iraq

please help me understand why what we are doing in Iraq is described as a war. we very rarely have a battle(you know, shelling, bombing, taking hills and all that stuff) with anyone , no one except us and our Iraqi friends(we really don't know whether they are friends or enemies) is wearing a uniform. i thought in WAR if some one is caught out of uniform that were tried as a spy!!

it appears to me we need police and investigators(fbi types) not military. is military trained to be a civilian police force or to fight wars? how do the people we are there to protect feel when we blow their house up or kill their child? or the terrorist blow it up, as we cannot protect their house or them . the 48th from ga was in charge of one area there and were headed by a police chief, per article i read, they were really making a headway and getting corporation of people. they were replaced by 101st and it has gone down hill, as 101st is trying to run it like a war.

is it possible to even come close to controlling things in Iraq with anything less than marshal law?

did we learn anything in Vietnam??? i heard that one commander told all of his troops that if they showed disrespect for an Iraqi then that was support for the terrorist, i agree. saw old newscast on TV the other nite, showed us burning south Viet villages, the newscasters said, it appears a little hard to convince them we are on their side when we burn their houses. are we doing similar things in Iraq? 3 years, 3000 lives, 15000 wounded, not to mention innocent Iraqis, is it time to try something different?

what do you think?

bush knows?????

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday that American troops under fire in Iraq aren't about to pull out, and he challenged those tempted to attack U.S. forces, "Bring them on."

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

The exterior of the four-seat Navy S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" in the back and "George W. Bush Commander-in-Chief" just below the cockpit window. On the plane's tail was the insignia of the squadron, the "Blue Wolves."

Moments after the landing, the president, wearing a green flight suit and holding a white helmet, got off the plane, saluted those on the flight deck and shook hands with them. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished."

Our strategy in Iraq is to have strike forces ready and capable to move quickly as we gather actionable intelligence. That's how you deal with terrorists. Remember, these are people that are willing to hide in societies and kill randomly. And therefore, the best way to deal with them is to harden targets, harden assets as best as you can. That means blockades and inspection spots. And, as you notice, yesterday, one fellow tried to -- was done in as a he tried to conduct a suicide mission. In other words, an Iraqi policemen did their job.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

cbw's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 7:19pm.

I think they call it war because they don't have another name for it. Sounds ok to me as long as the body counts keep rolling in - just like in Vietnam.

cbw, you make a really good case that John Q Public was brought on board for this war on the basis of untruths.

So now what?

Pull and pray? Didn't work as a teenager, either.

I think we need to continue to support our military as much as possible as long as they are there; we really don't need another Vietnam style homefront. But I think the key to our future and other future successes in Iraq, Afganistan, and [place next axis of evil country here] is in the comment you made about the 101st taking over from the 48th.
I have heard similar stories about how certain units were making slow, plodding progress when they were replaced by units which had no sense of human dignity, no feelings for the country they were in, and no real idea how to proceed besides using severe violence.

I think this is a direct reflection on the commanders and the mentality programmed into our soldiers.
When a tank driver, or artilleryman, or infantry soldier is trained they are trained hard. They live, breath eat, sleep and especially work to learn to kill, hit, engage, attack, and pretty much nothing else. Emotions are slowly replaced by the drive, urge, need to survive and kill, be stronger and tougher than any other army around. They become sledgehammers looking for railroad spikes.
Train anyone like that hard and long enough, and they will do it. The problems arise when you take away the railroad.
Sure, you can swat at flies with a 20lb sledghammer but don't expect the wall to not sustain "collateral" damage.

Your story points out that we may need different "styles" of units. While the violent, kill all and move forward type is a critical and important component of our military, I think a different, more "civillian" oriented troop would be appropriate after the major action.

Europe - especially Germany - after WWII was easy. First, there wasn't a mass of angry religious suicide bombers to be delt with. Secondly, most soldiers had either been drafted or signed up for the war and were looking forward to finishing up to go back home to civilian lives and jobs. The military was not a way of life, it was a temporary duty, an interlude in an otherwise "normal" life.

That changed a bit in Vietnam. While the suicide bombers weren't at an all time high, there were enough "dirty trick fighters" doing small, low level attacks which ate more at the morale of the soldiers and of the homefront than the military machine. The soldiers mentality had been ramped up from these tactics, but the missing home support just killed any kind of caring that could have existed. Not many people anywhere really cared much about how many villages were burned, daughters raped, fathers murderd.

And we failed to win the hearts and minds. Gee, whoda thought?

Enter Iraq. We blitz in, beat the stuffin outta the bad guy really well, and our military performs flawlessly. But now what? The mother of all flies is dead but we keep swinging that dang 20 pounder at all them little flies.
Oh yeah, and that mentality we trained - bred even - into our fantastic fighting force? Gets redirected. Burning villages, raping daughters, murdering fathers. Perhaps not in the extreme that happened in Vietnam but there nonetheless. Collateral damage to that wall.

And we fail to win the hearts and minds. Again. Gee, whoda thought? Again.

Just in case someone wants to jump in here and browbeat me for being non supportive of our troops, just the opposite. I will do all I can to make sure these guys and gals know they are appreciated.
Let me also clearly state, I believe the criminal acts are NOT repeat NOT the norm but really a small small relative percentage of everything going on over there.
But it does happen, and the difference is the media coverage.
Something happens, word gets out, and a few criminals have created more suicide bombers.
These criminals must be urgently removed from our force - if for no other reason than to protect the morale of the good guys out there.

So the idea I would like to throw out for all to chew (or eschew):
- Ideally, replace the entire force in Iraq with soldiers who have been trained in low-intensity combat, rebuilding, and relationship building. Of course this is not possible so what form could this take?
- Replace some of the most battle intensive units with larger but more police type units that have been trained to bring to and restore order in a civillian setting - sort of downsize the hammers while increasing their numbers.
- Additional training for everyone over there in local religion, language and customs. The religious training is of course not trying to convert anyone, just give the ground soldiers a basic understand of what religions exist in Iraq, what the differences are between different Islamic factions, and what to expect from any of this. The training should also include subjects like how to get along with Iraqis - i.e.understand what constitutes an insult and what is a compliment, what kind of holidays are celebrated, and even how the dating and mating game is played - rudimentary stuff like that.
- Develop projects and programs to get more Iraqis together with more Americans. Things like school building are great but even soccer or football training, local festivals, common celebrations of holidays, etc. While this could be really risky in individual situations, it could also help establish lots of good will and feelings.
- Add training for the entire military during basic and advanced training on things like customs around the world, interfacing with local populations, and how to enjoy an extend stay in a foreign country.
- And really really REALLY punish hard HARD the entire chain of command of anyone convicted of common crimes while serving in Iraq.
I think often a mentality develops when soldiers are stationed in a country where the language is not understood and the population is poor that it is ok to kill, or steal. The locals somehow appear as "subhuman" and it is not so tragic to take some stuff or kill or rape here and there.
That has to stop and the stop needs to come from the top level of the chain of command.
The soldiers need to feel that they will be delt with much more harshly if crimes are committed in a war zone than if they were committed at home, and the commanders need to deal harshly with even minor infractions to make this clear to all units; crime doesn't pay over here, either.

So anyone else out there got any ideas?


ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 10:28pm.

Must be a war because what else do you call it when the press has daily body counts and there's two sides, US and everyone else?

It seems we haven't learned the hearts and mines (pun intended) lessons of Vietnam.

My suggestions for our future in Iraq:

  • Replace the massive hardware like tanks with more people trained for police type operations. (20 lb sledghammers make poor fly swatters and increase collateral damage).
  • Provide the soldiers on the ground with waaaayy more training on local religion, customs, language, and similar
  • Provide more opportunity for interaction between soldiers and locals in friendly situations. Building schools is good but stuff like sports exchanges, celebrating holidays together and local festivals can help too.
  • Long term, create US military units designed for cleaning up after the big guns leave. These guys would have the responsibility to lead the others still on the ground in interfacing with the local culture.
  • Last but very important, drastic and severe results for the entire chain of command whenever any subordinate is convicted of any serious crimes, and severe punishment for anyone convicted.
    A strong message needs to be sent from as high as possible that foreigners are not any less human beings just because we can't understand the language, they have less wealth than us, and we beat the snot out of them and their mother-of-all-flies leader.

