US plans last big push in Iraq (2 Viewers)

Previous Next
Shizzle -- yes, I'm an 05. I am currently in a training division -- we teach CGSC for RC officers. I manage about 15 instructors. I have 2 guys in Iraq now and 1 who just got back.

We get deployment notices frequently...alot of guys are voluntering. It's a huge pay raise for alot of us. There are guys wholike the lure of the adventure and the promise of promotion.

I went over 19 in May and already have enough points to request retirement. Time will tell.

I was mobilized for one year right after 9/11 -- I was a staff jerk at Army Forces Command in Atlanta.
 
If you try to choose a functional area over operational career field, you will get nailed. That's what happened to me as a senior captain...your branch will sell you down the river like a piece of cord wood and the functional area won't care one bit about you.
 
Look Who's Cutting and Running Now

James Baker is the last guy we should listen to about Iraq.

By Christopher Hitchens


...This will present few difficulties to Baker, who supported the Syrian near-annexation of Lebanon. In order to recruit the Baathist regime of Hafez Assad to his coalition of the cynical against Saddam in the Kuwait war, Baker and Bush senior both acquiesced in the obliteration of Lebanese sovereignty. "I believe in talking to your enemies," said Baker last month—invoking what is certainly a principle of diplomacy. In this instance, however, it will surely seem to him to be more like talking to old friends—who just happen to be supplying the sinews of war to those who kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Is it likely that they will stop doing this once they become convinced that an American withdrawal is only a matter of time?

At around the same time he made this statement, Baker was quoted as saying, with great self-satisfaction, that nobody ever asks him any more about the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991. It's interesting to know that he still feels himself invested in that grand bargain of realpolitik, which, contrary to what he may think, has not by any means been forgotten. It's also interesting in shedding light on the sort of conversations he has been having in Baghdad. For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it. This apprehension about another sellout is especially strong among the Shiite and Kurdish elements who together make up a majority of the population, but it seems from its public reports so far that the ISG has not visited the Kurdish north of the country. If Baker thinks that the episode is a closed subject, it shows us something of what the quality of his "listening" must be like.

In 1991, for those who keep insisting on the importance of sending enough troops, there were half a million already-triumphant Allied soldiers on the scene. Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, just waiting to be discovered by the inspectors of UNSCOM. The mass graves were fresh. The strength of sectarian militias was slight. The influence of Iran, still recovering from the devastating aggression of Saddam Hussein, was limited. Syria was—let's give Baker his due—"on side." The Iraqi Baathists were demoralized by the sheer speed and ignominy of their eviction from Kuwait and completely isolated even from their usual protectors in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing. There would never have been a better opportunity to "address the root cause" and to remove a dictator who was a permanent menace to his subjects, his neighbors, and the world beyond. Instead, he was shamefully confirmed in power and a miserable 12-year period of sanctions helped him to enrich himself and to create the immiserated, uneducated, unemployed underclass that is now one of the "root causes" of a new social breakdown in Iraq. It seems a bit much that the man principally responsible for all this should be so pleased with himself and that he should be hailed on all sides as the very model of the statesmanship we now need.
http://www.slate.com/id/2154164
 
Dave said:
Look Who's Cutting and Running Now

James Baker is the last guy we should listen to about Iraq.

By Christopher Hitchens


...This will present few difficulties to Baker, who supported the Syrian near-annexation of Lebanon. In order to recruit the Baathist regime of Hafez Assad to his coalition of the cynical against Saddam in the Kuwait war, Baker and Bush senior both acquiesced in the obliteration of Lebanese sovereignty. "I believe in talking to your enemies," said Baker last month—invoking what is certainly a principle of diplomacy. In this instance, however, it will surely seem to him to be more like talking to old friends—who just happen to be supplying the sinews of war to those who kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Is it likely that they will stop doing this once they become convinced that an American withdrawal is only a matter of time?

At around the same time he made this statement, Baker was quoted as saying, with great self-satisfaction, that nobody ever asks him any more about the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991. It's interesting to know that he still feels himself invested in that grand bargain of realpolitik, which, contrary to what he may think, has not by any means been forgotten. It's also interesting in shedding light on the sort of conversations he has been having in Baghdad. For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it. This apprehension about another sellout is especially strong among the Shiite and Kurdish elements who together make up a majority of the population, but it seems from its public reports so far that the ISG has not visited the Kurdish north of the country. If Baker thinks that the episode is a closed subject, it shows us something of what the quality of his "listening" must be like.

In 1991, for those who keep insisting on the importance of sending enough troops, there were half a million already-triumphant Allied soldiers on the scene. Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, just waiting to be discovered by the inspectors of UNSCOM. The mass graves were fresh. The strength of sectarian militias was slight. The influence of Iran, still recovering from the devastating aggression of Saddam Hussein, was limited. Syria was—let's give Baker his due—"on side." The Iraqi Baathists were demoralized by the sheer speed and ignominy of their eviction from Kuwait and completely isolated even from their usual protectors in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing. There would never have been a better opportunity to "address the root cause" and to remove a dictator who was a permanent menace to his subjects, his neighbors, and the world beyond. Instead, he was shamefully confirmed in power and a miserable 12-year period of sanctions helped him to enrich himself and to create the immiserated, uneducated, unemployed underclass that is now one of the "root causes" of a new social breakdown in Iraq. It seems a bit much that the man principally responsible for all this should be so pleased with himself and that he should be hailed on all sides as the very model of the statesmanship we now need.
http://www.slate.com/id/2154164
Click to expand...


Christopher Hitchens is the last guy I'd want to consult regarding what to do in Iraq.
 
RebSaint said:
Christopher Hitchens is the last guy I'd want to consult regarding what to do in Iraq.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with everything that Hitchens says or believes, but I agree wholeheartedly with his last paragraph. Where do you disagree with him? I'm not sure what the right course of action we should take in Iraq, but there definitely has to be a monumental change in what we are doing in Iraq. If we could stop policing and focus more on counterterrorism operations and continuing to train the Iraqi security forces then maybe we could make sure that the goverment doesn't collapse and Iraq is stable enough for us to leave. I'm not talking about an end to the violence. There will be an insurgency there for a while. What I am worried about is leaving Iraq too soon or in a way that hands power to Iran. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have said that we should get out now and that you could care less about the what the situation will be like if we withdraw our troops now. No offense to you personally, but you are the last person I would want to consult regarding what to do in Iraq.
 
Here's an interesting tidbit from the WaPo original:
The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Click to expand...
Interesting how that's become conventional wisdom - but it's also wrong:
Violence in Iraq Drops in Weeks After Ramadan
Nov. 20, 2006
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON – As expected, violence in Iraq has dropped following the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, a coalition spokesman said in Baghdad today.

Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said civilian and Iraqi security force casualties were at the lowest levels since the government was formed in May.

So far this month, the civilian casualty count is well below the casualty count in October and below the six-month average. The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks, he said.

“In Baghdad, there was a 22 percentage drop in casualties related to sectarian violence and executions,” Caldwell said during a televised news conference. “Coalition forces will continue to work closely with the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces to control the sectarian violence and terrorist attacks.”
Click to expand...
Which comes as no surprise to anyone who was paying attention. But that's from a military public press release - not a leaked secret study - so don't expect to see anything "in the paper" about decreasing violence - apparently it's something they'd prefer you not know.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/007157.html
 
Last edited:
Dave said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have said that we should get out now and that you could care less about the what the situation will be like if we withdraw our troops now. No offense to you personally, but you are the last person I would want to consult regarding what to do in Iraq.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Well, I would probably be a sight better than this administration's Vietnam War Era cast offs.

Yep. I think leaving would be the best course of action because there's really nothing left from a military standpoint to do. I actually think that leaving gives Iraq right now the best chance to survive. The United States has ZERO options left. What is there strategy-wise left to do regarding this low-grade guerrilla war?

I don't see what the hell else is there left to accomplish from a military standpoint. Let's go over the checklist again.
A. Saddam is gone
B. Constitution/government established--elections held
C. Iraq army/police force trained.
D. Roads, hospitals, basic infrastructure built.

What is there left to do? What am I missing here?

Why is the U.S. army still occupying Iraq? You can't answer that question, can you, and neither can the White House, so that's why the opposition party is in congress. Let the Iraqi people govern, police, and protect THEIR own sovereign nation.

What many don't seem to understand is that much of the violence I think stems from the fact that U.S. troops are STILL there. I don't think it will matter if the U.S. engages in more nation building or sends more troops, I think the results will be the same, because it's been the same since "victory" was declared.

There is no other "strategy" because it isn't a conventional war, it's a low-grade guerilla war where U.S. troops are just sitting ducks for the next roadside bomb or RPG attack. The only other option and strategy is handing the keys over to the Iraqis.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
BullDawg said:
Hey Shizzle...yup...looks like you'll be heading back to the sand. Stay safe. And good luck on the MAJ list.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "Good Luck"? i hear that the Army treats Major like the Air Force treats Staff Sergeant!

















Just kidding! Good Luck shizzle! :9:
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom