadventure in Iraq, the dagger is already poised, the myth is already being perpetuated. To understand just how this strategy is likely to unfold—and why this time it may well fail—we must return to the birth of a legend.

* * *

The stab in the back first gained currency in Germany, as a means of explaining the nation's stunning defeat in World War I. It was Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg himself, the leading German hero of the war, who told the National Assembly, “As an English general has very truly said, the German army was ‘stabbed in the back.’”

Like everything else associated with the stab-in-the-back myth, this claim was disingenuous. The “English general” in question was one Maj. Gen. Neill Malcolm, head of the British Military Mission in Berlin after the war, who put forward this suggestion merely to politely summarize how Field Marshal Erich von Ludendorff—the force behind Hindenburg—was characterizing the German army's alleged lack of support from its civilian government.

“Ludendorff's eyes lit up, and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a bone,” wrote Hindenburg biographer John Wheeler-Bennett. “‘Stabbed in the back?’ he repeated. ‘Yes, that's it exactly. We were stabbed in the back.’”

...snip...recommended reading...

[tomp]

44. you got it! nt

[fishwax]

64. nice post n/t

[maine_raptor]

24. K&R'd

A very good analysis, GreenZoneLT.

But I do think that there is one small problem with it. Petraeus doesn't have a year to 18 months to see if it will work. He's got 6 months, tops. Beyond that American public opinion will not stand for the additional casualties that his strategy will generate. As more and more of our soldiers and Marines are killed and maimed, the public outcry to bring our troops home will grow louder.

There is the additional problem of just where the troops will come from. Latest reports are that only about 9,000 troops are available for a "surge". To get a larger number of boots on the ground will require one of two things; either a draw-down of troops in other parts of the world, or a draft. While moving troops from one part of the world to Iraq could be done relatively quickly, it endangers our commitments to those parts we are leaving behind. And as for a draft: even if one could be implemented right away, it would still take longer to get the new recruits trained and equipped than Petraeus has to get his plan functional.

Hopefully you and your comrades can keep your heads down and stay safe until then.

[GreenZoneLT]

27. Since when does public outcry affect the Bush administration?

There are 9,000 available immediately. They can scrape up another 11,000 pretty easily (after all, there are over 30,000 troops in Korea not doing a thing).

A draft isn't going to happen; it's like trying to make a car payment by taking out a $350,000, 30-year mortgage. You go to a draft when you need 5 million troops, not 50,000.

If public outcry had a direct, short-term effect on foreign policy, Nixon wouldn't have taken nearly two years into his SECOND term to pull us out of Vietnam.

Even if you decided on an abrupt change in policy, it takes six months just to plan and write all the op orders. The surged troops won't all be here until April, and it will take six months after that just to see what the effect has been.

A year is an absolute minimum before there's any rethinking of this latest scheme.

[maine_raptor]

34. The outcry will effect the Repugs still left in Congress.

That's where the pressure will come from. They are the ones who have to face the public, and they will be the ones that will give the Dems the cover they need to fence in the funding.

Oh I agree that they can scrape up enough from other parts of the world to make up the 20K, but consider what the little bastage in NK will be thinking when he sees the tripwire at the DMZ disappear. And don't think that that has not been considered by the folks in the five sided building on the Potomac.

As for Nixon: I remind you of a quote attributed to him back when he first became president. I don't recall the actual words, but it was to the effect that he would keep the Vietnam War going until 1972 and then came up with "Peace with Honor" in order to pull the rug out from under the Dems during that presidential race. His delay in ending that war was purely for his political gain.

It may take 6 months to get an op order written in some instances, but actually getting the troops out can and will take a much shorter time. It's happened in the past.

[GreenZoneLT]

37. Here's hoping you're right

Hell, here's hoping Bush and Petraeus are right and the insurgency collapses like the Islamic Courts goobers in Somalia. Anything to stop the shooting. Either way, I'll be home by the end of June; I'm already briefing my replacement, and not being a member of a unit, there's not much likelihood I could be extended.