Ok Git, that better?
Anybody else out there that can't concentrate as long as it takes me to type this drivel?

Smiling


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 8:32pm.

Dang Dude. You expect us to read that long winded B*!!&#!T? Shorten it up. I tried to get through it but I might as well have been listening to John Kerry rambling on in the middle of the night on C-Span. Make it short, whitty and meaningful or crawl back under the rock you came out from.

Take some lessons from the Rice Man. At least he can slam the Right and make us chuckle at the same time.

It's great to have you commenting but please....If we wanted a lecture we'd pay some clown at Georgia State to punish us like that.

Anyways.....welcome back Highgreen.


ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 9:47pm.

Sorry 'bout that git - you're right of course. Thinking about changing my name to Foghorn Leghorn.
Too many years of not expressing makes me a bit retentive and when it comes out, well ...
Ok, point taken. Thanks


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 9:56pm.

Blog on brother. There are problems there and I'm beginning to think there is no right answer. Wonder if the Enola Gay still flies? Can't say Bush was wrong and I can't say if he was right. The more man tries to fix it the more screwed up it gets.

I just view it as this. We will always have to deal with those evil B@$+@rds soooo....every time they raise their heads we knock em off. They like it that way I think. We just gotta do a better job of protecting our men and women.


ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 10:39pm.

Many in Europe think we went into Iraq because of oil. I wasn't sure early on but now I'm thinking maybe that's true. Having a freindly government on top of the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves is probably not a bad thing.
Which brings around a next point. Maybe it's time the US got off the oil addiction? Brazil did a good job of converting their vehicles to use much less oil, can we?
Seems like to me it'd be a good thing to stop feeding the hand that bites us.
- Hey - maybe we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gases at the same time! Imagine that - Kyoto compliance and independance from foreign energy sources - wow - what a concept!

Maybe that is also the way out of Iraq?


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 8:27am.

Mid-East oil is important to the worlds economy and it affects us mightily. It needs to flow for now. I hate giving those ragheads a single dime but this sorry ass government we have won't make the difficult and prudent decisions to render those clowns irrelevant.

We are unwilling to open up our own massive reserves.

We have not built a nuclear power plant since the 70's I think.

We can't stand by while those camel f*&^%*g, wife beating haters try to pick off the rest of the world. Perhaps we need to do like Reagan did in Nicaragua. Step back, fund and arm the Sunnis and let them go after those terrorist killer Shiites (Iranians). I have no problem with supporting them from the air.

I don't know Ex. What are the answers. I still think we went in for all the right reasons and we had to. Do you think anyone really thought a good and great nation would ever evolve from that cesspool?

I say keep the Arabs out of here and blast them from a distance. And that certainly won't solve much. I'm not sure there is an answer. But the give peace a chance has been a miserable failure.


Submitted by Flydecajon on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 10:44pm.

Dude come on if we were there for oil we would of had control of it by now we would not have lost so many lives to oil...We would of made it a parking lot and then build oil sales from there...I hope you are not serious...I hope git real does not get wind of this he might growllllll....OH PTC Guy will punce on that!!!Come on with something else...

ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 11:37pm.

Maybe I should go to bed instead of waking up.

Flydecajon, perhaps my intent wasn't quite clear. Of course we weren't there to steal the oil. That we could have done exactly as you describe it.
So maybe we were there to ensure the supply at decent prices of oil (and that is not necessarily a bad reason anyway and I am still not convinced anyway).

You sound so convinced it wasn't oil that you must have some other theory.
why do you believe it was? WMDs? Spread of democracy? Scare Iran and North Korea? Stabilize the worlds sand and camel markets?

How about YOU come up with something else?


Submitted by dopplerobserver on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 8:36am.

I hear that China and Russia intend to invade America soon to abscond with all of our natural resources. They need the abundance of food we have, all the gold in Fort Knox, all the natural gas, all the timber, all the precious metals, and all of our labor to get it. Sounds like a good enough reason to me. Just take it.

ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 9:54am.

Well, they know they'd probably lose a war with us so maybe that'll stop 'em. Course WE probably wouldn't lose a war with ANYone, just the hearts and minds battle afterwards - so that wouldn't stop us.
Like I say doppler, IF it's about oil, then it's NOT to steal it, but to ensure supply by freindly government.


