Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Killing the war by slow strangulation means getting troops in the field killed (UPDATE)
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, February 14, 2007

A few days ago I talked about how the surge (or additional troops or the escalation, pick your term) can be stopped by Congressional Democrats. Noting that the developing strategy was to tie additional funds for Iraq to the readiness of units in the US I said:
Given the fact that I feel that we are on dangerous ground in terms of readiness, I also feel that the surge is a mission which should be given a chance to work, even with the explicit admission that this is the last chance the administration has to make it work. In military terms doing so would be considered an "acceptable risk" in terms of readiness. It is a risk I think should be taken at this particular time and for only a relatively short time, but taken nonetheless.

So while I think that the point about readiness is an important one, I also think that the reason it is being raised now has much less to do with real concerns about readiness and much more to do with thwarting the President's surge plan by any means possible. To distill it into one word: politics.
At the time I talked about it, hearings were underway, conducted by John Murtha:
Murtha's subcommittee questioned a parade of witnesses last month to determine how much military stocks around the country have been depleted. Army commanders, including its officer in charge of equipping soldiers, disclosed that units in bases at home rarely have enough basic equipment such as Humvees and heavy machine guns to carry out daily training exercises.

"The question they asked us was what will the readiness of the rest of the Army be when we finish this surge," Lt. Gen. Stephen M. Speakes, the Army's chief of force development, told The Politico. "We asked them for immediate support of supplemental funding" to maintain unit readiness.

Army commanders have also told Congress that no stateside unit is now certified as fully ready for war.
That developing strategy is now being reported by The Politico as the new Democratic strategy for ending the war in Iraq. In essence, instead of just defunding the war by refusing to approve any further war funds for Iraq, they will end it by slow strangulation by denying funds in other areas which will eventually effect the Iraq effort. They will tie stateside readiness into future funding for Iraq. They're also going to mount a political pressure campaign with some 'allies' to do so:
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.
Why this approach? It should be obvious:
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
Politics. It is all about circumventing their "biggest political vulnerability" while still defunding the war. Shorter version: kill the war without political consequences despite the possibility of lethal consequences on the battlefield.

Instead of growing a pair and standing up and saying "no more war, we're defunding the whole thing", they'll let it fall in on itself by cutting funding here and there and eventually, everywhere.

What that means is we'll start seeing shortages of essentials like equipment, ammunition, armor, etc., begin to show up in Iraq as state-side units are further stripped of equipment to support those in the field. And, of course, by doing that, commanders in the US are guaranteed they'll never meet the readiness levels demanded by Murtha et al before Congress will release additional funds for Iraq.

Catch 22.

What's disgusting about this is it's all about politics. Dangerous politics. Gutless politics. Politics which, despite Democrat's non-binding resolutions declaring their eternal support for troops in the field are going to get Soldiers and Marines in Iraq killed.

UPDATE: And the strategy isn't going to work. Matt Stoler at MyDD:
It's pretty obvious at this point that the Democratic leadership isn't serious about ending the war in Iraq. They won't defund the war, and keep repeating the meme that cutting off funding for the war means cutting off funding for the troops.

It's time for the blogs to stop giving them a pass.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What that means is we’ll begin seeing shortages of essentials like equipment, ammunition, armor, etc., begin to show up in Iraq as state-side units are further stripped of equipment to support those in the field. And, of course, by doing that, commanders in the US are guaranteed they’ll never meet the readiness levels demanded by Murtha et al before Congress will release additional funds for Iraq.
Doesn’t that provide a counter talking point that Congress is denying funds for stateside readiness? AFAIK, Congress doesn’t get into the transferral of equipment within Army units.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Getting our troops killed is SUPPORTING them. Do you question our patriotism? This is quasi-fascist of you to assert. Just ask Erb.
 
Written By: Erbfan
URL: http://
Killing the war by slow strangulation means getting troops in the field killed.
Absolutely that’s what it means. That is also what having them in the field at all means.]

I just want to emphasize the point that the Democrat’s strategy here—to benefit them politically in a vastly odious way—is to make us lose this war.

But I’m not questioning their patriotism, it’s just that they are patriotic to an America which does not and can not exist.

The dream they love can only be a dystopia, and the more so the more closely they implement it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I gotta admit...this is one of the more morally bankrupt and gutless approaches I’ve ever seen.

The war is so wrong, but not wrong enough for the Dems to take real action to stop it now I guess. Can’t spend that precious political capital in a Presidential campaign season! Gotta push through that minimum wage hike!

Profiles in courage one and all.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Doesn’t that provide a counter talking point that Congress is denying funds for stateside readiness? AFAIK, Congress doesn’t get into the transferral of equipment within Army units.
I’m not sure it does, Mark. They’ll release funds for stateside readiness, but that’s pretty much something that can be controlled and slowed and delayed, but I’m not sure it can be characterized as "denial".

They know what the military will do and they know how to slow that transfer through funding.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Don’t blame the Congress, blame the President. He’s the commander in chief, if Congress makes it difficult and is going to slowly stangle the war, then the President has the task of taking the military out, not Congress.

Your frustration is misplaced; you need to confront the fact you’ve been wrong about this war, fundamentally and completely. Confront reality!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I agree with Erb, it’s the President’s fault that Congress will kill our troops. Why? Rovian mind-control rays developed by neocons which secretly control House Democrats to kill funding and cause more deaths of U.S. troops and Iraqis. This is all Bush’s fault! You need to confront this fact! Repent!

But this worked in Vietnam. You stupid conserva-tards don’t get it. We have 30 years and we control the media and universities. In 30 years the genocide in Iraq after the US retreat will be seen as a great victory in Iraq. We did it once, we can do it again. Rewriting the history books is easy, because history isn’t real, it’s a social-gender-class contruct.
 
Written By: Reality-Based
URL: http://
Don’t blame the Congress,
For the decisions of the Congress?
blame the President.
For the decisions of the Congress?
He’s the commander in chief,
And Congress has sole power of the purse.
if Congress makes it difficult and is going to slowly stangle the war, then the President has the task of taking the military out,
not Congress.
And hanging the resulting defeat to Congress on a platter, since it’s theirs.
Your frustration is misplaced;
No, we need to be pissed at the Democrats in Congress when they play games that kill Americans to no purpose.

If the Dems want us out of Iraq, they owe it to the country to defund the effort in an unambiguous way—-True or False?
you need to confront the fact you’ve been wrong about this war, fundamentally and completely. Confront reality!
Coming from someone who can’t figure out we were defeated in Vietnam in 1975 because we defunded the minimal effort required to preserve the status quo circa 1972, that’s funny.

That time, your screw up only cost us 58,000 lives in vain.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
That time, your screw up only cost us 58,000 lives in vain.
Largely in vain. The only good thing to come of it and Carter’s debacle in Iran, is that the Sovs were emboldened to try Afghanistan.

That’s a pretty thin silver lining.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & fpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
You’re presuming Bush will go along and sign bills that put restrictions on his abilities to do what he wants?

So Murtha throws some restrictions into the Defense appropriations... Bush vetoes the entire package and demands that Congress not play games with the budget that leave our entire military unfunded. Or Bush signs the bill and then does what he wants anyway, claiming he can do so as Commander in Chief and daring Congress to impeach him. Do you think Murtha and crowd are willing to play chicken?

I remember when Clinton and the GOP were going through a bit of the same thing, when Clinton refused to sign appropriation bills he didn’t like and shut the government down and blamed the GOP. True, Clinton had the media on his side, but if the public got upset because some national parks were closed, I figure the public, at least those not in the radical left, will be more upset with the Democrats than with Bush.

Of course, this presumes that Bush and his P/R team had some abilities to manage the debate...
 
Written By: steve
URL: http://
You’re presuming Bush will go along and sign bills that put restrictions on his abilities to do what he wants?
Actually it’s not about that at all. It’s about the gutlessness this strategy emphasizes.

Either grow a pair and stop the war by cutting off funding or let the President prosecute it. Isn’t that what the left keeps insisting they elected these people to do?

But don’t do stuff that’s politically advantageous but will get soldiers killed to protect your political @ss.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Largely in vain. The only good thing to come of it and Carter’s debacle in Iran, is that the Sovs were emboldened to try Afghanistan.
Tom, how solid is the Afgan link?

If so, can we blame the Watergate Congress for bin Laden & 9/11?
Don’t blame the Congress, blame the President. He’s the commander in chief, if Congress makes it difficult and is going to slowly stangle the war, then the President has the task of taking the military out, not Congress.
Scott, you really know how to make yourself look stupid. Unlike most of the other lefties who post here, you actually sometimes say something smart. But then you write something that completely undercuts your credability.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But don’t do stuff that’s politically advantageous but will get soldiers killed to protect your political @ss.
Why not? Isn’t that essentially win-win from a Democrat perspective?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But don’t do stuff that’s politically advantageous but will get soldiers killed to protect your political @ss.
I gotta say, that’s been their MO so far.
They’ve encouraged the enemy by demonstrating they can win the battle for Iraq in the American politcal arena and media for the better part of 3 years.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Tom, how solid is the Afgan link?
Not really. I’m just trying to think of something positive about the Vietnam War other than that its a good object lesson about how not to abandon a war effort.
If so, can we blame the Watergate Congress for bin Laden & 9/11?
I wouldn’t do it. Too much separation and butterflies fluttering their wings.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Erb,

So if I am wrong about the war it is alright for Congress to do things that leads to soldiers like my brother getting killed?

So if I am wrong about the war we cannot notice when someone does something in the most cowardly, destructive manner possible?

So if I may be wrong about the war, it is okay to actually insure that the war goes even worse, or to in essence make the "mistake" turn out the way you think it should, regardless of the consequences?

It is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to sabotage something and claim it proves how right you were. If the war is so unjust, fight to win a vote to withdraw the troops, don’t leave the troops hung out to dry. I guess this should be at least one instance where everyone should be able to agree they are not supporting the troops?
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Lance, I agree. I think we see the crucial coalesence of a "chicken dove". Someone who refuses to "grow a pair" and enact legislation that follows their convictions, but rather enacts a wierd form of passive aggressive policy guaranteed to increase the death toll by leaps and bounds just so to say I told you so.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Looker,
They’ve encouraged the enemy by demonstrating they can win the battle for Iraq in the American politcal arena and media for the better part of 3 years.
They positioned themselves that if the Iranians, Syrians and all the Sunni Arab terrorists did maintain a continuing stream of killings in Iraq, that this shall constitute a defeat to American eyes. Now three years down and several tens of thousands dead later it has happened. However you go much further and accuse them of encouraging the enemy to do these things. Newsflash - the enemy were going to do this anyway it is why they are called the enemy. The Dems have merely taken political advantage of the GOP failure to defeat the enemy.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
"when Clinton refused to sign appropriation bills he didn’t like and shut the government down and blamed the GOP."

Nitpicking, I know, but Clinton vetoed the appropriations bills and Gingrich refused to pass new ones or a "clean" continuing resolution.


I know someone will correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it only a year or so ago that we were being reassured that we could maintain the current effort in Iraq without hurting readiness? I seem to remember wondering how they could keep the training center at Ft. Irwin going when at least part of the opposing force cadre was in Iraq.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Not really. I’m just trying to think of something positive about the Vietnam War other than that its a good object lesson about how not to abandon a war effort.
It seems to me that what "we learned" from ’nam was mostly false. In large part this was because people don’t know how "we lost".
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The Dems have merely taken political advantage of the GOP failure to defeat the enemy....to help the enemy defeat the United States America, possibly leading to a wider-war in the Middle-East, the overthrow of the democratic Iraq republic and genocide and tryanny for Iraqis. YAY FOR DEMS!!! WHOOPEE! STICK TO THAT EVIL FASCSIT CHIMP!**


(** even if brown people get to be oppressed and die - after all, we Leftists did in Vietnam, why not again?)
 
Written By: Dems = Racist Haters
URL: http://
They positioned themselves that if the Iranians, Syrians and all the Sunni Arab terrorists did maintain a continuing stream of killings in Iraq, that this shall constitute a defeat to American eyes.
And if the Iranians, Syrians, and Sunni Arabs are able to continue a stream of killings, this does not in fact comprise a defeat of America per se. That the Democrats adopted that position makes it so. You convict them with your own post.
The Dems have merely taken political advantage of the GOP failure to defeat the enemy.
We haven’t lost until we lose, and leaving prematurely is a certain way to do that. And since when should anybody get a free pass when they take domestic political advantage by creating a situation that both prolongs a war and makes it a certainty we will lose it?
I know someone will correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it only a year or so ago that we were being reassured that we could maintain the current effort in Iraq without hurting readiness?
Not when the Democrats are moving the goalposts as to what is "ready".

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I seem to remember wondering how they could keep the training center at Ft. Irwin going when at least part of the opposing force cadre was in Iraq.
When I went to the NTC in the mid 1980’s to train fighting against a Soviet MRR, that’s because we weren’t actually fighting against Soviet MRRs anywhere in the world.

Since we aren’t raising new green formations to send to Iraq, I’m not certain what the use of the NTC would be.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
They’re training in COIN, convoy protection, patrolling, and they have a nice "Iraqi village" all set up and functioning. Big change.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
And since when should anybody get a free pass when they take domestic political advantage by creating a situation that both prolongs a war and makes it a certainty we will lose it?
If they were to take an army, invade and then occupy whilst neighbours attacked for 3 years without making any retaliation against the neighbours. If they were to use a highly effective offensive fighting force for defense only in a very exposed position. If they were to state that the strategy was to wait indefinitely until things improved, because this action was only a first step in a very large war against a very few bad apples who do terrorism (and are definitely not related to any particular religion). If so maybe they wanted to have a prolonged conflict and more than a few people would rally to their cause.

 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
If they were to take an army, invade and then occupy whilst neighbours attacked for 3 years without making any retaliation against the neighbours.
I don’t know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if a Democratic President had acted as I understand you claim George Bush had acted, you would give them a free pass?

Are you claiming, with the difficulties we have had in sending an additional division of ground troops into Iraq, that we should have had a wider ground war right away? Are you saying we should have drafted enough soldiers that that wouldn’t be an issue? Are you claiming that the more severe chaos resulting from our leaving Iraq promptly with no occupation would be a good thing or just immaterial? Are you claiming that bombing alone would be a sufficient deterrent against Iran? Are you claiming that the threat of bombing wasn’t effective against Syria?

What direction are you slinging your BS, Unaha? Your writing is not clear.
If they were to use a highly effective offensive fighting force for defense only in a very exposed position.
Again, we’re talking about what the Democrats are doing with this attempt at stealth defunding, why are you changing the subject! And again what is your alternative to occupation? I don’t think you have a better idea, and you aren’t addressing the Democrat’s ideas at all. You must approve of them then?
If they were to state that the strategy was to wait indefinitely until things improved,
1) That is not the strategy.
2) If the change in ROE’s and mission focus called the "surge" does not work, at the price being willingly paid, we can still simply outlast our opponents and win this thing even that way.

Why isn’t even that better than losing, which is what the Democrats want us to do?
because this action was only a first step in a very large war against a very few bad apples who do terrorism
A war against the people so infected by the Islamofacist worldview that the did terrorism here on an intolerable scale, remember that, and they’d do it on a wider scale if they could. If we don’t stop them, they will.

It’s also a very large war against the worldview itself, and always has been. What were you thinking?
(and are definitely not related to any particular religion).
Since the administration was excoriated by the left and the MSM (I know, that’s redundant), I know you don’t mean Bush. Who are you talking about?
If so maybe they wanted to have a prolonged conflict and more than a few people would rally to their cause.
Well the Democrats wouldn’t, they want to go home and pretend it’s all a bad dream.

They think we should think accepting thoughts about unconstitutional goals like universal healthcare programs.

Unaha, you are incoherent.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
This is all speculation.... the Dems will do this the Dems are doing that.....
Hey, I know, I know, you are all such great predictors. Does anyone actually have any real evidence that this is happening. The low side of politics shows up almost everywhere.
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
Hey, I know, I know, you are all such great predictors. Does anyone actually have any real evidence that this is happening. The low side of politics shows up almost everywhere.
You’ve got two separate stories from two different times both pointing to the same conclusion. You figure it out.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
You’ve got two separate stories from two different times both pointing to the same conclusion. You figure it out.
If that doesn’t make it a fact i guess nothing does.
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
If that doesn’t make it a fact i guess nothing does.
Well it appears it certainly won’t if it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions, that’s clear.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
I don’t have any preconceived notions about this matter.
I was however, hoping to see evidence, not mere speculation.
I would guess that I could find two different stories from two different times that would support almost any position that I cared to espouse.
It does not make it fact. That is all I am trying to say.
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
So if I am wrong about the war it is alright for Congress to do things that leads to soldiers like my brother getting killed?
Congress didn’t give orders to send those people into battle. The President did. If the President determines that public will to continue with this fight is fading (and it is) and therefore Congress, reflecting public opinion, is going to work against it, then the President should recognize that it is HIS responsibility to end the fighting and bring the troops home. He is the Commander in chief, he has to win the public to a cause for war. If he cannot, he should not fight that war.
It is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to sabotage something and claim it proves how right you were. If the war is so unjust, fight to win a vote to withdraw the troops, don’t leave the troops hung out to dry. I guess this should be at least one instance where everyone should be able to agree they are not supporting the troops?
The President is commander in chief, he is responsible, not Congress. Face it, like Vietnam, we’ve gotten involved in an immoral, unjust war. If the President won’t end it, the people have to. And we will! Bitch and moan, whine that "we would have won if the ’left’ hadn’t sabotaged things’ and all that. That’s all irrelevant, silly and laughable. The fact is that we’ve caused a lot of death and destruction and we’re calpable for that. And as much as you may protest, a lot of us (now with the majority of public opinion on our side) are going to make that cause strongly and without apologies. And there is nothing you can do about it except whine and hurl out silly, impotent accusations. This war was wrong, it is wrong, and the public does not support it.

The President is responsible for all deaths if he continues down this path. He can end it; he doesn’t.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Congress didn’t give orders to send those people into battle.
No, but Congress said the war would happen. Now, the Democratic Congress is trying to get away with saying the war will keep on happening, but not in a way that could be won, and we’re too chickensh!t to call a halt to it.

Is Scott Erb okay with that?
He is the Commander in chief, he has to win the public to a cause for war. If he cannot, he should not fight that war.
The Congress tells him what to do, to go to war or not. The Congress should be unambiguous about that, the constitution makes that the Congress’ job.

Is it acceptable to Scott Erb they aren’t doing that job?

Is is acceptable to Scott Erb that soldiers will continue to die while the Democratic Congress refuses to do it’s job?
Face it, like Vietnam, we’ve gotten involved in an immoral, unjust war.
And if you keep on saying such ridiculous things, well, you might carry the day anyway.

Then we will have an immoral and unjust war in Iraq like the one we conducted in Vietnam.

Of course, there wasn’t anything immoral or unjust about it until we abandoned the effort.

Just ask the piles of skulls in the killing fields of Cambodia, or the boat people, or the people who didn’t get to leave Vietnam and had to live with what the Congress which pulled us out of Vietnam wrought.
whine that "we would have won if the ’left’ hadn’t sabotaged things’ and all that.
I see vets with t-shirts that read, "We were winning when I left." And they aren’t lying, and they aren’t wrong.

Leaving Vietnam was the most stupid thing this nation has done since the Versaille Treaty set the stage for WWII, and it was done for no good purpose whatsoever. Nothing was gained strategically by it, and no great burden was shed.

What you are so proud of accomplishing was a disaster which the success of your views caused.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Face it, like Vietnam, we’ve gotten involved in an immoral, unjust war.
Tony Lake tried to convince me of that in college; it was revisionist BS then, and it’s revisionist BS now...


sir.
 
Written By: Scott Crawford
URL: http://
The President is responsible for all deaths if he continues down this path. He can end it; he doesn’t.
Congress can end it also Scott.

They can end it today as a matter of fact. They control the purse strings.

If the war is worth ending, why do they not do it now? Why wait for a sloooooooooow ending? Or bother with nonbinding useless resolutions for that matter?

Why exactly Scotty?

Explain that to me Scott. Be specific.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I was however, hoping to see evidence, not mere speculation.
One of the things you carry between your ears is a brain which allows you to gather information, validate it and correlate it. That leads to thinking (laying out all the information you’ve gathered and examining it critically) and thinking leads one to conclusions.

You seem to want to skip all the intermediate steps and have someone spoon feed you conclusions that fit your perceptions (and you call those perceptions "facts). And you assume that anyone can’t do that or won’t do that doesn’t have a valid argument. Sorry, doesn’t work that way.

Like I said, you figure it out.

The facts are the hearing have been held. The facts are Murtha has stated he plans on finding a way to stop the surge. The fact is he’s stated he’s going to tie money for Iraq to unit readiness in the US. The fact is there is a anti-war ad campaign being put together to support this campaign by Murtha. I assume you are able to put 2 + 2 together.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
They’re training in COIN, convoy protection, patrolling, and they have a nice "Iraqi village" all set up and functioning. Big change.
That’s fine, but you don’t need an MRR worth of people to pull that off do you?

I should hope by now that convoy protection and patrolling has been ingrained in all of our units. The NTC didn’t attempt to teach tank battalions gunnery when we went there; that was something we did all the time.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
That’s fine, but you don’t need an MRR worth of people to pull that off do you?
I don’t disagree, Mark ... just noting that the NTC is still functioning and doing other stuff.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Hellocyj - this is just a testing, don’t worry about it
 
Written By: Testermza
URL: http://testerybn.com
How was vietnam immoral and unjust? Unless you are on the side of totalitarians (like I even need ask that! oh course you are...)
 
Written By: T
URL: http://
. . . the President should recognize that it is HIS responsibility to end the fighting and bring the troops home. He is the Commander in chief, he has to win the public to a cause for war. If he cannot, he should not fight that war.
Excuse me, but shouldn’t the President lead instead of following opinion polls? Isn’t it his duty to do what is right, not what is popular? And didn’t he have opinion on his side when this began? Isn’t it both stupid and immoral to pull out now ’cause things have been hard?
Face it, like Vietnam, we’ve gotten involved in an immoral, unjust war.
Neither war was immoral or unjust. One could reasonably argue they were mistakes, but arguing they were immoral or unjust reflects an immature, narcissistic, and amoral world view.
(now with the majority of public opinion on our side)
I’m not sure that’s true. I suspect quite a few think the way we have been conductiong the war is a mistake, but that doesn’t mean they agree with you.

And, even if they do agree with you, if this reflects a switch in their opinion it sorta suggests they have the least valuable opinion of all. The opinion of those that lack the stones to follow through, who quit due to minor difficulties . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Leaving Vietnam was the most stupid thing this nation has done since the Versaille Treaty set the stage for WWII, and it was done for no good purpose whatsoever. Nothing was gained strategically by it, and no great burden was shed.
Tom, if you view it through the eyes of a leftist who hates the US and freedom, then leaving Vietnam was a very good thing, indeed.

It’s all in the viewpoint.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
How was vietnam immoral and unjust? Unless you are on the side of totalitarians (like I even need ask that! oh course you are...)
Same question I had.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What direction are you slinging your BS, Unaha? Your writing is not clear.
Tom,

I am pessimistic, I believe both American parties are in the process of slow burning a conflict in Iraq with no hope of success. The Dems are on the quicker arc to defeat and the GoP the longer. I consider peaceful resistance to tyranny as doomed to failure and that is the nub of both parties strategy - Iran, Syria, Saudi are left to their own device.

I am a warmongering chickenhawk and a surrender monkey coward, because either attacking or withdrawing would be better than staying and being defensive. Iraq is an exposed pocket that must either be reinforced & expanded or surrendered.

Hope this clears it up.

Angus
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Unaha, you haven’t explained how the surge and its accompanying change in methods are defensive.

I think it would behoove you to do so.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tom

The surge is reliant upon action within Iraq. Whereas the drive for insurgency is coming from Iran and Syria and other places. By definition any action to meet/resist an enemies attack is defensive.

The suppliers can safely ride out the initial thrust of the surge and once they have determined the new American methods can exploit any deficiencies. Same problem as now exists will occur.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
The surge is reliant upon action within Iraq. Whereas the drive for insurgency is coming from Iran and Syria and other places. By definition any action to meet/resist an enemies attack is defensive.
Isn’t the surge primarly aimed at Bagdad and the Sunni al Quada / Baathist types? While the Syrian / Iranian support is for the Shia?

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don,

Syria has been a staging point for Sunni insurgents (Baathists and Sunni Arab internationals) for awhile now.*

Also new policy included in the surge does target Iranian operatives.



* Really liking your search function Dale.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Unaha, Syria’s enthusiasm for supporting insurgents in Iraq was quelled by their need to focus on maintaining influence in Lebananon and by our military actions in western Iraq, which cut Syria’s lines into Iraq. Syria hasn’t been a big player in Baghdad for around two years.

Note it is Iranian people and material being found, not Syrian.

I have no reason to presume our attentions have not now turned to Iran, and that like efforts will now be successful in the eastern direction.

You don’t either.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
How was vietnam immoral and unjust? Unless you are on the side of totalitarians (like I even need ask that! oh course you are...)
The government of the South was corrupt, authoritarian and anti-Democratic as well. We can’t simply decide we want to determine how other countries are governed, and impose our values on other cultures and states. It was clear to Ike in 1956 that Ho Chi Minh would win national elections if they were to be held, and we opposed elections because the choice of the people wouldn’t be our own.

Vietnam was not only a mistake, but it was immoral and unnecessary. I understand that some Vietnam vets haven’t made peace with the fact they were pushed into a war that was wrong, and that the protesters and opponents of the war were their best friends, trying to get the government to end a policy where American youth were turned into killers and killed based on a false premise. They want to believe they were doing something honorable. The sad fact is, they were not — quite the contrary.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The government of the South was corrupt, authoritarian and anti-Democratic as well.
To assume that justified either not intervening at all, or what we did—which was far worse, which was intervene massively, and then depart in such a manner as to provide for the victory of our opponent—to assume that is to assume that the other side was better, an improvement over the government of the South. It wasn’t, unless of course, "you are on the side of totalitarians".
We can’t simply decide we want to determine how other countries are governed, and impose our values on other cultures and states.
If we have the power to determine it, if only by picking the losers in a local conflict, and if but for that, an ideology there will win which, "pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" and is also determined if possible to put us under the same yoke. Then we have every right to intervene, both on the grounds of strategic long term best interest (which was least served when we left), and also what is moral in the abstract, in that we would have helped them preserve themselves from a resulting government which was far worse than the South ever was.

Unless, of course, you think the communists were better.
It was clear to Ike in 1956 that Ho Chi Minh would win national elections if they were to be held, and we opposed elections because the choice of the people wouldn’t be our own.
And just possibly, Ike’s personal experiences might have taught him that permitting elections can be far more disastrous than not. Say, what was he doing in the years 1941-1945?
Vietnam was not only a mistake, but it was immoral and unnecessary.
Leaving Wietnam was the mistake, being there was both moral and strategically helpful.

"I understand that some Vietnam vets haven’t made peace with the fact they were pushed into a war that was wrong, and that the protesters and opponents of the war were their best friends, trying to get the government to end a policy where American youth were turned into killers and killed based on a false premise."
Your premise is the false premise. They were no more killers and in many ways, killers to far less a degree than most soldiers in history*, and they were fighting for far better a cause than most. The people doing the protesting were not the friends of anything moral or wise, and certainly not the friends of soldiers, except for Ho Chi Minh’s soldiers. Why should any peace be made with such an invidious, treasonous philosophy as that which failed the test of times which tried mens’ souls?

This nation and this species will be best off when the generation which felt gun barrels should be flowers vases dies off. You are poisonous to liberty.

*There have been many massacres of civilians in history, how often have they been stopped?
They want to believe they were doing something honorable.
They were.
The sad fact is, they were not — quite the contrary.
This could only be true for someone who either cannot make a value judgement informed by the values of the American Revolution, or who does not believe value judgements can be made at all.
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
To put it another way. Support the troops, let them win.

Yours, TDP, ml, masl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tom,

The most recent action has been to close the borders with Iran and Syria. Sunni Arabs are blowing themselves apart in crowds of Shia Arabs, these suicides are known to include large numbers of foriegners and not coming from Iran.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
"and that the protesters and opponents of the war were their best friends"

My best friends usually don’t call me "babykiller" or display posters on their walls of babies stuck on the bayonets of US soldiers, nor do they prise those who try to kill me and torture my fellow soldiers.

" American youth were turned into killers and killed based on a false premise. They want to believe they were doing something honorable. The sad fact is, they were not — quite the contrary"

No ad hominem there, eh? I hope you understand if I take that personally; being called a dishonorable killer could be seen as offensive by the unenlightened.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"The government of the South was corrupt, authoritarian and anti-Democratic as well."

Just like Korea. Is there a point there?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Unaha, that the border is offically closed means its a free fire zone for everyone. Before, it was open season on Jihadis, and had been for some years.

Syria has not been a big player in Iraq for those years, I recall if you do not the success had in, as one milblogger in Iraq put it, "rolling up the ratlines" in the west.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tom,

I remember that too, they rolled them right back to the border and stopped. They then asked Syrians not to send anymore infiltraters. You say this worked, I got doubts - let’s leave it there.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
This quote is from here:
1. U.S. troops are to be gradually pulled back from all Iraqi cities and towns and sent to seal the borders with Iran and Syria. The real insurgency is not indigenous to Iraq, but being pumped in through Iran and Syria.
So the Syrians are not out of the game. It says nothing of the proportion of the game they are in.

I do know we whipped up on them, I do not know that we knocked them out entirely, but I do not remember hearing much from that quarter in the milblogs.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider