[Tmeyer]

Get back to me in 6 months, and I'll decide if its worse. Right now I'll wait & see if they can improve security.

How long can we keep saying that?????

 

[ire]

not until hillary or obama can declare victory can we leave.

Don't agree with the comment, since "Mission Accomplished" has already happened. I just think we (the administration at least) has made this mess and we ARE there and we should see it through to some kind of end. If that requires us backing off and letting them fight a civil war while we seal the war to outside influence I would agree with that. Part of me believes that we may be better off just leaving, but the other half says we made a mess and have an obligation.

 

[Changleen]

How do you 'seal the war to outside influence' without getting involved yourself and therefore by default making it wider?

 

[valve bouncer]

Must say I don't have a lot of sympathy for those people being re-called to service. The armed forces are voluntary at the moment so presumably they signed some kind of agreement whereby they can be recalled to service basically according to the whims of this capricious administration.
However it's not really any surprise that Bush and co should screw over the people who have been most loyal to them.

 

[Silver]

However it's not really any surprise that Bush and co should screw over the people who have been most loyal to them.

I tried to warn them. If someone wants to slather himself in honey and go wake up a bear after I beg with them not to do it, it's not my fault when they walk into the den all sweet and sticky and then get mauled...

 

[Changleen]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14337372

The Iraq Drawdown as Contradiction

September 11, 2007 · President Bush says that by next summer, he will have cut the U.S. troop commitment in Iraq by 30,000. That will mean a troop presence in midsummer of 2008 of roughly 130,000 — or about the same level as in midsummer of 2006.

The White House says this represents the president's embrace of a recommendation from his field commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and that the drawdown signifies the success of the general's troop surge plan.

But if the general is right about the situation in Iraq, and about the crucial role played by the surge and these 30,000 troops, why does he think their essential contribution will be over by spring? Or even by next summer?

Everything that Petraeus and his pewter-haired partner, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, told Congress in two days of testimony this week pointed to the pivotal contribution of new tactics and the larger force they required.

If these amazing tales are true, and if they indeed can be transferred from the Sunni precincts of Anbar to the Shiite sectors that make up most of Iraq, why would the general and the president risk continued success by withdrawing those critical troops?

The simple answer is that they wouldn't. Not if they had any choice in the matter. But a choice is just what's missing here.

As Petraeus and other military leaders have all said — consistently, and for months — the surge cannot be sustained logistically past the spring of 2008. The Pentagon cannot extend battle tours any further and maintain its other commitments, including those made to the troops.

We have heard this from generals such as Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state, as well as from the last two commanders of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid and his successor, Admiral William Fallon. We have heard it from Petraeus himself.

If the U.S. had planned to occupy Iraq indefinitely, the Pentagon would have known it would need hundreds of thousands of troops to sustain the rotation. This would have meant the reactivation of the draft, sometime right after the terrorist attacks of 2001 or, surely, by late 2002.

That was when Congress and the country were most likely to buy the mortal danger scenario. It was also when Gen. Eric Shinseki was Army chief of staff, telling everyone who would listen that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after deposing Saddam Hussein.

But at the time, most of the Pentagon brass did not want a draft, and surely the White House did not either. The potential political consequences were all too obvious to anyone who remembered the 1960s. So the U.S. invaded Iraq with the lean force idealized by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. And the rest is history.

Now we can see that the U.S. will be in Iraq beyond next summer, and perhaps well beyond the summer after that. But we can also say with certainty that the force levels will be smaller. That is not open to debate. The drawdown is already a fait accompli, waiting for its effective date.

So the hoopla surrounding this week's talk of drawdown may be defined as strictly political. It makes sense for the president and his chorus in Congress to present the drawdown as something other than necessity, in fact a kind of victory in itself. They know that it sounds better for the president to address the nation with the word withdrawal in the headline, rather than with one more stay-the-course speech.

On one level, this week's Petraeus-Crocker show on Capitol Hill was every bit the public relations triumph the White House was counting on all summer — presaged by weeks of leaks and media preparation. Early on, the president met with a circle of friendly commentators, waving before their eyes the amulet of Anbar. This once-restive province became the testing ground for Petraeus' strategy, which was to muscle up on troop strength and make deals with local Sunni militia leaders willing to turn against al-Qaida.

There followed a gush of favorable coverage in Human Events, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The Washington Times and other conservative venues.

That spread to more mainstream media and even beyond. Anbar became a watchword for the administration, and a touchstone for journalists and commentators everywhere. Even the Democratic candidates for president generally genuflected before the notion of progress in Anbar. Republicans in House and Senate invoked the name as though it were a miracle, or at least a miracle drug.

