PDA

View Full Version : Winning the war....


Mosca
07-30-2007, 09:07 AM
From the blog of Tom Bevan:


July 30, 2007
Winning the War
Posted by TOM BEVAN

The most conspicuous part of today's op-ed on Iraq by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack is that it comes off as such a revelation. Here we have two of the harshest critics of the Bush administration's execution of the war reporting back with a tone of wonderment at the progress we're making on the ground in Iraq:

Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.


Kudos to the New York Times for printing the piece, because it's ipso facto proof that the American public is getting a distorted and overly negative view of what's going on there - thanks in large part to the MSM's coverage, including the Times' itself. If two of America's most well respected experts who follow this stuff closer than anyone are surprised by the positive progress in Iraq, just imagine how surprised the average Joe would be.

The other interesting thing, of course, is the potential political ramifications of such a high-profile declaration of progress. Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, for example, Chris Wallace asked Newt Gingrich why Democrats want to begin pulling troops out of Iraq before General Petraeus has a chance to issue his progress report in September. Gingrich responded:

The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat. [snip]
We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."


And, to highlight the contrast, Senator Russ Feingold appeared on FNS immediately following Gingrich and said he's convinced the surge is already a failure and that there's nothing that would make him change his mind about wanting to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Here's the exchange with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: And, Senator, we want to give you a chance to respond to Speaker Gingrich. You don't want to wait till General Petraeus issues his progress report in September to start pulling U.S. forces out.
But the fact is that so far this summer, the number of American troops killed this month of July is down. Shiite death squad activity is down sharply. And in Anbar province, some of the Sunni sheiks have broken with Al Qaida.

Are you, in fact, ignoring some signs of success, some signs that the surge is working?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: And I'm happy to acknowledge any signs of success, but the truth is since this surge began, we've had some of the highest numbers of American deaths and some of the greatest tragedies in Iraq of the entire period.

I do not buy the notion that the surge is working. I do not buy the notion that somehow Petraeus is going to be able to tell us that things are moving in the right direction. And in fact, he'll come back in September and he's going to say, "Let's wait till the end of the year."

So this is an endless game that continues this tragedy, and I think it's just the opposite of what Speaker Gingrich said. The truth is this is draining America's strength. It is costing us $12 billion a month.

We're losing over 100 people almost every single month, and it is hurting us in the fight against those that attacked us on 9/11. So this disaster has to end.

And a number of Republicans, of course, now have voted saying, "We can't just wait till September. We've got to get this done."

WALLACE: So I want to make sure I've got this clear, Senator. If General Petraeus comes in September, issues his progress report and indicates, obviously, not that we have a Jeffersonian democracy, but that things are better on the ground in Iraq, are you willing to change your position, or is your mind already made up?

FEINGOLD: Well, I'll listen to whatever he says. But he's not going to be the only person I consult with. We've heard from the White House and generals before about how there's no civil war, about the insurgency is in its last throes, and time and again it proved not to be true.

So I'll give all the respect to General Petraeus' remarks that are due, but every indication I get -- and I'm on the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, so I get a lot of information on this -- suggests that it is virtually impossible that he's going to be able to give the kind of rosy scenario that you've concocted here.


Despite the fact the war remains unpopular, there is political risk for Democrats in ignoring signs of progress in Iraq - something that today's op-ed by O'Hanlon and Pollack makes clear.

(end blog)

Mosca
07-30-2007, 09:11 AM
I'm going to say right now that winning the battle for our country and our troops is more important than turning the situation into political hay. It is certainly possible (and in all probability true) for this to be a clusterfrock of the highest order, AND for the only way out of it to be to see it through to the end rather than leave.

If this all works out, then Petraeus is the man of the year, and of all years.


Tom

Hammer67
07-30-2007, 10:17 AM
Unfortunately it is already political hay. I hope things are getting better. And, the sooner that happens, the sooner those guys can come home, and proud.

j-dawg
07-30-2007, 11:01 AM
when is war not political hay?

i don't understand why so many use the term "win" in iraq. this isn't exactly a football game.

even if the military finds a way to quell the civil war raging in that country... do we really "win".

i read this the other day... i guess it kinda touches upon the point i'm trying to make.

"One private, infamous as a joker and troublemaker, found the top part of a human skull, which was almost perfectly preserved. It even had chunks of hair, which were stiff and matted down with dirt. He squealed as he placed it on his head like a crown. It was a perfect fit. As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter. No one thought to tell him to stop. No one was disgusted. Me included."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070723&s=diarist072307

our troops are paying a large price... watch the vid on this link below and then tell me you honestly believe the media has a bias in reporting what's taking place there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,2125978,00.html

Hammer67
07-30-2007, 11:14 AM
Things are bad, for sure, but the media is biased. And too involved, in my opinion. Imagine what they would have video of if that were not so tightly controled during WW2?

I use the phrase "win" to mean the best possible outcome compared to the objectives going in. Creating a stable country in the region, a democracy at that. It may be too much to ask of at this point but, hey, it's better then keeping that part of the world as is. It is a religious, fundamentalist hornet's nest.

rbryan
07-30-2007, 11:15 AM
This is a no win situation. The factions there have been fighting amongst themselves for a 1000 years and will continue to do so for the next 1000. There will be no "seeing it to the end"

It pisses me off that there is more of an outrage in this country over some dumbass jock fighting pitbulls than the fact that about a dozen or so young men are being slaughtered everyday to protect the interests of big oil who in turn screws the consumer every chance they get.

