It's Worse Than You think

[smashp]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Gravity
The insurgency doesn't prove that we're failing, IMHO, it validates the need for our strong presence. This conflict has acted like a magnet and regional insurgents, not indiginous ones, are causing much of the ruckous. Therefore, it's like drawing in bees with honey, and then closing the honey trap once they are inside.

Let the insurgents come, their fate is sealed. We won't let up until they are crushed. We're also involving the iraqi army / new police force in these efforts so they can do it on their own when the insurgents have been buried.

Outstanding post, sir, and I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Most of the people opposed to the liberation of an oppressed people have a myopic view of the big picture. The same freedoms we enjoy should be enjoyed the world over, though they aren't. It seems some would rather deny people their basic human rights to further their own political agendas...

be careful with that statement.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gravity
The insurgency doesn't prove that we're failing, IMHO, it validates the need for our strong presence. This conflict has acted like a magnet and regional insurgents, not indiginous ones, are causing much of the ruckous. Therefore, it's like drawing in bees with honey, and then closing the honey trap once they are inside.

Let the insurgents come, their fate is sealed. We won't let up until they are crushed. We're also involving the iraqi army / new police force in these efforts so they can do it on their own when the insurgents have been buried.

It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gravity
The insurgency doesn't prove that we're failing, IMHO, it validates the need for our strong presence. This conflict has acted like a magnet and regional insurgents, not indiginous ones, are causing much of the ruckous. Therefore, it's like drawing in bees with honey, and then closing the honey trap once they are inside.

Let the insurgents come, their fate is sealed. We won't let up until they are crushed. We're also involving the iraqi army / new police force in these efforts so they can do it on their own when the insurgents have been buried.

It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

I don't see the evidence of their lack of planning. I think that like our expectations regarding obstetrics, we expect our military leaders to plan wars with precision of plastic surgery. However, it's impossible to know where insurgence will gather or where they will choose to attack.

I think that our continued presence, espeicaially after the initial conflict, abrogates your assertion that the planning for the insurgency was flawed. Yes there have been flare ups. Did you expect us to have forces massed and stationed in Najav in anticipation of the attacks there? Perhaps the insurgents sought out our lowest concentrations and then exploited them.

However, the point is that when they arise we are paying attention to them and eradicating them in accordance with our agreement with the new Iraqi government and in many cases, with their assistance, ragardless of how token it may seem, thereby growing their ownership and confidence.

As a side note, I don't know that Kerry would have done anything differently so I don't rate him negatively on his inclination to continue the work in Iraq that has begun. Since he has personally wielded a weapon at an enemy in close proximity, perhaps he would actually be more aggressive that Bush.

Just a morsel for us all to consider.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Czar
excuse me, but while the US is fighting the good fight in a civilian populated area where people dont much like the US being there anyway and the conflict will result in civilian lives. Do you think that maybe the presence there is creating militants to fight the US as well as destroying them? So in the end we might end up with 1000 dead militants who would be fighting the US regardless of where they are and then at least the same number of militants who wouldnt be fighting the US but are because the US has caused them in some way direct or indirect harm?

Are we destroying them faster than making them? Competing functions, neither of which are well defined.

Originally posted by: conjur
It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

I seriously wish you were in charge of the CIA and our military. You see everything coming, while the greatest relevant minds in the world fail to do so. Amazing.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

I seriously wish you were in charge of the CIA and our military. You see everything coming, while the greatest relevant minds in the world fail to do so. Amazing.

The CIA was aware of what would happen, I'm sure. Too bad Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn't. And they admitted they completely f-ed up on that front. They are the ones responsible for the war plans and the post-invasion plans, and the exit plans. I wonder how an insurgency somehow escaped their feeble minds? Did they truly believe that we'd be met with open arms and roses by every single Iraqi??

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

I seriously wish you were in charge of the CIA and our military. You see everything coming, while the greatest relevant minds in the world fail to do so. Amazing.

The CIA was aware of what would happen, I'm sure. Too bad Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn't. And they admitted they completely f-ed up on that front. They are the ones responsible for the war plans and the post-invasion plans, and the exit plans. I wonder how an insurgency somehow escaped their feeble minds? Did they truly believe that we'd be met with open arms and roses by every single Iraqi??

Did you expect people to hole up in mosques and fight us? Be honest for a change. No one is capable of seeing all avenues that will be used by our enemies to fight us, and saying that they botched the job is ridiculous. They are the greatest military minds in the world today, are they not? And you are going to tell them how to do their job? :thumbsdown:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

I seriously wish you were in charge of the CIA and our military. You see everything coming, while the greatest relevant minds in the world fail to do so. Amazing.

The CIA was aware of what would happen, I'm sure. Too bad Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn't. And they admitted they completely f-ed up on that front. They are the ones responsible for the war plans and the post-invasion plans, and the exit plans. I wonder how an insurgency somehow escaped their feeble minds? Did they truly believe that we'd be met with open arms and roses by every single Iraqi??

Did you expect people to hole up in mosques and fight us? Be honest for a change. No one is capable of seeing all avenues that will be used by our enemies to fight us, and saying that they botched the job is ridiculous. They are the greatest military minds in the world today, are they not? And you are going to tell them how to do their job? :thumbsdown:

Compared to Gen Shineski, Rumsfiled and Wolfowitz are Military Morons yet they both disregarded his advice regarding the occupation of Iraq which has been a relative disaster.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

I seriously wish you were in charge of the CIA and our military. You see everything coming, while the greatest relevant minds in the world fail to do so. Amazing.

The CIA was aware of what would happen, I'm sure. Too bad Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn't. And they admitted they completely f-ed up on that front. They are the ones responsible for the war plans and the post-invasion plans, and the exit plans. I wonder how an insurgency somehow escaped their feeble minds? Did they truly believe that we'd be met with open arms and roses by every single Iraqi??

Conjur, don't forget that Bill Clinton and his boyz tied the hands of the CIA and other agencies so that they could no longer retain or work with operatives that were known foreign or domestic criminals. They might have known more had BC not limited their ability to consort with unsavories.

Since you're such an authority on the patriot act, you'll note that one of it's functions was/is to allow the CIA and FBI to do their jobs without fetters. Might it trample slightly upon freedom of a few? Perhaps. But as a society we have agreed to surrender certain liberties in order that the government might protect us fully. More so now than prior to 9/11.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gravity
The insurgency doesn't prove that we're failing, IMHO, it validates the need for our strong presence. This conflict has acted like a magnet and regional insurgents, not indiginous ones, are causing much of the ruckous. Therefore, it's like drawing in bees with honey, and then closing the honey trap once they are inside.

Let the insurgents come, their fate is sealed. We won't let up until they are crushed. We're also involving the iraqi army / new police force in these efforts so they can do it on their own when the insurgents have been buried.

It proves that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were negligent in not planning for the insurgency. Anyone with half a brain saw it coming.

I don't see the evidence of their lack of planning. I think that like our expectations regarding obstetrics, we expect our military leaders to plan wars with precision of plastic surgery. However, it's impossible to know where insurgence will gather or where they will choose to attack.

How about their own words?

http://www.truthspeaker.org/20...of-defense-donald.html

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims to be "surprised" by the recent large scale violence in Iraq.
"I certainly would not have estimated that we would have had the individuals lost that we have had lost in the last week," he told a press conference, responding to questions on the deaths of at least 93 U.S. troops since March 31.

Insurgency Not Anticipated
http://www.military.com/NewsCo..._franks_080304,00.html

Though an insurgency was feared, there was no assumption it would happen, he said.

"I think there was not a full appreciation of the realities in Iraq - at least of the psychology of the Iraqis," he said.

"On the one hand," he continued, "I think we all believed that they hated the regime of Saddam Hussein. Over the last year, we have seen that come to pass. That's where the intelligence came from that allowed us to get the sons of Saddam Hussein.

"On the other hand, the psychology of the people - the mix of the Sunnis, the Shiites, the tribal elements and the Kurds - and what they would expect and tolerate in terms of coalition forces, their numbers, where they are and what they're doing in Iraq, I don't know that we made willful assumptions with respect to that."

Defense secretary admits misjudging resistance in Iraq
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ss...l/special/iraq/2509349


Rumsfeld: post-war problems of ?occupation? underestimated
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4865948/


Wolfowitz
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/.../nation/9120653.htm?1c

Besides the apparent absence of weapons of mass destruction, the Pentagon policy-maker said he was surprised at the strength and resilience of the post-combat Iraqi insurgency.

http://www.wusatv9.com/printfu...ory.aspx?storyid=31033

MR. PETERSON: Colin Powell also said that they had underestimated the power of the insurgency, Colby?

MR. KING: Yes and I don't understand why they would have underestimated it. This has been building for some time. They've seen evidence of a growing insurgency, not only in places like Fallujah, but also down South and they even themselves said they expected this would step up by the time of the June 30th turnover. So I don't understand why they're surprised by it

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Conjur, don't forget that Bill Clinton and his boyz tied the hands of the CIA and other agencies so that they could no longer retain or work with operatives that were known foreign or domestic criminals. They might have known more had BC not limited their ability to consort with unsavories.

Since you're such an authority on the patriot act, you'll note that one of it's functions was/is to allow the CIA and FBI to do their jobs without fetters. Might it trample slightly upon freedom of a few? Perhaps. But as a society we have agreed to surrender certain liberties in order that the government might protect us fully. More so now than prior to 9/11.

Clinton, as far as I'm aware, did not enact any new legislation that further separated the CIA from the FBI. Care to share any info you have?

And, the Patriot Act could have been achieved without removing basic Constitutional Rights and it certainly should not be used in cases not involving terrorists (such as was done against an alleged money launderer in Las Vegas that was not being accused of funneling money to terrorists.)

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Can someone please tell me what the hell we are doing in Iraq? What was the rationale behind the decision to go into Iraq? Don't feed me the WMD crap, or that Sadaam was a bad man, why did we really go into Iraq? Was it because this administration thought that if we topple a dictatorship in the Middle East and establish democracies that other countries around would follow suit? This seems like an awfully idiotic and costly mistake, to believe that we can spread democracy and freedom through military force. Someone who supports this war, please tell me why we are really in Iraq?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Did you expect people to hole up in mosques and fight us? Be honest for a change. No one is capable of seeing all avenues that will be used by our enemies to fight us, and saying that they botched the job is ridiculous. They are the greatest military minds in the world today, are they not? And you are going to tell them how to do their job? :thumbsdown:

I would have to say "YES" - that would be exactly what I would expect. It would be what I would have predicted.

What is my magic 8-ball? I like to call it "history."

Do a little research on how Palestinian militants act towards Israel's occupation (I recommend that you start with the word "Jenin").

I'll also make 3 predictions based only on what the Israelis encountered:

1) Start using Red Cross vehicles to ferry arms and/or terrorists
2) Booby trap homes
3) Conceal gunmen in the midst of children throwing rocks

If you want to see where this is going you need only look at what has been the history of Israel.

The fact is that Rumsfeld made a series of bad miscalculations which have derailed our efforts against terrorism and Iraq - all the way back to Afghanistan even when he decided to use local troops to raid Tora Bora rather than our own soldiers. He favored a small, technologically advanced forward army rather than Powell's suggestion for overwhelming force vis a vis significant ground troops, he disbanded the Iraqi Republican Guard too easily, he didn't anticipate that we would be viewed as occupiers, etc.

Without commenting on the legitimacy of the war in Iraq I can tell you that it has been a dismal technical failure. The writing is on the wall - there will be no glorious Iraqi democracy that will destabilize the rest of the region. The best we can hope for is not get ourselves stuck in an Israeli like occupation where each act of defense breeds another hopeful suicide bomber.

Not to mention that Europe - the starting ground for terrorists likely to attack our homeland - is not interested in working with us after our behavior. And you think we'll ever be able to get a real coalition or the backing of the UN if we want to go after a country that is a real threat to us, like North Korea? Sorry, America is the child who cried wolf.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Can someone please tell me what the hell we are doing in Iraq?

