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 called back if
>the need is there. You're not totally out of service until you fully
>retire.
>
>Frankly, I think we need a draft - we are in a situation where our
armed
>forces are stretched so thin that reserved units are sent back over and
>over and non-com tours of duty keep getting extended further and
>further. But I'm willing to bet this is such a hot potato that Bush
is
>trying to defer it as long as possible so the next Administration gets
>to deal with it and its consequences.
>
>Kat
>
>Linda Walker wrote:
> > I just think one parent should stay home it doesn't matter which sex
I
> > just think it is barbaric to send both parents to war especially for
> > this type of action.
> >
> > At 06:24 PM 10/29/2007, you wrote:
> >> well linda, we never had the women joining as they do
> >> now. in precious wars usually a woman in the military
> >> was to be a care giver to the wounded, but, with
> >> "equal rights"....
> >>
> >> --- Linda Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > uniquely horrible in that it is an entirely
> >> > unnecessary war just my
> >> > opinion and it is more brutal because of the length
> >> > of time people
> >> > are serving and the fact that Bush will send two
> >> > parents in there
> >> > causing incredible worry to the families and
> >> > children. We never did
> >> > things like that before. I guess I just kinda hope
> >> > we've learned
> >> > something since the Spanish inquisition and it's
> >> > interesting that's
> >> > the one you mention since we have Abu Ghraib.
> >> > Everyone responds to trauma differently. My father
> >> > never raised his
> >> > voice or his hand against anyone and he is a war
> >> > hero so I am not of
> >> > course talking about everyone.
> >> > In the child abuse work I do, I see some highly
> >> > resilient people who
> >> > have good lives to people who are just destroyed by
> >> > the events even
> >> > to the point of taking their own life. We will be
> >> > paying for this
> >> > war emotionally and socially for a couple of
> >> > generations. Of course
> >> > not everyone but some returning vets won't be able
> >> > to cope and they
> >> > will act out in violence towards themselves and
> >> > those closest to
> >> > them. It is well known there is a high incidence of
> >> > domestic violence
> >> > inside the services.
> >> > And it bugs me that we primarily report our soldiers
> >> > deaths but
> >> > seldom report the number of displaced Iraquis
> >> > because of our actions.
> >> > Anyhow this is taking away from the terrible
> >> > inhumane way that woman
> >> > was treated. We'll never know if she would have
> >> > lived with prompt tratement.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > At 04:40 PM 10/29/2007, you wrote:
> >> > >Linda, if your logic were to be applied across the
> >> > board, there wouldn't
> >> > >be any vets who could go back to civilian lives
> >> > and get on with them.
> >> > >Remember that we have been in wars since this
> >> > country was founded and
> >> > >there is nothing new about the traumas of war (well
> >> > except for our
> >> > >capacity to quickly kill each other). If you think
> >> > our brutality in
> >> > >Iraq is uniquely horrible, may I refer you to any
> >> > history of the Spanish
> >> > >Inquisition or the Roman Empire? Violence, alas,
> >> > is nothing new.
> >> > >
> >> > >Having said that I do agree with you that we don't
> >> > need to be in Iraq
> >> > >because we need to spend our money where it's
> >> > better put to use, and I
> >> > >think we have done very little good by invading
> >> > Iraq.
> >> > >
> >> > >Kat
>
>-----------------------
>
>To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE - Free email based on Microsoft(r) Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
