Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:16 am

Yes, George W. Bush was right for once-this will be the problem of another president. He's going to apparently have to watch someone else try to clean up his disaster.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...75509990018?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Thanks, George. You wanted this to be your legacy. And you were right-it will be.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Let the hand-wringing begin.
Made from jets!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:44 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Let the hand-wringing begin.

Basic standard accountability would be entirely sufficient for most of us.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:45 am

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying it is easier to pull back forces than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.
"This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better," Schoomaker told reporters. "It's just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot."

Sounds like an Army General exuding a little confidense.
Made from jets!
 
DrDeke
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:50 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Let the hand-wringing begin.

Hand-wringing? Like we should all be running around carefree because things are going so well and there are no problems? Whiskey...

-DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 4):
Hand-wringing? Like we should all be running around carefree because things are going so well and there are no problems?

So we should be getting all angry and bent out of shape over this? Regardless of what your opinions are over the war, we have to win this, and we have to finish it. Even Falcon knows that, because i've seen him say it. But living in rage over something that's out your control is pointless.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 4):
Whiskey...

Scotch please, single malt.
Made from jets!
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:03 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Let the hand-wringing begin.

Basic standard accountability would be entirely sufficient for most of us

Woodward certianly got that book right: State of Denial.

Way to tow the party line, Jack.  Yeah sure
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:16 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):
So we should be getting all angry and bent out of shape over this?

You should demand that the individuals holding elected office in your name should rise to the inherent demand for accountability which comes with every delegated responsibility.

As things stand, those clowns have ruined your country's reputation, caused massive damage on all levels and yet they act as if they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with it all, and none of the consequences could ever touch them as the ones in charge.

The buck has been gutted and thrown to the dogs, I'm afraid, it stops nowhere at all with this administration, apparently!
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:24 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
Way to tow the party line, Jack

1stly, nope, we don't have party affiliation here in WA. 2ndly, what is the real underlying message for posting this?
Made from jets!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:25 am

Hmmmm.... it's 2006, correct? We'll be there until 2010, you say? Average deployment of 12 months, with six months in between? Hmmm.... that means I have at least two more deployments.  bored 

But hey... at least that means two more deployments of tax free income!! WOO-HOO!!!  hyper 

----------------------------

But in all seriousness... I could have told you this news 8mnths ago. We're digging in for the long haul. We're building long term structures, we're laying the foundation for a complex base infrastructure and... in many ways... anything I would typically find on a base in the US, I can find here in Iraq.

This is honestly no surprise to me. (However, I know my wife is gonna flip out.  worried  )

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:33 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
You should demand that the individuals holding elected office in your name should rise to the inherent demand for accountability which comes with every delegated responsibility.

And Klaus, you are so right. But if we're going to hang Bush out to dry, calling it "his war", then we all need a reality check. Because the Democrats are just as culpable. They voted for it too. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and host of others in the US House and Senate, are also to held to account. Bill Clinton called Saddam a threat to US national Security in 1999 and 2000. So if we're going lay blame, let's include all the parties involved. But accountability will be told when election time comes around. We will see what happens. But until then, just enjoy life instead of going stark-raving mad.
Made from jets!
 
tu204
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:35 am

Maybe you guys should learn from us how we solved the problem in Afghanistan and pull out? That is the only thing you can do now - minimise your losses.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:37 am

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 11):
Maybe you guys should learn from us how we solved the problem in Afghanistan and pull out? That is the only thing you can do now - minimise your losses.

Well in all fairness - just like America in Vietnam - the Soviet Union got it's ass kicked in Afghanistan.

It's a little different here in Iraq. The Americans aren't getting the brunt of the insurgent led violence... Iraqi civilians are.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:41 am

Just being devil's advocate, it is easier to pull troops out then put troops back in Iraq. Maybe its the better safe than sorry attitude. But who knows? I'm not a political analyst.
Go big or go home
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:41 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 10):
And Klaus, you are so right.

Why, thank you...! Big grin

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 10):
But if we're going to hang Bush out to dry, calling it "his war", then we all need a reality check. Because the Democrats are just as culpable. They voted for it too.

Yeah, the fool and the one who's following him... True to an extent, but still the assignment of responsibility can't overlook the differences in origin and access to supposedly high-quality intelligence information.

The democrats fucked themselves to the hilt, no doubt about that. Still, they followed like cattle to the slaughter, they didn't invent the whole affair and push it on their population and everybody else...

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 10):
But until then, just enjoy life instead of going stark-raving mad.

Just read my posts again - I demand accountability - in any decent democracy that is a simple matter of course, a basic essential of democracy itself.

That you've stopped demanding responsibility and accountability from your very own elected officials may be for your own entertainment, but it very obviously hasn't resulted in anything positive, to put it mildly...
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:47 am

Jack, you ask why should we get angry about this?

I recall June 1st, 2003, and the "Mission Accomplished" bull crap. You remember that, or, like the WMD's, are you gonna have selective amensia on that?

Every American should be angry. We went from what, the administration had thought, would be a fairly quick war, to a conflict that may drag out 7 YEARS. That's longer than our involvement in World War II, for Chrissake!

And, in that whole time, the only people this president has asked to sacrifice ANYTHING, is the soldiers, and their families-sacrifice lives, income, happiness-you name it. We're in a long conflict, and this dolt is giving TAX BREAKS to the wealthies Americans; he's not asking the American people to help out-he wants us to act like it's the Roaring 20's again, and have a good time, while only the soldiers and their families bear the brunt.

And you tell me not to be angry? You know where you can put that one, good buddy.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:56 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
Just read my posts again - I demand accountability - in any decent democracy that is a simple matter of course, a basic essential of democracy itself.

That you've stopped demanding responsibility and accountability from your very own elected officials may be for your own entertainment, but it very obviously hasn't resulted in anything positive, to put it mildly...

In the last year or so, i've began to doubt whether we should've gone to war, I was a staunch supporter. I still haven't come to a conclusion becuase I don't really know what is actually going on over there. But today, that's irrelevant at this juncture, because we need to win this. And when it is all over, yes, we should be holding those involved to accountability when it is clear that wrongdoing has happened. That is still subject to debate. But let's sit here and kid ourselves. There are much more at fault here than just Bush and the Republicans. There are others out there who are at fault also.
Made from jets!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
I recall June 1st, 2003, and the "Mission Accomplished" bull crap. You remember that, or, like the WMD's, are you gonna have selective amensia on that?

Well Falcon, in all honesty, the mission WAS successfully accomplished.

The problem is, people have a difficult time separating the War WITH Iraq from the War IN Iraq. Did President Bush believe the war was mostly over, of course he did. And I'll walk carefully when I say this: but it was a rather large "misjudgement" on his part.

But to deride the Mission Accomplish Speech, is wrong. What the American military accomplished was incredible. They achieved a stunning victory and it was right to praise them for a job well done.

The Iraq War was a success.... the jury is still out on the War in Iraq.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
TAX BREAKS to the wealthies Americans

Totally off topic... but those taxes were most corporate aimed, not personal income targeted. ... And have proven to be quite successful.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:01 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 16):
And when it is all over, yes, we should be holding those involved to accountability when it is clear that wrongdoing has happened.

Not holding the losers in charge accountable means they'll keep screwing up until all is lost - that is the problem.

Leaving Rumsfeld in charge of the Pentagon is completely irresponsible, just like "staying the course" when the cliffs are clearly in sight ahead and the ship is already taking water...
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:20 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17):
Well Falcon, in all honesty, the mission WAS successfully accomplished.

I'm sorry, my friend, but I beg to differ. Had the mission truely been accomplished, and not bungled by the politicians in DC-i.e, evicerating the Iraqi police and military to help maintain control; not sending enough troops to do the job; totally underestimating or even dismissing any opposition, the mission would, in all likelihood, be over now.

But you're still stuck there, because those who were in charge of planning failed you, and the American people.

That's my view.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:29 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19):
But you're still stuck there, because those who were in charge of planning failed you, and the American people.

But that's the problem... you're not differentiating between the invasion and the post offensive rebuilding effort.

That speech followed the quickest modern invasion and over throw of a government since WWII and France. And it certainly incurred the least amount of causalities than ever before.

If you've ever read about what those soldiers did, you'd know it was a huge military victory. People think there was no resistance from Kuwait to Baghdad, which is totally wrong. The Allied invasion WAS a success.

And President Bush's speech followed on the heals of that success. Of course, who are we kidding, he gave that speech thinking it was the end and we'd be home for Christmas. But still... it still doesn't mean we should deny those men and women the "pat on the back" for what they did.

They did a top-notch job, and a simple speech was the least we could do for them.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):
That speech followed the quickest modern invasion and over throw of a government since WWII and France. And it certainly incurred the least amount of causalities than ever before.

Maybe on your own side - we know that the iraqi casualties have simply not been counted. Very convenient, but most certainly not a valid reason to simply assume there were none (see the parallel thread).

And no disrespect to your fellow soldiers, but the iraqi army was the remnants of a near-starved, badly motivated and embargo-weakened army which had been soundly beaten right before the embargo started and never recovered from that - had the US forces actually managed to not win easily, it would have been a really, really bad sign!

It was never in doubt that the iraqi army would lose (and they themselves knew it just as well) - it was just widely predicted that the occupation would be what would have required a significantly larger deployment (refer to general Shinseki here).

Winning the Invasion was always known to be the easier part of the whole affair. Known to anyone but the Bush administration, that is...!  crazy 
 
tu204
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 12):
Well in all fairness - just like America in Vietnam - the Soviet Union got it's ass kicked in Afghanistan.

It's a little different here in Iraq. The Americans aren't getting the brunt of the insurgent led violence... Iraqi civilians are.

I agree, there is also the thing about us helping the Viatnamese and you guys helping the Afghans...so I guess we are even Big grin
But I think that in both situations we saw that staying there would be futile and would acomplish nothing but some more dead troops. I guess that you can answer this question better than I can: can you accomplish something in the next couple of years that will justify another 2000+ dead troops? It looks to me like it is not only the insurgents that are fighting but the entire population with each other.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:42 am

Looks like Evan Bayh or Mitt Romney will have their hands full (No, Hillary, you can't win; you too, maverick John).

My money's on Bayh. Handsome like Mitt, but with none of the baggage to bring to a Bush-weary electorate.

The first thing any new President should do is make Bush Ambassador-for-Life to Iraq so he can first hand witness his handiwork. Condi can go make a mess of the NFL, and Rummy can join SNL where he belongs.

Basically, we're f*cked. Iraq's f*cked. The new President of the USA is f*cked.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:50 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):
But that's the problem... you're not differentiating between the invasion and the post offensive rebuilding effort.

I'm not because there's an obvious continuity between the two. Without the first, you don't have the second, and, with a continuing insurgency bordering on civil war, the latter can't successfully be done.

So, in a sense, we ARE still in the war that was originally fought, just a different phase of it, and one the politico's obviously didn't count on.

Keep safe, man. Thinking of you and all those over there.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:22 am

These are the opening comments of Bush's speech"

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

It was said in front of that ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Which was a terrible idea.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):
But that's the problem... you're not differentiating between the invasion and the post offensive rebuilding effort.

That speech followed the quickest modern invasion and over throw of a government since WWII and France. And it certainly incurred the least amount of causalities than ever before.

We have the world's mightiest military. Iraq had decrepit planes rusting in the desert. Of course, we'd win "Operation Iraqi Freedom." But the "invasion" was the first phase of the "war." You can call it what you will - "post offensive rebuilding effort" is a nice euphemism. But in the end, putting lipstick on a pig is still just that. Let's not put on our lawyer's hat and engage in a bout of Clintonese.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:40 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 24):
I'm not because there's an obvious continuity between the two. Without the first, you don't have the second, and, with a continuing insurgency bordering on civil war, the latter can't successfully be done.

You're absolutely right, it's all part of the same Iraq War.

The initial operation was a spectacular success. One of the most impressive military campaigns ever.

Then the wheels came off. It is difficult to imagine a more bungled and poorly managed occupation.

The second has wasted the opportunity created by the first. We secured the horse in the barn and then we let it burn to the ground.

When all is said and done, it is a fuckup of monumental proportions.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):
Regardless of what your opinions are over the war, we have to win this, and we have to finish it.

Care to define what "winning" is at this point? What has to happen for us to win? What specific objectives can our military accomplish to achieve victory? What will it look like when it's finished?

We need to be realistic about what's possible in Iraq at this stage. How long are we going to beat our heads on the Iraqi wall. How many more of my fellow citizens must die.

It's forgivable to make mistakes. It's unforgivable to make mistakes and then stubbornly refuse to change your course. That's just pig-headed arrogance and stupidity.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:47 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):

Hate to burst your Anti-Bush bubble there Falcon, but what Gen Schoomaker said was planning for the troops to stay - and that he has 15 Combat Brigades available for the mission - he did not say they would in fact be there.

If Gen Schoomaker doesn't plan, as he damn well should, then the Army gets caught short sheeted again - AGAIN - like it did thanks to Bush 1 and Clinton and their enormous Force Structure cuts.

Better to plan now than pull outta your ass later . . .

Now - that said, didn't I say a year or so ago, on a forum like this one, that anyone thinking we'd be outta Iraq before 2015 or so was smokin' crack? If this is a surprise to anyone you've been on Mars for the last 18 months . . . or you're simple feigning surprise to take this as ANOTHER Bush Bash opportunity . . .  sarcastic 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:24 am

For anyone who has even been paying mild attention to the situation there this shouldnt be a surprise at all. As ANC has pointed out, I think it will most likely be longer.
I will admit, that the invasion of Iraq(I like to call it the trailer) was a stunning success. The Iraq occupation(the movie) has been bungled from the top. This is not the result of having unmotivated troops, conscripted into duty. These are professional volunteers. They have worked admirably. I am proud of the work those individuals have done. What makes me flat out angry is the total failure for the folks in DC to plan for an insurgency.
They honestly thought we would roll into Baghdad, throw some candy to the kids, and it would be like taking France back from the Nazis. They did not account for the political infighting that has been occuring in Iraq for generations. They also failed to account for the nationalism they feel for thier homeland the same as anyone in any other country did.
There has been some distractions as well. The Saddam trial is a continuous cluster fuck, Abu-Graib...enough said, Hadiytha etc. These are very isolated events that have caused distrust from the Iraqi population. I think one thing I would have done differently, is have the Pvt. that found Saddam would have tossed a grenade into that fuckin hole and been done with that end of the mission.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:26 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 24):



Quoting Jaysit (Reply 25):
We have the world's mightiest military. Iraq had decrepit planes rusting in the desert. Of course, we'd win "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Don't forget we went into Desert Storm with 775,000 coalition soldier (30+ nations), with 600,000 being US forces. We had 200 days (6.5 months) to build our forces, and the ground war was preceded by a 36 day air war.

OIF was completely different. We had about 3 months to amass the US 3rd ID, 101st Div, 82nd Div, 1st Marine Expeditionary Div and British 1st Armoured Div in Kuwait -- for a total force of 100,000 US soldiers, and 30,000 British, compromised the southern strike element.

The northern strike element - the US 4th ID - was denied access to Turkey. Do you realize, at the 11th hour, this changed the entire war plan? Objectives that were previously assigned to units, were changed at the last moment because the of the absence of the 4th ID. This is a HUGE deal, especially on the eve of a massive invasion.

There was no pre-invasion air war like the Gulf War. The air war started ONE day before the invasion and was conducted simultaneously as we advanced to Iraq. Again, do you realize the level of difficulty involved in this? The level of coordination of conducting a massive air war and invasion should NOT be underrated.

The invasion started on March 21 and between the 27-29 there was one of the largest sand storms in recent Iraqi history. Again, do not underrate this threat. The supply chain came to a halt, the invasion to a halt, the air war was severely hampered, and all the while, the Iraqis continued to press the fight during this.

The blast through the Karbala Pass was a textbook military operation. The feign across the Euphrates was brilliant, an entire Iraqi division was diverted because of this.

A large amount of Iraqi soldiers converted into Fedayeen militiamen. It later came to light, that this had been the Iraqi plan for sometime. They knew they couldn't go pound for pound against the US... so they hit us with unconventional forces. Something that a line of M1 Abrams wasn't trained to fight against.

The invasion WAS not a cake walk... and it's really kinda insulting to the guys who went 3 weeks with little sleep, infrequent meals, and constant threat of Fedayeen attacks, to suggest it was some kind of joy ride to Baghdad.

What they did, with the last minute setbacks, the sandstorms, the Fedayeen, and the simultaneous air war WAS a MILITARY SUCCESS. And you guys have a problem with President Bush - rightfully so - but don't sh*t on their sacrifices and successes, because of that.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:29 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 26):
The initial operation was a spectacular success. One of the most impressive military campaigns ever.

Then the wheels came off. It is difficult to imagine a more bungled and poorly managed occupation.

Right... and don't you think that saying, "You did a great job guys, and you made us proud." is a GOOD thing?

President Bush's main motives might have been mostly political... but that doesn't negate the fact that the speech meant a lot to servicemen and women returning home from a brilliant victory.

-60UH
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:12 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 30):
Right... and don't you think that saying, "You did a great job guys, and you made us proud." is a GOOD thing?

Absolutely. No question. The president and every other American should have gone out of their way to congratulate the troops on their fine accomplishment.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 30):
President Bush's main motives might have been mostly political... but that doesn't negate the fact that the speech meant a lot to servicemen and women returning home from a brilliant victory.

It was political theater on a massive scale. I think it is shameful the way Bush USES the military as a political prop. It wasn't just the stunt on the Lincoln either. He has used military settings time and time again for speeches and "public" appearances. It is exploitation and utterly phony.

It trivializes the whole significance of combat service and turns the whole thing into a "George Bush: the Great Military Leader" campaign commercial. As an aside, considering the events in Iraq, that notion is farcical and absurd in the extreme.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:14 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
I recall June 1st, 2003, and the "Mission Accomplished" bull crap. You remember that, or, like the WMD's, are you gonna have selective amensia on that?

As UH60 said, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was to announce that major combat operations in Iraq had ended which was the truth. The regime, along with Saddam had fallen, and the mission at that point was to secure and begin to rebuild the infrastructure. We have been bogged down in Iraq becuase of the insurgency, backed by former Ba'athist members, Al Qaeda and other terror factions. The administration tragically miscalculated. But the banner was also to announce the the USS Abraham Lincoln extended deployment was over. They were supposed to return here to NS Everett here in WA on 21JAN03, but were dispatched to the Gulf until they were relieved in May. So no, it isn't amnesia, I still remember it.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
Every American should be angry. We went from what, the administration had thought, would be a fairly quick war, to a conflict that may drag out 7 YEARS. That's longer than our involvement in World War II, for Chrissake!

The difference is, that the nations around Germany were willing to fight the Germans, which also was a visible foe, unlike the insurgency with is a phantom enemy. In the Iraq affair, were somewhat on our own for the invasion. A mistake? It's looking that way

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 24):
Without the first, you don't have the second, and, with a continuing insurgency bordering on civil war, the latter can't successfully be done.

That I agree with you, which is why i'm questioning whether the war should've been fought in the first place. I haven't yet made a decision. But the fight was a noble cause, however tragically misplaced

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
And you tell me not to be angry?

I'm not telling you anything, I was just curious to what the reason for this rant. It certainly wasn't to inform.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
You know where you can put that one, good buddy.

And here, you just get personal.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 26):
Care to define what "winning" is at this point?

I define winning as defeating the insurgency and restoring order to Baghdad. We still can win this if we have a little faith. But we can't just pull out, we have to win this.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 26):
It's forgivable to make mistakes. It's unforgivable to make mistakes and then stubbornly refuse to change your course. That's just pig-headed arrogance and stupidity.

I'm not sure I can defend the decision to go to war anymore, but I can't sa that it would be a wise decision to just pull out right now. We just can't.
Made from jets!
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:23 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 32):
I define winning as defeating the insurgency and restoring order to Baghdad.

The insurgency is a multi-headed monster with numerous groups fighting for their own particular agenda. Some days they fight each other, and some days they fight us. The bottom line is that they fight because of their sectarian religious beliefs. That conflict has been going on for centuries.

So all we have to do is make them like each other. Last time I checked that is not a mission one can assign to an Infantry Company or a squadron of F16s.

I ask again, what specific military objectives do we assign our forces to make the Iraqis like each other?

I'm reasonably certain the US military cannot do that. Only the Iraqis can. I have seen absolutely no indication whatsoever that is happening. In fact, it looks to me like the degree of hate and animus increases every day.

"But we can't just pull out, we have to win this." is not a plan Jetjack. When is enough, enough? Do we stay 20 years and loose 30,000 American lives. Is that an acceptable price to pay for winning?
WhaleJets Rule!
 
davestanKSAN
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:32 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:37 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 30):
Right... and don't you think that saying, "You did a great job guys, and you made us proud." is a GOOD thing?

President Bush's main motives might have been mostly political... but that doesn't negate the fact that the speech meant a lot to servicemen and women returning home from a brilliant victory.

I agree with what you're saying about the "Mission Accomplished" banner. It was a great job by our servicemen and women. The main problem why I think people (me included) were upset with the whole "Mission Accomplished" event was it wasn't made clear what exactly was accomplished. Obviously we needed to congratulate our troops for doing an amazing job with the invasion. That was a given. (well I'd hope so anyway). But then we were left with the question, so now what? I couldn't help but think to myself, okay mission accomplished...do you mean we can expect our troops to come home asap? Everything is ok in Iraq? There will be no more major battles to fight? And in all fairness to President Bush maybe he did think everything was over. I have a hard time believing that however.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 31):
It was political theater on a massive scale. I think it is shameful the way Bush USES the military as a political prop. It wasn't just the stunt on the Lincoln either. He has used military settings time and time again for speeches and "public" appearances. It is exploitation and utterly phony.

Sadly, I agree with this as well.

Dave

[Edited 2006-10-12 04:37:43]
Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:43 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
The bottom line is that they fight because of their sectarian religious beliefs.

No. They fight because certain influential leaders (warlords) use religious pretenses to further their own respective power positions.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
So all we have to do is make them like each other.

No. What would have been the easiest road would have been maintaining an orderly and stable state with a halfway decent economy with enough paid jobs so there aren't thousands in search for anybody to pay them for whatever henchmen job they'd offer...!

In the beginning it would have been a lot easier than it is now, but the objective would still have to be the same.

Whether people "like" each other is next to irrelevant. Just ask yourself how much your own compatriots "like" each other...!  mischievous 

They simply see more of a perspective for themselves in behaving constructively - or at least most of them do...
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:48 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20):
But that's the problem... you're not differentiating between the invasion and the post offensive rebuilding effort.

And let's not forget the fact that the SecDef at least wasn't even planning for a post offensive rebuilding effort. Anybody who brought that up in the Pentagon was threatened with being fired. So it's not so surprising that Bush delivered the speech when he did. Rummy probably convinced him at that time that it was mostly over.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 21):
Maybe on your own side - we know that the iraqi casualties have simply not been counted. Very convenient, but most certainly not a valid reason to simply assume there were none (see the parallel thread).

No one is saying there were no Iraqi casualties. If they are, they must be smoking something.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 24):
I'm not because there's an obvious continuity between the two. Without the first, you don't have the second, and, with a continuing insurgency bordering on civil war, the latter can't successfully be don

Ojectively - and with the benefit of hindsight - you are correct. But at the time, I doubt anybody from Rumsfeld up to the President was contemplating an insurgency and civil war.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:57 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
No one is saying there were no Iraqi casualties. If they are, they must be smoking something.

And yet americans in general - on both sides of the main issue - somehow forget to consider that there actually might have been any, which is especially fishy since it is pretty much accepted that the number of iraqis killed both during the invasion and thereafter substantially exceeds the number of US casualties...!

Very strange under the backup of the backup of the backup pretense of the invasion being done supposedly for the good of the iraqi people...!  eyebrow 
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:02 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 37):
And yet americans in general - on both sides of the main issue - somehow forget to consider that there actually might have been any

I disagree. Anyone who reads the Washington Post and the other major newspapers are frequently reminded of the loss not only to US personnel, but to the Iraqi people as a whole.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:06 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
But at the time, I doubt anybody from Rumsfeld up to the President was contemplating an insurgency and civil war.

They key here is exactly what you said Halls . . .

. . . "from Rumsfeld up to the President" . . .

Because PLENTY of Flag Grade Officers sure as hell raised the issue. And were summarily dismissed - some fired. Please see Gen Erik Shinseki for example.

We're back to the same argument many of us have had since day 1 the 7th Cav pressed across the LOD . . . Rumsfeld must go.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 37):
And yet americans in general - on both sides of the main issue - somehow forget to consider that there actually might have been any

I disagree. Anyone who reads the Washington Post and the other major newspapers are frequently reminded of the loss not only to US personnel, but to the Iraqi people as a whole.

 checkmark 

Klaus, it's ridiculous to think American's don't think there are/were Iraqi casualties . . . you know - as does anyone with a lick of sense - that's all we see on US television . . . dead Iraqi's, dead GIs, blown up shit.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:11 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
That's longer than our involvement in World War II, for Chrissake!

OMG, then 9 successive administrations must have lied through their teeth to us because I distinctly remember U.S. troops being in Germany, ready to fight, from 1944 to 1990!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
TAX BREAKS to the wealthies Americans

I got a tax break and I am anything but wealthy.

We are in Iraq. Leaving would be utterly stupid. Setting a date to leave before the country is secure or there are enough Iraqi forces in place to secure the country would be a disaster. There's nothing worse than having to pay for the same ground twice. Stay until the job is finished.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:12 pm

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 32):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 24):
Without the first, you don't have the second, and, with a continuing insurgency bordering on civil war, the latter can't successfully be done.

That I agree with you, which is why i'm questioning whether the war should've been fought in the first place. I haven't yet made a decision.

Well, you then have at least some inkling as to what I've been feeling now since '03. I've felt, since before it was fought, that it wasn't right. And that's why I'm angry.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:23 pm

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
The insurgency is a multi-headed monster with numerous groups fighting for their own particular agenda. Some days they fight each other, and some days they fight us. The bottom line is that they fight because of their sectarian religious beliefs. That conflict has been going on for centuries.

So we just give up?

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
So all we have to do is make them like each other.

No, it's not about making them like one another, it's about making them respect the rule of law. Their police force needs to become a formidible organisation to route out the insurgent and their supporters. The Iraqi military reportedly is in good working order, but the police force isn't. Can it be done? I don't know, but if we're going be there until 2010, we might as well try

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
Last time I checked that is not a mission one can assign to an Infantry Company or a squadron of F16s .

These are people who've never known peace or freedom. So these are ideals that they mistrust. They were living under a dictatorship for almost 30 years, and simply distrust what a gov't tells them. The infrastructure is there, we just have to give them a reason to trust prosperity. Will this happen, who knows.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
I ask again, what specific military objectives do we assign our forces to make the Iraqis like each other?

Forcing people to like one another is not going to happen. But we, as far as our contribution goes, is to train the Iraqi forces to bring about their own security, and learn to keep the peace.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
"But we can't just pull out, we have to win this." is not a plan Jetjack.

Right, but we can't just pull out, because Iraq will implode and the Iranians will take over and create a theocratic gov't. Us being on both borders with Iran keeps the pressure

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
When is enough, enough?

When we win, that's when.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 33):
Do we stay 20 years and loose 30,000 American lives. Is that an acceptable price to pay for winning?

Or do we pull out, (or startegically deploy, like the great military master, Rep John Murtha says) and retreat back to within our own borders and wait for them to attack us here? Or should we keep fighting, fighting for the freedom of this country? Which do you choose?
Made from jets!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:28 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 39):
Klaus, it's ridiculous to think American's don't think there are/were Iraqi casualties . . . you know - as does anyone with a lick of sense - that's all we see on US television . . . dead Iraqi's, dead GIs, blown up shit.

It is a topic which is avoided like the plague whenever it is about confrontations with US troops. There are exceptions, but those are exceedingly rare. The deliberate decision to "not do body counts" of iraqis has obviously paid off politically - iraqi victims of the invasion and of the occupation itself are a non-topic.

The only hope of getting mentioned for a killed iraqi is if it was a convenient killing which fits the ideology...

No doubt, at least some iraqis and arabs in general are voluntarily blind on the other eye, but neither blindness is particularly helpful...

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 40):
OMG, then 9 successive administrations must have lied through their teeth to us because I distinctly remember U.S. troops being in Germany, ready to fight, from 1944 to 1990!

WWII in Europe ended with Germany's capitulation in 1945. Thus the US involvement in WWII ended at the same instant. The cold war stationing of troops is a separate matter.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:35 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
Anyone who reads the Washington Post and the other major newspapers are frequently reminded of the loss not only to US personnel, but to the Iraqi people as a whole.

Because the press corps celebrates the casualties of US servicemen. That's why I don't read the papers, I wipe my ass with them.
Made from jets!
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:46 pm

We can't quit now!!!!!!!!!!!!

We haven't killed all their leaders.

And we haven't converted them all to Christianity.

And then there's that issue of OUR oil underneath THEIR sand.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:54 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 43):
It is a topic which is avoided like the plague whenever it is about confrontations with US troops.

I will grant you I rarely see any news on it when it involves US troop confrontations, probably a mere mention of how many insurgents were killed . . . and as I mentioned, that's due in large part to the wonderful  sarcastic  US news media only telling half - or less - of the story . . . they do of course get the US Casualties right . . . and don't fail to report them do they.

I think you don't give enough credit to the general American population. Certainly any veteran here knows there are civilian casualties. Certainly anyone listening to the news can hear/read about the Iraqi insurgency blowing up their own police/military. Your broad brush of declared ignorance on the part of the American population is incorrect.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 45):

 sarcastic 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:55 pm

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 45):
We can't quit now!!!!!!!!!!!!

We haven't killed all their leaders.

And we haven't converted them all to Christianity.

And then there's that issue of OUR oil underneath THEIR sand.

Well damn, Jaysit... 45 posts and this thread was going so well...

Hell! We even had Jetjack engaging in a honest, civil debate.  

Have you been taking classes from Confucius about how to derail threads!?   Yeah sure

-UH60

[Edited 2006-10-12 06:06:28]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:57 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 43):
It is a topic which is avoided like the plague whenever it is about confrontations with US troops. There are exceptions, but those are exceedingly rare. The deliberate decision to "not do body counts" of iraqis has obviously paid off politically - iraqi victims of the invasion and of the occupation itself are a non-topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/10/11/AR2006101100413.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/10/11/AR2006101100221.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/10/11/AR2006101100221.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/09/27/AR2006092700583.html

This is just a sampling from the last 12 days.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10

Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:28 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 46):
I think you don't give enough credit to the general American population. Certainly any veteran here knows there are civilian casualties. Certainly anyone listening to the news can hear/read about the Iraqi insurgency blowing up their own police/military. Your broad brush of declared ignorance on the part of the American population is incorrect.

No, I don't claim that people didn't know - my impression is that it's actively avoided whenever possible.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 47):
Hell! We even had Jetjack engaging in a honest, civil debate.

I noticed that too...!  mischievous 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, PacificBeach88, pu and 15 guests