You need to build a little birdhouse in your soul, my man.I was hoping no one would bust that out.
Remember the worst case scenario in Iraq?
- Thread starter Westy
- Start date
Yeah classic movie.... When it was made it was described by some critics who wanted to ban it as being "a text book on how to build a terrorist organisation".
I think what people miss alot of the time is that this hasnt just been a war, it's been a series of small wars, and that the successes and failures in each of them lead to statements which, when looked at in a later context, seem ludicrous.
Take for instance the "Mission accomplished" speech. At the time, the US military had just crushed the Iraqi army. There were no more "major combat operations" to be had, only small, faction level stuff. It was indeed a victory, but still it proved to illustrate that the admin didnt know what it was in for. But that's not the same as a lie...to me anyway.
The "last throes of insurgency" stuff also occured during a time when there wasnt so much organization on the part of the insurgents, and the battlefield looked a bit different than it does today. Granted the statements viewed today are "untrue" but the war has changed, and so have the opinions of the amin on some level....as evidenced by their definition of victory, etc. continuing to evolve.
Now with Petreus, maybe we should view what he has said with skepticism because of the evolution of this war and who knows what will happen, but to assume he's being untruthful for political reasons might be a bad assumption. I dunno.
I wouldn't call the siege of Fallujia with over 1,200 troops small faction level by any means.
If I'm building your house and I do a kickass job digging the hole for the foundation then declare "Mission Accomplished," I'm either retarded or lying. Take your pick.
Do you think that (a.) Bush, the CIA and the military all thought that once the Iraqi army was crushed, that they'd easily be able to handle any sectarian/insurgent violence that might flare up, so they figured "major combat operations" were over.
(b.) Bush knew the war wasnt even close to over, but decided just to make an ass out of himself by announcing "mission accomplished" just for the hell of it.
(c.) Bush ignored all his advisors, went to Kinkos and had a big banner made and decided the war was all over on his own with no input from others, even though he'd never even been there.
Between him and Rumy I'd have to pick "C". 
Sorry, the administration has been wrong on so many things, that it's impossible for me to accept "this time it's different" with any bit of credibility. Whether it's being intentionally "untrue" or just plain incompetent doesn't really matter... They've just been wrong on everything from Al Qaeda/Saddam ties, WMD, troops needed, reconstruction, oil revenues, IGC, Curveball, etc that it'll take a lot more than a general standing up and saying it's different for me to believe it.
Sorry, I forgot option 3 to retarded or lying: pathologically delusional. I'll concede that living in a total ****ing fantasy land is not the same as retarded. There's a difference between willful and involuntary idiocy.
I do think that Bush genuinely thought the major operations were over, based on selective hearing, ideological wishful thinking, and close advisors either equally hopeful or petrified not to be. I don't think for one second that, even at that moment, the majority or accepted position of the CIA or military was that major combat operations were over.
Ire, you aren’t being an ass at all! The fact that people care enough to question what is going on over here is a good thing! I am happy to answer your questions. (I just wish I knew how to quote people.) Lets see if I can answer them:
“1. How is the security we are providing any better than what they would get by turning to the militias?”
That is because we are as much of a neutral-party as you can have over here. The security provided by the militias only extends as far as the borders or their town, tribe, etc. They do a good job of keeping crime down, providing services and in many case, kicking terrorists out (because they are getting sick of their families getting blown up) However, many times these militias will engage each other from across the streets separating their various groups. The military is engaged what I like to call “chaperon operations”. Simply having a US presence there keeps these militias from fighting each other and doing bad things. It isn't a solution, obviously, but its a start. There are still many obstacles to overcome. Kind of a once around the world answer, if you want a little more, I’d be happy to shoot you an e-mail.
2. How can we say we are winning militarily? We may kill more of their guys, but if they continue to recruit and attack is that really a win?”
We don’t win wars by counting bodies. That is a mistake we made in Vietnam. I say we are winning militarily, because we are breaking the ability of these terrorist groups to conduct effect military operations again Coalition and Iraqi forces. (Will we totally negate that? Never. We can’t even do it in the US.) In addition, our military presence has allowed the Iraqi Army to take over in a number of areas, as well as increase our ability to provide services (such as electricity, clean water, etc) to the people. Obviously, we have a long way to go, especially with the electrical grid. However demand is dropping due to cooler temperatures, so we should be able to get ahead on that. But as I said before, the plans of military, economic and political operations must mesh and each must achieve success.
The American people have never really had to deal with a counter-insurgency.
I don’t know what documentary you were talking about, but it sounds really interesting. I am kind of limited in the media I get to see.
The American people have never really had to deal with a real counter-insurgency. The shortest SUCCESSFUL counter-insurgency was 15 years long. These types of wars are not won by dropping laser guided bombs through air vents. They are long, drawn out conflicts, where you can’t, for sure say, you are winning or losing. It is something the American people and the military are still coming to grips with. We like things in black and white. That is not the case over here. People think, if we aren’t winning, then we have to be losing. Again, not the case with counter-insurgency. It sucks, trust me. You guys aren’t trying to win it every day!
Like I said before, those are short, incomplete answers to your questions, but I could go on for pages and pages, and I don’t want to bore anyone. Besides I never read posts longer than a paragraph!!
“1. How is the security we are providing any better than what they would get by turning to the militias?”
That is because we are as much of a neutral-party as you can have over here. The security provided by the militias only extends as far as the borders or their town, tribe, etc. They do a good job of keeping crime down, providing services and in many case, kicking terrorists out (because they are getting sick of their families getting blown up) However, many times these militias will engage each other from across the streets separating their various groups. The military is engaged what I like to call “chaperon operations”. Simply having a US presence there keeps these militias from fighting each other and doing bad things. It isn't a solution, obviously, but its a start. There are still many obstacles to overcome. Kind of a once around the world answer, if you want a little more, I’d be happy to shoot you an e-mail.
2. How can we say we are winning militarily? We may kill more of their guys, but if they continue to recruit and attack is that really a win?”
We don’t win wars by counting bodies. That is a mistake we made in Vietnam. I say we are winning militarily, because we are breaking the ability of these terrorist groups to conduct effect military operations again Coalition and Iraqi forces. (Will we totally negate that? Never. We can’t even do it in the US.) In addition, our military presence has allowed the Iraqi Army to take over in a number of areas, as well as increase our ability to provide services (such as electricity, clean water, etc) to the people. Obviously, we have a long way to go, especially with the electrical grid. However demand is dropping due to cooler temperatures, so we should be able to get ahead on that. But as I said before, the plans of military, economic and political operations must mesh and each must achieve success.
The American people have never really had to deal with a counter-insurgency.
I don’t know what documentary you were talking about, but it sounds really interesting. I am kind of limited in the media I get to see.
The American people have never really had to deal with a real counter-insurgency. The shortest SUCCESSFUL counter-insurgency was 15 years long. These types of wars are not won by dropping laser guided bombs through air vents. They are long, drawn out conflicts, where you can’t, for sure say, you are winning or losing. It is something the American people and the military are still coming to grips with. We like things in black and white. That is not the case over here. People think, if we aren’t winning, then we have to be losing. Again, not the case with counter-insurgency. It sucks, trust me. You guys aren’t trying to win it every day!
Like I said before, those are short, incomplete answers to your questions, but I could go on for pages and pages, and I don’t want to bore anyone. Besides I never read posts longer than a paragraph!!
Trascend, this was a pretty naive thing to say, especially since I know you aren’t over here…
“30 bombings a day. Mission failed.” One of my jobs is to keep track of the “bombings” by day, and I can tell you that in Baghdad, there are days that there are no attacks or bombings at all. Furthermore, I never said we had completed that task, I said that was our mission. And if you look at the activity in past years to now, there is a significant decrease in attacks, especially ‘spectacular ones’ that cause dozens of casualties.
I know that many people will see my opinions and reporting as skewed, since I am in the Army and I am limited to what I can say, but I am trying very hard to give the facts about what is going on over here. Then you can balance what you hear from the media and politicians, enabling you to make your own decisions.
“30 bombings a day. Mission failed.” One of my jobs is to keep track of the “bombings” by day, and I can tell you that in Baghdad, there are days that there are no attacks or bombings at all. Furthermore, I never said we had completed that task, I said that was our mission. And if you look at the activity in past years to now, there is a significant decrease in attacks, especially ‘spectacular ones’ that cause dozens of casualties.
I know that many people will see my opinions and reporting as skewed, since I am in the Army and I am limited to what I can say, but I am trying very hard to give the facts about what is going on over here. Then you can balance what you hear from the media and politicians, enabling you to make your own decisions.
That should have read month, not day, my mistake. I wasn't paying attention to what I was typing.
In any case, my point still stands - 30 bombings a month is not even remotely "secure". 1 bombing a year in NYC and there would be hell to pay.
Also, I don't have to be there. Facts are facts. 30 bombings a month doesn't come from a group who cannot mount 'effective operations". Sure it's less than 60 from 4 months ago, and that's great, but it's a hell of a long way from none. I can genuinely say, not even being there, that "things are going crappy" (your words) and that the administration is absolutely full of crap with their "mission accomplished" sound bites. You say you aren't finished, the adminsitration says you pretty much are when the reality is - not even close and possibly never will be.
I'm pretty sure the Iraqis who have to dodge explosions, tanks and gunfire on their way to go get bread, milk and water would agree.
In any case, my point still stands - 30 bombings a month is not even remotely "secure". 1 bombing a year in NYC and there would be hell to pay.
Also, I don't have to be there. Facts are facts. 30 bombings a month doesn't come from a group who cannot mount 'effective operations". Sure it's less than 60 from 4 months ago, and that's great, but it's a hell of a long way from none. I can genuinely say, not even being there, that "things are going crappy" (your words) and that the administration is absolutely full of crap with their "mission accomplished" sound bites. You say you aren't finished, the adminsitration says you pretty much are when the reality is - not even close and possibly never will be.
I'm pretty sure the Iraqis who have to dodge explosions, tanks and gunfire on their way to go get bread, milk and water would agree.
30 ‘bombings’ a month is about accurate.
However, the main flaw in your argument is that you compare Baghdad to NYC. You can’t compare apples and oranges. One is a war zone, one is not. Your comparison is baseless. You imply that success equals establishing US-level security in a semi-third world country? You are as loony as Rumsfield was (or as we call him Dummy-Rummy. Not in my chain of command anymore, I can say what I want. The man was a moron.)
And of course you are right. You don’t have to be here to get the facts, because the media is absolutely not skewed one way or the other. I will defer all my follow-on questions to you, since you seem to know more about what’s going on over here than people actually here.
I still stand by the reality-on-the-ground. We are not finished, and like I said, welcome to the world of counter-insurgency! They are measured in decades, not years.
Do I think we should have invaded Iraq? No. Not until at least we finished Afghanistan (decades, remember). But you don’t cry over spilled milk, you re-evaluate the conditions and to try to set yourself up for success. What is done is done. I think everyone can agree that the war is not going as we planned it. Trust me, I’m sitting here on my second tour. I miss my family, friends and home. I want to see then again, but I do my duty, as do the rest of us over here.
However, at this point, knowing what we know, pulling out would have greater consequences then if we stayed. An Iraq war, would turn into a regional one.
But I’m sure you know all about the dynamics between the Sunnis and Shia. Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi and Kuwait. Between the tribal and regional divisions that span national boarders. If we up and leave…. just wait. You as a tax-payer and me as a member of an all-volunteer force. I represent you. We all represent America.
We broke it, now we must fix it. (Whether you agree with if we should ahve broke it or not in the first place) If you don't like that option, let me ask, did you vote in your last congresional election? Have you run for office? How many letters to your congressmen have you written? How many books have you written? How many articles have you submitted?
You have the ability to change the nation. Now, get off this forum and go make a difference!!
However, the main flaw in your argument is that you compare Baghdad to NYC. You can’t compare apples and oranges. One is a war zone, one is not. Your comparison is baseless. You imply that success equals establishing US-level security in a semi-third world country? You are as loony as Rumsfield was (or as we call him Dummy-Rummy. Not in my chain of command anymore, I can say what I want. The man was a moron.)
