What A Surge Really Means

[Gunny]

Really? Well, perhaps...

I think I'll go with Abizaid on this one because it's common sense and apparent. The fact that Bush only wants to hear what he's already decided he believes notwithstanding.

A lot of things are "common sense and apparent." If the people who want to destroy morality at home but hold our troops to a set of rules Christ himselfwould be proud of would shut the Hell up and the military was deployed in its true capacity, the number of thugs running about shooting people whould be diminished greatly.

Y'all want to hold the US military to this Holier-than-thou standard the enemy not only scoffs at but exploits the Hell out of, then blame Bush because we aren't "winning."

Well, we aren't "winning" because we aren't fighting. We're using the US military as a police force. That takes away every training and technological advantage we have. You fight to win. Nothing else is good enough. And if Hakim's eyelash gets bent or his religious sensibilities insulted in the process, tough shit.

So let's don't pretend this is about "common sense and logic" when it clearly about political correctness, and a blatantly obvious moral double-standard.

[dirt mcgirt]

I'd have been okay with that at the beginning when they were begging for troops. Now I don't think it's worth one more American life because there's no practical objective that can be met by escalation at this time. It's just too late.

I've been saying they needed more troops from the beginning. But I don't know if more troops is going to do anything at this point either. They need an Iraqi face on security and it's time for the Iraqis to step up. IMO, they need to decentralize the troops, spread them out to the borders within Iraq, and let the sectarian violence subside or escalte without an American presence to fuel the fires. General Petraeus, who now takes over in Iraq, is a superstar from the 101st and a very competent leader who knows what he's doing. He may not be able to fix this but at least you have good and tested leadership in there now.

At least bush can maintain a consistent thought. He doesn't present " I voted for the war before I voted against it" as an "answer".

Comparing Bush to Kerry doesn't vindicate Bush in the least. The administration said we were in the last throes of the insurgency a year ago. Hell just a couple of months ago, we were winning in Iraq according to Bush. Now Gates says the situation in Iraq is dire and Bush acknowledges it and just stated that we're neither winning nor losing in Iraq. That has about as much consistency as diarrhea.

A lot of things are "common sense and apparent." If the people who want to destroy morality at home but hold our troops to a set of rules Christ himselfwould be proud of would shut the Hell up and the military was deployed in its true capacity, the number of thugs running about shooting people whould be diminished greatly.

Y'all want to hold the US military to this Holier-than-thou standard the enemy not only scoffs at but exploits the Hell out of, then blame Bush because we aren't "winning."

Well, we aren't "winning" because we aren't fighting. We're using the US military as a police force. That takes away every training and technological advantage we have. You fight to win. Nothing else is good enough. And if Hakim's eyelash gets bent or his religious sensibilities insulted in the process, tough shit.

So let's don't pretend this is about "common sense and logic" when it clearly about political correctness, and a blatantly obvious moral double-standard.

The military knew that they'd be in police mode- lessons learned in Haiti and Bosnia in the 90's. They knew that they'd have to play peacekeepers after they defeated the Iraqi Army on the battlefield. That's why there was all this talk about how many troops were needed and what strategies needed to be employed to win their "hearts and minds." Disbanding the Iraqi Army, not sealing the borders, Ahmad Chalibi, and not sending enough troops for security were bigger problems than cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

[Evil]

That has about as much consistency as diarrhea.


The military knew that they'd be in police mode- lessons learned in Haiti and Bosnia in the 90's. They knew that they'd have to play peacekeepers after they defeated the Iraqi Army on the battlefield. That's why there was all this talk about how many troops were needed and what strategies needed to be employed to win their "hearts and minds." Disbanding the Iraqi Army, not sealing the borders, Ahmad Chalibi, and not sending enough troops for security were bigger problems than cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

"Hearts & Minds" now that there is some of the best posting diarrhea available throughout the war, and it's ensuing discussions. In fact that may even be one of the best strategies of the libs although I can see from a few of your posts that you are probably a person without party. There is no winning the "hearts & minds" of these people, no matter what you do the insurgency would still flow. It's a guerilla war that was evident practically from the get go, and anybody who assumed there was no chance of that happening are just plain ignorant to the type of enemy being fought.

[jillian]

I've been saying they needed more troops from the beginning.

Me, too. I thought we should have focused on Afghanistan but if they were insistent on Iraq, they should have done it with overwhelming force, IMO, particularly in light of State Department warnings to Daddy Bush that if we went into Baghdad in Gulf I, we were going to destabilize the country and an insurgency and civil war would ensue.

But I don't know if more troops is going to do anything at this point either. They need an Iraqi face on security and it's time for the Iraqis to step up. IMO, they need to decentralize the troops, spread them out to the borders within Iraq, and let the sectarian violence subside or escalte without an American presence to fuel the fires. General Petraeus, who now takes over in Iraq, is a superstar from the 101st and a very competent leader who knows what he's doing. He may not be able to fix this but at least you have good and tested leadership in there now.

I don't know anything about General Petraeus. But I hope you're right. And it sounds like you're dead on in terms of what's needed.

[dirt mcgirt]

"Hearts & Minds" now that there is some of the best posting diarrhea available throughout the war, and it's ensuing discussions. In fact that may even be one of the best strategies of the libs...

Except "winning their hearts and minds" was a phrase that this administration has talked about since before the initial invasion. I doubt that the irrelevant, powerless liberals had applied any pressure to Bush and made him use that term back in 2002-2003. Unless you're referring to Bush and the gang as liberals.

There is no winning the "hearts & minds" of these people, no matter what you do the insurgency would still flow. It's a guerilla war that was evident practically from the get go and anybody who assumed there was no chance of that happening are just plain ignorant to the type of enemy being fought.

'We Will, In Fact, Be Greeted As Liberators' - Cheney

[Evil]

Me, too. I thought we should have focused on Afghanistan but if they were insistent on Iraq, they should have done it with overwhelming force, IMO, particularly in light of State Department warnings to Daddy Bush that if we went into Baghdad in Gulf I, we were going to destabilize the country and an insurgency and civil war would ensue.

Did you really think a war could take place without an insurgency following? It was a huge cry of the libs that there was no terrorists in iraq, now it's a complaint. Many seem to forget that the enemy we are fighting there come in the form of normal citizens, car bombers, suicide bombers, practically undetectable. Also many seem to look right over the timeline of the whole iraq problem, this was not simply about wmd's that everyone wants to hang their hat on, iraq has been a problem dating back to damn near the 60's so when was something actually going to be done? Sooner or later it would of happened, now was the right time.
[/QUOTE]

[jillian]

Did you really think a war could take place without an insurgency following? It was a huge cry of the libs that there was no terrorists in iraq, now it's a complaint. Many seem to forget that the enemy we are fighting there come in the form of normal citizens, car bombers, suicide bombers, practically undetectable. Also many seem to look right over the timeline of the whole iraq problem, this was not simply about wmd's that everyone wants to hang their hat on, iraq has been a problem dating back to damn near the 60's so when was something actually going to be done? Sooner or later it would of happened, now was the right time.

Iraq was a moderate country. Saddam, although a viper, kept the fundies at bay. He hated them. And, lest you forget, Saddam was the one we used as our surrogate to fight Iran. We were perfectly happy to have him do that.

We weren't attacked by Iraqis. We were attacked by Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan. So, no... I don't think there was ever any reason to go into Iraq and I don't think it was ever possible to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq without there being an insurgency and tossing the country into civil war. And any hope there was of avoiding those things was destroyed because Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and didn't listen when he was told AT THE BEGINNING that we needed more troops.

[Evil]

Except "winning their hearts and minds" was a phrase that this administration has talked about since before the initial invasion. I doubt that the irrelevant, powerless liberals had applied any pressure to Bush and made him use that term back in 2002-2003. Unless you're referring to Bush and the gang as liberals.

You used the phrase here, I stated my opinion, so if you really wanna think the the "hearts & minds" is of any relevance at all be my guest. What I do find funny though is how quick you were to apply Bush & Cheney's name to the equation as though I just made a post in absolute backing. Yes, in all fairness I lean right but I can actually say that, and at the same time voice my own opinions without making it about a particular phrase from some politician.
So don't hide behind a secret party dirt, we don't care if you are a lib, just speak your mind.

[Evil]

We weren't attacked by Iraqis. We were attacked by Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan. So, no... I don't think there was ever any reason to go into Iraq and I don't think it was ever possible to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq without there being an insurgency and tossing the country into civil war. And any hope there was of avoiding those things was destroyed because Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and didn't listen when he was told AT THE BEGINNING that we needed more troops.

Simply look over the timeline that I suggested in the earlier post, there was nothing mkore taking place other than appeasement, and perhaps corruption through the UN. The iraq situation was by no means in control!

[manu1959]

Iraq was a moderate country. Saddam, although a viper, kept the fundies at bay. He hated them. And, lest you forget, Saddam was the one we used as our surrogate to fight Iran. We were perfectly happy to have him do that.

We weren't attacked by Iraqis. We were attacked by Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan. So, no... I don't think there was ever any reason to go into Iraq and I don't think it was ever possible to depose Saddam and occupy Iraq without there being an insurgency and tossing the country into civil war. And any hope there was of avoiding those things was destroyed because Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap and didn't listen when he was told AT THE BEGINNING that we needed more troops.

when we invaded Afghanistan which it appears you were cool with.....where did all the terrorist go? and of the countries they went to which ones complied with US requests to arrest them and or fight them and or help us track them down....

additionally, was iraq funding any terrorist groups? was iraq abiding by the terms of the cease fire from their invasion of kuwait?

[jillian]

when we invaded Afghanistan which it appears you were cool with.....where did all the terrorist go? and of the countries they went to which ones complied with US requests to arrest them and or fight them and or help us track them down....

additionally, was iraq funding any terrorist groups? was iraq abiding by the terms of the cease fire from their invasion of kuwait?

I'm a NY'er born and raised ... I was totally cool with going after the SOB's who took down the buildings. Bush took his eye off the ball, plain and simple.

Where did the terrorists go? How 'bout Saudi Arabia, where they're being trained in the Madrassas; How 'bout Syria, Iran, etc.? But they didn't go to IRAQ. Iraq was not a place that welcomed fundies. That was something they decided to do before 9/11 even happened. Go back to the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton as far back as 1998... it was just an efficacious means of pursuing the PNAC agenda.

We know that Saddam gave money to Palestinians who died as Suicide bombers attacking Israelis. But the Palestinians had nothing to do with Al Queda... There has never been any proof whatsoever that Saddam funded Bin Laden and, in fact, Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. It's about proportionality and whether it was worth the billions in debt we've incurred and the 3,000 military personnel who have died thus far. Did we really get bang for our buck by that criteria?

[dirt mcgirt]

You used the phrase here, I stated my opinion, so if you really wanna think the the "hearts & minds" is of any relevance at all be my guest. What I do find funny though is how quick you were to apply Bush & Cheney's name to the equation as though I just made a post in absolute backing. Yes, in all fairness I lean right but I can actually say that, and at the same time voice my own opinions without making it about a particular phrase from some politician.
So don't hide behind a secret party dirt, we don't care if you are a lib, just speak your mind.

Not hiding behind any party. As you figured out, I'm unaffiliated. I did speak my mind and without any talking points. "Hearts and minds" is very relevent to Iraq. In case you didn't know, there are many different types of insurgents in Iraq. According to military intelligence, the insurgency has grown larger over the last 3 years, not smaller. Winning their hearts and minds relates to keeping the insurgency from growing and winning the people over so they don't support the insurgency.

[Evil]

Not hiding behind any party. As you figured out, I'm unaffiliated. I did speak my mind and without any talking points. "Hearts and minds" is very relevent to Iraq. In case you didn't know, there are many different types of insurgents in Iraq. According to military intelligence, the insurgency has grown larger over the last 3 years, not smaller. Winning their hearts and minds relates to keeping the insurgency from growing and winning the people over so they don't support the insurgency.

That is the point I was making to your earlier post, there is no winning the "Hearts & Minds" of these people, that time has come and past. As we all saw early in the war it did indeed happen but now there are these insurgents crossing borders from both sides, the people of iraq have little choice when it comes to supporting it. We are dealing with well financed, middle aged barbarics, that are'nt going to stop anytime soon.

[manu1959]

I'm a NY'er born and raised ... I was totally cool with going after the SOB's who took down the buildings. Bush took his eye off the ball, plain and simple.

Where did the terrorists go? How 'bout Saudi Arabia, where they're being trained in the Madrassas; How 'bout Syria, Iran, etc.? But they didn't go to IRAQ. Iraq was not a place that welcomed fundies. That was something they decided to do before 9/11 even happened. Go back to the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton as far back as 1998... it was just an efficacious means of pursuing the PNAC agenda.

We know that Saddam gave money to Palestinians who died as Suicide bombers attacking Israelis. But the Palestinians had nothing to do with Al Queda... There has never been any proof whatsoever that Saddam funded Bin Laden and, in fact, Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. It's about proportionality and whether it was worth the billions in debt we've incurred and the 3,000 military personnel who have died thus far. Did we really get bang for our buck by that criteria?

don't jump ahead...and assume i am implying something...i think you know me well enough that i pick my words very carefully even if i can't type or spell them....

all the countries you named with the exception of iraq and iran cooperated with the us and either killed, arrested, expelled or cooperated with the US to the best of their ability....and al queda folks did seek refuge in iraq after the Afghan invasion....

saddam did funded hammas and gave money to suicide bombers as you said, i never said he funded al queda nor did i say he participated in 9/11, i asked did he fund any groups that were a threat to the US or our allies. the answer is yes he did.

also you seem to have avoided addressing saddams violations of the cease fire of the kuwait war....would those violations unto their own been cause for you?

the point i am making, and will always make is; don't intermix the two they were two different things .... two different wars caused by two different things ....

the war against OBL began in Somalia and moved to Afghanistan, i mean, he did declare war on the united sates during the clinton years ...

the war against saddam was simply a continuation of the kuwait war ....

i think there were reasonable grounds to invade both countries

none the less .... i would have invaded neither ..... i would have had obl killed however

i have long advocated closing all foreign bases and letting the world police itself i would cut all foreign aid, outsource to middle America and invest in America.

[manu1959]

Not hiding behind any party. As you figured out, I'm unaffiliated. I did speak my mind and without any talking points. "Hearts and minds" is very relevent to Iraq. In case you didn't know, there are many different types of insurgents in Iraq. According to military intelligence, the insurgency has grown larger over the last 3 years, not smaller. Winning their hearts and minds relates to keeping the insurgency from growing and winning the people over so they don't support the insurgency.

yes they are called bath military and mercenaries from iran syria somalia etc.........you will not win them over....you must kill them

then there are the opportunists....they are fighting a low grade religous war....the same one they fought under saddam just this time the mass media is not there to report it and the offenders are not gassed or fed into wood chippers......then there are the criminals.....neither of these groups can be won over they must be killed

last we have the local guy....i doubt that the local pub owner with a wife and two kids suddely wakes up in the morning and wants to go take on an M1A1....