Talk about SNAFU

[Judy G. Russell]

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

[Lindsey]

Wow. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound...

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Wow. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound...

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

I wrote this after my first visit to the wall in D.C. It seems we are once again disparaging our veterans.


WALL



No more torn by war and populance alike

the fallen rest now, entombed in black marble.

Only their names remain as lures for the curious,

who constantly eddy down the wall's low bulk.

And some few do come to pay homage and in passing,

tenderly lift out names embossed on paper,

to live again in honor in loved one's homes.

For the dead forever shall remain, sunken into stone.

Mute reminders from a war quickly set aside.

Only the wall true herald to their forgotten valor.

[davidh]

V. Oremus pro benefactoribus nostris.
R. Retribuere dignare, Domine, omnibus nobis bona facientibus propter nomen tuum, vitam aeternam. Amen.
V. Let us pray for our benefactors.
R. Deign to grant, O Lord, for the sake of Thy Name, eternal life to all those who do good to us.

http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Sancti/LitSanctorum.html

DH

P.S.
Boy, those Romans sure spared the prepositions and spoiled the inflections.

[Judy G. Russell]

Wow. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound...They're sending people out to personally apologize. That's the least they can do...

[Judy G. Russell]

Only the wall true herald to their forgotten valor.Let us hope we get past the war and to the wall as fast as possible this time around.

[Lindsey]

It seems we are once again disparaging our veterans.
That's a lovely poem. But who is disparaging the veterans?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

They're sending people out to personally apologize. That's the least they can do...
Indeed.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

That's a lovely poem. But who is disparaging the veterans?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

The Frat Boy...the Pentagon for not checking before sending out notices...any number of pols who never served and don't mind sending more boys out to die in a crazy adventure...the military planners who acquiesed in setting up an Shiite regime to replace a Sunni one where dominance is measured by the body count of the "Other."

All we need now is a major explosion in the Green Zone to remind us of the King David Hotel. Considering how "advanced" we have become in killing people, I would think we would need to "square" the 91 casualties of that day. Back then, that attack was enough to get the Brits to pull out of Palestine.

[ndebord]

Let us hope we get past the war and to the wall as fast as possible this time around.


Judy,

Looks like a "surge" is the order of the day. 2008 can't come fast enough to suit me. An interesting aside: Leahy and Specter are going to investigate the use of signing papers by GWB to void congressional laws.

[Judy G. Russell]

Looks like a "surge" is the order of the day. 2008 can't come fast enough to suit me. You and me both. He's firing generals who disagree with him -- again -- and doesn't really give a damn what anyone else thinks. Sigh...

An interesting aside: Leahy and Specter are going to investigate the use of signing papers by GWB to void congressional laws.As well they should. John Marshall (fourth CJ of the United States and author of Marbury v. Madison) must be spinning in his grave over those signing papers (and other gross violations of the separation of powers)...

[Lindsey]

The Frat Boy...the Pentagon for not checking before sending out notices...any number of pols who never served and don't mind sending more boys out to die in a crazy adventure...the military planners who acquiesed in setting up an Shiite regime to replace a Sunni one where dominance is measured by the body count of the "Other."
I think the politicians in Washington have, on the whole, taken the armed services and those who make up its rank and file for granted, which is certainly blameworthy on their part, but I don't see it as a deliberate disparagement of veterans.

The Pentagon is guilty of bureaucratic bungling, for sure, but that is not the same thing as disparagement, either.

As for the military: ultimately, the military does not exist to decide policy. The US Constitution very clearly puts the military under civilian control. It's the civilian government that decides strategy and policy, and while the military can advise the civilian authority, ultimately it is their duty to carry out what the civilian government orders them to do, and the only right they have of refusal is in the event of a clearly illegal order. The military had no say in what form of government would replace Saddam Hussein's regime; that was worked out among the Iraqis themselves in concert with the CPA. The CPA was a division of the US Department of Defense, true, but unless my understanding is completely wrong, it was a civilian authority, not a military one.

I would agree that we have made poor use of the armed forces in Iraq, and that that is a breach of the duty the civilian government in general, and the commander-in-chief in particular, have to make the wisest possible use of the lives that have been put at their disposal. That may be characterized as callous, as negligent, perhaps even as criminally negligent; I just don't see it as disparagement.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

As well they should. John Marshall (fourth CJ of the United States and author of Marbury v. Madison) must be spinning in his grave over those signing papers (and other gross violations of the separation of powers)...
You really must read Ackerman's Failure of the Founding Fathers. Marbury v. Madison (in conjunction with the related case Stuart v. Laird) is at the center of his discussion, and you, especially, would be interested in his analysis, whether or not you ultimately agree with it. Interestingly, he sees the two cases together as a strategic retreat by the Court in the face of the power of a presidency that had become a plebiscitarian office claiming a popular mandate. (It was not a complete retreat; Marshall delivered a slap at Madison and Jefferson in Marbury v. Madison, but the Federalist Court backed off short of an all-out confrontation with the Anti-Federalist executive and legislative branches in both cases.)

Where Bush goes wrong is that he cannot legitimately claim a popular mandate for the policies he is currently pushing.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

You really must read Ackerman's Failure of the Founding Fathers. Marbury v. Madison (in conjunction with the related case Stuart v. Laird) is at the center of his discussion, and you, especially, would be interested in his analysis, whether or not you ultimately agree with it. Interestingly, he sees the two cases together as a strategic retreat by the Court in the face of the power of a presidency that had become a plebiscitarian office claiming a popular mandate. (It was not a complete retreat; Marshall delivered a slap at Madison and Jefferson in Marbury v. Madison, but the Federalist Court backed off short of an all-out confrontation with the Anti-Federalist executive and legislative branches in both cases.)It may well have been that kind of a retreat at that time. Certainly Marshall sidestepped a fight he couldn't win. In the years thereafter, however, Marbury v. Madison took on a life of its own, establishing for all time (well, until recently) the supreme power of the Court to declare what is and isn't constitutional and, thereby, protecting the concept of separation of powers.

[ndebord]

Lindsey,

You are quite reasonable and logical in your approach to how the movers and shakers in the Congress may think in terms of the military, but I think you are wrong when you think disparagement is not an apt description of their attitude and behavior. The old saying, "you don't have a dog in this hunt" comes to mind when I think of how oversight or rather lack of oversight has helped to lead us into this mess.

If your sons and daughters are not in harm's way, you can safely indulge in degenerate political pragmatisim and let somebody else's children die in the place of yours.

[Lindsey]

protecting the concept of separation of powers.
Actually, it probably went a long way toward defining the concept of separation of powers. Part of Ackerman's premise is that the Constitution wasn't perfect and complete at its adoption; it took the next couple of decades to finish working out the basic principles on which constitutional democracy would operate.

Under a strict following of today's ethical guidelines, Marshall should have recused himself from that decision altogether: he was the Secretary of State who had failed to deliver the commissions that were the subject of the suit and thus was hardly a neutral party; instead he ended up writing the majority opinion -- and a good thing for the country that he did.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I think you are wrong when you think disparagement is not an apt description of their attitude and behavior. The old saying, "you don't have a dog in this hunt" comes to mind when I think of how oversight or rather lack of oversight has helped to lead us into this mess.

If your sons and daughters are not in harm's way, you can safely indulge in degenerate political pragmatisim and let somebody else's children die in the place of yours.
I would agree that the Congress has been derelict in its oversight duty, I just don't see that as a form of disparagement of the military. Nobody said, "The military doesn't deserve any better," which would be a disparagement. But I don't think anyone has even actually thought that, much less said it. Now: there have been some individuals who have seemed to hint that it's somehow the fault of the generals rather than the Bush or Rumsfeld that things have gone so badly in Iraq. I do see that as a disparagement, and a terribly unfair one, but I really don't think that's the view of any large number of people in Congress, or any large group at all, and in any case, it's a criticism aimed at the military leaders, not the rank-and-file.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Actually, it probably went a long way toward defining the concept of separation of powers. Part of Ackerman's premise is that the Constitution wasn't perfect and complete at its adoption; it took the next couple of decades to finish working out the basic principles on which constitutional democracy would operate.Ackerman is entirely right on that score. Things were hardly tidy in 1787!

Under a strict following of today's ethical guidelines, Marshall should have recused himself from that decision altogether: he was the Secretary of State who had failed to deliver the commissions that were the subject of the suit and thus was hardly a neutral party; instead he ended up writing the majority opinion -- and a good thing for the country that he did.Indeed. But then these days those ethical guidelines are essentially ignored. It's perfectly okay, for example, to go hunting with the vice president and then sit on a case involving him shortly thereafter... Maybe it was payback for not having been shot by the vice president?!

[ndebord]

I would agree that the Congress has been derelict in its oversight duty, I just don't see that as a form of disparagement of the military. Nobody said, "The military doesn't deserve any better," which would be a disparagement. But I don't think anyone has even actually thought that, much less said it. Now: there have been some individuals who have seemed to hint that it's somehow the fault of the generals rather than the Bush or Rumsfeld that things have gone so badly in Iraq. I do see that as a disparagement, and a terribly unfair one, but I really don't think that's the view of any large number of people in Congress, or any large group at all, and in any case, it's a criticism aimed at the military leaders, not the rank-and-file.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Respectively I think you are wrong here. It is easy to be derelict when you don't have a dog in the hunt and send others to die in your place. Degenerate elites that no longer do their own fighting make those kind of decisions.

Which is why I applaud the DNC's decision to push the campaigns of ex-Iraq Vets and CIA types to run for office throughout the heartland. There will be new blood which has bled for the country taking their place in Congress.

[Judy G. Russell]

Respectively I think you are wrong here. It is easy to be derelict when you don't have a dog in the hunt and send others to die in your place. Degenerate elites that no longer do their own fighting make those kind of decisions.Nick, I think you and Lindsey are talking past each other and thus not seeing where you agree.

You both agree that Congress has failed to provide oversight. You agree that there is insufficient consideration of the needs and interests of the troops in the field.

The only area where you disagree is in the specific use of the specific word "disparagement." There, I side with Lindsey, because of the meaning of that specific word: "a communication that belittles somebody or something." What you're talking about may be neglect or abuse or 100 other terms, but it isn't specifically disparagement.

[ndebord]

Nick, I think you and Lindsey are talking past each other and thus not seeing where you agree.

You both agree that Congress has failed to provide oversight. You agree that there is insufficient consideration of the needs and interests of the troops in the field.

The only area where you disagree is in the specific use of the specific word "disparagement." There, I side with Lindsey, because of the meaning of that specific word: "a communication that belittles somebody or something." What you're talking about may be neglect or abuse or 100 other terms, but it isn't specifically disparagement.

Judy,

It don't really want to get into a tussle over semantics, but these cynical, corrupt, degenerate pols who voted this war, then supported it, so long as they and theirs don't have to fight it, are disparaging those that do the fighting. They don't think of them as belonging to the same class, nor believe they have enough influence to deserve any attention by elites. So i stick with disparagement and that is the least disrespectful word of many I could name, to characterize this generation of politicans.

[Judy G. Russell]

i stick with disparagement and that is the least disrespectful word of many I could name, to characterize this generation of politicans.And I think you're being far too mild and should go with the stronger terms.

[Lindsey]

It's perfectly okay, for example, to go hunting with the vice president and then sit on a case involving him shortly thereafter... Maybe it was payback for not having been shot by the vice president?!
LOL!! I understand the VP is on his annual hunting trip as we speak (or write, or type, or whatever). I wonder who the brave souls were who went with him?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Respectively I think you are wrong here. It is easy to be derelict when you don't have a dog in the hunt and send others to die in your place. Degenerate elites that no longer do their own fighting make those kind of decisions.

Which is why I applaud the DNC's decision to push the campaigns of ex-Iraq Vets and CIA types to run for office throughout the heartland. There will be new blood which has bled for the country taking their place in Congress.
Actually, I think the only thing we're in disagreement about is whether "disparagement" is the right word to use, and that's a pretty minor thing. On the big stuff, I'm with you 100%. Very different decisions would have been made from the start if the children of the people sitting in Congress were the ones being sent on repeated tours of duty to Iraq. That is the one thing to be said in favor of a universal draft -- it does spread the sacrifice evenly -- hypothetically anyway. In reality the fattest of the fat cats will find a way around it, just like Daddy Bush using his political influence to get Georgie-boy a safe assignment with the TANG. But even an imperfect draft is a better equalizer than the current volunteer force.

The hell of the current situation is that it appears almost nobody really thinks this "surge" is really going to accomplish anything except maybe getting a lot more Americans killed and wounded, and making the people of the region just that much more resentful of us. This is a cosmetic exercise only, a way to make it look like the administration is actually doing something, while actually they're only trying, desperately, to hold things together long enough for it to be on someone else's watch when they finally blow apart. I have yet to hear anyone make an even halfway convincing case as to why what they are planning is going to work now when it hasn't before.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

What you're talking about may be neglect or abuse or 100 other terms
Abuse -- yeah, that's exactly what it is. They are abusing people who have put their lives on the line to defend this country by sending them out with inadequate equipment on ill-defined missions that have little or nothing to do with the actual defense of this country.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

LOL!! I understand the VP is on his annual hunting trip as we speak (or write, or type, or whatever). I wonder who the brave souls were who went with him?Combat troops in flak jackets...

[Judy G. Russell]

Abuse -- yeah, that's exactly what it is. They are abusing people who have put their lives on the line to defend this country by sending them out with inadequate equipment on ill-defined missions that have little or nothing to do with the actual defense of this country.That's certainly the word I'd use... considering I'm in (ahem) polite company here.

[Judy G. Russell]

The hell of the current situation is that it appears almost nobody really thinks this "surge" is really going to accomplish anything except maybe getting a lot more Americans killed and wounded, and making the people of the region just that much more resentful of us. You have to wonder if, really, anyone really believes it. Except maybe Mr. "God talks to me" Bush.

There is a belief among some of the really extreme right-wing Christians that the end of the world will come and heaven will come to earth when the Middle East explodes in the Apocalypse. It makes me afraid that some religious fanatics may be trying to hurry things along...

[ndebord]

Lindsey,

A very large filipino family is one of our closest friends. One of the men is a career Marine. Finally made corporal (was lance). He's off to Anbar (sp) province once again (3rd time) and thinks we've too few troops to hold and occupy ground taken (just like 'Nam).

The deal struck betweem Bush and Malaki (sp) seems to be of two parts. Security in Baghdad means stopping the Shiite death squads, either by the Iraqi Army or by the U.S. Army. In Anbar, the Marines, among others will concentrate on Al Qaeda. This, supposedly, is the only way to reinvolve the Sunnis in the government and stop a wider Civil War.

Don't think it will work. Fallujah, from personal accounts I've heard, was filled with Al Qaeda, few civilians and they fought to the death in fortified bunkers inside houses. They had to flatten the entire town to eliminate the fighters and most were foreign.

In Baghdad, Malaki undoubtedly will make token efforts to rein in the milita, but since this is precisely his power base, I doubt he'll have the will or the muscle to do it.

<sigh>

[ndebord]

LOL!! I understand the VP is on his annual hunting trip as we speak (or write, or type, or whatever). I wonder who the brave souls were who went with him?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

A little bird whispered in the Vice's ear. "Invite GWB and put him on point."

[Judy G. Russell]

A little bird whispered in the Vice's ear. "Invite GWB and put him on point."EEEK! That might be WORSE!

[Judy G. Russell]

The deal struck betweem Bush and Malaki (sp) seems to be of two parts. Security in Baghdad means stopping the Shiite death squads, either by the Iraqi Army or by the U.S. Army. In Anbar, the Marines, among others will concentrate on Al Qaeda. This, supposedly, is the only way to reinvolve the Sunnis in the government and stop a wider Civil War. Don't think it will work.I think it's guaranteed to fail. Completely and utterly but at an enormous loss of life -- theirs (militant, insurgent and civilian) as well as ours.

What a waste...

[ndebord]

EEEK! That might be WORSE!

Originally Posted by ndebord
A little bird whispered in the Vice's ear. "Invite GWB and put him on point."



Judy,

"Might?" Oh mistress of the understatement!

<VBG>

[Judy G. Russell]

"Might?" Oh mistress of the understatement!<blush...> I do try...

[Lindsey]

Combat troops in flak jackets...
Basic training for their next Iraq deployment, I guess. :(

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

You have to wonder if, really, anyone really believes it. Except maybe Mr. "God talks to me" Bush.
Joe Lieberman and John McCain are giving the plan lip service, but I can't believe they really think this plan has a serious chance of working. As Arianna Huffington pointed out on MSNBC tonight, we had 160,000 troops in Iraq at one time, and we couldn't pacify the country then; what makes us think we can do it now, in a far worse environment, by adding another 20,000 troops to the 70,000 that are currently there?

I am thinking of this as the "Payday Loan Strategy." We are borrowing against future deployments, decreasing the military's ability to respond down the road in order to afford the president a bit of cover for his bare ass today. And as everyone knows, payday loans are a bitch at payback time.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Don't think it will work.
No, I'm not optimistic either. Three and a half years ago, yeah, maybe. But there's too much water under the bridge at this point. I just don't see the death squads suddenly deciding to play nice. And the professionals have been fleeing the country in droves. Even if we could pacify the country tomorrow, it's been seriously drained of the people who could best help put it back together.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

No, I'm not optimistic either. Three and a half years ago, yeah, maybe. But there's too much water under the bridge at this point. I just don't see the death squads suddenly deciding to play nice. And the professionals have been fleeing the country in droves. Even if we could pacify the country tomorrow, it's been seriously drained of the people who could best help put it back together.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

There was a guy from The London School of Economics on CSPAN today who said that at this point, fragmentation of both Sunni and Shiite militas has progressed or is that regressed to the point where we're looking a bunch of petty warlord types. No social cohesion left, just civil war, ala Kansas and Missouri in another time and place.

[Judy G. Russell]

Basic training for their next Iraq deployment, I guess. :( Damnitall. I will shortly have two cousins over there, and I am sooo angry about this.

[Judy G. Russell]

I am thinking of this as the "Payday Loan Strategy." We are borrowing against future deployments, decreasing the military's ability to respond down the road in order to afford the president a bit of cover for his bare ass today. And as everyone knows, payday loans are a bitch at payback time.Exactly. And Bush can't be so stupid as to think his "legacy" is going to be any better if his successor has to clean up his mess than if he starts doing it himself. (Then again, every time so far I have said "Bush can't be so stupid," it turns out he really is.)

[Judy G. Russell]

No, I'm not optimistic either. Three and a half years ago, yeah, maybe. But there's too much water under the bridge at this point. I just don't see the death squads suddenly deciding to play nice. And the professionals have been fleeing the country in droves. Even if we could pacify the country tomorrow, it's been seriously drained of the people who could best help put it back together.And why in the world would you, as an Iraqi professional, go back to a country in tatters?

[Judy G. Russell]

There was a guy from The London School of Economics on CSPAN today who said that at this point, fragmentation of both Sunni and Shiite militas has progressed or is that regressed to the point where we're looking a bunch of petty warlord types. No social cohesion left, just civil war, ala Kansas and Missouri in another time and place.It sure looks that way, doesn't it? Talk about a breeding ground for terrorists. Oh yeah... we've sure made America safer, haven't we? About the only thing that's "safer" about it is that some of the terrorists find it easier to kill Americans in Iraq than to kill Americans here. Oh what a lovely use of our military...

[ndebord]

It sure looks that way, doesn't it? Talk about a breeding ground for terrorists. Oh yeah... we've sure made America safer, haven't we? About the only thing that's "safer" about it is that some of the terrorists find it easier to kill Americans in Iraq than to kill Americans here. Oh what a lovely use of our military...

Judy,

And this from The Decider's speech:


"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Some of the Senators and Representatives who interviewed Secretary Rice today took that little snippet to ask if this Administration was going cross borders into Syria and Iran and whether or not this signalled a willingness to go to war with either or both.

SEN BIDEN:

Does that mean the president has plans to cross the Syrian and/or Iranian border to pursue those persons or individuals or governments providing that help?

SEC. RICE: Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was just asked this question, and I think he perhaps said it best. He talked about what we're really trying to do here which is to protect our forces and that we are doing that by seeking out these networks that we know are operating in Iraq. We are doing it through intelligence. We are then able, as we did on the 21st of December, to go after these groups where we find them. In that case, we then asked the Iraqi government to declare them persona non grata and expel them from the country because they were holding diplomatic passports.

But the -- what is really being contemplated here in terms of these networks is that we believe we can do what we need to do inside Iraq. Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq.

SEN. HAGEL:

When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue, on the specific question -- will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night -- you cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand, but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didn't cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out. I will resist it - (interrupted by applause).

[Lindsey]

No social cohesion left, just civil war, ala Kansas and Missouri in another time and place.
a.k.a "Bleeding Kansas." :(

I think the guy from the London School of Economics has summed up the situation pretty well.

Sobering commentary today from Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/bush-sends-gis-to-his-private.html), as well:

The answer to "al-Qaeda's" occupation of neighborhoods in Baghdad and the cities of al-Anbar is then, Bush says, to send in more US troops to "clear and hold" these neighborhoods.

But is that really the big problem in Iraq? Bush is thinking in terms of a conventional war, where armies fight to hold territory. But if a nimble guerrilla group can come out at night and set off a bomb at the base of a large tenement building in a Shiite neighborhood, they can keep the sectarian civil war going. They work by provoking reprisals. They like to hold territory if they can. But as we saw with Fallujah and Tal Afar, if they cannot they just scatter and blow things up elsewhere.
--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Not to mention, of course, the problem of just how you "hold" territory where both friend and foe look alike and both friend and foe must be allowed to come and go with some ease of movement if you're not to turn friend into foe...

[Judy G. Russell]

And of course that whole issue came to the front in a BIG way today when it became clear that US troops had seized six Iranian nationals from a diplomatic mission in the Kurdish area... what a way to win diplomatic friends...

[Lindsey]

Damnitall. I will shortly have two cousins over there, and I am sooo angry about this.
And so you should be. I'm angry, and I don't have any direct family members involved. But I cannot watch the litany of casualties on PBS's News Hour, or hear the stories of the fallen on NPR's Morning Edition, without wanting to weep. And at this point, what is it for, except to bolster a spoiled rich man's ego?

You probably have heard this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/) from Lisa Myers at NBC; if not, I will warn you: it will probably only make you more angry.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Lindsey,

<<But as we saw with Fallujah and Tal Afar, if they cannot they just scatter and blow things up elsewhere.>>

Actually, they both fought and cut and ran in Fallujah. Those left behind were mainly Alqaeda, but according to some of the reports from the Marines, they left behind a fighting force of a few thousand and they were dug in with interlocking tunnels, machine gun nests, mortars, RPGs, mines, booby traps, somewhat akin to Iwo Jima in WWII, but minus the hardware the Japanese had available and the difficult terrain. More like Stalingrad in terms of being house to house, room by room and the rules of engagement made it hard to blow them up at the beginning of any engagement. Of course, as the fighting got worse, the rules became elastic.

Hence the flatenning of the city.

[Lindsey]

A little bird whispered in the Vice's ear. "Invite GWB and put him on point."
The scary thing about that is that it would leave us with Darth Vadar as president...

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

You probably have heard this story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545885/) from Lisa Myers at NBC; if not, I will warn you: it will probably only make you more angry.I hadn't read it. I'm forwarding it to my Senators.

[Lindsey]

Exactly. And Bush can't be so stupid as to think his "legacy" is going to be any better if his successor has to clean up his mess than if he starts doing it himself. (Then again, every time so far I have said "Bush can't be so stupid," it turns out he really is.)
I worry that Bush is not so much stupid as single-minded and delusional. The comments I'm hearing about his plans for Iran and Syria are frightening. One speculation (and I can't remember precisely where I heard this, but I think it was probably Countdown): the seemingly bizarre decision to replace Gen. Casey with a guy from the Navy may have been based, not on an assessment of his suitability for handling Iraq, but because a guy with some knowledge of fighting an air war would be necessary to go after Iran.

And then there was that raid on the Iranian consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan that I fear has legitimized, in the eyes of many, the Iranian takeover of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979. Are they deliberately trying to provoke an Iranian response, a la Gulf of Tonkin? If so, said an MSNBC commentator, the strategy wasn't working, and he reminded viewers that the Iranians have great influence with Hezbollah; they wouldn't need to retaliate directly in order to retaliate.

"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them at home." Yeah, right.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

And why in the world would you, as an Iraqi professional, go back to a country in tatters?
Precisely. Some of them might come back, if they were convinced that things had been pacified (a very big if), out of a sense of duty to tribe or maybe even country, but that will be a very few.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

More like Stalingrad in terms of being house to house, room by room
Ah, yes. The War of the Rats. And it wasn't the invading Germans who won that one, was it? We could clear and hold territory against the Germans in Europe because the population of the territory was on our side -- they wanted the Germans out as much as we did. But it's not like that in Iraq. They may not care for the militias or the death squads, but they don't like us any better.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I hadn't read it. I'm forwarding it to my Senators.
This sort of thing is not unique to this conflict or this administration, unfortunately. I remember something similar (http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted.db&command=viewone&id=67) concerning the rifles that were used in Vietnam. As I recall reading the reports at the time (and relying on memory that goes back almost 40 years is a very iffy thing, even when you refresh it a bit), the Army was piqued that a proposed replacement for their M-14 rifle, the AR-15 (the replacement that would eventually become the M-16) had been developed for the Air Force. They resisted the new design with every bureaucratic means available to them, including, some charged, rigging the tests against the AR-15, which I believe had a lower muzzle velocity than the M-14, or maybe it was just lower than the Ordnance Department thought it should be. (A lower muzzle velocity is not necessarily bad; correct me if I am wrong Nick, but I believe a lower muzzle velocity can -- within limits -- actually do more damage than a higher one because the bullet will tend to tumble when it strikes the target.)

The Army insisted on a higher muzzle velocity, and to achieve that, the Ordnance Department specified a different propellant for the ammunition than the one specified by the gun's designer. The substituted propellant left a dirty residue in the gun which would cause the gun to jam unless it was meticulously cleaned. This problem was not helped by the fact that the Army initially did not issue cleaning kits with the M-16s. Remember soldiers writing home early in this war asking their families to get them proper body armor? In Vietnam, the soldiers were writing home asking for cleaning kits for their guns.

We never seem to learn, do we?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Damnitall. I will shortly have two cousins over there, and I am sooo angry about this.

Judy,

One of those nephews I have, is going back to western Iraq as part of the 'Surge." C5 cargo plane, I think, as a mechanic. His mother told me he has logged over 100 flights into Iraq so far.

[ndebord]

Ah, yes. The War of the Rats. And it wasn't the invading Germans who won that one, was it? We could clear and hold territory against the Germans in Europe because the population of the territory was on our side -- they wanted the Germans out as much as we did. But it's not like that in Iraq. They may not care for the militias or the death squads, but they don't like us any better.

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

I don't see the political analogy. Actually the Sunnis (who fled the city and left it to the Jihaddists to fight), want us around these days (in Baghdad and other areas close to Shiite territory) to protect them from Shiite milita death squads.

Our casualities in Fullujah were light in relation to the difficulty of the terrain. We've come a long way since Stalingrad in how urban warfare is prosectued. The training we've undertaken in our American deserts have paid off in spades. Troop strength, intelligent strategy and all that is another story.

The foreign fighters died to a man in Fallujah and we did NOT suffer the same ratio of casualties that we did in the Pacific campaigns in WWII. Not that it was easy, far from it.

DARN. My big fingers and small keys. That is most definitely a NOT SUFFER above.

[Lindsey]

Actually the Sunnis (who fled the city and left it to the Jihaddists to fight), want us around these days (in Baghdad and other areas close to Shiite territory) to protect them from Shiite milita death squads.
I hope you're right -- if we've gotta be there, it would be nice to think that somebody over there wants us! Unfortunately, at least some commentators are saying we seem to have chosen to take the Shia side in this fight. (And yet, at the same time, we are targeting the one anti-Iranian Shiite group in Iraq: Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Not that they're particularly charming folks...)

Whatever the Sunnis in Baghdad think, though, Sunnis in al-Anbar are another question. Juan Cole says:

The clear and hold strategy is not going to work in al-Anbar. Almost everyone there hates the Americans and wants them out. To clear and hold you need a sympathetic or potentially sympathetic civilian population that is being held hostage by militants, and which you can turn by offering them protection from the militants. I don't believe there are very many Iraqi Sunnis who can any longer be turned in that way. The opinion polling suggests that they overwhelmingly support violence against the US.


Apparently, we're even getting into fights with the Kurds (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12raid.html?ei=5094&en=584bde7a750714ff&hp=&ex=1168578000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all) these days. :(

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

This sort of thing is not unique to this conflict or this administration, unfortunately. I remember something similar (http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted.db&command=viewone&id=67) concerning the rifles that were used in Vietnam. (A lower muzzle velocity is not necessarily bad; correct me if I am wrong Nick, but I believe a lower muzzle velocity can -- within limits -- actually do more damage than a higher one because the bullet will tend to tumble when it strikes the target.)
--Lindsey

Lindsey,

There were 3 problems with the M16: A light bullet, you couldn't really hit anything at distance and what you did hit often would NOT fall down with just one shot, so you had to shoot them multiple times; didn't have a chrome barrel initially, so it fouled; the Springfield Armory changed the powder which increased fouling (and the subsequent investigations led to the closing of the Armory which wanted the updated Gerard (M14) to be used instead.

The sad thing is that Stoner also had the AR10 which blew up at a demo at the Armory because the idiot in charge sent an experimental aluminum/steel alloy weapon which wasn't ready for prime time. The AR10 used 7.62 ammo and would have been a better choice.

In Afghanistan, complaints were made by the 10th that the enemy wouldn't drop when hit with the current version of the .223 caliber bullet used in the updated M16s currently in service. SOGs have been using Ak-47s yet again.

P.S.

For instance, with the M14, I could hit a target the size of a head at 600 yards. Couldn't do that at 300 yards with an M16, or even 200, as it was just not a long range weapon. But I could fire a burst with a M16 and hit something at a closer range, as it doesn't pull up.

If I tried that with an M14, I'd end up shooting at the sky before finishing the burst. Just for comparision, with an AK47, I could fire off an entire burst and hit the target with all or most of the ammo.

Of course, now, no matter what I have in my hands, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

[Judy G. Russell]

We never seem to learn, do we?Sigh... no, we don't.

[Judy G. Russell]

One of those nephews I have, is going back to western Iraq as part of the 'Surge." C5 cargo plane, I think, as a mechanic. His mother told me he has logged over 100 flights into Iraq so far.My thoughts and best wishes go with him and your whole family on this, Nick. It is terrifying to think of losing a loved one to war -- and devastating to think of losing a loved one to a foolish and unjust war.

[Judy G. Russell]

I worry that Bush is not so much stupid as single-minded and delusional.You're right, but the end result won't be any different.

And then there was that raid on the Iranian consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan that I fear has legitimized, in the eyes of many, the Iranian takeover of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979. Are they deliberately trying to provoke an Iranian response, a la Gulf of Tonkin?I'm afraid that's exactly what they're trying to do.

[Judy G. Russell]

Precisely. Some of them might come back, if they were convinced that things had been pacified (a very big if), out of a sense of duty to tribe or maybe even country, but that will be a very few.Consider New Orleans as an analogy: those who left generally aren't coming back, and we're not talking about returning to a war zone there!

[Dan in Saint Louis]

I'm afraid that's exactly what they're trying to do.
The thought has been expressed to me that W hopes Congress WON'T give him the money for 20,000 new targets in Baghdad, because then when it all goes to hell he can blame THEM for it.

[Judy G. Russell]

The thought has been expressed to me that W hopes Congress WON'T give him the money for 20,000 new targets in Baghdad, because then when it all goes to hell he can blame THEM for it.You know as well as I do that when (not if, but when) it all goes bad, he's going to be blaming everybody but himself anyway.

[ndebord]

My thoughts and best wishes go with him and your whole family on this, Nick. It is terrifying to think of losing a loved one to war -- and devastating to think of losing a loved one to a foolish and unjust war.

Judy,

He's young and has no kids or wife yet. This is his adventure. The other ones I worry about have kids and if they go back, I'm terrified. Not that I'm not terrified about this one, but it gets to the point of having to rationalize or measure out fear and that is not something I want to have to do. The analogy would have been to have been an E6 and have to pick who walks point. I'm the type who'll do what is necessary when asked, but don't like to have to pick out who else has to do out of the ordinary details.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm the type who'll do what is necessary when askedI would hope we could all rise to that level, Nick. But having to send someone out when the risks are so great and the reasons are so small... oh Lord... I couldn't do it.

[Lindsey]

Ak-47s yet again.
Gotta admit, the AK-47 is just about the perfect infantry gun, and for sure it is the perfect gun for an insurgent movement. There's an anecdote in that article I linked to about an AK-47 that was bulldozed up by a group of Americans in the course of some operation, along with the remains of a VC soldier who had buried there for a year or so. One of the officers picked up the gun, said, "Let me show you what a real infantry weapon will do," loaded a clip, and fired off 30 rounds as if the gun were fresh off a gun rack rather than fresh out of the ground.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

and we're not talking about returning to a war zone there!
I think they might have been better off if it had been -- there might at least then have been something left.

One of the really sad things about New Orleans is that it is one of the few cities we have -- maybe just about the only one any more -- where a significant number of the inhabitants were from families who had lived there for generations. That was a big part of what made up its culture. And now that is all completely disrupted.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

One of the really sad things about New Orleans is that it is one of the few cities we have -- maybe just about the only one any more -- where a significant number of the inhabitants were from families who had lived there for generations. That was a big part of what made up its culture. And now that is all completely disrupted.It sure is sad. I have a couple of cousins who are still displaced... and on one side their families had been in NO since roughly 1812.

[ndebord]

I would hope we could all rise to that level, Nick. But having to send someone out when the risks are so great and the reasons are so small... oh Lord... I couldn't do it.

Judy,

Well, in defense of my sense of self-survival, in the military "asked" generally means "told."

<g>

[ndebord]

Gotta admit, the AK-47 is just about the perfect infantry gun, and for sure it is the perfect gun for an insurgent movement. There's an anecdote in that article I linked to about an AK-47 that was bulldozed up by a group of Americans in the course of some operation, along with the remains of a VC soldier who had buried there for a year or so. One of the officers picked up the gun, said, "Let me show you what a real infantry weapon will do," loaded a clip, and fired off 30 rounds as if the gun were fresh off a gun rack rather than fresh out of the ground.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

It is the perfect medium range weapon. Not that accurate in comparison to others, but after all is said and done, it is the closest thing to unbreakable ever made in this category.

[Judy G. Russell]

in defense of my sense of self-survival, in the military "asked" generally means "told."I know... and I could not be the one to do the telling.

[Lindsey]

It sure is sad. I have a couple of cousins who are still displaced... and on one side their families had been in NO since roughly 1812.
I had only recently discovered that I had distant cousins who were in New Orleans at least as late as 1964, and had been there since at least 1850. If they were still there in 2005, I'm not sure I'd be able to find them now.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

I know... and I could not be the one to do the telling.


Judy,

Nor I, which is why I turned down OCS at that time.

[Judy G. Russell]

JNor I, which is why I turned down OCS at that time.I can certainly understand that...