The Duke
07-30-2007, 11:17 AM
This is a no win situation. The factions there have been fighting amongst themselves for a 1000 years and will continue to do so for the next 1000. There will be no "seeing it to the end"

It pisses me off that there is more of an outrage in this country over some dumbass jock fighting pitbulls than the fact that about a dozen or so young men are being slaughtered everyday to protect the interests of big oil who in turn screws the consumer every chance they get.

:iagree:

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-30-2007, 11:21 AM
This is a no win situation. The factions there have been fighting amongst themselves for a 1000 years and will continue to do so for the next 1000. There will be no "seeing it to the end"

It pisses me off that there is more of an outrage in this country over some dumbass jock fighting pitbulls than the fact that about a dozen or so young men are being slaughtered everyday to protect the interests of big oil who in turn screws the consumer every chance they get.

OHHHH...we are there because of oil....thats working out well ...isnt it:dang:

last time I checked we werent pumping oil from Iraq into big trucks with U.S emblazed on the sides...or did I miss something in the paper

j-dawg
07-30-2007, 11:24 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HRZPpbpSjg
"oil causes war"

rbryan
07-30-2007, 11:29 AM
OHHHH...we are there because of oil....thats working out well ...isnt it:dang:

last time I checked we werent pumping oil from Iraq into big trucks with U.S emblazed on the sides...or did I miss something in the paper

So you think this isn't about oil? Do you think Bush is just really concerned with the quality of life in the mid east and wanted to help everybody out. You know give the people the benefit of all our wisdom,maybe open up a few McDonalds.

Mosca
07-30-2007, 11:33 AM
The blog post used the word "winning", so I used that in the header; the actual NYT article referred to "a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis can live with". IMO, that might not be winning, but it is the best possible outcome from the situation as it is now. There was some pretty well reasoned counterpoint from another blogger, Joe Klein:

I agree with many, but not all, of the conclusions Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon reach in this NY Times column, but you really can't write a piece about the war in Iraq and devote only two sentences to the political situation, which is disastrous and, as Petraeus has said, will determine the success or failure of the overall effort.

It could be argued that what the U.S. military is now accomplishing is clearing the field of foreigners--i.e. the Al Qaeda in Iraq foreign fighters--so that the indigenous Sunnis and Shi'ites can go at each other in a full-blown civil war, complete with Srebrenica style massacres. (Although a precursor to that civil war is the internecine Shi'ite battle between the Hakim and Sadr militias that is about to take place in Basrah. If Sadr wins that fight, he will control Baghdad and the southern oil fields--and will be the de facto leader of Shi'ite Iraq.) I see absolutely no evidence that the majority Shi'ites are willing to concede anything to the minority Sunnis, and there are significant signs that Baghdad is being ethnically cleansed.

Yes, progress has been made in the fight against the most extreme jihadis (AQI), but that should not be extrapolated into anything resembling optimism....And if we manage to put a major hurt on AQI--which is Bush's (current) rationale for us being there--what rationale remains for us staying there if the Iraqis themselves are intent on slaughtering each other?

Update: One thing I just realized--Pollack and Hanlon seem to have visited only Sunni areas--Ramadi, Tal Afar and Mosul, the Ghazaliya neighborhood on the west (Sunni) bank of the Tigris River. And that's where the progress, such as it is, has been made, with the tribes moving against the jihadis and toward us. But Iraq is primarily a Shi'ite country--and we're not doing so well with those guys, especially the most prominent of them, Muqtada al-Sadr.

I should also note that their optimism about the Iraqi Army might look a bit different if they went to mixed areas like Diyala province, where a corrupt Shi'ite-dominated Army is going to have to deal with a police force that is being recruited from former Sunni insurgents. There certainly are a few excellent, mixed units in the Iraqi Security Forces, but the majority of units are local, sect-specific and awful.


It's still in the balance.


Tom

j-dawg
07-30-2007, 11:39 AM
Things are bad, for sure, but the media is biased. And too involved, in my opinion. Imagine what they would have video of if that were not so tightly controled during WW2?

I use the phrase "win" to mean the best possible outcome compared to the objectives going in. Creating a stable country in the region, a democracy at that. It may be too much to ask of at this point but, hey, it's better then keeping that part of the world as is. It is a religious, fundamentalist hornet's nest.


hey man, i totally understand the point you're making. i sincerely hope you don't think i'm trying to trivialize the problems in that region.

the fact is, we weren't going to iraq to establish democracy. we were going there because the threat of WMD's. we were told they could come to us in a "form of a mushroom cloud".

there are so many accounts of experts in that region explaining the complexities of the kurds, sunnis, shiites... but what's the point in that... the american people were never asked if they thought establishing democracy in iraq was worth an invasion.

Hammer67
07-30-2007, 12:55 PM
So you think this isn't about oil? Do you think Bush is just really concerned with the quality of life in the mid east and wanted to help everybody out. You know give the people the benefit of all our wisdom,maybe open up a few McDonalds.

I concur that we need to figure out what is going on and either get the job done or get out. But, to say the war is "for oil" shows that you don't have a full grasp on why they are there. I don't see how the US is gaining anything, as it relates to oil, from this war. If oil were the reason, why not invade Canada where we import the majority of our oil from? Or Venezuela? Or Mexico? They are much closer and it would be much easier!

Sounds like you have been drinking the leftist kool aid, friend! :wink02:

Hammer67
07-30-2007, 01:01 PM
hey man, i totally understand the point you're making. i sincerely hope you don't think i'm trying to trivialize the problems in that region.

the fact is, we weren't going to iraq to establish democracy. we were going there because the threat of WMD's. we were told they could come to us in a "form of a mushroom cloud".

there are so many accounts of experts in that region explaining the complexities of the kurds, sunnis, shiites... but what's the point in that... the american people were never asked if they thought establishing democracy in iraq was worth an invasion.

Oh, I totally agree that we went under false pretenses and that is Bush's fault, for sure. He has mishandled things mightily. But his incompetence aside, there is still a fight there regardless. I only hope for the best possible outcome for us and the world. And, let's face it, Islamic fundamentalism is the main plight in the world today. And, its capital is the Middle East. Whether we went to Iraq or not, we still would fall victim to muslim extremists.

I always wondered why they don't just break up Iraq into three separate countries instead of forcing it to stay as is. I mean, Iraq as a country is only about 100 years old.

SteelCityMan786
07-30-2007, 01:08 PM
I'm going to say right now that winning the battle for our country and our troops is more important than turning the situation into political hay. It is certainly possible (and in all probability true) for this to be a clusterfrock of the highest order, AND for the only way out of it to be to see it through to the end rather than leave.

If this all works out, then Petraeus is the man of the year, and of all years.


Tom

:iagree: If we pull out now, the progress being made will become blah.

I found a good video displaying some of the progress made up till last December.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qSeYlcOs9D0

rbryan
07-30-2007, 01:12 PM
So whats your grasp? IOW why are we there then??

I don't drink kool aid. I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps, I'm not a liberal, left wing, anit-military type. I know why we're there and it's not to promote democracy.

In the PC world we live in you can't invade Canada or Venezuela just because we want thier oil. The Iraqies tried to throw Exxon out of Kuwait after Exxon built the infrastructure to get the oil out of the ground. It really is that simple.

ChronoCross
07-30-2007, 03:56 PM
This a complete utter joke.

Preacher
07-30-2007, 06:11 PM
Here is what I don't understand.

Since when has intelligence estimates become FACT? They NEVER are. I remember the UN speech, the other speeches, NEVER did the president, or anyone else say WE SAW WMD THE OTHER DAY. They say, "Here is the evidence, we believe it is conclusive."

They were wrong.

That is not false pretense, that is not lying... that is bad intelligence. Get a grip.

Yet, we still must make decisions based on the intelligence at hand. NO ONE... in ANY NATION... argued that they did NOT have WMD.

So the "No WMD" argument is a moot point. All western intelligence agencies beleived they had it... ALL western intelligence agencies, in hindsight were wrong...


WAR FOR OIL....

Um.. Seems to me that there were three nations that were hindering the UN debate on the war. 1. Russia, 2, France, 3 Germany.

Soon thereafter, a scandal broke out, about Iraq selling oil for food, and putting the money to things other then food. Lots of payouts were given as well... What three nations were involved?

1. Russia 2. France 3. Germany. Also, The UN. Sec. General's son, and possible even him.

This was no war for oil, it was a NON-war for oil. Since the war began, money, food, etc. has poured into the nation.

The ONLY war for oil in the gulf in the last 20 years was Iraq going into Kuwait, and then prepositioning for a jump into Saudi Arabia.

Kinda funny, in both wars... we STOPPED countries from illegally getting oil, or money from oil. So sad that is lost on so many.

And yes, there is a WIN in Iraq. When Iraq has a government that is able to stand on its own, able to pass authority through elections to another leader, and protect its people.

Oh yeah... and when we are able to use Iraq as a staging ground to face of Iran. Cause we WILL face them some day. The question is, do we fight them on thier ground, or ours. Because it IS coming.

Atlanta Dan
07-30-2007, 06:22 PM
I guess Michael O'Hanlon had a revelation in the last week and now sees light at the end of the tunnel if his Op-Ed post in today's NY Times is to be believed.

The Brookings Institution, for whom O'Hanlon works, publishes an "Iraq Index." The Iraq Index "is designed to quantify the rebuilding efforts and offer an objective set of criteria for benchmarking performance. It is the first in-depth, non-partisan assessment of American efforts in Iraq, and is based primarily on U.S. government information. Although measurements of progress in any nation-building effort can never be reduced to purely quantitative data, a comprehensive compilation of such information can provide a clearer picture and contribute to a healthier and better informed debate. "

Here is the introduction to the most recent Iraq Index report

JULY 23, 2007- With what promised to be a pivotal summer now more than half over, the situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. Even with all surge forces in place and operational, the modest progress made in the security sphere thus far has not had the hoped-for subsequent influence on the political and economic sectors. Adding to the pressure is the steadily increasing demands stateside for a change in strategy. Indeed, the ?political clocks? in Washington and Baghdad are perhaps farther apart today than they have ever been.

From a security standpoint, having the full allotment of surge troops in theater has allowed for intensified coalition operations in and around Baghdad aimed at rooting out militants from their sanctuaries. Initial reports indicate that these have led to a decrease in the levels of violence in these areas. However, violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge. And while the number of internally displaced persons has declined, it has done so not as a result of security improvements but because there are fewer places for Iraqis to run with a number of provinces unable to accept any more refugees. In assessing the overall sentiment of the Iraqi people recently, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker summed it up in one word: fear.

Politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws. This has been made exceedingly more difficult with recent boycotts of the government by both the Shiite officials loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and the largest Sunni bloc, the National Accord Front. Though both have now agreed to return their members to parliament after weeks of abstention, neither has resumed participation at the cabinet level, leaving 13 of the 38 Iraqi cabinet positions vacant. With Kurdish lawmakers denouncing the most recently proposed oil revenue sharing law and the National Accord Front threatening to resume its boycott, it is difficult to see how any measurable political progress will take place before the all-important September update from Ambassador Crocker and commanding General David Petraeus.

Economically, ?stagnation? continues to be the key word. The precarious security situation has continued to stymie any significant improvement of such macro indicators as unemployment, GDP and inflation. Fuel production fluctuates from week-to-week with insurgent attacks on infrastructure and suspected widespread corruption causing the average Iraqi to endure interminable lines to obtain scant amounts gasoline and propane. In addition, the availability of electricity has deteriorated over the past couple of months with Ambassador Crocker recently stating that the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day.

Michael O'Hanlon spearheads the Iraq Index project at Brookings...

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.htm

You can make compelling arguments regarding what to do in Iraq in support of various positions, but only someone as smart as Mr. O'Hanlon is able to argue both sides simultaneously.:smile:

Preacher
07-30-2007, 06:26 PM
I guess Michael O'Hanlon had a revelation in the last week and now sees light at the end of the tunnel if his Op-Ed post in today's NY Times is to be believed.

The Brookings Institution, for whom O'Hanlon works, publishes an "Iraq Index." The Iraq Index "is designed to quantify the rebuilding efforts and offer an objective set of criteria for benchmarking performance. It is the first in-depth, non-partisan assessment of American efforts in Iraq, and is based primarily on U.S. government information. Although measurements of progress in any nation-building effort can never be reduced to purely quantitative data, a comprehensive compilation of such information can provide a clearer picture and contribute to a healthier and better informed debate. "

Here is the introduction to the most recent Iraq Index report

JULY 23, 2007- With what promised to be a pivotal summer now more than half over, the situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. Even with all surge forces in place and operational, the modest progress made in the security sphere thus far has not had the hoped-for subsequent influence on the political and economic sectors. Adding to the pressure is the steadily increasing demands stateside for a change in strategy. Indeed, the “political clocks” in Washington and Baghdad are perhaps farther apart today than they have ever been.

From a security standpoint, having the full allotment of surge troops in theater has allowed for intensified coalition operations in and around Baghdad aimed at rooting out militants from their sanctuaries. Initial reports indicate that these have led to a decrease in the levels of violence in these areas. However, violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge. And while the number of internally displaced persons has declined, it has done so not as a result of security improvements but because there are fewer places for Iraqis to run with a number of provinces unable to accept any more refugees. In assessing the overall sentiment of the Iraqi people recently, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker summed it up in one word: fear.

Politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws. This has been made exceedingly more difficult with recent boycotts of the government by both the Shiite officials loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and the largest Sunni bloc, the National Accord Front. Though both have now agreed to return their members to parliament after weeks of abstention, neither has resumed participation at the cabinet level, leaving 13 of the 38 Iraqi cabinet positions vacant. With Kurdish lawmakers denouncing the most recently proposed oil revenue sharing law and the National Accord Front threatening to resume its boycott, it is difficult to see how any measurable political progress will take place before the all-important September update from Ambassador Crocker and commanding General David Petraeus.

Economically, “stagnation” continues to be the key word. The precarious security situation has continued to stymie any significant improvement of such macro indicators as unemployment, GDP and inflation. Fuel production fluctuates from week-to-week with insurgent attacks on infrastructure and suspected widespread corruption causing the average Iraqi to endure interminable lines to obtain scant amounts gasoline and propane. In addition, the availability of electricity has deteriorated over the past couple of months with Ambassador Crocker recently stating that the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day.

Michael O'Hanlon spearheads the Iraq Index project at Brookings...

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.htm

You can make compelling arguments regarding what to do in Iraq in support of various positions, but only someone as smart as Mr. O'Hanlon is able to argue both sides simultaneously.:smile:

There are times when that is a real sign of maturity and intellectual acumen.

I have a feeling that is not the direction you were going in your discussion of his ability AD! :sofunny:

Cape Cod Steel Head
07-30-2007, 06:34 PM
I concur that we need to figure out what is going on and either get the job done or get out. But, to say the war is "for oil" shows that you don't have a full grasp on why they are there. I don't see how the US is gaining anything, as it relates to oil, from this war. If oil were the reason, why not invade Canada where we import the majority of our oil from? Or Venezuela? Or Mexico? They are much closer and it would be much easier!

Sounds like you have been drinking the leftist kool aid, friend! :wink02:No! We are there because Sadam had WMD's. And he was an evil dictator with ties to 9/11. At least that's what my leaders told me. Oh how quickly they forget!

Atlanta Dan
07-30-2007, 06:46 PM
There are times when that is a real sign of maturity and intellectual acumen.

I have a feeling that is not the direction you were going in your discussion of his ability AD! :sofunny:

FWIW I regard the Pollock-O'Hanlon op-ed that victory is just around the corner in Iraq as the equivalent of predicting the Browns or Lions will win the Super Bowl.

If they are right they will be regarded as incredibly prescient; if they are wrong nobody will remember.

The American Civil War lasted 4 years; American involvement in World War II lasted 3 years and 9 months. Given the lapse of time since the "mission" was "accomplished" in 2003, the U.S. is leaving Iraq; the same people who got us in will spend the next 20 years claiming that they were "stabbed in the back" as we were on the doorstep of total victory and will cite articles such as this op-ed piece as "evidence" of that "fact."

Wishing we should stay will not make it so.

Preacher
07-31-2007, 02:01 AM
FWIW I regard the Pollock-O'Hanlon op-ed that victory is just around the corner in Iraq as the equivalent of predicting the Browns or Lions will win the Super Bowl.

If they are right they will be regarded as incredibly prescient; if they are wrong nobody will remember.

The American Civil War lasted 4 years; American involvement in World War II lasted 3 years and 9 months. Given the lapse of time since the "mission" was "accomplished" in 2003, the U.S. is leaving Iraq; the same people who got us in will spend the next 20 years claiming that they were "stabbed in the back" as we were on the doorstep of total victory and will cite articles such as this op-ed piece as "evidence" of that "fact."
Wishing we should stay will not make it so.

I have to disagree... WWII lasted 3 years and 9 months... but we are STILL in Germany. The rebuild lasted for YEARS. furthermore there were attacks on American troops, etc.

We are still at war in N. Korea. There is NO peace, only a cease-fire that has lasted. it just takes one mistake...and that entire thing will STILL erupt in war. When you look at the number of troops we have lost compared to the amount of time we have been Iraq, we have come through strong. Yes, I mourn every single loss. But historically, I am not worried about the time spent there. I am more worried about the time NOT spent finishing the task.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-31-2007, 03:20 AM
No! We are there because Sadam had WMD's. And he was an evil dictator with ties to 9/11. At least that's what my leaders told me. Oh how quickly they forget!

How right you are...all those who claimed Iraq was evil and had WMD's should be held accountable..........lets see:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security
threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United
States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept.. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam H ussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal o f weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and
grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five y ears ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biologica l weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

I will be happy to help you spearhead the movement to have these "liars" removed from office!!

Atlanta Dan
07-31-2007, 07:23 AM
I have to disagree... WWII lasted 3 years and 9 months... but we are STILL in Germany. The rebuild lasted for YEARS. furthermore there were attacks on American troops, etc.

We are still at war in N. Korea. There is NO peace, only a cease-fire that has lasted. it just takes one mistake...and that entire thing will STILL erupt in war. When you look at the number of troops we have lost compared to the amount of time we have been Iraq, we have come through strong. Yes, I mourn every single loss. But historically, I am not worried about the time spent there. I am more worried about the time NOT spent finishing the task.

The point I was attempting to make through the reference to the President trick or treating as a fighter pilot and then standing in front of the "mission accomplished" banner is that you cannot tell the American public on the one hand that the way to fight the war on terror is to get out there and shop & claiming our goals in Iraq were "accomplished" in a matter of months while then expecting the same public to support a constantly shifting timeline and set of metrics for when "success" will be achieved in Iraq. In contrast, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK did not claim the struggle with the Soviets was going to be a quick walk in the park.

W, Cheney & Rumsfeld attempted to fight the war on the cheap by not following the Powell Doctrine of applying overwhelming force at the outset. The Administration now lacks the credibility to make the case for any progress that may have been achieved.

But since the Iraqi Parliament was comfortable enough to knock off for August without passing any of the legislation that was to be part of measuring the progress that supposedly is being made I guess things are even better than they appear.

j-dawg
07-31-2007, 10:52 AM
How right you are...all those who claimed Iraq was evil and had WMD's should be held accountable..........lets see:



I will be happy to help you spearhead the movement to have these "liars" removed from office!!

dude, way to cherry pick quotes with out putting any of them in context...

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. :jawdrop:
--George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland 5/30/2003

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. :dang:
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. :toofunny:
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

i can see how this could be fun... :coffee:

j-dawg
07-31-2007, 11:04 AM
I always wondered why they don't just break up Iraq into three separate countries instead of forcing it to stay as is. I mean, Iraq as a country is only about 100 years old.

i've thought that as well. through discussions i've learned that it's not possible because of oil. parts of the region are more oil rich than others, and one faction would be on the short end if it came to ethnic boarders. also, the oil companies have gained production rights over these rich fields of Iraqi oil, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, which was much easier to do dealing with one centralized pro-american government.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-31-2007, 11:11 AM
dude, way to cherry pick quotes with out putting any of them in context...

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. :jawdrop:
--George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland 5/30/2003

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. :dang:
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. :toofunny:
--George. W. Bush Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

i can see how this could be fun... :coffee:

Your answer would be relevant except that Bush has not changed his position other than to admit that the intell given to BOTH parties was faulty (as was the intel given to most countries)

HOWEVER....the liberals I quoted have TRIED to make it seem that the Bush administration was the source of the intel...and have tried to seperate themselves from their own statements to make it look as if they were not equally culpable.

How many times have you heard people AND the Dems say that "Bush LIED about WMD's"....why doesthe acceptance of the intel make him a liar....yet liberals never mention Kerry...Gore...and the other Dems that bought into it?

The only difference I see is the hypocrisy of the Dems who are trying to pin blame on Bush after backing the war at the beginning but waffling when it has become politically expedient.

j-dawg
07-31-2007, 12:47 PM
Your answer would be relevant except that Bush has not changed his position other than to admit that the intell given to BOTH parties was faulty (as was the intel given to most countries)

HOWEVER....the liberals I quoted have TRIED to make it seem that the Bush administration was the source of the intel...and have tried to seperate themselves from their own statements to make it look as if they were not equally culpable.

How many times have you heard people AND the Dems say that "Bush LIED about WMD's"....why doesthe acceptance of the intel make him a liar....yet liberals never mention Kerry...Gore...and the other Dems that bought into it?

The only difference I see is the hypocrisy of the Dems who are trying to pin blame on Bush after backing the war at the beginning but waffling when it has become politically expedient.

yeah, i hear ya... BOTH parties were to blame on beating the war drums... but you have to admit, this administration was the one "packaging" the intel, using information that was determined to be wrong, aluminum tubes, sadam meeting with al qaeda.. the downing street memo touched upon that... why would you use information that was considered false... it only clouds judgement.

here's a quote from jimmy carter during the build up...

"...The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory....." President Jimmy Carter January 31, 2002

?Even if?lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.
"With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal?.If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in
the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost?.
"The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.?
President Jimmy Carter January 31, 2002 EXCERPT from a statement From THE CARTER CENTER.

MANY, Liberals, Conservatives, were buying into the intel, but many still believed that war shouldn't be rushed into. funny how so many were calling 'ol jimmy unpatriotic during this time... dude was the president for pete's sake.

Mosca
07-31-2007, 12:56 PM
That story in the NYT has generated a lot of this exact same type of discussion across the nation. It's hard to tell what to think. I don't see it as a way to win, but as a way to exit properly. If we can stabilize the country militarily, then we can leave. Otherwise, it is a forever commitment that we cannot sustain.


Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-31-2007, 01:12 PM
I truly believe that the underlying problem is not history...politics...or military presence ....Its presenting democracy to a people who have NO idea what it looks like. I think that every step hindered by a people whos past government was so bad that they are content with each step in the process, not being able to comprehend the END results...and therefore unknowingly ...unwilling... to fully commit to their own progress.

revefsreleets
07-31-2007, 03:55 PM
I am reading a book now called "Cobra II", and I'm almost done with it. No offense to anyone here, but you NEED to read this book if you want to know exactly what went wrong, where and when, and exactly why we are in the situation we are in now. The book is written from a non-political standpoint, and there is almost no opinion, just straight fact, but it is, without a doubt, the single most informative piece ever written about the Iraq War. The book even shows what Saddam was planning and all the mistakes he made. Without getting into it too heavily, I can tell you that a few glaring things stand out:

-This was not, is not, and never will be a War for Oil.
-This invasion would have never occurred if we would have taken about 2 extra steps in Iraq I
-Donald Rumsfeld is the freaking Devil. 90% of what we are dealing with now is his doing.
-Bush made a lot of mistakes, but many of them were mistakes in personnel.
-The WMD thing was an honest mistake. Even Saddam's generals were positive that he had them.

I strongly recommend that anyone who hasn't already read the book go pick it up tomorrow. It will open you eyes regardless of your political leanings.

Cape Cod Steel Head
07-31-2007, 10:48 PM
How right you are...all those who claimed Iraq was evil and had WMD's should be held accountable..........lets see:



I will be happy to help you spearhead the movement to have these "liars" removed from office!!Agreed. As long as we start with The Liar in Chief!

Preacher
07-31-2007, 11:14 PM
I am reading a book now called "Cobra II", and I'm almost done with it. No offense to anyone here, but you NEED to read this book if you want to know exactly what went wrong, where and when, and exactly why we are in the situation we are in now. The book is written from a non-political standpoint, and there is almost no opinion, just straight fact, but it is, without a doubt, the single most informative piece ever written about the Iraq War. The book even shows what Saddam was planning and all the mistakes he made. Without getting into it too heavily, I can tell you that a few glaring things stand out:

-This was not, is not, and never will be a War for Oil.
-This invasion would have never occurred if we would have taken about 2 extra steps in Iraq I
-Donald Rumsfeld is the freaking Devil. 90% of what we are dealing with now is his doing.
-Bush made a lot of mistakes, but many of them were mistakes in personnel.
-The WMD thing was an honest mistake. Even Saddam's generals were positive that he had them.

I strongly recommend that anyone who hasn't already read the book go pick it up tomorrow. It will open you eyes regardless of your political leanings.


Wow.... a book that does an assessment which pleases nobody? Doesn't the author know that in this day and age he has to have a pre-planned agenda in order to gain power or make money? He should go talk to the DNC or GOP. They know all about that.

Preacher
07-31-2007, 11:16 PM
Here is what I don't get...

For all of you who are dead-set on the president being a liar taking us to war for political gain....

Do you see the fact that the democratic party are now beating the peace drums for no other reason then political gain?


They are ALL the same.

lamberts-lost-tooth
08-01-2007, 05:05 AM
Agreed. As long as we start with The Liar in Chief!

hmmmmmmm...trade a Republican president in the last stages of his two terms.......for a horde of hypocritical pseudo-intellectual liberals with future aspirations of grandeur?.........DONE!!!!

j-dawg
08-01-2007, 09:45 AM
Here is what I don't get...

For all of you who are dead-set on the president being a liar taking us to war for political gain....

Do you see the fact that the democratic party are now beating the peace drums for no other reason then political gain?


They are ALL the same.

yep, a democrat sent us to war in vietnam, and the republicans beat the peace drums when it was clear it was unpopular. i do have to ask though, if gore were president, do you think we'd be in iraq?

X-Terminator
08-01-2007, 12:21 PM
yep, a democrat sent us to war in vietnam, and the republicans beat the peace drums when it was clear it was unpopular. i do have to ask though, if gore were president, do you think we'd be in iraq?

Jane Fonda was a republican? John Kerry was a republican? Those peace marchers, the ones who spit on soldiers, burned the flag and soldiers in effigy? They were all republicans?

Who knew? :hunch:

SteelCityMan786
08-01-2007, 12:30 PM
hmmmmmmm...trade a Republican president in the last stages of his two terms.......for a horde of hypocritical pseudo-intellectual liberals with future aspirations of grandeur?.........DONE!!!!

Pelosi being president of the US will be as disastrous as having Billary as president.

I'd much rather he finishes it off.

Look at it this way guys, Jan. 20, 2009 will be here before you know it and Nov 2008 will be here before you know it. In addition, the more days we're in Iraq, the closer we are to coming home.

revefsreleets
08-01-2007, 02:45 PM
Wow.... a book that does an assessment which pleases nobody? Doesn't the author know that in this day and age he has to have a pre-planned agenda in order to gain power or make money? He should go talk to the DNC or GOP. They know all about that.

It pleased me mightily, and I'm a moderate Republican (far right on economic, slightly left on social issues). I was happy to finally see straight reporting on exactly what went wrong and how it all happened, and it's refreshing that it isn't filtered through a political filter or spun in any way. This is a must read for people who want to be informed.

j-dawg
08-01-2007, 05:38 PM
Jane Fonda was a republican? John Kerry was a republican? Those peace marchers, the ones who spit on soldiers, burned the flag and soldiers in effigy? They were all republicans?

Who knew? :hunch:

"make no bones of this. don't try to sweep this under the rug. we are at war in vietnam. and yet the president, who is commander-in-chief of forces, refuses to say - refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. and his secretary of defense continues to mislead and misinform the american people, and enough of it has gone by." - Barry Goldwater Republican Convention 1964

the folks you mentioned didn't send us to war, john f kennedy sent troops and lydon johnson escalated.... i was addressing the politicians... not the activists.

Preacher
08-01-2007, 05:39 PM
It pleased me mightily, and I'm a moderate Republican (far right on economic, slightly left on social issues). I was happy to finally see straight reporting on exactly what went wrong and how it all happened, and it's refreshing that it isn't filtered through a political filter or spun in any way. This is a must read for people who want to be informed.

Its funny...

I am socially pretty conservative... typical conserv. on guns, abortion, etc.

I am economically conservative on taxes... but think there ARE areas for the feds to work in

What really is ticking me off is this...

Whitehouse: Is thinking that they have to simplify the message to such a degree that it becomes a sound bite so that the AMerican people can understand it.

Dems: twisting things to thier own political gain so that the Whitehouse tries to outsmart them by creating such a simple message.

IT IS ALL POLITICS...


I have ALWAYS been in full support of the war. I think it was needed, and am happy we are there.

I am unhappy about the political maneuvering by about 90 plus percent of our government surrounding it.


You want to know who I give the highest marks to for being clear-headed in all of this? Lieberman. If his stance on abortion was pro-life... and he ran for president, he would get my vote, even though I COMPLETELY disagree with him on most other social/economic issues...

Because that man has what almost EVERY OTHER politician lacks.... INTEGRITY

revefsreleets
08-01-2007, 05:58 PM
Here's my solution to the problem with the abortion issue, which is a giant hot potato that galvanizes giant voter blocs and is enormously polarizing: States rights. Federalism reigns supreme, and we let the individual states vote on the issue. I'm shocked that no candidate has proposed this. It's the only logical way to deal with this increasingly controversial issue.

Hammer67
08-02-2007, 11:39 AM
It pleased me mightily, and I'm a moderate Republican (far right on economic, slightly left on social issues). I was happy to finally see straight reporting on exactly what went wrong and how it all happened, and it's refreshing that it isn't filtered through a political filter or spun in any way. This is a must read for people who want to be informed.


You and I have a lot in common politically, then. I will definitly read this book. :cheers:

Hammer67
08-02-2007, 11:42 AM
You want to know who I give the highest marks to for being clear-headed in all of this? Lieberman. If his stance on abortion was pro-life... and he ran for president, he would get my vote, even though I COMPLETELY disagree with him on most other social/economic issues...

Because that man has what almost EVERY OTHER politician lacks.... INTEGRITY


I agree...Lieberman is about the only level headed Democrat (or politician, period) that I have trust in his integrity.

revefsreleets
08-05-2007, 12:59 PM
You and I have a lot in common politically, then. I will definitly read this book. :cheers:

Tommy Franks gets blasted pretty hard, too. One thing is sure, and that's that he's no Stormin' Norman.

Atlanta Dan
08-05-2007, 08:24 PM
The ongoing tales of mismanagement are depressing

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

"They really have no idea where they are," said Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information who has studied small-arms trade and received Pentagon briefings on the issue. "It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors.":dang:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html?hpid=topnews

revefsreleets
08-06-2007, 05:06 PM
This is a matter of perspective. These negative articles always have the mitigating circumstances buried. For instance:

But, the commander argued, "there was, frankly, not much of a choice early on: We had very little staff and could have held the weapons until every piece of the logistical and property accountability system was in place, or we could issue them, in bulk on some occasions, to the U.S. elements supporting Iraqi units who were needed in the battles of Najaf, Fallujah, Mosul, Samarra, etc."

Which is pretty self explanatory. There is also a reference to the arms cache that wasn't guarded, and was subsequently looted, which you can blame directly on Rumsfeld and Franks. McKeirnan desperately wanted more troops to guard the supply lines, and Franks and Rummy just wanted as fast of a push as possible. If you don't hold your gains, things like this will happen. The article also notes that the defense department was heavily and unusually involved. That is once again all Rummy.

Preacher
08-06-2007, 05:26 PM
What is not discussed at all it seems... is the other issue of the military...

There is a thought that there will be no more wars where armies draw lines and battle against each other. As a result, the push is Spec. Forces, smart bombs, etc. The other side is traditionalists that believe that war, at the end, has to be fought at company/regiment level.

Look at the war through this prism... All the arguments on BOTH sides make a lot of sense... and it takes it out of the "Bush Sucks" "Their unpatriotic" polarized argument, and into the "What worked, what didn't and how can we find the middle" discussion.

Oh wait, that means that one of the parties will not get to win political points... nevermind.

:dang::dang::dang:

revefsreleets
08-06-2007, 06:25 PM
What is not discussed at all it seems... is the other issue of the military...

There is a thought that there will be no more wars where armies draw lines and battle against each other. As a result, the push is Spec. Forces, smart bombs, etc. The other side is traditionalists that believe that war, at the end, has to be fought at company/regiment level.

Look at the war through this prism... All the arguments on BOTH sides make a lot of sense... and it takes it out of the "Bush Sucks" "Their unpatriotic" polarized argument, and into the "What worked, what didn't and how can we find the middle" discussion.

Oh wait, that means that one of the parties will not get to win political points... nevermind.

:dang::dang::dang:

That's a great point. The problem is that every conflict is different. Because we had tons of assets on the ground, the War in Afghanistan was fought with a few SOF troops who recruited and used existing anti-Taliban forces, and things went remarkably well. Rummy assumed the same scenario would repeat in Iraq, and the intelligence was so awful thet they quite literally had the almost opposite plan that they needed. It's actually incredible to read how adaptable our military actually is, and how they were able to overcome massive incompetence at the top in planning to overcome that terrible planning. The lesson? On the ground intelligence is worth a few hundred thousand troops, and if you don't have the former, you damned well better have the latter.

Preacher
08-13-2007, 04:03 AM
That's a great point. The problem is that every conflict is different. Because we had tons of assets on the ground, the War in Afghanistan was fought with a few SOF troops who recruited and used existing anti-Taliban forces, and things went remarkably well. Rummy assumed the same scenario would repeat in Iraq, and the intelligence was so awful thet they quite literally had the almost opposite plan that they needed. It's actually incredible to read how adaptable our military actually is, and how they were able to overcome massive incompetence at the top in planning to overcome that terrible planning. The lesson? On the ground intelligence is worth a few hundred thousand troops, and if you don't have the former, you damned well better have the latter.


Good points.

what is the other thing we learn? That war is ALWAYS a measure of who makes less mistakes, not whether mistakes are made. The other problem we have which is way out of perspective right now is the zero tolerance policy. If an officer makes a mistake... he is gone. He gets graded just a little lower in his fitreps, and that is death to an officer. WHy is that wrong? Two reasons. 1. Because it creates managers, not warriors in the top positions. 2. Because these managers in the top military positions have never made a mistake, they don't know what to do when they do make a mistake.

In my mind, zero tolerance has to go. For a great discussion of this issue and Spec. forces, terrorism, etc. Read the autobiography "Rogue Warrior," by Dick Marcinko. Yeah, the book is a testosterone driven book. However, he has a lot of inside information.

Jeremy
08-13-2007, 04:36 AM
You have to have a balance when you judge officers. You say those mistakes need to be made to teach officers. In combat, those mistakes can get enlisted men killed. Even when you're sitting in an office, if some fresh faced O1 or O2 makes a mistake, it can cost the career of an E6or E7 and those E6s and E7s are the real backbone of the military. If you ask me, these young officers need to do more learning from the senior enlisted than trying to lead them right out of the gate.

Preacher
08-13-2007, 05:17 AM
You have to have a balance when you judge officers. You say those mistakes need to be made to teach officers. In combat, those mistakes can get enlisted men killed. Even when you're sitting in an office, if some fresh faced O1 or O2 makes a mistake, it can cost the career of an E6or E7 and those E6s and E7s are the real backbone of the military. If you ask me, these young officers need to do more learning from the senior enlisted than trying to lead them right out of the gate.

My point is, in zero tolerance, decisions aren't made. it creates more of a manager military then a martial military (so the argument goes).

However, in non-0-tolerance military, the E6/E7 your talking about doesn't lose his career.

Again, I am picking up someone else's argument. It makes a lot of sense to me. When you put a fear of being wrong into someone, they tend to not make any decisions...

Jeremy
08-13-2007, 05:35 AM
My point is, in zero tolerance, decisions aren't made. it creates more of a manager military then a martial military (so the argument goes).

However, in non-0-tolerance military, the E6/E7 your talking about doesn't lose his career.

Again, I am picking up someone else's argument. It makes a lot of sense to me. When you put a fear of being wrong into someone, they tend to not make any decisions...

The problem isn't zero tolerance. The problem is you have a lot of fresh faced O1s and O2s and even some O3s out there who don't listen to people with more experience. Like rebellious teenagers, they insist on doing things the hard way. What's unfortunate is people read books by men like Tom Clancy and they think these officers are out there doing all these amazing things when the truth is that most officers couldn't find the bathroom without some E4 telling them where it is.

Preacher
08-13-2007, 03:16 PM
The problem isn't zero tolerance. The problem is you have a lot of fresh faced O1s and O2s and even some O3s out there who don't listen to people with more experience. Like rebellious teenagers, they insist on doing things the hard way. What's unfortunate is people read books by men like Tom Clancy and they think these officers are out there doing all these amazing things when the truth is that most officers couldn't find the bathroom without some E4 telling them where it is.


LOL... Clancy is a great author. Only problem is that he thinks everyone in the world has a 160 IQ, and tries to prove in every book that he has one too.

revefsreleets
08-14-2007, 05:38 PM
Actually, I'd argue that it's not the number of mistakes, it's how the mistakes are handled. The officer who sits and debates with himself and weighs options is sacked, while the officer who quickly recognizes his own mistakes and aggressively takes action to rectify those mistakes usually not only saves his job, but wins the day.

A great example in Iraq II was a snafu in planning in which different commanders had completely different idea's in how to initially attack Baghdad. The prevailing thought, in fact, the approved plan was to set up static bases outside the city and launch a series of thrusts through the city to gage enemy resistance and gradually wear the enemy down. A colonel (Dave Perkins) thought the plan was ridiculous, and he decided that the best idea was to fight his way into the center of the city, and fight a 360 engagement from the center out. His plan was rejected, but he never actually heard that it was, so he went ahead and executed. Because he had success, the command went along and lent support, and Perkins plan was backed up and was ultimately successful.

There were many mistakes made, but quick thinking and aggressive actions saved the day.

HeyNav
08-21-2007, 06:20 PM
Go to Guardian web page
view video 0,,2125978,00

This is an impactful video.
I highly recommend viewing it!
It is an eye opener so many citizens need.

Thanks dawg
HeyNav