This sell-the-war scenario played itself out through the much-awaited Hill appearance of Crocker and Petraeus, who, by the end of two exhausting days, looked ready to take refuge in Baghdad. The initial reviews of their House performance, mostly admiring and positive, gave way to negativism in the Senate-side show.

In nearly 10 hours on the senators' grill, Petraeus grew ever more rigid and resigned. Here, even the Republicans were asking hard questions and squinting as they listened to the answers. By the end, the general had something like the thousand-yard stare of the post-combat foot soldier.

One can only imagine the conflicting thoughts and cross-pressures this man has experienced this week, and in this year and in this war. But that does not resolve, or excuse, the profound contradiction between his surge prescription and his drawdown proposal for the coming months.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Armies are for breaking things, not fixing them.

If we think that we are responsible for breaking Iraq, and feel we need to fix it...
why do we think that the same folks who broke it will be able to fix it?

 

[LordOpie]

Must say I don't have a lot of sympathy for those people being re-called to service. The armed forces are voluntary at the moment so presumably they signed some kind of agreement whereby they can be recalled to service basically according to the whims of this capricious administration.
However it's not really any surprise that Bush and co should screw over the people who have been most loyal to them.

I understand what you're saying, but there is a reasonable expectation. Of course, reasonable is subjective, so all that one can do is compare it to recent years.

What I'm saying is, if you signed up under the Clinton administration, then I think most people's worst case reasonable scenario was not even close to what Bush&Co are asking of them.

Plus, aren't there a LOT of national guardsmen over there? I don't know much, but I always assumed that the NG was for domestic service. If that is true, then it's unfair and unreasonable to send them out of the country. I mean, what if we have another horrible hurricane this year? Isn't that the job of the NG?

 

[jimmydean]

Must say I don't have a lot of sympathy for those people being re-called to service. The armed forces are voluntary at the moment so presumably they signed some kind of agreement whereby they can be recalled to service basically according to the whims of this capricious administration.
However it's not really any surprise that Bush and co should screw over the people who have been most loyal to them.

The National Guard was never designed, nor trained to be an offensive force. Also, the reserve units are designed and trained to be "reserve units" not front line offense.

So when people sign up and they are told (at least in the national guard) that if deployed, you are out of deployment rotation for a minimum of 8 years, only to find out the Pentagon has decided that isn't good enough and the rules have now changed.

You can't get out of the enlistment contract for breach because "your mileage may vary" and that's not cool. That's why you have people leaving the military in droves when the contract is up.

Another huge issue with losing upper level soldiers is whit you are left with is a bunch of untrained youth with no direction.

15+ month deployments with 12 months home doesn't work. I weep for the future of a military I served in and still love.

<edit>

Plus, aren't there a LOT of national guardsmen over there? I don't know much, but I always assumed that the NG was for domestic service. If that is true, then it's unfair and unreasonable to send them out of the country. I mean, what if we have another horrible hurricane this year? Isn't that the job of the NG?

That's why I was in New Orleans for Katrina along with the South Carolina NG as well as the West Virginia NG because Mississippi and Louisiana National Guard were in Iraq.

 

[Cant Climb]

The National Guard was never designed, nor trained to be an offensive force. Also, the reserve units are designed and trained to be "reserve units" not front line offense.

So when people sign up and they are told (at least in the national guard) that if deployed, you are out of deployment rotation for a minimum of 8 years, only to find out the Pentagon has decided that isn't good enough and the rules have now changed.

You can't get out of the enlistment contract for breach because "your mileage may vary" and that's not cool. That's why you have people leaving the military in droves when the contract is up.

Another huge issue with losing upper level soldiers is whit you are left with is a bunch of untrained youth with no direction.

15+ month deployments with 12 months home doesn't work. I weep for the future of a military I served in and still love.

That's the response i treid to type.....you did it 200% better though.

Also, most times reserve units a severely underfunded, underequppied and undertrained. Units have a Master list of everything they are supposed to have to be a "real military unit".
I would bet most units have 10-20% of the stuff they really need to go operate like they are supposed to. They have little or no repair parts in stocks and old things that aren 't used much tend to break, even with PMCS. Units usaully have vehicles though.....that makes them look like a unit. Units actually get into fights and steal equpiment from each other just so they can do their jobs.

Your point of the reserve units losing well trained emlisted soldiers is excellent. Most reserve units look to a few key soldiers to find out what they are really supposed to be doing and most of the time that is just doing the basics.

I got out in 99 after 12 years. The attitude change towards the use of the reserve force started during the first Iraqi war and carried over into the Bosnia episode IMO.....thats why i got out, they'll call you up on a whim for anything.

 

[valve bouncer]

If soldiers are indeed being pressed into service beyond what they originally signed up for then that is a draft by another name and unconscionable. Still the underhand nature of this regime is far from surprising.

 

[jimmydean]

Also, the uniform change has been another HUGE fiasco. Not sure how many people know about the whole "desert camo" to "ACU" change, but my old unit ended up spending a lot of money buying equipment and uniform items because they couldn't get it through the supply chain prior to going to Afghanistan last year.

The ACU uniform is nice, don't get me wrong. But when Bubba has to drop $800 of his own money so he has enough to wear in combat, it puts a huge strain on him as an individual. He won't get that money back and it might be his whole months salary.

 

[n00dlez]

If soldiers are indeed being pressed into service beyond what they originally signed up for then that is a draft by another name and unconscionable. Still the underhand nature of this regime is far from surprising.

The army calls it "Stoploss" it's a wonderful thing....

 

[n00dlez]

Also, the uniform change has been another HUGE fiasco. Not sure how many people know about the whole "desert camo" to "ACU" change, but my old unit ended up spending a lot of money buying equipment and uniform items because they couldn't get it through the supply chain prior to going to Afghanistan last year.

The ACU uniform is nice, don't get me wrong. But when Bubba has to drop $800 of his own money so he has enough to wear in combat, it puts a huge strain on him as an individual. He won't get that money back and it might be his whole months salary.

Haha, you know that the Army FM covering ACU's says they are "designed to blend into woodland, desert, and urban environments however are proficient in none." I think that's awesome considering we have to take that to war

 

[n00dlez]

As far as the Iraq situation though I feel it's mostly a lost cause. People forget that Iraq was never one unified country like the united states and we need to stop treating it like it is. Iraq was 3 seperate and distinct nations and the British combined them to make it an easier AO to control. So what we're left with today having lost their brutal totalitarian dictator to keep the Iraqi people inline is a civil war that has been building for the past 40 or so years and is just now comming to a boil. We're caught in the middle of a three dimensional ethnic and religious battlefield with no clear clear sight of any enemy to fight. Yes we may have started this and possibly f***ed it up but at this point its a problem that the Iraqi people have to sort out on their own now.

An alternative could lie in giving power back to the local warlords and city governors. The military exists at the moment of enlisting people into the Iraqi army and then possibly sending them to other parts of the country to fight. If you allow these people of power to integrate into the military and with them their subordinates they could govern their own home cities and villages much like state governments did back during the birth of the United States. They would know who were insurgents and who weren't because they know their own people as well the people would already trust these people as they've existed as the local power for who knows how long they've been there.

just my two cents...

 

[SkaredShtles]

If you demand my armchair General opinion here it is. For the last two years I have said we ****ed it up we need to stay and fix it. At this point I have no confidence in our leaders, republican or democrat to ever be able to fix it. I say we start bringing home large numbers. The folks who stay would largely just become training and advisory to Iraqi security forces.

Kind of a reverse Vietnam strategy. Might work. Couldn't be much worse than what we're on about now.

 

[Changleen]

Teh Surge:

A new poll of Iraqis, conducted by ABC News, Britain's BBC, and Japan's public broadcaster NHK, finds that 70 percent of those surveyed say they believe security has worsened in regions where the Bush/Petraeus surge has been focused. Another 11 percent of the people in whose name Bush claims the occupation must continue say the buildup has had no effect.

 

[stinkyboy]

 

[RenegadeRick]

The only reason we are there is oil...

See. Even Alan Greenspan knows it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

 

[LordOpie]

Greenspan was a genius, but the recent interview I saw shows a frail old man who's no longer in touch very sad.

 

[ohio]

Greenspan was a genius, but the recent interview I saw shows a frail old man who's no longer in touch very sad.

What interview? Is it on Youtube?

 

[LordOpie]

What interview? Is it on Youtube?

Is the show "60 Minutes" the one that comes on after the football games? If so, it was that one. He admitted that he knew about the housing mortgage stuff going on, but had no clue that it would lead to the current problems.

 

[MikeD]

Hey, if they can just hold on long enough to blame someone else for the mess--success!

 

[ire]

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20822561/

...the Vietnam War, from 1964-1975. Then, a much larger active military — 8.7 million troops — was bolstered by a draft that added 1.7 million more soldiers to the ranks...

...the active military now numbers about 1.4 million...

I didn't realize the size difference between Veitnam and Iraq. We had a lot larger army back then