a pretty accurate portraial of what has happened. 

--- "Cleveland, Kyle E."
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The blame for the current state of affairs in Iraq
> lies less at the feet
> of Bush/Cheney than it does with Donald Rumsfeld. 
> To topple Saddam AND
> pacify the tribal elements across the Sunni/Shia
> divide, we needed to
> deploy 500,000 troops at the outset.  His "gee-whiz"
> doctrine of "shock
> and awe" (they were neither shocked, nor awed)
> failed miserably.  And,
> if you recall, early in the war he was asked by a
> SOLDIER, "Why are we
> only going to war with 150K ground troops."  His
> answer was, "You go to
> war with the Army you have."
> 
> The Army we had at the time of the Iraq invasion had
> a 1 to 10 "tooth to
> tail" ratio, meaning that for every combat troop
> there were 9 support
> troops behind him.  Note that 150K figure means that
> we effectively only
> had 15K troops actively prosecuting the war.  The
> 500K figure would not
> have toppled Sadaam any faster, but the pacification
> and rebuilding
> effort would have vastly improved our chances of
> standing up a
> relatively strong democracy.  Many of those 500K
> troops are engineers of
> various trades that could have easily fixed the
> infrastructure.
> 
> Like a victim of a heart attack, there is a "golden
> hour" before
> treatment becomes less effective.  Our golden hour
> in Iraq was 2004.
> The insurgency had not coalesced, the Baath Party
> was in shambles, the
> Sunnis and Shia were both back on their heels and in
> no position not to
> negotiate, the British had COMPLETELY pacified the
> south (thanks,
> Deri!). Instead of putting someone like Petraeus in
> charge then, we
> installed an incompetent Paul Bremer within the
> Emerald City of the
> Green Zone.
> 
> Three or four times as many boots on the ground
> would have allowed us to
> cement our presence of strength, intimidating
> ne'er-do-wells by sheer
> mass (yes, it works).
> 
> The "surge" is being portrayed as an increase solely
> in combat troops.
> That is NOT the case.  These are primarily combat
> service support and
> service support (drawn heavily from Reserve and ARNG
> ranks).  These
> troops are taking the pressure off the "teeth" and
> allowing them to do
> their jobs.
> 
> Issues like those with contractors such as
> Blackwater would have been
> much less likely if we had enough conventional
> Military Police on the
> ground to pull security for State Dept.  Soldiers
> are under the purview
> of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 
> Contractors are not
> (possibly about to change, but why close the barn
> door after the horse
> is already out?).
> 
> I am so angry at the reporting of this war!  In
> America, it seems that
> the only media outlet that is "fair and balanced" is
> the Wall Street
> Journal.  You want half-way decent coverage of the
> war?  Read the
> Journal.
> 
> Did we need to invade Iraq?  Heavens no!  Were we
> lied to?  Possibly,
> and those responsible need to be taken to the
> woodshed.  Iraq was a
> paper tiger with no teeth.  Sadaam, cruel and
> heinous as he was,
> presented no clear and present danger to US
> interests--but we all know
> that now.  We can't undo what's been done.  Iran, on
> the other hand, is
> a real tiger.  Its president is not just spouting
> idle rhetoric when he
> speaks of wiping Israel off the face of the earth or
> including US soil
> in the Islamic Caliphate.
> 
> Kat, I think we might need to worry more about an
> attack on Iran from
> Israel right now than one from the US.  For the US,
> Iran is nothing more
> than a frustrating nuisance at the moment.  For
> Israel, we're talking
> about the survival of a nation and its heritage and
> faith.
> 
> Kyle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cerebral Palsy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: disgusting behavior
> 
> I would never say never, Linda.  We civilians are
> not at the top with
> the
> President and have no idea what the reality of the
> situation is ftom
> there.
> As much as I hate to admit it, we don't have the
> full picture from where
> we
> sit.  You only heed to read Kyle's posts to get
> another aspect of the
> situation.
> 
> I have no high hopes that the next President will be
> able to get us out
> of
> Iraq because President Bush and Cheney have got us
> in so deep we won't
> be
> able to get out without causing further irrepable
> harm.  I don't even
> want
> to think about the possibility of invading Iran.
> 
> Kat
> 
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Linda Walker [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:39:02 -1000
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: disgusting behavior
> 
> 
> I agree about the draft because that would stop this
> insanity. The 
> refusal you saw in Nam would be nothing compared to
> the refusal to go 
> to Iraq. In Nam they did not even draft married
> people let alone both 
> parents. Then we might have a real peace movement in
> this country. I 
> just hope this teaches the public not to follow our
> leaders into war so
> easily.
> I am not saying they both should not serve. I am
> saying we don't need 
> to be making orphans out of their children.
> The Dems will never initiate a draft. I am so scared
> of what Bush 
> will do with his final time. He thinks it's ok to
> roll on Iran.
> 
> At 12:13 AM 10/30/2007, you wrote:
> >Unfortunately, both men and women signed up to be
> in the armed forces
> >and both have to serve. The military makes no
> distinction in this case
> -
> >this is the way women's libbers wanted it back in
> the 1970s and 1980s
> >and this is what they got. Don't get me wrong, I'm
> a feminist myself.
> >If you volunteer to serve in the military, you had
> better be prepared
> to
> >go where the military sends you - that's the
> reality of it.
> >
> >Also another thing is going on is that commissioned
> officers are being
> >called back into duty even after their official
> duties are over - they
> >can be called back at the DOD's whim, and they are
> even calling back
> >permanently disabled officers, too, those who would
> not ordinarily be
> >even  considered fit for active duty.  If you're a
> commissioned
> officer,
> >there's a clause in your contract that says you can
> be 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy