Sen. John McCain deserves credit and respect for his service and for his conduct as a POW. That doesn't mean that he gets a pass on harebrained ideas. His idea that a large military force in Iraq could do something meaningful is only about 3 years late. If he were talking about absolute overwhelming force from the outset and an iron fisted occupation he might just have a point. The problem is, that was then and this is now. Yes, disregarding any questions about rightfully being there, the proper strategy is to crush the military force, lock down any societal impulse to resist - make it incredibly dangerous, construct civil order, then rebuild the infrastructure, and then rebuild the government. The models of Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan stand as exemplars of how it's done. GeorgeII has shown exactly how not to do it. Historically challenged??? Read some non-fiction, Yalie. (The New American Century doesn't qualify)
Now is different, the "insurgents" are dispersed into the civilian sector and around the nation, they have organized, they have weapons supply, they have capital, they have a proven track record of resistance, and they have outside resources of men, material, and morale. You can't get your hands on them, they're not going to "make a stand", and the civilian populous is more afraid of them than us; which means they will provide cover for them. Organization means they can coordinate and they have a structure in which to place loss replacements, and a way to secure replacements. The "government" is both a cover for "insurgency" and incompetent in opposition to them. Add to this picture the squandering of whatever good will may have been present initially and the thing looks really bad, no matter how many troops.
None of the preceding addresses the real problem with McCain's idea (and Lieberman limping along), just exactly where does he propose to get these troops? Some units are going back for their fifth rotation, the Reserve and Guard are already in use and we've reduced numbers in other theaters. Vehicles are beginning to fall apart and aren't getting replaced.
That shouldn't set off the "defeatocrat" crowd, but this sure will, the nation is sick and tired of this mess. McCain says we're "adults" and can process his idea. We're not that kind of adults, we can process how it's been done and what's been accomplished and the chances of any kind of improvement happening. It isn't a matter of will, it's a matter of the lies, the incompetence, and finally the futility. It isn't a matter of will to beat your head against a concrete wall because somebody "important" said it's a good idea, it is just plain stupid and Americans aren't just plain stupid for very long. (Ok, not that many are)
12 comments:
Chuck: HOW LONG WERE WE IN JAPAN/ GERMANY?
How many soldiers did we lose in the process?
Did we not kill on sight anyone with a gun to "manage" any problems?
Get your head our of you know what, ans as the sen. said on "MEET THE PRESS" go in with enough troops to win, or be prepared to pay a price for "cutting an running!"
Oh by the way....WHAT PRICE WOULD THAT BE?
You read the article, which part of incredibly dangerous misses you? Yes we stayed quite awhile, we stayed in a managable situation, made managable by competence. Quit just reacting and read what is written on the page. I do allow you to go ahead and connect the dots.
My opinion is that the price will be the same staying or leaving other than the number of US troop casualties. This head in the sand, "our leader is always right" mentality and his stupid stubborness is what got us here. That and going where we had no business going. Will it look bad t pull out? Maybe so, but worse than now? I doubt it.
This article only addresses the military component, not the right & wrong of being there and not the outcomes of staying or leaving. I have a choice of writing an article or an uread 400 page treatist, guess what you get.
My opinion is that the price will be the same staying or leaving other than the number of US troop casualties. This head in the sand, "our leader is always right" mentality and his stupid stubborness is what got us here. That and going where we had no business going. Will it look bad t pull out? Maybe so, but worse than now? I doubt it.
WOW..your not really going to say there is no price if we cut out are you?
Going to pickup up my .308, had a "nasty" scope mounted on it, you never know when I maybe sitting on a hill and somebody thinks they want it!
Chuck, in all honesty, as honest as I can be,I HATE what Bush got us into, but losing is maybe in your blood, it's not in mine, If I LOSE, you/and the horse that you rode in on....YOU WILL PAY FOR IT.
What that means is simply,if we are attacked again....YOU WILL NOT WANT TO FIND ME HAPPY TO "DEBATE" THE ISSUE.
With all I see in the news this week...IT'S SOONER, NOT LATER!
You may not be scared, but some of us have a brain...AND ALL THE LIGHTS ARE RED, FOR ANOTHER ATTACK. Glad you're not in my foxhole for sure.
You hate what he got us into - ok - me too.
You keep talking about winning, please define what that is. I know damn good and well we can kill a lot of them. But it means more than that? How do you propose to do it?
Why does leaving Iraq mean we get attacked? Afghanistan as I remember was that particular problem, we seem to be losing that with our concentration on Iraq.
Where exactly do you propose to get the troops? If 'Nam was your war, we're both too old to go and there aren't crowds lining up to enlist.
You seem to want to be taken seriously, then come out and play. Don't bother trying to scare me, it doesn't work. If you want to troll, I can ignore you, if you want to discuss, I can discuss. BTW, initials or handle or name or...
Why does leaving Iraq mean we get attacked? Afghanistan as I remember was that particular problem, we seem to be losing that with our concentration on Iraq.YOU SAID:
Stop for one damn minute, is there a terror threat or not?
Are you really saying we are going to quit?
lets have people out of there and home for Christmas if "quitting" is your big thing.
I'm with McCain on this, we can send in more troops, but I'm for "killing" alot more of them first. We need to take a section of the country, make no bones that if women and children aren't out by a certain time...ALL LEFT ARE CONSIDERED BADGUYS, THEY COME OUT, HANDS IN THE AIR, WITH WEAPONS IN A PILE, AND DIRECTIONS TO WHERE STOCKPILES OF MORE ARE, IF THE TIME FRAME ISN'T MET, WE CARPET BOMB THE AREA INTO A ROCKPILE.
We have fought this in such a PC way, they took advantage of that an shot at us from neighborhoods, an got innocents killed, which of course isn't good, but it gets people like you all blubbery!
WAR...NO AWARDS FOR 2ND PLACE!
Saddam met resistance, with 100 times the response to what actions any insurgents he faced gave him.
Since your such a researcher, look up "Black Jack Pershing" and his "methods", but you and the ACLU, would crap your pants on his effective methods.
If we run, as you want, Iran and Syria, would overun Iraq in a month, (yes Chucky, it is about oil) we lose the oil at even the high price we pay now, and 100 dollars or more a barrel is quite easily possible, then you'd have to run the old Chev on ethanol...IF YOU COULD GET IT!
You and your ECO-TERROR TYPES, have "killed" more exploration here, and water powered cars ain't on the drawing boards until you and I are to hold and slow to pop the button on a good trans-brake!
We could have done alot of things, but Bush played PC with it, and we will lose it.
Oh my, some women an a kid got killed, maybe if we got a bunch more...and not had CNN there to show it at dinner time, we'd be better off.
You have no stomach for winning Chuck, the GD country, has lost it thanks to people like you.
If we really had to defend this country..I'D RATHER DO IT THERE.
Chuck, if you think there are no sleeper cells here, I can show you where we have stopped not only possible attacks, but stopped the money flow from PDX in some areas..OH THE PDX 6 WERE NOT A JOKE, they were going to do a school, YOU GOT KIDS CHUCK?
CHUCK: I like this answer even better>
The Germans did have some guerrilla groups that actually did continue to fight for a short period of time after the war. Notably, the Werewolf group which acted on behalf of the SS during the war continued operations after the war was over, but was never considered a genuine threat to the occupation. Almost the same thing could be said of the guerrillas in Iraq if the statement were limited to guerrillas of Iraqi born origins. The resistance to date, in the absence of media attention and public opinion would be completely and totally ineffectual in real military terms, exactly as was the resistance offered by the Werewolves in Germany after WWII.
Unfortunately, a narrow majority of the guerrillas in Iraq are not Iraqi born. In point of fact, a majority are foreign born fighters whose primary purpose is to destabilize Iraq so foreign interests other than those of the coalition can be pursued at the expense of the coalition and, in fact, the Iraqi people. As such, the the guerrilla war in Iraq is not a true expression of resistance to the occupation of Iraq. Ending the occupation is not the primary aim of the parties who are guiding and directing the partisan resistance there. In stead, the guerrilla activities in Iraq can only be viewed as a visible focal point in a much broader regional struggle for dominance of ideology. From the perspective of the coalition, this is the very definition of the war on terror.
Although it has not been expressed in these terms in mainstream media, the expansion of the extremest ranks aligned against the western forces in Iraq serves to draw out the element in that region which is most fanatically dangerous to western interests into conflicts where they may potentially be eliminated, or better yet, make mistakes that will alienate the popular majority of people native to the region. The cost of this process is not the same as the cost of occupying Germany after WWII. In that case, the cost was only the blood of American soldiers, fighting a beaten foe with no allies outside its own borders. In Iraq, the cost is not only blood, but the minds and hearts of a 30 second sound bite respecting, rather short memoried, product consuming American public that is easily swayed from staying any significantly difficult course that doesn't also pose an immediate threat to the life or limbs of the average voter.
Please identify yourselves with initials or something other than Anon.
I'm not sure your numbers regarding foreign fighters are accurate, the last "reliable" estimate I heard was they were a sizable minority. That may seem a quibble.
The govt's own people state that we are "creating" these fighters faster than we are killing them. This would seem to be a blow to the theory of kill them there. As for their mistakes, where the blame gets placed is much more important that who did what. We get the blame, you know, if the US wasn't here this wouldn't happen, sort of thing. I don't argue that this POV is accurate re: us staying now or us leaving now - I believe it will continue regardless, now.
I would be much more open to your argument if you connected it with something other than spending blood. You offer nothing beyond "stay." Bleed, kill, bleed, kill with the objective that at some point they run out of willing candidates, for which there is no evidence.
I'd very much like to get out of there with a success and it might have been done, properly executed from the outset. Going there in the first place was wrong, but that has no place in "what to do now," anymore than "it was the right thing," does. What counts now is what to do now and why to do it and what is the outcome. Address that.
If I thought tripling the number of troops on the ground would help us impose our will on Iraq and that only a draft would get us there, then I'd support a draft. We could start with any registered member of college Republicans. ; )
More troops--and clearer orders and better behavior across the board--might have worked 3 years ago. But at this point, I don't know if it's possible to impose our will on Iraq now that the entire population sees us as their major problem. No need to rehash how we got to this state, but the fact that we're that is undeniable.
So, now that the Shi'a have gotten fed up with the Sunni insurgency and decided to fight back, they've suddenly discovered how vulnerable the Sunni civilians also are. So it's Suicide Bombers (Sunnis) vs. Death Squads (Shi'a). It seems only a ruthless dictator could restore order. Is that our goal now? I would hope not, because it would create another inherently unsustainable system.
So given that it's probably too late to shape the Iraq we want, we should do the best thing for our own political future and do what we can to break Iraq up in a way that creates the least loss of life and future instability. Is that a federation (if only in name) or a de jure partition? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter if everybody can get a piece of the oil pie. But either way, it's time to go.
Since your such a researcher, look up "Black Jack Pershing" and his "methods", but you and the ACLU, would crap your pants on his effective methods.
Chuck,The above was a challenge!
Chuck: Saddam met resistance, with 100 times the response to what actions any insurgents he faced gave him.
More troops??? NO, MORE DIRECT SMART BOMBS!
Old idea in war: CLEAR A PIECE OF GROUND...period!
Ever watch the Israel guys work over a suspected held area? THE CLEAR IT...PERIOD! You have seen the D9 Cat with the big blade, they remove you and the ground you stood on, like you were never there.
We removed two cities in Japan and what happen, but you have no stomach for that Chuck,let me assure you, they do!
Your words: But either way, it's time to go.
COME ON CHUCK, SAY IT ,"CUT N RUN!"
You just made it clear that you cannot or will not read what is written. That makes you a troll, you are now wasting your time.
Post a Comment