And of course you are right. You don’t have to be here to get the facts, because the media is absolutely not skewed one way or the other. I will defer all my follow-on questions to you, since you seem to know more about what’s going on over here than people actually here.
I still stand by the reality-on-the-ground. We are not finished, and like I said, welcome to the world of counter-insurgency! They are measured in decades, not years.
Do I think we should have invaded Iraq? No. Not until at least we finished Afghanistan (decades, remember). But you don’t cry over spilled milk, you re-evaluate the conditions and to try to set yourself up for success. What is done is done. I think everyone can agree that the war is not going as we planned it. Trust me, I’m sitting here on my second tour. I miss my family, friends and home. I want to see then again, but I do my duty, as do the rest of us over here.
However, at this point, knowing what we know, pulling out would have greater consequences then if we stayed. An Iraq war, would turn into a regional one.
But I’m sure you know all about the dynamics between the Sunnis and Shia. Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi and Kuwait. Between the tribal and regional divisions that span national boarders. If we up and leave…. just wait. You as a tax-payer and me as a member of an all-volunteer force. I represent you. We all represent America.
We broke it, now we must fix it. (Whether you agree with if we should ahve broke it or not in the first place) If you don't like that option, let me ask, did you vote in your last congresional election? Have you run for office? How many letters to your congressmen have you written? How many books have you written? How many articles have you submitted?
You have the ability to change the nation. Now, get off this forum and go make a difference!!
On this we can agree. Pulling out would have been absolutely catastrophic and would have thrown the entire region into chaos.
Actually, I have a pretty large Political Science background and know a fair bit about the dynamics in the region. Possibly more than most low level grunts on the ground in a need to know basis and definitely better than the average American. I am not exactly in the dark on what makes Iraq, and moreso the entire region, a powderkeg. I am also well versed in Soviet/Middle East relations.
No, you do not represent me and i sure as hell do not represent America.
I'm Canadian. Just for the record, I have voted in every election, right down to the municipal level, that I have been eligible for for the last 11 years or so and I have various peer reviewed papers on the subject circa 2004/2005. I have also covered 2 Canadian national elections and one american presidential election as a journalist and as such could not be active at a party level at the time. (I would have been otherwise.)
The point still stands. Iraq wasn't being bombed daily before the United States moved in and took up residence. It is being bombed daily now. You most assuredly did break it and are doing a pretty piss poor job of fixing it, despite throwing a large part of the military and an obscene amount of dollars at it.
Would anyone else be able to do a better job? Who knows, probably not as it is a difficult situation with a hardened and determined enemy. I am by no means even close to being an expert in millitary operations, but it's pretty clear that house to house fighting with a non-uniformed enemy that can seem to vanish at will isn't going to be an easy or fair fight.
However, even alluding to victory or mission accomplished etc, is nothing more than pathetic political posturing and that is where the thread was headed. As you mentioned, it will be decades before something even remotely close to a victory can be declared, if ever.
Oh, jeez, that's a tough one. Let's see....
I honestly don’t think our military will do anything. Now this is my opinion, and there are plenty of people with Stars on their collar who know more than me and will make the decision.
I base my opinion on these three reasons. We have no US forces in Kurdistan. The attacks are only being carried out by a small Kurdish faction. These attacks, and the threat to Kurdish sovereignty are not appreciated by the Kurdish or Iraqi governments and they are doing everything they can to make them stop. Finally Turkey is very aware of its position. One reason it has not been accepted into the EU (one of its top goals) is its actions in regards to the Kurds. A full out invasion of northern Iraq would not only jeopardize their EU bid, but also their status in NATO.
But who knows. We’ll have to wait and see.
I honestly don’t think our military will do anything. Now this is my opinion, and there are plenty of people with Stars on their collar who know more than me and will make the decision.
I base my opinion on these three reasons. We have no US forces in Kurdistan. The attacks are only being carried out by a small Kurdish faction. These attacks, and the threat to Kurdish sovereignty are not appreciated by the Kurdish or Iraqi governments and they are doing everything they can to make them stop. Finally Turkey is very aware of its position. One reason it has not been accepted into the EU (one of its top goals) is its actions in regards to the Kurds. A full out invasion of northern Iraq would not only jeopardize their EU bid, but also their status in NATO.
But who knows. We’ll have to wait and see.
IMO that is not real possibility. There were Turkish incursions into Irak in 1995 and 1997. Turkish army would strike with missiles, air raids and a series of small-scale incursions.
It is needless to say that your military would help Turkey with air power and surveillance, however it is interesting to see how double standards are applied (Kosovo vs Kurdistan).
Besides U.S. Special Forces are allready helping their Turkish friends trying to kill the leadership of the PKK party.
Here are some interesting datas about complicated relationship between Turkey, USA, Iran, Irak, Israel and Kurds:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__war_brewing.html
There are no substantial US forces in Kurdistan, if there were (A) I doubt you would have access to their operations and (B) if you did, I don’t think you would be posting them on Ridemonkey, because that would be a breech of whatever security clearance you may have.
The differences between Kurdistan and Kosovo are two numerous to post on here (much like comparing Baghdad with NYC). If you feel like attacking US policies (which I will admit is quite easy), try doing a little homework first. Talk to Rockwool, he seriously has a very good grip on these things.
Lastly, your opinion that the US would join in a military attack with the Turks on the Kurds is absolutely inane.
The differences between Kurdistan and Kosovo are two numerous to post on here (much like comparing Baghdad with NYC). If you feel like attacking US policies (which I will admit is quite easy), try doing a little homework first. Talk to Rockwool, he seriously has a very good grip on these things.
Lastly, your opinion that the US would join in a military attack with the Turks on the Kurds is absolutely inane.
Whatever for start you might check the above link.
You are free to make comparison between Kosovo and Kurdistan if you like, I would like to learn something new.
Who's talking about substantial US forces?
If the Turkey attacks PKK (not all Kurds) in Irak (what is not something new), it's in their and your interests that attack will be short and effective. Few bombing runs and few satellite datas might help, Kurds won't even notice, since it's hard to differ between your and Turkish planes. However you can always claim that you've bombed AQ.
I don't feel to argue with you but since when only US soldiers can attack US policies?
You are free to make comparison between Kosovo and Kurdistan if you like, I would like to learn something new.
Who's talking about substantial US forces?
If the Turkey attacks PKK (not all Kurds) in Irak (what is not something new), it's in their and your interests that attack will be short and effective. Few bombing runs and few satellite datas might help, Kurds won't even notice, since it's hard to differ between your and Turkish planes. However you can always claim that you've bombed AQ.
I don't feel to argue with you but since when only US soldiers can attack US policies?
Yeah, about your website that you use as a “source”. The American Free Press is know in certain circles as an anti-Semitic and extreme right-wing publication. It advocates the abolishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, the federal income tax, supports Hugo Chavez, and has been opposed to all U.S. military interventions from the fall of the Berlin Wall until now. It is also one of the leading conspiracy theory publications.
I’d caution you to find better material to base your arguments on.
I’d caution you to find better material to base your arguments on.
I'll bet R00 will claim he can't read it. Ain't no way the US Army could be permitted to view the American Free Press website!
If Iraq is broken, and it is America's responsibility to fix it, how should this be done?
If the military is responsible for breaking it in the first place, how can the military fix it? Isn't breaking things what militaries do?
Are you counting "bombings" against Coalition personnel, or are you including Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence in that figure?
Tell me more. Tell me about military reconstruction in Iraq.
I know the recruiters tell potential enlistees that they are gonna build schools and hospitals, but it doesn't really happen. Please provide some examples of where it has.
Thanks.
That number is only attacks against US and allied units. It does not include iraqi on iraqi violence.
edit: i spael gud!
Rick, once again I can only tell you what I know my unit is doing.
We have only been here about a month, but we have helped to re-build/re-open two schools, have fixed two broken water mains (that flooded entire blocks), have helped re-open a hospital, fixed myriad roads, we have handed out Lord knows how many soccer balls, aided in the recruitment of local neighborhood watches. When we need to build something, we go out and we hire an Iraqi company to do it. We help, provide assistance, but put an Iraqi face on it. We have free health clinics where we send out our medics, with Iraqi Army medics to neighborhoods and provide free health care for anyone who shows up. We engage local imams to see what improvements their neighborhood need. We have bought (with unit funds) and installed 5 generators. Each generator can power an entire neighborhood.
We engage in those types of activities every day. Yes, we do some fighting and we have had many Soldiers killed or wounded, but that does not happen every day. On the other hand, reconstruction operations do.
I don’t think you can generalize and say what every recruiter tells potential Soldiers (unless you have talked to every recruiter), but we do a lot more rebuilding than fighting. Its just that the fighting is what gets everyone’s attention.
However, in a counter-insurgency, your engineers are often more valuable than your infantry units. Rebuilding is the key to winning, not blowing things up. That is the heart of counter-insurgency doctrine. The center of gravity is the will of the population, not defeating the insurgents. You take away their support and the insurgents go away. But like I said before, that is not a fast process.
We have only been here about a month, but we have helped to re-build/re-open two schools, have fixed two broken water mains (that flooded entire blocks), have helped re-open a hospital, fixed myriad roads, we have handed out Lord knows how many soccer balls, aided in the recruitment of local neighborhood watches. When we need to build something, we go out and we hire an Iraqi company to do it. We help, provide assistance, but put an Iraqi face on it. We have free health clinics where we send out our medics, with Iraqi Army medics to neighborhoods and provide free health care for anyone who shows up. We engage local imams to see what improvements their neighborhood need. We have bought (with unit funds) and installed 5 generators. Each generator can power an entire neighborhood.
We engage in those types of activities every day. Yes, we do some fighting and we have had many Soldiers killed or wounded, but that does not happen every day. On the other hand, reconstruction operations do.
I don’t think you can generalize and say what every recruiter tells potential Soldiers (unless you have talked to every recruiter), but we do a lot more rebuilding than fighting. Its just that the fighting is what gets everyone’s attention.
However, in a counter-insurgency, your engineers are often more valuable than your infantry units. Rebuilding is the key to winning, not blowing things up. That is the heart of counter-insurgency doctrine. The center of gravity is the will of the population, not defeating the insurgents. You take away their support and the insurgents go away. But like I said before, that is not a fast process.
seems that every few months, someone here slips this in. let's make one thing clear: iraq wasn't exactly "fixed" before we "broke" it. it was a thugocracy rife with actual human rights violations, undeserving of sovereignty due to repeated aggression against their own & their neighbors, willfully dismissing any acknowledged agreement wrt weapons programs, to include violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties. play all you want inside your borders & you'll be met with strongly-worded letters and recalling of ambassadors. bleed over & start giving ample justification for military action & you're more than deserving of the treatment.
you know how the fits been hitting the shan with the junta in myanmar? we're slap-happy w/ sanctions & that is most likely all that will happen. the oppressed cry out "where are the americans?" (no, really, they do), but it falls on deaf ears, mostly due to the not-so-silly notion of sovereignty.
where was i? oh, right: we didn't break iraq, we just broke it more.
my cars been limping along, probably only firing on 2 cylinders and burning a lot of oil... If I completely dismantle the whole thing (I'm talking popping out perfectly good wheel bearings, upholstery, everything) and lay it out piece by piece in my front yard, is it my fault or the car's?
You shouldn't have used smart bombs to take it apart. But the car had it coming.
This is a good point. Most of the administrations statistics are based on attacks against American forces. If you double your presence in Baghdad insurgents will go into hiding or change locations. But they aren't gone.
Sectarian violence is huge, but the administrations stats are so cherry picked they are useless. Shot in the Back of the head, Sectarian violence. Blown up, shot anywhere else, run over by a truck, kidnapped and killed...well that's just good old fashion violence, so we don't keep track of it.
Generally for every soldier killed in Iraq, quite a few civilians are getting killed, as of August about 1800 iraqis per month were being killed, 558 military wounded, about 200 seriously, 88 Military dead. The number of Iraqis dying isn't a full accounting, it's just a partial count. The CIA and anyone who knew anything about Iraq or the Muslim world had a pretty god idea what would happen when we took over Iraq. The CIA warned Bush that the country would most likely fall apart and enter a sectarian civil war. Bush doesn't even remember ordering the Iraqi army disbanded, or who proposed it.
There are significant parallels to Vietnam, and in many ways its worse, much worse than Vietnam. The casualty rate is same. The enemy is irregulars and insurgents. They look just like the civilians we are there to protect.
And it's worse..There is no real functioning national government over the area we control. At best it's the Kurds and the rest of Iraq. WE have the largest national debt in history, and the largest compared to the GDP since WWII. our country is 9.3 Trillion dollars in debt, and he war is costing us 200 billion borrowed dollars per year, borrowed mostly from China and other countries, Weakening our dollar and increasing our trade imbalance, causing the dollar to spiral down. We have now (By Pentagon estimates) 175,000 seriously mentally ill troops, 15,000+ permanently disabled young men and women. The VA hospital estimated the cost of treating the currently wounded will top $300 Billion dollars over their lifetimes.
Reactor, you forgot that I get the privilege to spend 16 months away from my family, friends and home every 13 months! I mean how awesome is that…. Oh wait. The shrapnel in my leg and the brain damage I got from an IED in '05 isn’t much fun either. But I will do my duty to the fullest, and as they say in the following article... see the mission through until completion.
In all seriousness, I don’t think anything speaks better than this piece written by a group of Soldiers from the 82nd ABN. Mind you, not officers, but the grunts on the ground. The door kickers. We are indeed privileged to have such brave and insightful men and women serving in our armed forces. Regardless if you agree with the war or not (and I know most do not), all Americans should be extremely proud of THEIR all-volunteer military.
For those of you who haven't seen it, here it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
Nothing proves their point more than that fact most of them are now dead. One was shot in the head (but survived) and a few died when the truck they were riding in had a flat tire and fell off an overpass.
In all seriousness, I don’t think anything speaks better than this piece written by a group of Soldiers from the 82nd ABN. Mind you, not officers, but the grunts on the ground. The door kickers. We are indeed privileged to have such brave and insightful men and women serving in our armed forces. Regardless if you agree with the war or not (and I know most do not), all Americans should be extremely proud of THEIR all-volunteer military.
For those of you who haven't seen it, here it is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
Nothing proves their point more than that fact most of them are now dead. One was shot in the head (but survived) and a few died when the truck they were riding in had a flat tire and fell off an overpass.
I read that article when it first came out and I was bummed to hear when a few of the guys died. Looks like Turkey will be going into Iraq to try and eliminate the PKK
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21399932/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21399932/
What you may not know is, I am former military, worked in "special projects" intel, with access to information that you'll and most of the world will never see. I spent plenty of time away from my family, and had to leave powers of attorney and my parents with something like this "if you call and I don't return your call in 24 hours, I'm deployed. If you don't hear from me in six months.." My father was a career military man, he knew what I meant. Bush screwed the pooch, most of what has happened was forseen many years ago.
I don't mean to take anything away for the boot on the ground. You guys are doing the job you're told to do. As a fighting force the US armed forces are the best in the world. Unfortunately your civilian leadership is deluded, and the top level the military brass is a bunch of toadies worried more about their next promotion than their troops. You might want to look at what general sanchez is saying these days.
I wish you luck and hope you safely return home.
Try being the operative word.
It won't work (again), all that will happen is more civilians will be toast.
*shrugs* pretty much everyone has had a go at trying to destroy the PKK! Iraqi, Iran, Turkey, Syria the Brit's and even the US via talking the Kurds into rebeling then removing support, previous to that how many countries were supplying/sanctioning Saddam's experiments in chemical warfare?
It's going to keep going until all 4 countrys give up territory so the kurds have their homeland again, cos they won't stop till then or genocide which ever happens first.
Looks like the turks are off to a good start.
Kurdish rebels have killed 17 Turkish soldiers and wounded 16 others in an ambush
oster_oops:
Kurdish rebels have killed 17 Turkish soldiers and wounded 16 others in an ambush
oster_oops:
Looks like the turks are off to a good start.
Kurdish rebels have killed 17 Turkish soldiers and wounded 16 others in an ambush
Yeeeah...Turkey's gonna get buttfvcked in Northern Iraq.
It's okay, they deserve it.
It's okay, they deserve it.
Turks getting pwned in Northern Iraq? I'll bring the ouzo and watch.