[sanskritwarrior]

92. Hey LT, SFC here

I agree about the troop numbers..........

aside from the 30,000 in Korea, there are 10,000 more in Hawaii, 5,000 More in Washington State, 7,000 in Texas at Fort Bliss and Fort Sam, not to mention the 3500 at NTC in California and the 2700 at the JRTC, both of those groups are combat troops........IMHO there are about 70,000 troops not engaged that have not been engaged at any point in the last 18 months.......

I also agree that public opinion isn't going to matter squat, the Bush administration will do whatever they want to do untile someone grows a pair in Congress to stop them.

[crispini]

40. What public outcry?

I would so like to be proven wrong, but my sense is that STILL, most people (the AVERAGE household, not DU'er types) are not concerned enough about the war to get off their couches and go to a demonstration. I doubt that will change in six months.

[hlthe2b]

25. I could see his plan working IF:

1. We'd started it 2 years ago.
2. At least 40% of our troops spoke ARABIC (and had at least a modicum of cultural literacy)
3. We hadn't spent the past 3 years sticking it to the Sunnis and Baathists and allowing US corporate crooks to steal everything meant to help the Iraqi citizen.
4. Iran were not in the picture as it clearly is now

[Cooley Hurd]

26. Interesting perspective, however, I have to take issue with one thing...

...Democrats are MUCH more "troop-friendly" than than republicans in regards to funding the military. If your statement was a reference to the military budget cuts of the 1990's, remember that it was the first Bush who set that in motion following the collapse of the USSR (the "peace dividend"). Clinton continued this in the name of fiscal responsibility (trying to bring the humongous Reagan and Bush's budget deficit under control).

It was also the republicans who made the decision to privatize much of the service and material support infrastructure, giving these roles to no-bid cronies who ultimately did a poor job wile overcharging the military at every step. And let's not forget the Republican congress' cuts to the VA.

That said, you're likely spot on about what the next two years and Bush's futile "surge" will bring to both sides: more death with little progress.

[GreenZoneLT]

29. I didn't say Democrats HAVE hurt the military

I'm saying that's the only thing they COULD do, if they wanted to shut down Bush's ability to direct the war. All Congress can do is defund the military as a whole; they don't have any enforceable power to micromanage how the military actually spends what's allocated to them. They can try, but it'll just wind up as a big constitutional squabble that eventually peters out, after $100 million in legal bills and the indictment of a couple lieutenant colonels and assistant deputy White House bumlickers.

The military is like a gigantic ocean liner, and you have to make course corrections months to years in advance. Bush just made one, and Congress doesn't really have any ability or desire to yank on the wheel. Some Democrats do, but by no means a majority of Congress; the Republicans in the Senate could filibuster anything that passed the House.

Bush, unfortunately, is in charge, and he just made a big decision whose effects won't be clear for months to years. He's not going to change his mind, and Congress isn't going to do it for him.

[Cooley Hurd]

31. I'm sorry for misunderstanding your post...

...I've repeatedly heard the charge over the last 6 years from the right that "Clinton ruined the military," so I assumed that's what you were talking about.

I guess the last 6 years has made me trigger-happy to that charge...:blush:

[salin]

32. I would agree with this assessment.

Bush doesn't change his mind, and doesn't appear to believe he needs to do so. I also think that Congress has very limited actions that it can take. Mostly political - in terms of investigations that can bring more understanding to the public about how the Bush administration has operated and run roughshod over regular policy making - and indeed over the previously established rule of law. What does this do - shape the public perception going into the next presidential and congressional elections. On the DC front, I also do not see any quick resolution - but something that unfolds over the next two years. Then there is the time it will take for a new president to create and then implement a new policy per Iraq - and as you point out then there is a time-lag before any planning = actions.

I wish I was more hopeful in terms of what can be done to improve things on the ground. Again the only word I can think of is "tragic".

Btw, the rhetoric from the far right wing is trumping up the Iran threat - bolstered by the shakeups in the intel and military -have folks all jittery towards possible actions being taken. Wondering what your perspective is to all of that speculation? I frankly can't see how any additional commitments could be undertaken (but this administration seems pretty willful and detatched from what most folks would view as constraints). But that is just based on gut. Your thoughts?

Btw, please keep safe.

[GreenZoneLT]

36. Iran is a Fox News creation

Nobody in the military is seriously worried about us getting involved in a fight with Iran. I knew about the Iraq invasion from scuttlebutt by the middle of 2002. There's NO similar buzz about Iran. Remember 2001 before September? All the rightwingers then were all het up about the coming clash of civilizations with China. Don't hear much about that any more, huh? Iran's the new China.

Now, Israel might get in a shootin' war with Iran, and our knowing about that ahead of time might have something to do with the extra carriers (for defensive reasons), but I doubt it. I think they're there in case of a worst-case scenario between Israel and Iran, to protect our guys here from Iranian air attack. They have to deploy somewhere, and this is the highest-risk place.

I think the recent Lebanon fucktacular has discredited the military option considerably in Israel, though, so I don't anticipate them going off on Iran.

[salin]

38. Thanks for your perspective...

In very recent days I have had the sense that there is some rwmedia 'agitation' (maybe for a distraction?) going on - but it just doesn't ring true for me. But as you might note by the size of some of the current threads - there are a lot of folks worried. Personally, I think that is the point of the stories.

I appreciate having had the chance to interact this morning.

Stay safe!

[Toots]

46. Have you personally noticed any resentment among the troops?

I understand you said you were not with a unit so probably don't get to be around the guys much but you must hear something. I take it you are an officer, a lieutenant, from your name, so that might make it even less likely but just curious. Do you consider your location, where you bunk and work to be a safe area? I hope so and glad you are close to coming home. I think you have a very solid grasp of the reality of things but sometimes we get surprised..Glad to hear from the front lines so to speak. :thumbsup: sir.

[GreenZoneLT]

105. Not really. Morale's pretty good, that I've observed

I think the kids get used to just doing their jobs and not worrying about grand strategy, because they see such a tiny eyeslit of things that makes it difficult to know whether the generals know what they're doing. The casualty rates are low enough not to really hurt morale; these are warriors we're talking about who accept that their job involves shooting and getting shot at. Historically, casualty rates have to get over 5 percent to really hurt a military unit's morale, and very few units are approaching anywhere close to that mark on a given deployment. A typical combat brigade loses 2-3 percent of their guys in a year to death or serious wounds, although it's been worse lately.

Where I'm at, there's no perception of risk at all, despite almost daily rocket and mortar attacks. The Green Zone is so large (5 square miles) that you just hear the explosions in the distance. It's like loud thunder, and about as hazardous as living somewhere that has frequent thunderstorms. Since I've been here, there's been one badly wounded Australian, one dead Iraqi and (rumor had it) one dead State Department employee from indirect-fire attacks in the Green Zone. And there are thousands of people living here. You see more deaths from car wrecks in a similar-sized town in the States.

What bothers me the most is hearing the car-bombs and small-arms out in town; you know the Iraqis are dying like flies. But the guys who work for me manage to make it to work every day; they brought in homemade goodies today for my boss' going away party.

Not trying to sugar-coat it, just noticing how flowers bloom in the cracks in the sidewalk sometimes.

[bridgit]

56. why is Foxnews sanctioned as a routine news outlet for our armed forces?

why rush limbaugh?

[pretzel4gore]

33. this hippie won't march...

i want the empire to suffer defeat in iraq, the iraqis are the 'resistawnce' and while our guys are the good guy, they are fighting for an evil cause-the bushevik oil interests. the democrats only job is to tie the iraq disaster to the repukes, whose lies created it, and to the bloody pigmedia, who even today are lying to protect their asses.....likr farmers tied dead chicken to a chicken killer dog's neck, and left it there to rot...iraq is the dead chicken tied to the gopigs neck!
>taking on the militias, the hardened killers who are everywhere in iraq, and play footsie with us now- it aint gonna happen, or if it does(?)

[WinkyDink]

35. Your nattering seems pretty on target to me. I pity the civilians.

[fishnfla]

43. SNAFU

too little, too late

The situation on the ground is far too complicated and far too fractured for any simple or short-termed solution.

The admin tried to stall here lately, the Iraq study group provided cover, because the insurgency has proven adept at responding to any political or military move the US has made (upgrading those IED's all the GD time). We have come along piece from "shock and awe" to whatever this surge or new way forward plan is.

Bottom line: this clusternut is going to be a millstone on US and Iraq for years to come. Bush is just itching to dump it on the next admin. Which is why you are right, another 10 months just to impliment this plan.

Which brings us to the next election cycle. My fear is the democrats will form a circular firing squad at that time. It'll be 1968 all over again.

[lonestarnot]

45. Your prediction sounds reasonable, but dems are saying 4 months,

so what about that?

[Ilsa]

48. That seems like a reasonable analysis. I need to ask

you what a "nabob" is. I don't know that word or anagram or if it is a new one you made up. Don't be concerned about offending my sensibilities.

I was wondering how Petraeus would see this and what he'd do differently to pacify Bush. Sounds damned dangerous to me.

I hope you never have to go back there.

[salin]

86. reference, I believe, to Spirow Agnew's term

"natering nabobs of negativism" in attempting to dismiss the media reports as just overly negative ... yep this is where the long time practice of dismissing the "liberal media" really ramped up. I think in the OP the term is referring to self - as being the one bringing negative reflections.

[Morgana LaFey]

87. Nabob

I've only heard the word used in one other context, and that was a speech written by Peggy Noonan for Spiro T. Agnew, I think it was -- definitely the Nixon admin.

here's a definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nawab
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
na·wab /nəˈwɒb, -ˈwɔb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Also, nabob. a viceroy or deputy governor under the former Mogul empire in India.
2. an honorary title conferred upon Muslims of distinction in India and Pakistan.
3. nabob (def. 3).



Noonan's infamous usage was: "nattering nabobs of negativity" -- just a wee bit overwrought. She's a little more restrained most of the time these days and thank God hasn't written a speech (that I know of) for decades now.

[Mojorabbit]

49. I've posted this before and will again

Most politicians are looking at 2008. If we pull out before then and Iraq falls into pieces and it spreads into the middle east, the right wingers will blame the dems and they know it. They will shout to the rooftops that we could have won but the left chose to cut and run and look at what happened.
The public has a 5 minute attention span and will buy it. Nothing will happen before the 08 election.
My cynicism is showing. Still, I with my local code pink group will be out there protesting.
Stay safe and thank you for all you are doing.

[TroglodyteScholar]

50. Exceptional analysis of current military events...

...I, too, believe this new direction had a shot at working if it had been implemented when the Commander-in-Chief was smugly declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq. But I hope you are mistaken about how congressional Dems will respond.

Also, out of curiosity, are you in the US military, or that of one of our allies?

[krispos42]

54. K&R n/t

[bridgit]

55. so which is it now? penny wise and pound foolish? or, in for a penny in for a pound?

[bluewave]

57. Bush has got 1 year (I believe) before he's defunded/impeached

The Dems, if they are at all intelligent, aren't going to sit on their hands until this war is handed to their president.

I know people who are "true believers" that have abandoned the notion that this war is winnable. I found a FR article asking whether a surge is the right answer: even among the blind sheep probably over half said no surge. A majority of Utahans now do not support President on the war.

Point is, he gets 12 months until he's declared insane and removed or defunded.

[Morgana LaFey]

89. I think it's less than 1 year -- I think 3 - 6 months nt

[tabasco]

58. You are full of it.

Get out of Mommy's basement. :puke:

Bush and Cheney and their war-profiteering tax dollar-sucking pig friends are the ones who have "wrecked the military."

Take your propaganda campaign to a more gullible audience and get a life!

[Zodiak]

63. You didn't read the thread

or you would know the line was clarified above.

You should really try reading the thread before you pull out the large caps of death and unfurl the ad hominems.

[kentuck]

68. Did you read this?

"The Democrats aren't going to do anything but bitch, since their only power is to wreck the military with budget cuts. Lots of good-hearted hippies will go march in the streets, which will speed Bush along about as much as it did Nixon in the late '60s and early '70s (a secret plan to end the war by LOSING, in only FIVE years!)."