Basically we are turning that part of the world up-side down. It would, in theory, have a very detrimental impact upon the economies of the middle east.
Perhaps, Clintons policy of 'rollback' is the one that is politically palatable. Sad, that.


So, Sudheer Anne, when is he going to " take the gloves off"?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Can someone please tell me what the hell we are doing in Iraq? What was the rationale behind the decision to go into Iraq? Don't feed me the WMD crap, or that Sadaam was a bad man, why did we really go into Iraq? Was it because this administration thought that if we topple a dictatorship in the Middle East and establish democracies that other countries around would follow suit? This seems like an awfully idiotic and costly mistake, to believe that we can spread democracy and freedom through military force. Someone who supports this war, please tell me why we are really in Iraq?

It's all about protecting Israel:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjun2200.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
...

Wow. You took the time to find all those sources which didn't address the issue at hand. No one is saying that they planned properly for the insurgency. We're saying that the manifestation and intensity of the insurgency is something no one could have predicted.

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
...

Sorry, but Israel and Iraq are completely different situations. Even a cursory look at the details of each shows significant differences, and why one couldn't reasonably expect similar outcomes.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Can someone please tell me what the hell we are doing in Iraq?

Basically we are turning that part of the world up-side down. It would, in theory, have a very detrimental impact upon the economies of the middle east.
Perhaps, Clintons policy of 'rollback' is the one that is politically palatable. Sad, that.


So, Sudheer Anne, when is he going to " take the gloves off"?

So Ozoned, how many people are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of US hegemony?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Can someone please tell me what the hell we are doing in Iraq?

Basically we are turning that part of the world up-side down. It would, in theory, have a very detrimental impact upon the economies of the middle east.
Perhaps, Clintons policy of 'rollback' is the one that is politically palatable. Sad, that.


So, Sudheer Anne, when is he going to " take the gloves off"?

So Ozoned, how many people are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of US hegemony?

Heh, not a decision that I would relish making on my own. However, I will not stand in the way of the voting majority in November if that number is defined at 0 or 10,000,000. Will you?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
...

Wow. You took the time to find all those sources which didn't address the issue at hand. No one is saying that they planned properly for the insurgency. We're saying that the manifestation and intensity of the insurgency is something no one could have predicted.

*I* predicted it. I would like to think those in charge of our military would have at least have had one contingency plan ready for it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
...

Wow. You took the time to find all those sources which didn't address the issue at hand. No one is saying that they planned properly for the insurgency. We're saying that the manifestation and intensity of the insurgency is something no one could have predicted.

*I* predicted it. I would like to think those in charge of our military would have at least have had one contingency plan ready for it.

You predicted people holing up in mosques? You predicted suicide bombings, car bombings? You predicted that we would have control of pretty much the entire country after three or four weeks, then it would be drawn out conflict for 18 after? :thumbsup: If I'm ever president, I'll appoint you as THE cabinet, all by yourself, as long as you promise to change your name to Miss Cleo.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Gravity
The insurgency doesn't prove that we're failing, IMHO, it validates the need for our strong presence. This conflict has acted like a magnet and regional insurgents, not indiginous ones, are causing much of the ruckous. Therefore, it's like drawing in bees with honey, and then closing the honey trap once they are inside.

Let the insurgents come, their fate is sealed. We won't let up until they are crushed. We're also involving the iraqi army / new police force in these efforts so they can do it on their own when the insurgents have been buried.

Outstanding post, sir, and I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Most of the people opposed to the liberation of an oppressed people have a myopic view of the big picture. The same freedoms we enjoy should be enjoyed the world over, though they aren't. It seems some would rather deny people their basic human rights to further their own political agendas...

The US has never particularily cared for the "liberation of the oppressed people" in the ME before. In fact the US has done it's utmost to keep them oppressed.

The French in Algeria killed about 1 million "insurgents" yet they failed. How many of the people you say you want to liberate are you prepared to kill so they can live in freedom? 1 million? 2 million? All of them?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You predicted people holing up in mosques? You predicted suicide bombings, car bombings? You predicted that we would have control of pretty much the entire country after three or four weeks, then it would be drawn out conflict for 18 after? :thumbsup: If I'm ever president, I'll appoint you as THE cabinet, all by yourself, as long as you promise to change your name to Miss Cleo.

Apparently Israel and Iraq aren't so different. Let's see...

People holing up in Mosques? Happened in Israel. Including churches, where they stored weapons caches.

Suicide bombings, car bombings? Obvious.

Complete control of the area despite continued insurgency: Same for Israel.

The fact of the matter is that the pyschology and culture of the two sets - Iraqi and Palestinian terrorists - are absolutely similar. Listen to how they rant about what happens to their Palestinian brothers, how they use Israel as a scapegoat, they are beyond similar.

If you think that there is a substantial difference between the Palestinian suicide bombers and the insurgents in Iraq then you are a bigger idiot than I originally thought.

Same region, same enemy, same reasons means the same outcome.

Israel will be a key to understanding all Middle East politics and relationships and if you don't think so then you have been deprived of a real understanding of geopolitical issues.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: GrGr
The US has never particularily cared for the "liberation of the oppressed people" in the ME before. In fact the US has done it's utmost to keep them oppressed.

The French in Algeria killed about 1 million "insurgents" yet they failed. How many of the people you say you want to liberate are you prepared to kill so they can live in freedom? 1 million? 2 million? All of them?

9/11 was a wakeup call to change our policy. We realized that propagating despotism was creating morem problems than it was solving, so we switched.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
...

Wow. You took the time to find all those sources which didn't address the issue at hand. No one is saying that they planned properly for the insurgency. We're saying that the manifestation and intensity of the insurgency is something no one could have predicted.

*I* predicted it. I would like to think those in charge of our military would have at least have had one contingency plan ready for it.

You predicted people holing up in mosques? You predicted suicide bombings, car bombings? You predicted that we would have control of pretty much the entire country after three or four weeks, then it would be drawn out conflict for 18 after? :thumbsup: If I'm ever president, I'll appoint you as THE cabinet, all by yourself, as long as you promise to change your name to Miss Cleo.

I knew that if security forces and Iraqi police and security forces didn't secure the borders and the cities that the Saddam faithful would rise up and start picking us off or disrupting daily life to make the US troops look bad and incompetent at providing safety.

I'm not alone either.

When I read Bremer let the Saddam Feddayeen go home w/their weapons, the writing was on the wall.


And, we now see the result of that failure. It can be blamed solely on Bush for not listening to his military leaders in their calls for much higher troop numbers. Bush used the bare minimum.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: GrGr
The US has never particularily cared for the "liberation of the oppressed people" in the ME before. In fact the US has done it's utmost to keep them oppressed.

The French in Algeria killed about 1 million "insurgents" yet they failed. How many of the people you say you want to liberate are you prepared to kill so they can live in freedom? 1 million? 2 million? All of them?

9/11 was a wakeup call to change our policy. We realized that propagating despotism was creating morem problems than it was solving, so we switched.

So, why pick on Iraq? A country that had a shambles of a military and was contained or a country, such as Iran or North Korea, with active nuclear programs?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Gravity
The insurgency doesn't prove that we're failing, IMHO, it validates the need for our strong presence. This conflict has acted like a magnet and regional insurgents, not indiginous ones, are causing much of the ruckous. Therefore, it's like drawing in bees with honey, and then closing the honey trap once they are inside.

Let the insurgents come, their fate is sealed. We won't let up until they are crushed. We're also involving the iraqi army / new police force in these efforts so they can do it on their own when the insurgents have been buried.

However, the insurgency against the U.S. and Iraqi military forces continues to grow in ferocity: Nearly 15 percent of all American casualties have taken place in recent weeks. And as the Pentagon announced 1,000 American war deaths, the debate over Iraq again became a central issue between the candidates.

Iraq Likely To Become Bigger C...ue As Deaths Hit 1,000

I can't find a link, but Iraq deaths are over 20,000 and the US troops wounded/disabled/etc are also over 20,000. What have we gained for our 200 billion dollars?

You say Let the insurgents come" and "We won't let up". Who is we? Are you going over there to fight?