New Strategy?

[MORTARDUDE]

This is a mess that never should have happened. The Iraq invasion was planned well enough in advance to have the equipment that our soldiers and marines needed to be ready for their use. It wasn't and still isn't. A plan or plans should have been in place to secure the utilities, water supplies, oil facilities, and to keep the police and army intact until a decision could be made about them. None of this was. The country should have been totally disarmed from the git go, and those with arms prosecuted. But it wasn't. A PFC should not have been the only person prosecuted for torture, but she was. The CIA came out clean as a whistle. Gasoline is still in short supply and many utilities are still not completely on line. All the lies that were told by this administration shouldn't have been. But they were. The Iraqi troops we have trained should be able to defend their own country. But they are not ready. No one knows when tey will be, if ever. Sanctuaries should not be available for insurgents to hit and run from, but they are. There should be some credible plan for an end to any war the USA is involved in. But there isn't. The "War On Terror" is a joke when our borders are wide open. I very well remeber in Oct. 1970 when the 25th Inf. Division was going to pull out, and the mood was ...who will be the last to die for this worthless war. I feel for the troops on the ground, on the sea, and in the air over there. But as someone on here said, they volunteered knowing full well that the politicians are usually the very cynically worst at military strategy from Johnson to Nixon to Clinton and now to Bush, because they don't have their sons and daughters in it. Millions of lives have been changed forever because these "elected officials" would not make the decisions that should have been made. I have no answers....

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

a. No amount of advance planning for War will be or ever has been adequate to the battles that end up being fought... not even at Normandy.

b. The DOD has busted its fanny to upgrade supply as soon as it learned of the change in tactics being used by the enemy. It has been an extremely expensive and complex thing to do, but to act as if the situation today is the same as it was two years ago in-theatre is plainly a false allegation.

c. The plan to secure infrastructure in Iraq has been consistently sabotaged by the enemy. Nevertheless, infrastructure of many kinds is not only up, but in far better condition than it was prior to the invasion.

d. It was probably an error to totally disband their police and military, although it is a traditional tactic in warfare. What this proves is that this is not a traditional war, and cannot be thought of or planned for in traditional ways. Lesson learned.

e. The PFC absolutely was not the only person who was convicted of criminal participation in Abu Ghraib. What is more, several who were accused of criminal participation in torture have been completely exonerated under the UCMJ.

f. The CIA has gotten a very serious "black eye"... and is far from having come out clean as a whistle. What can be done about their conduct in the future is another matter, and is largely up to Congress to sort out... which they have yet to do.

g. For sanctuaries to be unavailable to insurgents, the people of Iraq and surrounding regions must refuse to harbor or abet them... which they are increasingly realizing.

h. The War on Terror is defined by being borderless, nationless, and theatre-less. Efforts to secure border villages and areas have been underway since the onset of the invasion. In order to completely secure those areas, the cooperation of neighboring nations is critical. Perhaps they will see fit to be of greater assistance in the near future.

i. There is a credible plan for the end of this war, which has been in place for a very long time, and has been repeatedly explained to and by everyone involved. As of today, that plan is proceeding along just fine, thank you very much.

j. There is no way of taking an accurate show of hands among the military serving in-country OEF/OIF as to whether or not they feel this is a "useless meaningless war" in which some of them will be "the last to die"... however, for every assertion that there are those who do feel that way, there are thousands of stories coming back home of our people declaring that they are quite sure why they are there, and are determined to be victorious, no matter how long it takes... if for no other reason than to free the Iraqi people and to honor the sacrifices of their comrades-in-arms who have gone before.

k. The politicians should not be expected to be adept at military strategy. To the extent that they have failed, it has been in the category of political strategy. For example, it is shear political stupidity (sometimes bordering on sedition) for most Democrats to be endlessly hostile to the government's strategy (which they voted for) by supplying the enemy with anti-American propaganda talking points on a daily basis. Our military forces are not stupid or out of touch... they get and give their news from home online and by phone, they see the embarassing conduct of Democrats and talking heads reported in articles published by Stars and Stripes, and even sometimes in real time on television; just as we do.

l. If morale were not sufficiently high and the chain of command not intact, then there would already have been a successful mutiny starting at the top echelons.

m. As for who is speaking for the American People's opinion of this war, there was just a bi-partisan vote of 403 to 3 against immediate withdrawal of our armed forces from the conflict. Yes, it was a bit of tricky political theatre... but I would say it was highly effective. The Democrats could not even manage to get 100% of their own representatives to vote in favor of such an idiotic proposal.

[rotorwash]

I think the thing with the good Congressman was more political then principle. The GOP forces a vote to identify the fence sitters. What better response then to have an old war horse come out and articulate the totally opposite point, a position he can modify or back away from given circumstances he decides are favorable. Of course, some of the points he made were completely out of touch with reality, but that really forces the other side into a defensive posture. Think it doesn't work? Just read the posts on this website. Brilliant tactical move.

Why did he pick Anbar Province, why not any of the 14 of 18 that have established a sense of normalcy under Iraqi control with a minimum of American presence? By the way, the 60% unemployment figure represents Anbar, not the whole of Iraq. Something like two thirds of the electrical power for the middle of the country comes from Anbar. An area the size of Texas with both the Tigris and Euphrates River Valleys and a very long border with Syria, this has been the last ditch hold area for terrorists, behind the five yard line, so to speak. Up north, Tikrit, is Saddam's home town, but down south along the Euphrates, even Saddam's forces left it alone and the area is just now getting a semblance of civil government for the first time ever.

As for the criticisms about there only being one level 1 battalion, some fundamental elements are being overlooked. A level 1 battalion can operate on its own without American logistical or transportation support, but with some American co-ordination of air and artillery. Level 2 battalions are just as combat proficient but do not have their own log or transport capability. These typically operate alongside American units on about a 1 to 1 basis. Level three units are not completely combat provicient, but can (and do) operate alongside US units. Level 4 units are those just formed and still lack training and equipment. Iraqi armys have never been known for logistical proficiency, so it is understandable that this is the last area to come up to speed. Iraq's first Armored brigade is forming from cannibalized junk yards. The first C-130 transport unit has recently become operational. Aother type of unit just being recognized is the border units, typically, tribesmen living on the frontier whose main occupation has been smuggling. Special Forces are working with these people and creating a pretty capable interdiction force against foreign terrorists entering Iraq.

Iraq has been the "flypaper" (as some US commanders have called it) that has attracted terrorists from all over the Muslim world. Muslim terrorists would much rather be congregating in Kansas City, but by having the war in Iraq, the air fare is not a problem. In spite of what you read, the war in Anbar is going our way.

Rotor

[Arrow]

RW....

Thank you.Ireadyour post and it was akin to having someone walk into a dark room and hit the light switch.

Arrow>>>>>

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by BLUEHAWK

quote:

The American public is way ahead of us...

- Which "American public"?

the devastation caused by IEDs...

- Gee, who is doing that?

Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards...

- Untrue, except by a small percentage in the Army on the first allegation.

The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden...

- Everyone in America and Iraq is and will be sharing this burden.

Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation.

- Gee, wonder why that might be?

Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent.

- Well, the murderers could quit it, and then things would improve, no?

insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year...

- Excellent! They are coming out of hiding.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency...

- Don't think so. The Jihadis are mostly killing their own people.

I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

- That is the plan, and it's working.

Blue you're getting s despicable and unscrupulous as those a--holes in the whitehouse and Congress that you so blindly support, ya know?

You like to 'Cherry Pick' information and attempt to distort what other folks say (or DON'T say) to try and incorrectly portray them in the fashion you choose without so much as an ounce of proof that this could be the truth!

Didn't you even READ what I said before posting Murthas' statement (where this info you've posted is from and NOT from MY WORDS!)..............

My words, Quote......" I'm not absolutely sure I agree in full with Congressman Murtha's overall plan. But, I DO think we should at least consider what he has offered before condemning him (or accusing ALL the Democrats of being what Super has suggested)."

I also said this, Quote........"The man deserves the respect and consideration of everyone in this nation. Even IF we may not be in total agreement with his 'plan' as outlined."


Nice try........................but you're continued attempts at flagrant misinformation will not work.

[Seascamp]

Excellent commentary Rotor?I had one nephew up in Mosul and another in Baghdad and your commentary matches nicely with what they report in terms of reality. One frustration they report is that average Iraqi Troop does not have any background in technical concepts necessary to master modern tech gear so the going is very slow and going backwards before they can move forward.
We?re talking grammar school level math and science that has been absented from the basic Iraqi school curriculum forever. They talk of teaching the Iraqi military teachers, so that is real grass roots. Also fills in some gaps as to why Saddam?s regular army was so unwilling to engage. I suppose they figured out that a half full magazine, an AK, some yah yah talk and an empty belly was the wrong solution to the situation they faced.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy

...but you're continued attempts at flagrant misinformation will not work.[/b]

In which case, please cease supplying any.

[MORTARDUDE]

"a. No amount of advance planning for War will be or ever has been adequate to the battles that end up being fought... not even at Normandy"

Blue :

Once again you amaze me. Have you read any history about the invasion of Normandy and how well it was planned ? I sincerely doubt it. Go back to reading Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and the like.


"k. The politicians should not be expected to be adept at military strategy. To the extent that they have failed, it has been in the category of political strategy. For example, it is shear political stupidity (sometimes bordering on sedition) for most Democrats to be endlessly hostile to the government's strategy (which they voted for) by supplying the enemy with anti-American propaganda talking points on a daily basis. Our military forces are not stupid or out of touch... they get and give their news from home online and by phone, they see the embarassing conduct of Democrats and talking heads reported in articles published by Stars and Stripes, and even sometimes in real time on television; just as we do"

Wrong...politicians have a duty and obligation NOT to use the military as cannon fodder. Vietnam was an example of how not to fight a war. The Iraq war is slowly headed that way. Senator Warner andd others had 10 battalion commanders in closed door session to find out the "truth". It seems we need many more troops. Rumsfeld looks more like McNamara every day. Border sanctuaries. The Iraq army unable to fight and riddled with spies just like the ARVNs. Booby traps everywhere.....

By the way, the politicians in both countries have managed to make untold billions of your tax dollars simply disappear.

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by MORTARDUDE "a. No amount of advance planning for War will be or ever has been adequate to the battles that end up being fought... not even at Normandy"

Blue :

Once again you amaze me. Have you read any history about the invasion of Normandy and how well it was planned ? I sincerely doubt it. Go back to reading Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and the like.

I've read extensively, for many years including up to the present time, about the run-up to and the consequences of the invasion of Normandy.

On that basis, I am able to reiterate that, no matter how extensive the planning was then (or now in Iraq), many died and were maimed on those beaches and during the assault BECAUSE there was/is no way to pre-plan for every possible contingency... such as the weather, inland enemy forces being dug in behind hedgerows, mechanized equipment that became immobilized, troops who dismounted with heavy gear off their landing craft in water too deep for swimming and a great many other such snafus that are well and repeatedly recorded in every factual history that has ever been written about the topic.

Yes, in spite of all else, the invasion at Normandy was successful... just as the invasion of Iraq was... primarily because of the grit and inventiveness of Allied forces at every level.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by MORTARDUDE
Wrong...politicians have a duty and obligation NOT to use the military as cannon fodder. Vietnam was an example of how not to fight a war. The Iraq war is slowly headed that way. Senator Warner andd others had 10 battalion commanders in closed door session to find out the "truth". It seems we need many more troops. Rumsfeld looks more like McNamara every day. Border sanctuaries. The Iraq army unable to fight and riddled with spies just like the ARVNs. Booby traps everywhere.....

By the way, the politicians in both countries have managed to make untold billions of your tax dollars simply disappear.

Larry

On some of the above I would not in any way disagree.

However, I would not accept the notion that our forces are being used as "cannon fodder." Indeed, they apparently do not think so in the main, nor do most of the rest of us, nor does our government.

I would also say that as to the fighting part of Vietnam, it was fought exceedingly well. What was NOT done well was in the handling of the political strategy... which is, by definition, not the province of the military; going back to my original point about politicians. Furthermore, even if one were to include politicians, then one must include ALL of them. In any event, it is axiomatic that politicians do not fight wars... they cause them.

If and/or when "more troops" are required in this war, I have not a single doubt that the Commanders in charge of activities in-theatre will make that clearly known, and that the President and/or SECDEF will supply those personnel... as they both and all have repeatedly stated.

The Iraq Army is being rebuilt, re-trained, re-supplied, re-armed, re-structured and supported in every possible way. They are also, by most reports, doing their share to fight valiantly when called upon to do so. If they were ready to take control of their nations (re: OIF and OEF), then we would not be there to assist them. They will become ready, and thousands of our people are there doing everything imaginable to show them how much we care about their freedom.

The Booby traps that everywhere are being laid by an enemy which is the enemy of us all... that is why we are there. To stop them.