[Zodiak]

110. Yes, kentuck, I did

It is true that the only power they have is to destroy the military through pulling of funding. Nothing wrong with that statement....and yes, complaining seems to be the only route other than pulling the purse strings (and impeachment). That is the reality we face.

As far as protests having no impact....it is true...protests have had no impact in this country in the last 6 years. I wish it were different.

I see no reason why these statement would garner a "get out of Mommy's basement" retort. If one takes umbridge with "good hearted hippes" or "bitching", then address those lines directly instead of implying the poster is holed up in mommy's basement without a life.

[kentuck]

59. Dems are going to wreck the military with budget cuts?

Some people think Bush is going to wreck the military with his present strategy. Forty-thousand dollar re-enlistment bonuses are nice but wouldn't that be better spent on say, education for GIs??

[Morgana LaFey]

90. Pelosi already proving the good LT wrong --

(Tho I think he's right about most of it otherwise):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3062530

It appears that the Iraq "supplemental" budget will now be split into two
parts. The first for the maintenance of those troops already on the ground
in Iraq, the 2nd for any of Georgie's cockamamie add ons. Which would seem
to include any cash for that 'surge' he's been cryptically mumbling about
these last few weeks.



Now -- I do realize the Pentagon has its own slush funds, and black ops budgets, etc.so I don't know what the outcome will be (but boy! isn't this going to be exciting to watch!). But at least te Dems are making a bold step forward to put a crimp on the bastard's insane plans, AND meanwhile support the troops.

[cui bono]

99. Seriously. Increasin the lengths and frequency of the tours, lowering standards

of recruitment, having them fight a futile and illegal war that even they have mostly turned against. THAT is what's wrecking the military.

Col. Chamberlain was a guest on Background Briefing today and I think he was the one who said the military is stretched so thin that they have to send the "undesirables" (he had a term for it, could have been something like class 4 or who knows, I can't remember) but he said they're sending these lesser qualified guys into battle who normally they wouldn't trust to even drive a delivery vehicle. Then figure they're recruiting drug addicts, white supremacists and others they would've turned away before and I think that is certainly wrecking the military. The Dems are trying to SAVE the military, particularly the humans who comprise it.

[Corgigal]

62. good-hearted hippies will go march in the streets

This good-hearted hippy is also a Veteran. A parent, a wife and a citizen of this country. Yeah I don't think this administration gives a damn if we tie up a few streets for the day but it's the least I can do, besides vote, to show those poor kids stuck in this war that we are watching and we care. I'll certainly do all I can to bring the troops home because by the Grace Of God go I.

[frogcycle]

66. to all those flaming over the remark about dems

The OP said "dems will only bitch since their only power is to..."

He said specifically they would ONLY bitch. He's right that at this juncture the most accesible power would be to turn off funding, and he's right that that would wreck the military, and he's right that dems won't do it.

Read the sentences in total, parse them, diagram them in your head if you have to before you go off half-cocked assuming the worst in everything that sounds vaguely like it might be a criticism.

[bridgit]

74. many republicans have stated publicly that Clinton gutted our armed forces...

it's the same tired old blame Clinton/blame the dems gambit, blame them now in particular for profound, cosmic republican failures

yet rumsfeld stated 'you don't go to war with the army you want, but the army you have', words to that effect and we all know them...that army he had at the time, that asset he deplyoed was Clinton's army so-to-speak, the one that marched into Baghdad in record time, republican proponents of war excursion cannot have it both ways, nor six ways to sunday

all of the bitching needs to cease on all sides imfo, so that a grounded, level-headed approach may be considered

[frogcycle]

75. well, attack those republicans

this post did not do that.
focus, people, focus!
save the flames for the proper targets

[bridgit]

77. true, this OP offers no critique whatsoever regarding republican failures...

just more of the same...death & republican led chaos shuffling the chairs, doubling down; if war is the absence of reason, Iraq is the absence of a war plan straight up!!

it is the duty of the commander in chief to have offered one, he has not; it was the duty of the 109th congress to provide over-site, they did not, they offered a blank check and NOW here we are

it is to court further folly to presume that dems will have no plan but to retreat before they are even sat down, especially in a world where it is understood that where there is smoke i.e. "The Democrats aren't going to do anything but bitch, since their only power is to wreck the military with budget cuts." there is no-less than a pre-combustible state...if not fire itself :hi:

[frogcycle]

80. if you don't see a critique here, you are blind!

Perhaps the sarcasm is lost on most of the readers (emphasis added):

Title: "This is going to suck"


"Stand by for two more years of death and frustration.

Bush has turned to some smart guys who think they know more about Iraq than they do in Adm. Fallon and Gen. Petraeus. Petraeus literally wrote the book on insurgency fighting, the new manual that just came out. So, he's going to be all red-hot to show that this job isn't impossible, it was just impossible for a dumbass like George Casey. :sarcasm:

Petraeus's philosophy, which does make a good bit of sense, is that we've been fighting this all the wrong way, by hunkering down in big, protected FOBs and only venturing forth in patrols, like the 7th cavalry in Indian country. He wants to spread the troops out in towns and neighborhoods, to keep a constant eye on things and prevent bad guys from taking over as the de facto government, all the while doing a lot of humanitarian relief and economic redevelopment to win hearts and minds. :sarcasm:

The only problem is, he's three years late and about 100,000 troops short of that strategy being workable (and it's debateable whether it would have worked in 2004 even with those resources; Iraqis are ORNERY).

Initially, this is going to mean a big increase in U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties, because there are dug-in "armed men" (as the Iraqi media call them) in all those towns and neighborhoods we so blithely would like to spread out in, and they're not going to just dissipate. They'll adapt away from planting IEDs, since we'll be watching, and move more to hit-and-run sniping and small-unit attacks, which will be more viable tactics once we're not all hunkered in bunkers. We'll probably kill more of them than we're doing now, but big whup; they're not gonna run out of mujahedeen any time soon.

It will probably take Petraeus at least a year to 18 months to get discouraged and move to a minimalist, "good enough for Iraq" solution (which is where Casey wound up by the end of last year). And it will be a year after that before we can extract everyone and "hand over" to the tender mercies of the Iraqis, who will get back to the ethnic cleansing they so desperately desire."

This guy is on YOUR side, people. Get off his back. READ, for cripes sakes! :headbang:

[bridgit]

82. see here professor, many people are already apprised of the english language...

...it's appreciation for what is said plainly...it's nuance for what is inferred...what is alluded to by the absence of specific words, the gravitas or lightness of it's words...and what is left to be discerned from between the lines, or fallen by lack of attention through the cracks

your presumption is less than appreciated

in addition, it; is; fully understood, that this member of our otherwise noble armed forces is likely unable to express him/herself fully from within the green zone itself :eyes:

dummy up indeed!!

[frogcycle]

83. striving valiently

to understand what the hell your point is

my only presumption, and I stand by it, is that several responses misread the guy's post and went off half-cocked. They may be "apprised of the english language" but they demonstrate clearly they do not put that knowledge to use before flaming.


and whatever you may have inferred from what he wrote or didn't write is your lookout, since inference is strictly on the part of the recipient.

[bridgit]

84. have a lovely evening...

[Kolesar]

117. Maybe I went off "half-cocked" because his language was "loaded"

"Hippies" and "Democrats wrecking the military".

[DoYouEverWonder]

123. The OP

does seem to have some issues with his use of language and his tongue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3103069&mesg_id=3103966

[Kolesar]

116. What you note as "sarcasm" is not sarcasm

[mdmc]

72. welcome to DU

This is the first OP I've read by you, and I enjoyed reading it.

:kick: R

[jmowreader]

73. I think we've got one thing going for us

That's what's between Petraeus' ears.

What Petraeus plans to do won't work for lack of personnel, lack of funding and the fact that he's about three years too late.

Petraeus is also smart enough, and I think he's tired enough of writing letters to dead soldiers' wives, to realize that when the shit's not working, he needs to try different shit. The Two Georges--Casey and Bush--when faced with the shit not working, think that it's gonna work one of these days so we need to keep it up.

[Little Wing]

76. 22 years in the military and you're stll an LT?

You'd have been kicked out 16 years ago if you were still an LT

[frogcycle]

79. READ, people!

it says 22 months

[GreenZoneLT]

102. Ever heard of a Mustang?

22 years is correct. 16 enlisted, was a first-class petty officer when I got commissioned in 2000.

[frogcycle]

108. I stand corrected

and congratulations on your career, thanks for your service

[jmowreader]

114. And he's in the Navy

All the non-sea services use the same officer rank structure:

2nd Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
Captain
Major
Lieutenant Colonel
Colonel
Brigadier General
Major General
Lieutenant General
General

The sea services use this rank structure:
Ensign
Lieutenant (Jr. Grade)
Lieutenant
Lieutenant Commander
Commander
Captain
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
Rear Admiral
Vice Admiral
Admiral

[Pharaoh]

78. WTF?

"The Democrats aren't going to do anything but bitch, since their only power is to wreck the military with budget cuts."

Clinton Left Bush a military that was the envy of the world, and in just a few short years Dumbya has totally fucked it up! How can you make such a statement?:wtf:

[GreenZoneLT]

103. Power does not = history

I'm saying that the congressional Dems only current recourse, ability, power, pick a word, is to wreck the military, future tense, because Democrats (aka we; I've never voted for a Republican in my life) don't control the presidency. We don't have the power to control how the military is currently being used, only to cut funding broadly, which would wreck things.

Sheesh. People are freakin' paranoid around here.

[frogcycle]

109. more than paranoid

too quick to attack without reading. not only misreading the OP, but failing to see the multiple previous misreads and responses

we criticize bush for not doing his homework, for having his mind made up and rejecting input like Bakers...


ah well, human nature is what it is.

Thanks for having a thick skin and understanding, LT.

And thanks for your post.

[Toots]

112. I think there can be cuts that are very specific

Remember when the Osprey was cut from the budget (and yet the marines got it anyway). Congress can not micromanage the way military money is spent, that is true but it can micromanage appropriations. The people/business those monies go to are pretty generous campaign contributors. If their sugar tit gets stopped for a while believe me there will be reprocussions.

[Gregorian]

81. The Iraqis DON'T WANT US THERE!

That's all fine and well. War theories, and those who are evil enough to want to test them out.

But, we aren't wanted. And there's no purpose for us being there.

That is a major flaw in any possible theory.


If we were dropping food and money on them, we'd be greeted as friends. Anything else is bullshit.

[GreenZoneLT]

106. If we dropped food and money on them....

The former Baathists and the Shiite militia would be fighting pitched battles over it. You're right that we're not wanted here, but that's mainly because we failed to do anything to create a stable society after we deposed Saddam. If we'd done that, they'd have resented our presence about as much as the Germans and Koreans do.

[Gregorian]

115. Good point.

One I never think about, since we didn't go to Iraq to do good.

[sanskritwarrior]

94. Oh yeah also agree

about the budget cuts, we need more to fix what has been broken, not less........

[cui bono]

98. Interesting take, though I have to take issue with your generalizations:

Iraqis - ornery, all of them? Plus perhaps they never wanted us there in the first place.)
Democrats - bitching and ruining the military. I don't buy that for a second.
Protesters - hippies. Have you been to a protest lately? Seen pics? I don't see that many people one would assume were hippies at the ones I go to, nor at most of the ones I've seen pics of.

I hear that and the rest of what you've said gets washed away.

[pa28]

100. Thanks for posting LT.

I try to read and watch everything I can from Iraq. I'm tired of the sanitized media product and appreciate hearing the real deal from the people actually on the ground.

Stay safe and let us know what's going on. Tuning to CNN is a waste of time.

[Trajan]

101. Well said ....

One might wonder, if the original plan was so fucking brilliant, and it do obviously wasnt, then WHY are the same authors writing the next chapter ? ....

Only because they can; not because they should or deserve to, only because they can ....

Your negativity is well founded, and the results will probably be as you say ....

In the end: they will be just as pissed off, they will get just as much done, as the previous plan ....

More killing on both sides .....

