PDA

View Full Version : Boots on the ground


Judy G. Russell
July 25th, 2006, 11:51 PM
It's only taken a little bit longer than the entirety of America's involvement in the Second World War, but the President appears to have FINALLY come to understand what any halfwit could have seen long before the Iraq war began: you can't win without boots on the ground. So NOW he's going to send more troops into Baghdad? Can we "a day late and a dollar short," boys and girls?

Lindsey
July 26th, 2006, 12:24 AM
So NOW he's going to send more troops into Baghdad? Can we "a day late and a dollar short," boys and girls?
I missed that pronouncement. But if you ask me, that plan has "Dick Cheney" written all over it. Can't we send him back to his undisclosed location and keep him there? Let Barney be the acting vice-president -- I think he'd improve policy tremendously.

--Lindsey

ndebord
July 26th, 2006, 09:33 AM
It's only taken a little bit longer than the entirety of America's involvement in the Second World War, but the President appears to have FINALLY come to understand what any halfwit could have seen long before the Iraq war began: you can't win without boots on the ground. So NOW he's going to send more troops into Baghdad? Can we "a day late and a dollar short," boys and girls?

Judy,

They are killing now at the rate of 100 a day in Iraq. A little late to decide to pacifiy Baghdad I think. Recently one "unnamed" high Iraq official said the best thing that could happen would be to partition Baghdad into East and West.

Think of this as the British in Palestine in 46-47. They pulled back from the countryside and consolidated their presence in the cities, prior to pulling out altogether. They were sustaining too many casualties trying to patrol the RRs and such thanks to the activities of Irgun.

Judy G. Russell
July 26th, 2006, 12:23 PM
They are killing now at the rate of 100 a day in Iraq. A little late to decide to pacifiy Baghdad I think. I'm afraid you're entirely right... All we're doing right now is prolonging the agony.

ndebord
July 26th, 2006, 07:28 PM
I'm afraid you're entirely right... All we're doing right now is prolonging the agony.


Judy,

History teaches us many things. In the case of the Zionist movement, it is teaching us that from 1900 to 2006 is but a short blip in the culture of the Near East and that a return to your ancestor's resting place may never sit well with the current inhabitants. The jury is still out on this one. The only thing we Americans can hope for is that there will be a successor to our succession of the British role in all this so we can put paid to the Near East*.

* BTW, I deliberately use the phrase Near East instead of Middle East, because when you are talking about a region that invokes the 9th and 15th centuries as just around yesterday's corner, older terminology can hold more weight imo.

Judy G. Russell
July 26th, 2006, 09:15 PM
The only thing we Americans can hope for is that there will be a successor to our succession of the British role in all this so we can put paid to the Near EastWell, I sure wouldn't count on that. Only we Americans have been stupid enough to come in with both feet in places where the Europeans have bolted, tail between legs (Vietnam being another prime example).

Lindsey
July 26th, 2006, 09:57 PM
I'm afraid you're entirely right... All we're doing right now is prolonging the agony.
Just like in Vietnam...

--Lindsey

ndebord
July 26th, 2006, 11:06 PM
Well, I sure wouldn't count on that. Only we Americans have been stupid enough to come in with both feet in places where the Europeans have bolted, tail between legs (Vietnam being another prime example).

Judy,

Vietnam was a bad deal from the start. There was no indication that the local populance supported any of the wannabe leaders in the South and our own military intelligence deliberately understated the quality and quantity of the Viet Cong. The CIA (for once) acted as an honest broker in evaluating just how many enemy combatants were active in the South, but in the end, they were not listened to by LBJ.

The argument could be made that Vietnam was necessary to prevent all of IndoChina from going Communist and that all along we, in our heart of hearts, knew it to be just a holding action, but we spit the bit in our own propaganda by insisting that we were winning when we were not. The Vietnamese had long experience in guerilla warfare, some would say going back to the 10th Century, as they resisted being reabsorbed into the Chinese Empire.

The French did their best, but their resources were diffused by a two-front war and the nearer of the two was closer to their heart (Algeria). Also, by this point in time, the French were a first-rate power in name only.

As I've said before, Viet Nam, for us and the French, was a royal cock up (I do love the brits for their wonderful use of language). It changed my life for sure.

