Republicans and Iraq - role playing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 5 2006, 10:35 AM) [snapback]314505[/snapback]</div>

No, I would not create a draft...

We don't have all of our forces in Iraq, nowhere near. The problem, unfortunately, is that the situation up until this point has been handled so poorly that the public perception is to avoid enlisting because you'll get sent to Iraq and die because the politicians are determining what happens in this war, not the people who know what they're doing.

I'd redeploy and double the troops in Iraq, get the job done, and then finish with Afghanistan. Frankly, I don't think we should have fooled around in Iraq UNTIL we were done creating a stable and self-sufficient government in Afghanistan, but that's just me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 5 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]314511[/snapback]</div>

I think that the soldiers are being held back from "just doing it" for political purposes... Do I think that needs to be waved in their faces? No, of course not. Any soldier with half a brain cell can figure out that when their RoE says they can't shoot enemy troops until they are fired upon (a la Vietnam), they're getting the big one shoved up their rear.

While I do not condone the deaths of civilians, the reality that we as Americans have chosen to ignore that in war, civilians get killed. No war in history has ever been executed without unnecessary civilian deaths. The difference is that in wars like WW2, we accepted this fact and while we didn't go after civilians or act without regard for civilians, we didn't sacrifice the lives of our own soldiers for fear of perhaps killing a civilian. It's WAR, people die, soldiers and civilians. If you want sterile and bloodless, then you shouldn't be involved in a war. War is hell, that's the reality, and if one side goes all out without regard for anything and the other acts like a bunch of sissy girls (no offense ladies), the sissy girls are going to get their asses handed to them every single time. You don't go to a knife fight with a psychopath and try to slap him to death...

I understand that this war isn't small potatoes... my point is that the reason the war is this bad is because we've completely dropped the ball up until this point. Frankly, I don't know if doubling the troops and cracking down would do anything, at this point... but certainly doubling down and going for broke is better than pussifying our soldiers and sacrificing their lives unnecessarily so the current idiot administration can say we're doing wonderful when we're obviously not and the idiot democrats can whine that we're intentionally killing civilians when we obviously aren't (on the whole).

This war is almost exactly like Vietnam. It was started for the wrong reasons, and because it was started for the wrong reasons, it's been a political war from day one. Because it's been a political war since day one, we can't actually fight it like a real war, because then the critics of the war might just tip the teetering opinion of the American people against the idiots in charge in both parties. As a result, we've allowed countless Americans to die unnecessarily, and the enemy to gain a foothold that they otherwise would not have gained if we had treated this like a war instead of disingenuously pretending it would be like a sterile and bloodless surgical procedure.

The doublethink is exactly the same as it was in Vietnam, the lashing out against critics of the war is exactly the same, and the general mood of the war almost exactly the same. Perhaps the only - and most important - difference is that this time the war protesters aren't attacking the troops directly... which seems to be a lesson they learned from Vietnam.

 

That's not just you. I can easily agree with that statement.

See, we created common ground. Now let's show Washington how to do it with our non-enemies (I didn't want to call them "allies" and use that term too loosely ) so they can all try together get things sorted out

We're both saying the administration handled it poorly. I think what we disagree on is what might be the best solution to the problem at hand though. I hope that the debate we have at our vantage point is severely limited and ill-informed compared to the debate happening at the command-level. It's scarey to think that this war might be based on the same gut-feeling and poorly substantiated claims. I see the logic of both directions: REDEPLOY, or redeploy... if you're arguing for either one, you're taking for granted some suppositions about what will go in your favor.

Hopefully either way everyone will get lucky and things will work out. I doubt that Iraqis like the situation any more than we do (and probably less) so hopefully transitioning the country more and more into their control will help because I'd take their desire for peace and security over our need for a tidy "victory" if that's what it takes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 5 2006, 11:13 AM) [snapback]314537[/snapback]</div>

Agreed.... I hope to God that it isn't... but based upon the behavior I've seen, it's a distinct posibility that it may be.

There are many, many things that are fundamental about the way in which our government and our country operates that must change if America hopes to withstand another 250 years of existence on this planet. Unfortunately, the problem lies not with our government... the problem lies with us as citizens. As V said:

Not necessarily us, meaning the current generation... but progressively, over the past several generations, we have enabled things to get to this point.

Unfortunately, the majority of the American people are not interested in the reality of the situation, much like our Government is not interested in the reality of the war. They are scared, and they believe that the Federal Government is the solution to all problems, both foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, it will be very difficult to break that perception, and it likely won't happen until some disaster befalls us that makes the realization of reality unavoidable.

 

Aside: I saw a little spot on CBS news or one of the other networks... it was about Iraqis waiting in line at gas stations. The upshot was the Iraqi government changed some rules, started enforcing more strictly, and overnight gas lines disappeared.

I don't know if it's localized, or widespread but it seems to me that little things like that will give Iraqis more confidence in their new leadership and less of a reason to be angry. It was small, but a little good news amid a lot of bad news was a relief.

 

I found this kinda scary the way its put:

America's Empire of Bases
by Chalmers Johnson


In his notorious "long, hard slog" memo on Iraq of October 16, 2003, Defense secretary Rumsfeld wrote, "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror." Correlli-Barnett's "metrics" indicate otherwise. But the "war on terrorism" is at best only a small part of the reason for all our military strategizing. The real reason for constructing this new ring of American bases along the equator is to expand our empire and reinforce our military domination of the world.

The full story:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

Rumsfeld: US military can handle other threats despite Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060829/ts_af...an_060829052307


And I couldnt begin to answer the question, What the landscape would look like in 6 months.
I would guess they will put in another us base in Iraq. As the article says world domination..

I think SteveS's post says it best, Go Steve..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 5 2006, 11:42 AM) [snapback]314556[/snapback]</div>

so what do you think the landscape would look like in iraq if we left there one year from that point?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 5 2006, 11:25 AM) [snapback]314545[/snapback]</div>

Allow me to clarify... I don't think they're being held back from winning the war, but I think that their ability to "just do it", to get the job done, is being restricted. Why? For the same reason we did it in Vietnam... Because they're afraid that if they give the military license to do what needs to be done, to go for broke, to treat this like an actual war, then the sentiments of the American people - who seem to want to deny the realities and horrors of war - will turn against them.

Obviously the failure in Iraq is hurting them bad, but by and large the "American people" are still clinging to the futile belief that we are not engaged in an occupation, and that we can somehow end this not-really-an-occupation quickly and easily and relatively bloodlessly...

If we end the delusion, then we have no choice but to confront the reality.

Remember that from the beginning this wasn't supposed to be an all out war and occupation... we were going to very surgically and sterily overthrow the government, be greeted as liberators, and everyone would be happy and things would be nice and easy. While the war against Iraq was very quick and efficient, we completely ignored the realities of the occupation that would follow... through that ignorance, we allowed what was once a small insurrection to become much larger than it ever should have.

To admit now that nothing short of all-out war will solve the problems we have created through our ineptitude will punch a huge hole in one of the fundamental "facts" of this war... It's an unfortunate situation... we cannot win this thing unless we treat it like we treated WW2 - as a WAR - but to do so is to admit that from the beginning this Administration ineptly planned and executed the war and the occupation...

The Administration appears to be more interested in allowing the charade to continue for political purposes than it is in cutting its losses, admitting its mistakes, and taking REAL steps to resolve them.

It's the same reasoning behind why we suddenly changed our reasons for invading Iraq in the first place... Politicians believe that any percieved ineptitude on their part will be responded negatively by the American People. Perhaps that is true, there must always be consequences, but the costs of allowing such a charade are very high... You can see this mindset in things other than the war in Iraq... Look at Social Security... Welfare... Taxes... Oil dependency... Labor problems... Politicians cling to the facade they have put up in front of the root problems, putting all their energy in to keeping up appearances... all the while hoping that somehow the problems they have caused will go away. They absolutely refuse to deal with the realities of a situation until the situation gets so bad and so out of control that they have no choice.

Of course, the blame doesn't lie entirely on the politicians... the true blame lies with us, for allowing them to behave in this manner. We all know in our hearts that the things I've listed are seriously messed up... but by and large, the American People behave exactly like the politicians... we take their assurances and delude ourselves into thinking that somehow things will get better, that people smarter than us will figure it out, that eventually some alternative will come up that will dig us out of the hole we have created, that the Government knows best and can solve all our problems if we just trust them. We never want to deal with the consequences of our mistakes until we absolutely have to. This is the mindset that is truly dangerous and that will bring about the destruction of this country (economically, ideologically, or physically, it does not matter) long before it will be destroyed from without.

We would be wise to recall the words of Abraham Lincoln:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 5 2006, 11:42 AM) [snapback]314556[/snapback]</div>

I don't wish to plug my own site unnecessarily, but I recently wrote an article that touches on this subject: http://www.libervangelist.com/blog/2006/09...ror-can-we-win/

In it, I discuss the sheer absurditity of believing we can ever win a "Global War on Terror" based upon the sheer number of enemies - who wear no uniforms - that we would have to fight. You folks might be interested in it, whether you agree with me and my positions or not.

We must keep in mind that the most important thing in democracy is dialogue. If we refuse to discuss the things that are going on around us, refuse to dissent, and refuse to challenge our self-delusions, then we have given up not only our freedoms, but also what makes a democracy a democracy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 5 2006, 11:48 AM) [snapback]314560[/snapback]</div>

I feel, If we left the landscape would have terrorists and or rebels take over the country.

If we stay, I think the country would slowly rebuild it self with our presence & assistance. and possibly have a democratic goverment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 5 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]314574[/snapback]</div>

LOL its the numbers proof thing again.. aged 42? I'd go!

Off Topic:
Intresting stuf can be found at the different parties web sites, on the different parties.

Democratcs:
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Republicans:
http://www.gop.com/

Independents
http://www.usiap.org/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 5 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]314563[/snapback]</div>

not really - try my supposition if you like.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 5 2006, 12:10 PM) [snapback]314572[/snapback]</div>

I agree. Kind of like vietnam only worse. We leave Iraq without stabalizing the situation there would leave the door wide open for Iran who is already in Iraq to completely rule the day there and gain power and additional control over the entire region. It would be supremely dangerous for us and all around them.

And now you see why Egypt and Saudi and Jordan gave Israel a green light to do away with Hezbollah/iran - too bad Olmert really messed that up - these ding dong libs/peaceniks - and now they have another war in front of them....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 5 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]314574[/snapback]</div>

According to this article on GlobalSecurity.org, we have approximately 138,000 ground troops in country. There are also an additional 30,000 in theatre.

According to this article on GlobalSecurity.org, our allies have another 20,000 troops in country.

Total US Iraq Committment: Roughly 138,000.

According to this article on GlobalSecurity.org, as of January 2005, we have roughly 250,000 troops actively deployed in combat around the world. But, look at this:

That means that right now, 12 out of the 37 combat brigades and regiments are deployed in support of combat operations... next year, it's planned to be 11 out of 43... 10 of the currently deployed combat brigades and regiments are in Iraq, totalling roughly 138,000 troops... Extrapolate those numbers and you'll see that we could easily double the amount of troops.

If that's not enough for you, further down the page, you'll note that out of the 34 combat brigades and regiments in the Guard, only 3 are in Iraq, and only 4 are deployed worldwide in support of combat operations.

If these numbers are at all accurate, we should have plenty of troops.

 

Also, just because we have that many military personnel does not mean we can activate them (or even 2/3 of them) all at once. I think that would be a disaster for our military no matter what the outcome in Iraq, and hurt recruitment and retention further.

And let's not forget that there's often trouble in more than one place in the world. If you don't already believe that the military is stretched thin, you might consider what that would do to us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 5 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]314607[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm not really one to believe we should be poking our noses in the business of other countries... Look at all the problems we're dealing with today that can be directly traced back to things we did during the anti-communist interventionist days. Imagine the problems we will have to deal with later with the things we're doing now.

However, I think you'd find (though I can't find exact numbers at the moment) that in World War 2, almost all of our troops were deployed... somehow we managed to make it through that.

Tell me, why would we have that number of troops if we could only use 1/3rd of them at any time? What the hell is the point of that?