[xchrom]

113. very interesting read. one of the things that bothers me --

is that if i take the politics out of iraq -- and think about the QUALITY of the leadership coming from the pentagon -- it doesn't seem to be very good.

there seems to be a degenerating force at work in our military institutions -- an inability to grasp the simplest truths -- i..e invading and holding iraq. invading = easy -- holding, maintaining and all the rest means a whole different strategy that the institution missed -- and they missed it in viet nam, and they missed it in lebanon, -- and while they may not have missed it in bosnia, all we were really doing is trying out an air war strategy for the 21st century and not commiting ourselves to an occupation and rebuilding effort.

i find it distressing that cleverness and nimbleness seems to be institutionally missing.

whether i think an action is right or not is one thing -- witnessing entropy and degeneration is quite another.

[frogcycle]

118. agree, but

the question is where is the final decision making coming from. SOME military seemed to have it right early on; they got replaced. It was not a US military decision to disband the Iraqi army without replacing its 'peacekeeping" capability. The civilian leadership controls an awful lot. I am not saying the military could not have come up with better techniques within the boundaries that were set, but the boundaries made it pretty hard for ANY military technique - even "outside the box" techniques - to succeed.

in my opinion the failing, and somewhat understandable on an individual personal level, has been for top brass to stand up and be counted when they felt orders were misguided. there has been too much "soldiering on" - but a whole bunch of generals would be civilians now if they had spoken their piece, and the civilian authority is such a well-established (and, in most circumstances, essential) aspect of our military that, as I say, I can understand individual's hesitency to be the one to speak up and get fired, or worse yet, for a group to be accused of mutiny.

Obviously I can't get into the heads of these guys and know which ones wake up in a cold sweat wondering when they will be compelled to stick their necks out - but I bet some do, and I bet they are high-ranking

[xchrom]

119. i think that it can be considered that ''speaking up''

is thinking outside the box.

i see your point re:disbanding the iraqi army.

i've thought for a while that decsion will go down as one of the great mistakes of -- on the whole -- fucked up illegal war.

i am still concerned though what seems to me by a that lack of nimbleness at the top.

[frogcycle]

120. i can almost guarantee you

that a lot of those "at the top" in uniform, if given a directive to "solve the problem" would exhibit a lot more nimbleness that they have under Rummy, where it has been "here is what you are to do, with these resources"

the line about "you go to war with the army you have" must have caused some serious swearing in private.

Douglas MacArthur stood up to Truman. Regardless of whether you would have agreed more with him or with Truman, this is the backdrop against which these guys have to wrestle with their consciences:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/58.htm


RECALL OF GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR (1951)
"Following World War II, the Korean peninsula was divided, supposedly temporarily, along the 38th parallel, with a Russian-allied communist government in the north and a pro-Western government in the south...

General Douglas MacArthur.. assumed command of the United Nations troops...

MacArthur ... kept talking about "unleashing Chiang Kai-shek," then holed up in his island fortress on Formosa, and launching atomic strikes, all of which made Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other UN countries involved very nervous. For Harry Truman and the Joint Chiefs, Korea was an exercise in containment, but that made it a very frustrating war for many Americans. It meant that in this war the United States was not aiming for total victory, but for more limited, and more ambiguous, results.

There is a tradition in American government that the military is subordinate to the civilian leaders. Generals do not make statements about policy without first clearing them with their superiors. But MacArthur, used to ruling in Japan, ignored the chain of command, and began writing letters about what the United States should do in Korea. ... So Harry Truman fired him, and evoked a firestorm of criticism from conservatives who believed Truman to be soft on communism. But there is no question that Truman was absolutely correct. Whether his overall policy was right or wrong, the American Constitution commits control of foreign policy to the president and not to the military. As Truman explained...No soldier, not even a five-star general, could unilaterally challenge that policy without disturbing an essential element of democratic government."

[xchrom]

121. watching the rehabilitation of rummy after his firing was a

lesson of extremes.

rummy failed as the sod. -- on a number of levels.

his much touted streamlining communication effectiveness between the departments -- is nothing compared to the chaos wrought over iraq.

to those who crow about his ''innovations'' -- if it hadn't been for the revisons of the clinton years -- rummy couldn't have done the job he did.

[mdmc]

122. please create a du journal

:kick: