Capitalism

[VictorCharlie]

Military success is measured by two things. Killing of the enemy and the ability to take and hold terrain. There is no terrain in Iraq that the US military couldn't take and hold at will and comparing the body count is absurd. Our military cannot help that there was no defined mission or end state. Nor is their fault that even though 400K + soldiers were asked for they got 150K for the invasion. You seem to confuse errors by the Bush administration as synonymous with military failure. More importantly as you already mentioned by echoing what I had already said body count does not equal winning in an asymmetric war. There is no military solution in Iraq or any country with an active insurgency. That being said considering the crappy card the military was dealt going into Iraq it has performed tremendously. Sunni Arabs turned from AQI in tremendous numbers b/c of the great counter-insurgent policies implemented by the Marines in the Anbar province. They drove a wedge between the populace and the terrorist as per doctrine. Seeing the number of its tribe being massacred by terrorist acts and the number dying from direct engagements with Americans as well as a self imposed political isolation I'd say they made a pretty good choice. The US footed the payroll b/c the process of getting the Maliki gov't to pay up would have taken forever(it just did in the past year). I really love how SOFA, elections not run by the US and Iraq controlling their own oil is a bad thing. Does it matter if Bush got his hand forced on these issues? Are they not what should have happened? Stick to finances Kirk..Your out of your element

[Gandalf]

Miles I know you feel strongly about the Israel/Palestine issue, but I think you can agree that Israel is a stable country who is unikely to distribute nukes to extremists and would only use nukes in self defense. North Korea is woefully unstable and the prospect of it being nuclear armed could lead to even less savory groups obtaining such weapons. This stands true of Iran as well. I think as long as they are calling for the destruction of Israel (even if it is just lip service) and sponsoring terrorist groups the world should be wary of them becoming a nuclear power.

The bad countries already have the bomb. Including your own country and mine. North Korea has the right to defend itself too. It doesn't have nuclear arms but it has the right to them.

Israel should be destroyed and nuked to oblivion. Are you asking me if that is nice or not?

So Israel doesn't have the right to defend its self? I mean seriously you can't see that the world is a safer place with North Korea not having a nuclear arsenal?

I think the world would be a safer place if there were no nuclear bombs. I only ever recall one country using nuclear wepaons to harm people. They should all be sent into space as far as I'm concerned.

The Israel issue is a complicated one. I think there is self defence and there is being a bully. Israel has often taken on the role of bully in the Middle East, and that is just as dangerous as any North Korean threat to its neighbors.

[VictorCharlie]

I agree we would be better with no nukes, but is that a plausible reality?

[Gandalf]

I agree we would be better with no nukes, but is that a plausible reality?

No, not now, unfortunately. Which is why I think it's hypocritical of nations with nukes to try and dictate to nations who want to procure or develop nukes. There is no moral argument as far as I can see. If you have a deterrent then I should be able to have the same.

[CFH]

Military success is measured by two things. Killing of the enemy and the ability to take and hold terrain. There is no terrain in Iraq that the US military couldn't take and hold at will and comparing the body count is absurd. Our military cannot help that there was no defined mission or end state. Nor is their fault that even though 400K + soldiers were asked for they got 150K for the invasion. You seem to confuse errors by the Bush administration as synonymous with military failure. More importantly as you already mentioned by echoing what I had already said body count does not equal winning in an asymmetric war. There is no military solution in Iraq or any country with an active insurgency. That being said considering the crappy card the military was dealt going into Iraq it has performed tremendously. Sunni Arabs turned from AQI in tremendous numbers b/c of the great counter-insurgent policies implemented by the Marines in the Anbar province. They drove a wedge between the populace and the terrorist as per doctrine. Seeing the number of its tribe being massacred by terrorist acts and the number dying from direct engagements with Americans as well as a self imposed political isolation I'd say they made a pretty good choice. The US footed the payroll b/c the process of getting the Maliki gov't to pay up would have taken forever(it just did in the past year). I really love how SOFA, elections not run by the US and Iraq controlling their own oil is a bad thing. Does it matter if Bush got his hand forced on these issues? Are they not what should have happened? Stick to finances Kirk..Your out of your element

Hey Van, I have a question for you. It has nothing to do with politics or anything like that and I will keep my feelings about your government etc. out of the equation.

One of my profs, a very well regarded military historian, stated (and from what I know, I agree with him completely) that prior to the Iraq invasion the United States Military was the best fighting force the world had ever seen, capable of engaging and defeating any army in the world, including that of the Chinese. However (and this part I'm less sure of), he proceeded to state that as a result of the Iraq insurgency, the American Army was exhausted and stretched to its limit and is now a shadow of what it once was. As someone inside of this apparatus, do you feel this opinion is justified? Or is it simply an overstatement as a result of the backlash and negativity surrounding the war? How capable do you feel the US Military is now in terms of where it was prior to the invasion of Iraq?

I also agree with your statement that the army, from a military standpoint performed admirably in Iraq, and that it was the political leadership which led to the situation in which they found themselves. In my opinion, it had nothing to do with the way the army functioned in combat.

[VictorCharlie]

I don't think North Korea has any intention of using nukes on any one regardless of their rhetoric. That being said it is a very unstable nation. There are a myriad of scenarios where a NKR nuke could be used by a terrorist org or be used preemptively. I agree with Kirk in that I think their ability to build such a weapon are greatly exaggerated but not the ominous possibilities if it were true.

[Gandalf]

I don't think North Korea has any intention of using nukes on any one regardless of their rhetoric. That being said it is a very unstable nation. There are a myriad of scenarios where a NKR nuke could be used by a terrorist org or be used preemptively. I agree with Kirk in that I think their ability to build such a weapon are greatly exaggerated but not the ominous possibilities if it were true.

North Korea is a despicable state, but one that just wants to survive. Gaining access to nuclear weapons is just another means of self preservation. I agree with the both of you that the rhetoric is probably far more than what has actually been devloped in North Korea.

I would prefer North Korea to remain nuclear free, but could not argue a moral case againt them having the right to develop such an arsenal.

[VictorCharlie]

Military success is measured by two things. Killing of the enemy and the ability to take and hold terrain. There is no terrain in Iraq that the US military couldn't take and hold at will and comparing the body count is absurd. Our military cannot help that there was no defined mission or end state. Nor is their fault that even though 400K + soldiers were asked for they got 150K for the invasion. You seem to confuse errors by the Bush administration as synonymous with military failure. More importantly as you already mentioned by echoing what I had already said body count does not equal winning in an asymmetric war. There is no military solution in Iraq or any country with an active insurgency. That being said considering the crappy card the military was dealt going into Iraq it has performed tremendously. Sunni Arabs turned from AQI in tremendous numbers b/c of the great counter-insurgent policies implemented by the Marines in the Anbar province. They drove a wedge between the populace and the terrorist as per doctrine. Seeing the number of its tribe being massacred by terrorist acts and the number dying from direct engagements with Americans as well as a self imposed political isolation I'd say they made a pretty good choice. The US footed the payroll b/c the process of getting the Maliki gov't to pay up would have taken forever(it just did in the past year). I really love how SOFA, elections not run by the US and Iraq controlling their own oil is a bad thing. Does it matter if Bush got his hand forced on these issues? Are they not what should have happened? Stick to finances Kirk..Your out of your element

Hey Van, I have a question for you. It has nothing to do with politics or anything like that and I will keep my feelings about your government etc. out of the equation.

One of my profs, a very well regarded military historian, stated (and from what I know, I agree with him completely) that prior to the Iraq invasion the United States Military was the best fighting force the world had ever seen, capable of engaging and defeating any army in the world, including that of the Chinese. However (and this part I'm less sure of), he proceeded to state that as a result of the Iraq insurgency, the American Army was exhausted and stretched to its limit and is now a shadow of what it once was. As someone inside of this apparatus, do you feel this opinion is justified? Or is it simply an overstatement as a result of the backlash and negativity surrounding the war? How capable do you feel the US Military is now in terms of where it was prior to the invasion of Iraq?

I also agree with your statement that the army, from a military standpoint performed admirably in Iraq, and that it was the political leadership which led to the situation in which they found themselves. In my opinion, it had nothing to do with the way the army functioned in combat.

I'd say his statement is incorrect. That being said I never knew a peace time Army so I can't differentiate. One issue we are having is re-setting of equipment i.e. tanks, helicopters etc. The rigors of combat operations in two theaters non-stop has put a big strain on the ability for the Army to keep essentials in place. A lot of this has been helped through replacement depots being built in Kuwait. Personnel wise the Army has seen its best months of not only recruitment but re-enlistment in a long time. I think the biggest issue is how we train. There simply isn't enough time in a units 12-24 month dwell period to train adequately on both conventional and asymmetric warfare. The Iraq/Afghanistan wars definitely showed some cracks and antiquated ideas that the Army had. Its unfortunate that it takes sending the countries young men and women to combat to realize you need to fix some things. If tomorrow the US faced a protracted conventional war there would be an adjustment period, but nothing like what you saw in Iraq. Teaching soldiers the multifaceted world of counter insurgency is a much more profound undertaking then the very straight forward skills needed in a conventional total war. I hope I answered that to your satisfaction.

[CFH]

Military success is measured by two things. Killing of the enemy and the ability to take and hold terrain. There is no terrain in Iraq that the US military couldn't take and hold at will and comparing the body count is absurd. Our military cannot help that there was no defined mission or end state. Nor is their fault that even though 400K + soldiers were asked for they got 150K for the invasion. You seem to confuse errors by the Bush administration as synonymous with military failure. More importantly as you already mentioned by echoing what I had already said body count does not equal winning in an asymmetric war. There is no military solution in Iraq or any country with an active insurgency. That being said considering the crappy card the military was dealt going into Iraq it has performed tremendously. Sunni Arabs turned from AQI in tremendous numbers b/c of the great counter-insurgent policies implemented by the Marines in the Anbar province. They drove a wedge between the populace and the terrorist as per doctrine. Seeing the number of its tribe being massacred by terrorist acts and the number dying from direct engagements with Americans as well as a self imposed political isolation I'd say they made a pretty good choice. The US footed the payroll b/c the process of getting the Maliki gov't to pay up would have taken forever(it just did in the past year). I really love how SOFA, elections not run by the US and Iraq controlling their own oil is a bad thing. Does it matter if Bush got his hand forced on these issues? Are they not what should have happened? Stick to finances Kirk..Your out of your element

Hey Van, I have a question for you. It has nothing to do with politics or anything like that and I will keep my feelings about your government etc. out of the equation.

One of my profs, a very well regarded military historian, stated (and from what I know, I agree with him completely) that prior to the Iraq invasion the United States Military was the best fighting force the world had ever seen, capable of engaging and defeating any army in the world, including that of the Chinese. However (and this part I'm less sure of), he proceeded to state that as a result of the Iraq insurgency, the American Army was exhausted and stretched to its limit and is now a shadow of what it once was. As someone inside of this apparatus, do you feel this opinion is justified? Or is it simply an overstatement as a result of the backlash and negativity surrounding the war? How capable do you feel the US Military is now in terms of where it was prior to the invasion of Iraq?

I also agree with your statement that the army, from a military standpoint performed admirably in Iraq, and that it was the political leadership which led to the situation in which they found themselves. In my opinion, it had nothing to do with the way the army functioned in combat.

I'd say his statement is incorrect. That being said I never knew a peace time Army so I can't differentiate. One issue we are having is re-setting of equipment i.e. tanks, helicopters etc. The rigors of combat operations in two theaters non-stop has put a big strain on the ability for the Army to keep essentials in place. A lot of this has been helped through replacement depots being built in Kuwait. Personnel wise the Army has seen its best months of not only recruitment but re-enlistment in a long time. I think the biggest issue is how we train. There simply isn't enough time in a units 12-24 month dwell period to train adequately on both conventional and asymmetric warfare. The Iraq/Afghanistan wars definitely showed some cracks and antiquated ideas that the Army had. Its unfortunate that it takes sending the countries young men and women to combat to realize you need to fix some things. If tomorrow the US faced a protracted conventional war there would be an adjustment period, but nothing like what you saw in Iraq. Teaching soldiers the multifaceted world of counter insurgency is a much more profound undertaking then the very straight forward skills needed in a conventional total war. I hope I answered that to your satisfaction.

So you do not believe that the army, its resources, or its capabilities have been exhausted by the Iraq War. Perhaps he meant that the American Army would be unable to fight any other, more conventional-type wars while being tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure I understood him though. Anyways, thanks for answering.

[VictorCharlie]

If our leaders want military success they need to define victory better in the future. So given a well defined mission and parameters I do believe that our military still could give a timely and proportional response to just about anything in the world. Soldiers are really good at meeting standards and specific guidelines when they have the right tools. Ambiguity on the other hand tends to screw us all up.

[Andre]

You guys never had a hope of catching Bin Laden in Afganistan.
Their old women look just like their men so he would have dressed like an old krone on a donkey and just meandered out into Puckistan.

[Gandalf]

You guys never had a hope of catching Bin Laden in Afganistan.
Their old women look just like their men so he would have dressed like an old krone on a donkey and just meandered out into Puckistan.

I think Bin Laden is in London hiding out on the Underground. And I have a sneaky suspicion he has a map too. Don't tell anyone though, it's very hush hush.

[Kirkland Laing]

Military success is measured by two things. Killing of the enemy and the ability to take and hold terrain. There is no terrain in Iraq that the US military couldn't take and hold at will and comparing the body count is absurd. Our military cannot help that there was no defined mission or end state. Nor is their fault that even though 400K + soldiers were asked for they got 150K for the invasion. You seem to confuse errors by the Bush administration as synonymous with military failure. More importantly as you already mentioned by echoing what I had already said body count does not equal winning in an asymmetric war. There is no military solution in Iraq or any country with an active insurgency. That being said considering the crappy card the military was dealt going into Iraq it has performed tremendously. Sunni Arabs turned from AQI in tremendous numbers b/c of the great counter-insurgent policies implemented by the Marines in the Anbar province. They drove a wedge between the populace and the terrorist as per doctrine. Seeing the number of its tribe being massacred by terrorist acts and the number dying from direct engagements with Americans as well as a self imposed political isolation I'd say they made a pretty good choice. The US footed the payroll b/c the process of getting the Maliki gov't to pay up would have taken forever(it just did in the past year). I really love how SOFA, elections not run by the US and Iraq controlling their own oil is a bad thing. Does it matter if Bush got his hand forced on these issues? Are they not what should have happened? Stick to finances Kirk..Your out of your element

There wasn't any territory the US copuldn't take in the Vietnam battlezones but they still ended up being kicked out. Vietnam wasn't a military success for the US and neither was Iraq. Insurgencies can be beat and the US tried and failed in Iraq. And no matter how you try to rewrite history the fact is that America put Al Quaeda people on the payroll. The official line fed to the American people was, as almost everything else they were told about Iraq, bs. And on every level, from national to overarching strategy, the US got its arse kicked.

Being able to take and hold territory is irrelevant and out-Saddaming Saddam by killing lots of people was just counterproductive, something even the Bush administration eventually worked out. And SOFA, the elections run by other people and the Iraqis controlling their own oil were all second choices by the Bush administration, the last thing they wanted to happen. Bush fought for months and years to avoid doing all three things but eventually had to bend to the Ayatollahs' will and agree to do what they wanted.

It's actually quite anti-American of you to excuse and explain away massive failure like this. It's this kind of emporer/no clothes situation that's becoming more and more prevalent in the US, with disastrous choices by the country's leaders not discussed or excused and lied about. Creating a bubble around the elite so that even when they screw things up for the country they get excused and even lauded for it is the quickest way for empires to crumble and fade away.



Ex-insurgents Want More Money, or Else

July 25, 2008
AFP


The Iraqi officer leading a U.S.-financed anti-jihadist group is in no mood for small talk -- either the military gives him more money or he will pack his bags and rejoin the ranks of al-Qaeda.
"I'll go back to al-Qaeda if you stop backing the Sahwa (Awakening) groups," Col. Satar tells U.S. Lt. Matthew McKernon, as he tries to secure more funding for his men to help battle the anti-U.S. insurgents.
Most members of the Awakening groups are Sunni Arab former insurgents who themselves fought American troops under the al-Qaeda banner after the fall of the regime of executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Some, like Satar, had served in Saddam's army before joining Al-Qaeda. Others were members of criminal gangs before deciding to fight the insurgents, with the backing of the U.S. military.
They earn around 300 dollars a month and their presence at checkpoints and on patrol has become an essential component of the U.S.-led coalition's strategy to restore order in the war-wracked country.
"I like my work," said Satar, who is in charge of security south of Baquba in Iraq's eastern Diyala province.
According to McKernon Satar has a contract with the U.S. military to employ 230 men "but he has more than 300" under his command, which is why he wants more money to keep them happy.
The U.S. military knows perfectly well that many people joined Awakening groups simply because it was a good way to make money, and that if the cashflow dries up some would not hesitate to return to al-Qaeda.



Ex-insurgents Want More Money, or Else

[VictorCharlie]

Kirk you continually circle the same crap. I have never said that we should have invaded Iraq, endorsed the plan to invade nor the administrating of Iraq post invasion. Why you keep re-hashing them is beyond me. Your allusions to Vietnam are not supporting your argument at all. It in fact is never the foreign military that ultimately defeats insurgents but the indigineous gov't/people. So mirroring Iraq and Vietnam show exactly that winning battles (ie MILITARY SUCCESS) do not equate to defeating an insurgency. And yes much like I already stated taking and holding terriroty as well as body count are irrelevant to winning against an indigineous insurgency. It is almost comical that you are simply regurgitating my own thread back at me yet attempting to use it as a counter argument. I am not explaining away any failure nor am I under allusions of how history will treat it, but considering that I've walked the streets of Baghdad and met above mentioned insurgent in combat and soundly whipped his ass time and time again I think I can pretty safely say in the pure aspect of combat the military has been tremendous. Lethal force aside the tremendous work myself and thousands of other soldiers have done to improve housing, schools, roads, markets, water supply, power supply, business grants, medical facilities etc is immeasurable. The ony shining star in this whole shit sandwich has been the American militaries boots on the ground and you sir do those men and women a great disservice and disrespect to suggest otherwise. Considering we never should have invaded in the first place...at the moment the end state is going to be an Iraqi country whose people will ultimately decide its fate...regardless of the initial intentions of the invasion this is the only way it should be.

Now lets talk about the Son's of Iraq. Firstly as I have stated and you have re stated body count doesn't = winning. We were never going to diminish AQI through attrition. For gods sake they strap bombs to down syndrom teenage girls and march them into markets. In classic counter insurgency doctrine you have to force a wedge between the insurgent and the populace where you deny sanctuary to the insurgent and fear from the populace. Although I hate admiting it the Marines in Anbar were much better at this early on than the Army. Through living in the Sunni neighborhoods, forming relationships and viciously hunting combatants it forced this wedge. The Sunnis also needed the reconcilliation. By abstaining from elections they had marginalized themselves politically. Having their own security forces to secure their neighborhoods was a pretty good deal. I don't understand how you can't see the Sunni tribes deciding to work with the US as a perfect example of counter insurgency working. The insurgent was denied sanctuary, seperated from the populace and decided to get a safer job.

Much of the AQI violence was in fact not nor is it now directed at coalition forces but at Shia communities. Sectarian violence is not something that anyone but the Iraqi people can solve. I don't know if it will ever totally end. It is a horrible truth but not a problem to be laid at the feet of anyone but its respective parties.

[Andre]

I dont blame the people within the military for anythng really; but I do think they are hoodwinked to a degree by the Government and the Cia too.
Like the innocent kids from all the battalions that serve in Guantanimo Bay they are doing the job and doing it right. I doubt there is physical torture there.Its a dumping ground, the end of the line after all.
How a small few of those prisoners got there and what happened to them for the months prior to getting them there,is another Cia and(anti Geneva convention matter).
Wonder where they will place the 200 that they cant release who deserve to be in there when this new President gets his way and it closes down within the year?

Special services arent hoodwinked into anything though they actually go through a very bad night or two of degrading mental and physical torture in order to just get into the regiment and thats after they've been run into ground and think theyre home safe.Then the real work begins.Tough boys and girls.

Say a Prayer for all those on the ground this Easter who ever they are.
I think the Muslim extremists will be hunting them on double time during our Christian break.