Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 40 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 858 times:
Did you miss the thread started on this topic already?
ArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 848 times:
I guees I did Harry.
What's the title of the thread that talks about Bush being advised Iraq needed 300 thousand troops? Not the 140K he has now?
Surely your not speaking of the Kissinger thread that has no mention of this whatsoever?
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 834 times:
You know what we REALLY need?
Conjugal visits. You want to talk about bringing morale to an all time high? Put my wife on a plane and let her visit for a few hours. (lol - I mean, she's just for me. All you other swinging dicks are gonna need to make your own arrangements! )
Oh and razor heads. Because you know another thing that improves morale. Shaving your balls. You laugh - but when you're sitting around on base in your running shorts and one of those rare desert breezes come through... you watch as everyone smiles. It oughta be Army policy.
Hey Private Snuffy. Yes sir? Where you going, Private? Going for a haircut. Good. And trim something else while you're at it! Gotta keep morale high! ROGER THAT, SIR!!!
ArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 832 times:
300,000 troops . . . 150,000 more than we have there now. Where do you propose we get them>
Thanks to Bush 1 and Clinton (more to Clinton for the acceleration) the draw down in force structure has gutted the US military . . . thanks to Congress and their desire to stay in office more than their desire to do what is right, the drawdown has gutte the US military.
We HAD the additional 150K more troops until the mid 1990s when Army Divisions were inactivated at a record pace (exceeded only by the post WW2 drawdown) . . . because the dumb bastards in charge don't have any foresight . . . and I mean on BOTH sides of the aisle.
And the problem perpetuates itself . . .
150K more troops won't solve the problem anyway . . . getting the Iraqi's to handle their own infighting will help. But I fear the religious sectarian violence won't be overcome by troops on the ground. The Iraqi's are going to have to forget about being Sunni, Shia, Kurds, whatthehellever, and get down to talking and ironing things out . . .
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3): Hey Private Snuffy.
Yes sir?
Where you going, Private?
Going for a haircut.
Good. And trim something else while you're at it! Gotta keep morale high!
ROGER THAT, SIR!!!
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4342 posts, RR: 23 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 818 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): 150K more troops won't solve the problem anyway . . . getting the Iraqi's to handle their own infighting will help. But I fear the religious sectarian violence won't be overcome by troops on the ground.
But I think it could have stoped it from getting a foot hold, which would have put us in a far better place today.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 813 times:
Quoting Searpqx (Reply 6): Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
150K more troops won't solve the problem anyway . . . getting the Iraqi's to handle their own infighting will help. But I fear the religious sectarian violence won't be overcome by troops on the ground.
But I think it could have stoped it from getting a foot hold, which would have put us in a far better place today.
Oh, hell yes, IF Rummy had listened to the field commanders and advised the President appropriately - waited a bit, developed the necessary force structure, and engaged the enemy with the appropriate force levels we'd be in a lot better position . . .
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 808 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7): Oh, hell yes, IF Rummy had listened to the field commanders and advised the President appropriately - waited a bit, developed the necessary force structure, and engaged the enemy with the appropriate force levels we'd be in a lot better position . . .
I still think that what has NOT and was not taken into account was not the homegrown insurgency, but the external factors affecting the insurgency, such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. A working, democratic Iraq does not do well to their government system.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4342 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 805 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8): I still think that what has NOT and was not taken into account was not the homegrown insurgency, but the external factors affecting the insurgency
I think it was an total miscalculation on both fronts. There wasn't an appreciation for just how much effort Saddam was putting into suppressing the internecine rivalries between the Shia, Sunni and Kurds, and subsequently no plan put in place to manage the re-emergent conflict. In addition, the Administration completely flubbed (or more accurately, disregarded) the intel that said this would cause a massive wave of Muslim anger and create a ready source of fighters willing to go to Iraq. Couple this with no troops to secure the border, and viola, three years later we have an established insurgency as well as pending civil war.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 784 times:
Quoting Searpqx (Reply 9): In addition, the Administration completely flubbed (or more accurately, disregarded) the intel that said this would cause a massive wave of Muslim anger and create a ready source of fighters willing to go to Iraq
I am not necessarily certain of how the external elements came to fight. But I strongly feel that most of the current status quo in the region would have felt exceedingly threatened by any measure of success in Iraq. Turkey and Iran would fear a strong Kurdish region, so as to not give hope to their own Kurdish minorities. Iran does not want a democratic Iraq to show a better way for their oppressed population, neither does Syria.
If you place Afghanistan as an example, the process which was done well according to even those who oppossed Iraq, the Taliban is still creating problems there.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4342 posts, RR: 23 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 770 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 10): Turkey and Iran would fear a strong Kurdish region, so as to not give hope to their own Kurdish minorities. Iran does not want a democratic Iraq to show a better way for their oppressed population, neither does Syria.
If you place Afghanistan as an example, the process which was done well according to even those who oppossed Iraq, the Taliban is still creating problems there.
I think the issues go far deeper than a fear of a democratic Iraq, as far back as the Shia/Suni split, but basically I agree with your premise. I think we're saying roughly the same thing, from different perspectives. Bottom line, no matter what the impetus, pourous borders have allowed an influx of foreign fighters to help establish and perpetuate the insurgency. Additional troops, and a plan to secure the border from the outset, would likely have prevented this.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
Laugh, I nearly spit soda all over my keyboard, I hadnt thought of the reasons behind that, I figured it had to do with the conjugal visits, is there really a shortage of razor heads, or do the boys just not to shave thier faces and balls with the same blade?
I think it would have been wise to have more troops on the ground for the initail invasion say even 200K. Despite the Bush administration making the public think that Saddam was just sitting in a bunker somewhere waiting to push the WMD button to attack our allies, that simply wasnt the case. We had the time to build up the forces more than we did, but I believe the actual thoughts in the administration at the time thought we would be accepted as liberators, throw the kids a soccer ball and some hersheys they will love us forever. Then Bush gets his airplane ride, we roll in the Haliburton Division for reinforcements, every civilian contractor in the area making 100k a year and in no hurry to work quickly. We didnt get the Iraqi people infastructure repaired quickly enough, but that would have been alright for a slow timeline if we were using Iraqi labor. The US government had its chance to do this right, one chance, and it didnt get the job done. If the leadership had been in touch with reality we would be pumping oil in substantial quantities, there would be 50k troops on the ground, mostly working on construction jobs, and training the Iraqi military, instead we lost the iniative when it came to rebuilding the country.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 755 times:
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 12): Laugh, I nearly spit soda all over my keyboard, I hadnt thought of the reasons behind that, I figured it had to do with the conjugal visits, is there really a shortage of razor heads, or do the boys just not to shave thier faces and balls with the same blade?
Well living in the desert makes you pretty damn dirty and smelly... but I still have to maintain SOME decency. So I use separate razors. I have a MachTubro for my face, but those blades are really expensive. And sand gets in there and dulls them quicker. So I only use that for my face, and I buy those shitty disposable ones at the PX.
But, you have no idea. When I say, "Yeah it's around 125 degrees today.... and yeah... kinda considering walking to a set of spinning rotor blades I am so miserable." I'm not joking. This place is brutal. And whenever you're on duty - you're wearing your uniform. You're wearing a LONG sleeve top and LONG legged pants. (not to mention a helmet, 30lbs body armor, carrying either a rifle or sidearm, and a combat vest to carry any essentials.) So you sweat and you end up smelling kinda nasty.
But not to get too graphic here... but shaving down there definitely reduces some of the smell. Plus like I said... you'll be in your PT shorts and a nice breeze comes through... and everyone will stop, close their eyes, and have huge shit eatin' grins on their faces.
Thats awesome man, keep up the good work and stay safe. Thanks for your service over there, I do criticize the administration over the leadership, but that does not reflect my appreciation of the hard work and sacrafice the toops are putting in.
See I am a born and bred Alaskan and the thoughts of 125 degrees is unthinkable, I keep as much hair as I can for the cold winters up here. To be honest I am not sure how the native Alaskan people made it because we are not hairy people, I am 25 years old and can barely grow a beard, and I am a hairy one compared to my cousins etc.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 726 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): Thanks to Bush 1 and Clinton (more to Clinton for the acceleration) the draw down in force structure has gutted the US military . . . thanks to Congress and their desire to stay in office more than their desire to do what is right, the drawdown has gutte the US military.
Back in the mid 90's, things were so bad that we had perfectly flyable f-18's sitting on stilts because their landing gear were needed as spare parts for forward deployed squadrons, and at one point we were so short of 9mm pistol ammo that range time was restricted to people getting ready for deployment.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): We HAD the additional 150K more troops until the mid 1990s when Army Divisions were inactivated at a record pace (exceeded only by the post WW2 drawdown) . . . because the dumb bastards in charge don't have any foresight . . . and I mean on BOTH sides of the aisle.
One of the really stupid eliminations was the gutting of the Army Reserve civil affairs battalions. People trained in providing government after major combat actions had ceased. Just the kind of people we could have used in Iraq following the invasion.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 718 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
One of the really stupid eliminations was the gutting of the Army Reserve civil affairs battalions. People trained in providing government after major combat actions had ceased. Just the kind of people we could have used in Iraq following the invasion.
Whose decision was this? Surely not the President. Seems most likely a cost cutting recommendation from the Pentagon.
ArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 718 times:
I propose that you don't go into a war and lose. If the General said he needed 300K troops then get them. Draft if you need to. Or think twice about starting needless wars.
But they were never serious about the war anyway. They thought it would be easy. Now public opinion has turned. It's lost. Politically to put 300K troops in there now would be assuring your team would be voted out of office.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 21 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 696 times:
I am not thier so I my opinion counts for as much as a wiff of that thing UH 60 mentioned in a sandstorm.
But , lets say we had US troops on every street corner , in every town in Iraq. What would change ?
The whole idea of this war was to establish a IRAQI government with control of a army tha could keep peace. If we hold the Iraqi's hands with 300k troops they will never take responsibility for their safety. Like in the SVNA new that we would always save them ... so they never fought like they should have.
I think we should pull more forces out , let them trial by fire . If they do not get after and fight then they die. Besides the US Military did achieve its prime objective by taking out Saddam. It was a huge operation , extremely complicated and dangerous dont forget the guys and gals that made that happen .. TheyDeserve a mission accomplished.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 617 times:
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 18): The whole idea of this war was to establish a IRAQI government with control of a army tha could keep peace.
Umm maybe it is just me, but I was under the impression that this was about disarmament of WMDs. The rest of the sound bytes the administration give are just after thoughts IMHO. When we first rolled into town, we were liberators, now we are occupiers. Liberty dont mean shit when you are hamburger on a sidewalk tomorrow.
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 18): Besides the US Military did achieve its prime objective by taking out Saddam.
If that is the case, I believe that this would constitute an illegal act of war. That being said, I dont think Saddam was a good guy, but the delays in this trial are BS.
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 18): I think we should pull more forces out , let them trial by fire . If they do not get after and fight then they die.
Oh thats novel, lets invade a country, topple thier government, corrupt or not...start a civil war and then leave and tell them to figure it out. If we pull out, you can guarantee Iran moving in very quickly afterwards. Lets let the real demon being Iran here have more power and resources in the wake of our military leaving.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 21 Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 588 times:
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 22): Umm maybe it is just me, but I was under the impression that this was about disarmament of WMDs.
True Saddam with WMD was a damn good reason. But the overall objective was to establish a new governemnt to combat terror. The model of a democratic governemnt , one that provides security , prosperity is the only weapon against terrorism that can work over time.
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 22): If that is the case, I believe that this would constitute an illegal act of war.
You may be right about that , I am not a lawyer. But the troops executed the plan that, was my point.
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 22): Oh thats novel, lets invade a country, topple thier government, corrupt or not...start a civil war and then leave and tell them to figure it out.
With the state of division here in the US , it may only be a matter of time anyway. We should begin warning the Iraqi's now , they better get it together soon or things are going to get allot worse.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 581 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 10): If you place Afghanistan as an example, the process which was done well according to even those who opposed Iraq, the Taliban is still creating problems there.
Oh no many of us did not! First off using the Northern Alliance was a bit suss, they are NOT nice guys. That was well known. The follow-up of the Taliban rout was not well planned/planned at all.
Then there was such triumphalism that countries such as Aus pulled out all but 1 (one). This in a country that was known to be dominated by warlords before the Taliban moved in, had a known poppy problem, was still host to OBL and who knows what other nasties.
In short, no, it was not done well.
Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 17): I propose that you don't go into a war and lose. If the General said he needed 300K troops then get them. Draft if you need to. Or think twice about starting needless wars.
Think twice, Artie, it seems you may need to tell us how to do that (wink).
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 19): Then at least try to appear as if you would care that we win instead of withdrawing (losing by another name.)
Just at present it looks like a choice of how to lose. The present loss, or a worse one down the track when you have lost even more credibility.
Then again, the least sign of a different overall plan, such as talking to the Syrians and Iranians and asking (nicely) for their help instead of threatening them with a stone age job could help. Many other possibilities exist, but the Rummies of this world will go on ignoring them while insisting that the glass is really half full, not noticing someone shot the bottom out of the bloody thing.
25 Turbo7x7: Wait a sec, I don't know enough to comment about military funding policy in those years. . . but Rummy has been in charge for over 5 years now and he
26 AndesSMF: Seriously doubt they would have helped. In which case, another plan was required. There is an old saying that the military prepares to fight the last
27 AGM100: In a interview this morning on the radio former CIA cheif J.Woolsey stated that Rumsfeld had a different plan that was shelved by the JCS. According t
28 Baroque: I don't think we ever got to know. Iran had pre-qualified as part of the AoE so could not be talked to. Indeed, they still cannot be talked to as we
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, 
)
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4342 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 4889 posts, 
that's disgusting.
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