Submitted by Flydecajon on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 6:24am.

If I had an opinion as how to fix the problem I would of stated it. I was giving my opinion on why it was not for oil...Again if it were for desert prices than why are we paying three dollars a gallon?
NO it is not for WMDs and no one is going to scare Iran or North Korea there Chief Ex pat...

So how bout YOU go back to bed and stop woring about the oil and worry about just finishing this debacle and bring our forces HOME..

ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 10:29am.

And that MAY be part of the problem - In Germany it's around $5-6, England I think maybe $6-7. Not quite so many SUVs in those countries, and lots more little fuel efficient cars.
We don't have it bad by a looooonnng shot.
Besides, prices are set by INVESTORS. Seen the oil-multis profits lately? No problem with the supply (yet), just a bunch of people with too much money wanting (and getting) more from people who don't have as much.

C'mon Fly, you must have some opinion on the way to handle the troubles in Iraq, or? How about suggestions?


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 5:54am.

Now, how do we end it?

How do we get our fathers, mothers, sons and daughters home?

To me, that's the only thing that counts.


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 10:28am.

The other day I suggested retired General Wes Clark’s plan to disengage from Iraq.

In a nutshell, the plan proposed the following:

    1. Move all American out of the "Green Zone" and into the desert.

    2. Bring in every available helicopter in the US arsenal to Iraq.

    3. Make a very public announcement that we are removing all ground troops except perimeter security and helicopter support for the desert base within the next 90 days.

    4. Announce to the Iraqis they are on their own, the police may call in US helicopters for close air support as needed 24/7. (The reason for this is to prevent mass uprising/large scale civil disorders)

    5. This offer good for the next 18 months, the clock starts now, you Iraqis best get your ground defenses trained and in order because you won't have those choppers to help after 18 months.

It's better than the current meat grinding war of attrition, remove IEDs from the equation (no ground troops to blow up) and the scale tilts decisively to the Americans again.

When I suggested this plan, it was immediately denounced by PTC Guy. Why? Because Clark is a Democrat.

That’s what America is up against right now. The right continues to hold to the theory that anything other than the current policy of “Lie and Die” is somehow “Cut and Run”.

When you don’t exhibit leadership (and the de facto policy of “wait another 29 months and dump the problem on Bush’s successor” is NOT leadership) you allow events to dictate you.


ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 10:49am.

One problem I see over there is that our soldiers are not the only targets for the bombers and shooters. This has also become factional violence.
One of the things our security checkpoints are doing is making it more difficult to move things like car bombs and lots of bullets and guns around populated areas. Difficult but not impossible.

Do you think we could actually scramble helicoptors quickly enough to stop a suicide bomber? Or do you think helicoptors would be able to stop two or three guys shooting in a crowd?

It is an exit strategy and would certainly save lots of american lives short term but I think the possibility of creating another Afganistan or Iran would be fairly high. And that could cost US lives later.

So far, I'm still leaning toward a much lighter but larger numbers of a "cleanup force". More soldiers but less big guns. More engineers and MPs, less tanks and big guns. Better use of intelligence and increased sources of information. More interaction with the Iraqis and less dominance. Better control of borders to keep the foreign combatants out.

Carrots almost always work better than sticks.


ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 10:04am.

bad_ptc and flydecajon, you both make good points; the bun is already in the oven and the ultrasounds aren't looking good.
My goal here is to develop an opinion on what I feel is the best way to rear this child. So while going back and rerunning the copulation won't terminate the pregnancy, understanding the courtship and motives of those involved will help me understand why we did it, and knowing that helps me decide what I believe is the correct way forward.


Submitted by dopplerobserver on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 8:51am.

It won't happen by any action taken by Fayette County. How many dead soldiers have you seen sent back to Fayette? How many with one arm, one leg? Very few from here. Not many, percentage wise, even serve.

ExExPatriot's picture
Submitted by ExExPatriot on Tue, 08/08/2006 - 10:12am.

No dopplero, Fayetty county action alone will not resolve the war, but we are part of a larger unit called the US of A which can and will eventually end the war.
And hey, you answered which shows you care and THAT is what we need more of.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.