The odd fact about the Viet Nam war was that the Tet Offensive by the Viet Cong resulted in their elimination as a fighting or political force. IF we could have found a truly GREAT leader in the South at that moment in time, Vietnamization had a sliver of hope to work, but only with continued massive naval and air support by the United States for an indefinite period into the future. And when I say "sliver" I do mean tiny opportunity. There were no George Washingtons in the South it seems.

Lindsey
July 26th, 2006, 11:51 PM
There were no George Washingtons in the South it seems.
Men like that don't come along every day. Maybe, if you're very lucky, once in a century. I'm not sure we'd have had a country at the end of the 18th century if it had not been for George Washington. He is really badly undervalued in the modern age, I fear.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 27th, 2006, 12:15 AM
Vietnam was a bad deal from the start.And this is different from Iraq exactly how?

Judy G. Russell
July 27th, 2006, 12:15 AM
Men like that don't come along every day. Maybe, if you're very lucky, once in a century. I'm not sure we'd have had a country at the end of the 18th century if it had not been for George Washington. He is really badly undervalued in the modern age, I fear.I couldn't agree with you more. But Washington and many of the Founders don't fit into the neocon right wing religious model, exactly, so to heck with them!

Judy G. Russell
July 27th, 2006, 12:16 AM
Just like in Vietnam...GMTA.

ndebord
July 27th, 2006, 09:47 AM
And this is different from Iraq exactly how?

Judy,

Your point being what? That Vietnam and Iraq are the same? Or that both are a bad deal. If the later, you and I are on the same page.

ndebord
July 28th, 2006, 08:33 AM
It's only taken a little bit longer than the entirety of America's involvement in the Second World War, but the President appears to have FINALLY come to understand what any halfwit could have seen long before the Iraq war began: you can't win without boots on the ground. So NOW he's going to send more troops into Baghdad? Can we "a day late and a dollar short," boys and girls?

Judy,

Yup, more boots and from the same pool of overworked grunts.

5,000 New U.S. Troops Planned For Iraq

"Any American family thinking their soldier is coming home soon from Iraq may be in for a nasty surprise. All flights out of there for troops at the end of their deployment are canceled, while the military tries to figure out how to make Baghdad safe."

http://www.nbc13.com/news/9582997/detail.html

Also, the 172nd Combat Brigade (3,700 strong), in country for one year, gets extended an additional four months (tentatively).

"Defense Department officials announced yesterday that the Army's 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, which has been deployed in Mosul since last summer, will be extended for as long as 120 days to boost security in Baghdad."

Lindsey
July 28th, 2006, 10:33 PM
Washington and many of the Founders don't fit into the neocon right wing religious model, exactly
Indeed not. I always knew Jefferson was a Deist, but I never realized until very recently that Washington was also one.

On the news this morning, I heard Tony Blair being quoted saying something on the order of: "No, we cannot negotiate a cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel, because that would be implying that there is a moral equivalence between them."

And my first thought was, "What the hell does that mean, 'moral equivalence,' and why is it more important than stopping the killing?"

And then I thought: This sounds like the same problem the 18th-century Americans had negotiating a peace treaty with the British at the end of the Revolutionary War -- the Brits even then thought they were too good to negotiate a treaty with mere colonial bumpkins. And it's also the reason for the snub Cornwallis tried to deal Washington at Yorktown, by sending a subordinate to the surrender ceremony (which Washington countered by sending a subordinate of his own). I guess Cornwallis didn't consider Washington his "moral equivalent." And he was right -- Washington was head and shoulders above him (and not just in physical stature).

--Lindsey

Lindsey
July 28th, 2006, 10:45 PM
"Any American family thinking their soldier is coming home soon from Iraq may be in for a nasty surprise. All flights out of there for troops at the end of their deployment are canceled, while the military tries to figure out how to make Baghdad safe."
I'm anxious to find out what this means for one of the members of my choral group, who was deployed last May and was scheduled to be home at the end of this month. I'm hoping he just made it out, as his unit was supposed to leave Iraq the middle of this month, and they had already terminated his overseas e-mail account.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 29th, 2006, 01:55 PM
I'm anxious to find out what this means for one of the members of my choral group, who was deployed last May and was scheduled to be home at the end of this month. I'm hoping he just made it out, as his unit was supposed to leave Iraq the middle of this month, and they had already terminated his overseas e-mail account.Unfortunately it may not be good news at all. They've essentially done a stop-loss in Iraq itself ... nobody seems to be coming home. Except, of course, in a box.

Judy G. Russell
July 29th, 2006, 01:56 PM
"Moral equivalence" is going to get us all killed.

Judy G. Russell
July 29th, 2006, 01:57 PM
Your point being what? That Vietnam and Iraq are the same? Or that both are a bad deal. If the later, you and I are on the same page.Not only that they're both a bad deal, but that we obviously didn't learn a damned thing from the first one.

Judy G. Russell
July 29th, 2006, 01:58 PM
This is really going to make it easier to fill enlistment quotas and get folks to reup... right...

Karl Semper
July 29th, 2006, 06:42 PM
Not only that they're both a bad deal, but that we obviously didn't learn a damned thing from the first one.

Who said that politicians are capable of learning anything other than how to get reelected? :confused:

Judy G. Russell
July 29th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Who said that politicians are capable of learning anything other than how to get reelected? :confused:I've never said it, but I do occasionally (foolishly) hope...

Lindsey
July 30th, 2006, 12:03 AM
Unfortunately it may not be good news at all. They've essentially done a stop-loss in Iraq itself ... nobody seems to be coming home. Except, of course, in a box.
I will have to e-mail him, but I dread having to ask the question. He was so looking forward to coming home. This guy served in Vietnam. As far as I'm concerned, he has more than done his time.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
July 31st, 2006, 01:59 PM
As far as I'm concerned, he has more than done his time.I'm sure he feels exactly the same way...

ndebord
July 31st, 2006, 02:48 PM
Not only that they're both a bad deal, but that we obviously didn't learn a damned thing from the first one.

Judy,

Oh we learned well the lessons of Vietnam. Our counter-insurgency program in 1975 was the best in the world. Even the Brits were impressed. When they did the riff back then, they cut funding for this and deliberately stuck their collective ostrich heads in the sand to forget that misbegotten war. The argument then was that they had to rebuild a broken army and by even focusing a tiny bit on counter-insurgency, they'd poison the well (so to speak).

Now, finally, they understand that ever since Mao, warfare has changed permanently and any old Tom, Dick or Harry can grab complete insurgency manuals off the web and start up a guerrila war.

Judy G. Russell
July 31st, 2006, 03:45 PM
Now, finally, they understand that ever since Mao, warfare has changed permanently and any old Tom, Dick or Harry can grab complete insurgency manuals off the web and start up a guerrila war.That much is true: they do understand that. They don't have a clue what to do about it, or what it might mean for where we should choose our battles...

ndebord
July 31st, 2006, 10:06 PM
That much is true: they do understand that. They don't have a clue what to do about it, or what it might mean for where we should choose our battles...

Judy,

The West (as a whole) has yet to come to terms with guerilla warfare. They have developed the intellectual capability to deal with it (war colleges, etc.), but not the political will to do what is necessary in terms of cost and casualties and time, which is the killer of all initiatives taken up by democratic regimes.

Judy G. Russell
August 1st, 2006, 12:24 PM
The West (as a whole) has yet to come to terms with guerilla warfare. They have developed the intellectual capability to deal with it (war colleges, etc.), but not the political will to do what is necessary in terms of cost and casualties and time, which is the killer of all initiatives taken up by democratic regimes.There's also the question of which wars, guerilla or not, are worth fighting, and that's something that needs to be resolved first.

ndebord
August 1st, 2006, 03:55 PM
There's also the question of which wars, guerilla or not, are worth fighting, and that's something that needs to be resolved first.

Judy,

It's not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I would say that is putting the cart ahead of the horse. If you don't know how to do the fighting, it doesn't matter whether or not your leadership picks the right or wrong wars.

Judy G. Russell
August 1st, 2006, 05:35 PM
It's not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I would say that is putting the cart ahead of the horse. If you don't know how to do the fighting, it doesn't matter whether or not your leadership picks the right or wrong wars.Okay, let's generally agree that the two have to go hand in hand: you have to decide which wars are worth fighting and learn how to fight those, no matter what kind of wars they are.

ndebord
August 1st, 2006, 06:29 PM
Okay, let's generally agree that the two have to go hand in hand: you have to decide which wars are worth fighting and learn how to fight those, no matter what kind of wars they are.

Judy,

We' not done well in the decision-making arena and neither have the Israelis imo.

Judy G. Russell
August 1st, 2006, 08:39 PM
We' not done well in the decision-making arena and neither have the Israelis imo.Agreed, on both counts.

ndebord
August 2nd, 2006, 09:28 AM
I will have to e-mail him, but I dread having to ask the question. He was so looking forward to coming home. This guy served in Vietnam. As far as I'm concerned, he has more than done his time.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

If I may ask, is he career Army or Guard?

Lindsey
August 2nd, 2006, 10:25 PM
Lindsey,

If I may ask, is he career Army or Guard?
Nope -- he's a city policeman. Army Reserve, I think. Or do you consider that career army?

--Lindsey

ndebord
August 2nd, 2006, 10:38 PM
Nope -- he's a city policeman. Army Reserve, I think. Or do you consider that career army?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Nope, just brain fog on my part. My fingers/brain were too lazy to type the other form of reserve callups used by this administration.

I'm sorry to hear that at this point in his life, he has to be in Iraq. I couldn't do it physically, much less mentally. Hope all is well with him.

Lindsey
August 2nd, 2006, 11:43 PM
I honestly wasn't sure whether you might consider the reserves "career military" or not.

I'm sorry to hear that at this point in his life, he has to be in
Iraq. I couldn't do it physically, much less mentally. Hope all is well with him.
Well, as I said, he's a policeman, and that's a pretty physically and mentally demanding job, too. But no police beat in the US could possibly prepare anyone for the chaos that seems to have become routine in Iraq these days. His assignment keeps him mostly in the Green Zone, but of course there's absolutely nothing over there that can be considered safe. He does sometimes have to accompany high-level officials who come to visit, and of course, that all by itself makes you a tempting target.

--Lindsey

ndebord
August 3rd, 2006, 09:24 AM
I honestly wasn't sure whether you might consider the reserves "career military" or not.


Well, as I said, he's a policeman, and that's a pretty physically and mentally demanding job, too. But no police beat in the US could possibly prepare anyone for the chaos that seems to have become routine in Iraq these days. His assignment keeps him mostly in the Green Zone, but of course there's absolutely nothing over there that can be considered safe. He does sometimes have to accompany high-level officials who come to visit, and of course, that all by itself makes you a tempting target.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Ugh. You have to get to and from the Green Zone, most of the time on Ambush Alley. Baghdad is quite possibily the least safe place in the whole country.

<sigh>

We had a similar road in 'Nam called the "street without joy" (or Ambush Alley) (Hwy 1). My best friend drove a deuce and a half up and down that road.

ndebord
August 3rd, 2006, 11:32 AM
Okay, let's generally agree that the two have to go hand in hand: you have to decide which wars are worth fighting and learn how to fight those, no matter what kind of wars they are.

Judy,

Remember that old saying? "Things are going to hell in a hand basket?"

Well today's news tells us what we already knew about Iraq, but our Prez denies is going on.

William Patey, a British diplomat, recently left Iraq and filed a report with the foreign office in London. He said, "The prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy."

Meanwhile, here in the states, the headline of the day says that U.S. Generals do not think our force structure here is broken, despite reports that over 2/3s of the Army's batallions are not combat ready and that all of the Reserve and Guard units are unusable in combat until they get resupplied (a 20 plus billion project as most of the gear used in Iraq has been destroyed by combat or the climate). This in the context of their having to beef up by almost a brigade, our strength in Baghdad itself to counter sectarian violence.

(You know it's desperate when they do this in a major off year election cycle.)

Judy G. Russell
August 3rd, 2006, 12:27 PM
...Meanwhile, here in the states, the headline of the day says that U.S. Generals do not think our force structure here is broken...The headlines are a bit different here later in the day: "U.S. Generals See Growing Threat of Civil War in Iraq" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-rumsfeld.html?hp&ex=1154664000&en=c38661723bdada83&ei=5094&partner=homepage) ...

ndebord
August 3rd, 2006, 08:22 PM
The headlines are a bit different here later in the day: "U.S. Generals See Growing Threat of Civil War in Iraq" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-rumsfeld.html?hp&ex=1154664000&en=c38661723bdada83&ei=5094&partner=homepage) ...

Judy,

One of the little facts of life in the British Empire is the filing of reports to critique jobs gone bad. They've always been willing to come to terms with their failings...maybe not right away, but eventually. We, OTOH, have done the opposite.

What scares me most is still the Neo-Cons and whether or not they are willing to go to war with Syria and Iran and push Israel in that direction. This could end up being the clash of civilizations that Bin Laden keeps harping about, courtesy of a mad cabal of intellectuals who rule the roost at 1600 Penn. Ave.

Judy G. Russell
August 3rd, 2006, 08:42 PM
One of the little facts of life in the British Empire is the filing of reports to critique jobs gone bad. They've always been willing to come to terms with their failings...maybe not right away, but eventually. We, OTOH, have done the opposite.This though was OUR generals today, not that British guy yesterday!

What scares me most is still the Neo-Cons and whether or not they are willing to go to war with Syria and Iran and push Israel in that direction. This could end up being the clash of civilizations that Bin Laden keeps harping about, courtesy of a mad cabal of intellectuals who rule the roost at 1600 Penn. Ave.I know... I know... that whole situation in the Middle East right now is terrifying. And with the mad mullah from Iran stirring the pot by saying the answer is to destroy Israel, oh joy...

Jeff
August 4th, 2006, 01:25 PM
This though was OUR generals today, not that British guy yesterday!

I know... I know... that whole situation in the Middle East right now is terrifying. And with the mad mullah from Iran stirring the pot by saying the answer is to destroy Israel, oh joy...

During a guest lecture I was giving to a university history class during Gulf War 1 I said that they could go off to spring break knowing that WWIII was happening and was well in hand. I was wrong. Oh lord, was I wrong.

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell
August 4th, 2006, 03:00 PM
I was wrong. Oh lord, was I wrong.It is truly terrifying... and today's wildly anti-American (and, worse, pro-Sadr) demonstrations in Iraq don't give me the warm fuzzies either.

ndebord
August 4th, 2006, 06:48 PM
It is truly terrifying... and today's wildly anti-American (and, worse, pro-Sadr) demonstrations in Iraq don't give me the warm fuzzies either.

Judy,

Sadr is the least of our worries. Dawa is totally infiltrated by Hezbollah. Some have said that southern Iraq and Hezbollah are one and the same. Add in Iran and you have a Shiite wedge in the heart of what once was almost total Sunni domination.

Judy G. Russell
August 5th, 2006, 12:17 AM
But hey... it's a democratic Shiite wedge!!!

ndebord
August 5th, 2006, 09:57 AM
But hey... it's a democratic Shiite wedge!!!

Judy,

You know that ad about Diamonds? The one with the misspellings?

But hey...it's a Damocratic Shiite wedge... <G>

Dawa is a scary organization.

Lindsey
August 7th, 2006, 12:42 AM
Ugh. You have to get to and from the Green Zone, most of the time on Ambush Alley. Baghdad is quite possibily the least safe place in the whole country.
Yeah; no safe places or jobs over there at all.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
August 7th, 2006, 01:03 AM
Some have said that southern Iraq and Hezbollah are one and the same.
I think in that case "some" are wrong. There is a couple of groups in Iraq that refer to themselves with the name "Hezbollah," but they are not connected to one another, nor are they connected to the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.

--Lindsey

ndebord
August 8th, 2006, 08:47 AM
I think in that case "some" are wrong. There is a couple of groups in Iraq that refer to themselves with the name "Hezbollah," but they are not connected to one another, nor are they connected to the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Many Shiites in southern Iraq owe their livelihood to the Iranians. When Bremer fired the Iraqi Army, guess who picked up their pay checks? (Some would say that almost half of ther regular army was Shiite...the elites of course being Sunni). Hezbollah and Iran are cheek and jowl in the south of Iraq, busy building their network of Viet Cong style organizations for the future. The blueprint is of mixed origin. Some would say Iranian Guard, some would say Hezbollah. The two organizations go back to the bad old days of the Shah and before.

Lindsey
August 8th, 2006, 10:49 PM
Hezbollah and Iran are cheek and jowl in the south of Iraq
As I said, Hezbollah in Iraq is not the same organization as Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are two different groups who happen to have the same name, which means "Party of God" in Arabic. And there's no way the group in Lebanon could go back to the days of the Shah when it didn't form until after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

--Lindsey