So, you want to talk about tax dollars ....

[michaeledward]

How about this ...

The United States pays THREE HUNDRED BILLION dollars to put the most effective killing force ever conceived into a small country on the other side of the world.

Then, the United States offers ONE BILLION dollars to anyone who can 'stabilize' ten cities within that country.

http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/AID/OM/BAG/RFA&%23032%3B267-06-001/Grant.html

There is just so much, that is so wrong, with this. I don't even know where to start.

The United States military is so incompetent that it can't stabilize the country it is occupying?

The United States government, after spending what it has on the war, somehow thinks an additional 0.3% of funding will make a difference?

Tell me again, who has been fired for this disaster?

 

[Rich Parsons]

The United States military is so incompetent that it can't stabilize the country it is occupying?

Michael,

Not having been in the military, I still think you are putting apples and carrots together here.

The Military could easily stabilize the country. Allow them the latitude to kill and put fear into anyone who even thinks about resisting our occupation of their country. Yet, some back here, safe and sound think it is best to not allow them this course of action.

There is another one that I am sure you thought of, which is to remove our forces, yet it will nto truly stabilize the region as there will be still internal conflicts.

The problem is that the culture under question cannot be stabilized by the western definition. To their culture, to be stabilized, they want no outside influenece and not to have outside cultures trying to corrupt their women and children from what they believe to be a stabile. The two cultures do not have the same definition of stabile.

As long as there is world communication and trade that can enter into their culture that does not agree with their culture, then there will be conflict as they try to preserve the culture they have and the culture they want.

My point is that the Military could stabilize through fear and killing, and assault tactics, by going door to door in an area and making sure there are no hidden rooms and check for weapons. Eliminate all chemicals that can be used to make weapons, and then they can stabilize the area.

So, the government, has offered a Billion dollars to try to get all the people who think they can arm chair quarter back this issue, to put their brains into solving the problem.

Do you think you could stabilize the region? If so go for the billion dollars make them pay out to you, and then do something good with the money.

Or do you think it is just a away to slip a billion dollars into some friends of the governments hands? If so this has absolutely nothing to with the capabilities of the military. This has to do with POLITICS.

Apples and Carrots - Fruit and Vegetables. No worth while comparison can really be made in my opinion.

 

[Sapper6]

Michael,

Not having been in the military, I still think you are putting apples and carrots together here.

The Military could easily stabilize the country. Allow them the latitude to kill and put fear into anyone who even thinks about resisting our occupation of their country. Yet, some back here, safe and sound think it is best to not allow them this course of action.

There is another one that I am sure you thought of, which is to remove our forces, yet it will nto truly stabilize the region as there will be still internal conflicts.

The problem is that the culture under question cannot be stabilized by the western definition. To their culture, to be stabilized, they want no outside influenece and not to have outside cultures trying to corrupt their women and children from what they believe to be a stabile. The two cultures do not have the same definition of stabile.

As long as there is world communication and trade that can enter into their culture that does not agree with their culture, then there will be conflict as they try to preserve the culture they have and the culture they want.

My point is that the Military could stabilize through fear and killing, and assault tactics, by going door to door in an area and making sure there are no hidden rooms and check for weapons. Eliminate all chemicals that can be used to make weapons, and then they can stabilize the area.

So, the government, has offered a Billion dollars to try to get all the people who think they can arm chair quarter back this issue, to put their brains into solving the problem.

Do you think you could stabilize the region? If so go for the billion dollars make them pay out to you, and then do something good with the money.

Or do you think it is just a away to slip a billion dollars into some friends of the governments hands? If so this has absolutely nothing to with the capabilities of the military. This has to do with POLITICS.

Apples and Carrots - Fruit and Vegetables. No worth while comparison can really be made in my opinion.

well, i'm in the military and i couldn't have stated it any better Rich. you are dead on in your reply!

you want a stabilized country? let the military do what they do best. you'd have a stabilized country in a matter of a couple months. this war is being fought by politics, on both sides, not boots in the sand...

somehow, people forget that.

i'd almost like for that grant to go somewhere, to someone, some company. so ours can come home...is that not what you'd like Michael?

 

[michaeledward]

well, i'm in the military and i couldn't have stated it any better Rich. you are dead on in your reply!

you want a stabilized country? let the military do what they do best. you'd have a stabilized country in a matter of a couple months. this war is being fought by politics, on both sides, not boots in the sand...

somehow, people forget that.

i'd almost like for that grant to go somewhere, to someone, some company. so ours can come home...is that not what you'd like Michael?

I think the military does two things - Kills people & Captures territory. I think the only acceptable result of military action is 'unconditional surrender'.

Since we did not start this war in Iraq with a clear objective to win it, we will never know if or when we have won. Instead, we are transferring your tax dollars and mine to Halliburton. Something that will continue to for years to come.

And yes, I am opposed to the war and I think the United States Killing Machine should be brought home immediately.

 

[Sapper6]

albeit a different topic, which would you rather spend...

taxdollars or American blood?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Michael,

Not having been in the military, I still think you are putting apples and carrots together here.

The Military could easily stabilize the country. Allow them the latitude to kill and put fear into anyone who even thinks about resisting our occupation of their country. Yet, some back here, safe and sound think it is best to not allow them this course of action.

Good points. Though, you're missing the true reason they won't allow those actions. They have a vested political interest in the failure of this mission. When the political climate was such that supporting the war gave them political capital, they were for it. Now that the radical fringe and impatients has created a political climate where they can set themselves apart by apposing the war, they are doing so. They have everything to gain by our forces losing, and nothing to gain by a successful outcome.

With so much invested in our failure, how can we take them seriously when they say they want what's best for the country.

There is another one that I am sure you thought of, which is to remove our forces, yet it will nto truly stabilize the region as there will be still internal conflicts.

This will serve two purposes. It will allow the left to declare defeat, and therefore their own political victory.

However, more importantly, it will further convince the islamic radicals that to defeat the US, they need ONLY cause enough casualties to make us lose resolve.

They've learned this in the past.

Jimmy Carter taught them this by his incompetent response to the Iran Hostage situation. Ronald Reagan taught them this by being cowed by the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing. Bill Clinton taught them this by barely responding to the first World Trade Center bombing and responding to the African Embassy bombings by blowing up a 'Chemical Plant'(?) and a few empty tents in the desert. Time and again we've allowed Islamic militants to win the battle of attrition. Now, the left wants Bush to teach them a further lesson by allowing terrorists to force us out of Iraq in defeat. Their purported goal is to save the lives of more American troops, but the ultimate cost of failure will be FAR greater than that.

The problem is that the culture under question cannot be stabilized by the western definition. To their culture, to be stabilized, they want no outside influenece and not to have outside cultures trying to corrupt their women and children from what they believe to be a stabile. The two cultures do not have the same definition of stabile.

You misunderstand. This is a talking point pushed and pushed by the left (They can't have stability, it's impossible). The reality is far different. We simply don't understand what creates stability in Islamic culture.

"Civilisation — elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect compromise — here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness." Winston Churchill after the battle of Omdurman 1898

The British broke the back of Islamic militancy in Omdurman, and it never raised it's head again in that part of the Islamic world as long as the British remained. The myth that the Islamic world is impossible to pacify is just that....a myth. We simply have to understand what it responds to.

The complaint among many Iraqis hasn't been that the US occupation is repressive, or that it is too heavy handed. The complaint among many has been that it is indecisive and not heavy handed enough to bring order. Keep in mind, that nation was used to a certain level of order being maintained under Saddam Hussein. Now, while I don't believe we should return to torturing the Olympic team, we should quit worrying about offending the observers and do what's necessary to restore order.

More importantly, we should give the police forces the latitude to do what is necessary to restore order. See where the 'Iraqi torture chamber' story went after the Iraqi government simply refused to apologize? Bush was unhappy with this, but the Iraqi government criticized him for not allowing them to do what they knew must be done. It's their country, let them use the tools that seem to work in their country.

As long as there is world communication and trade that can enter into their culture that does not agree with their culture, then there will be conflict as they try to preserve the culture they have and the culture they want.

My point is that the Military could stabilize through fear and killing, and assault tactics, by going door to door in an area and making sure there are no hidden rooms and check for weapons. Eliminate all chemicals that can be used to make weapons, and then they can stabilize the area.

As the area where insurgencies are active are limited to 3 provinces of the total 18 in Iraq (Basically, the immediate area around Baghdad called the Sunni Triangle) stability could be brought about if we allowed the current government to appropriately 'respond' as they see fit, with no interference from our Government. (if you think that's a euphemism, you're right).

So, the government, has offered a Billion dollars to try to get all the people who think they can arm chair quarter back this issue, to put their brains into solving the problem.

Bush is too interested in placating his critics. As there is nothing he can do about them, he should simply ignore them as much as possible.

Do you think you could stabilize the region? If so go for the billion dollars make them pay out to you, and then do something good with the money.

The left has no answers, only criticisms. They haven't been able to deal with the question of Islamic militancy in the past, what makes us think they have answers now or in the future. Nothing I find MORE humorous than watching Jimmy Carter try and tell us what to do about Militant Islam, as it was his incompetent response that has helped contribute to the problem. Also, it is a little known fact that Jimmy Carter began our involvement with the Mujahadeen. (Often mistakenly attributed to Reagan)

Or do you think it is just a away to slip a billion dollars into some friends of the governments hands? If so this has absolutely nothing to with the capabilities of the military. This has to do with POLITICS.

Certain groups are trying to put that perception in to the equation. It doesn't make it true.

Apples and Carrots - Fruit and Vegetables. No worth while comparison can really be made in my opinion.

It's actually apples and moon rocks.

 

[michaeledward]

albeit a different topic, which would you rather spend...

taxdollars or American blood?

I will spend either, in appropriate amounts, for the correct cause. This is not one of those.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I will spend either, in appropriate amounts, for the correct cause. This is not one of those.

It is now.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

How about this ...

The United States pays THREE HUNDRED BILLION dollars to put the most effective killing force ever conceived into a small country on the other side of the world.

Then, the United States offers ONE BILLION dollars to anyone who can 'stabilize' ten cities within that country.

http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/AID/OM/BAG/RFA&%23032%3B267-06-001/Grant.html

There is just so much, that is so wrong, with this. I don't even know where to start.

The United States military is so incompetent that it can't stabilize the country it is occupying?

The United States government, after spending what it has on the war, somehow thinks an additional 0.3% of funding will make a difference?

Tell me again, who has been fired for this disaster?

While I strongly wish that we had taken the hundreds of billions we are now spending on the Iraq War and used the money on a Manhattan style project to obtain energy self-sufficiency so that we could get out of the Mideast entirely, I don't believe the pacification problem is related to CAPABILITY. We could, of course, as Rich Parsons stated so well, "pacify" nearly any country - provided we were willing to engage in a level of ruthlessness that we morally cannot.

 

[sgtmac_46]

While I strongly wish that we had taken the hundreds of billions we are now spending on the Iraq War and used the money on a Manhattan style project to obtain energy self-sufficiency so that we could get out of the Mideast entirely, I don't believe the pacification problem is related to CAPABILITY. We could, of course, as Rich Parsons stated so well, "pacify" nearly any country - provided we were willing to engage in a level of ruthlessness that we morally cannot.

It doesn't require ruthlessness to simply apply the local rules as they understand them.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We have to convince the islamic extremists that we have the resolve to finish what we started AND that we are willing to do whatever is necessary. Short of that, I guess we could just preemptively surrender.

 

[arnisador]

I think the military does two things - Kills people & Captures territory.

For better or for worse, that model is out of date, I'm afraid.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Good points. Though, you're missing the true reason they won't allow those actions. They have a vested political interest in the failure of this mission. When the political climate was such that supporting the war gave them political capital, they were for it. Now that the radical fringe and impatients has created a political climate where they can set themselves apart by apposing the war, they are doing so. They have everything to gain by our forces losing, and nothing to gain by a successful outcome.

I tired not to go too off topic, by making this into a complete political issue about the war. Although I did walk down the path for people to come to their own conclusions near the end.

With so much invested in our failure, how can we take them seriously when they say they want what's best for the country.

Once again a political statement, that I do not disagree with.

This will serve two purposes. It will allow the left to declare defeat, and therefore their own political victory.

Just for the record, I am not a part of the left. No matter how many time you reference it here. it will not make me a part of the left. I am not part of the right for that party will not have me anymore becuase I do not follow them blindly and jump on the knee jerk emotional issues, such as Abortion and Gun control.

However, more importantly, it will further convince the islamic radicals that to defeat the US, they need ONLY cause enough casualties to make us lose resolve.

Yes, I agree with the showing of weaknesse to that culture will make them believe that eventually they can win because of this. But if you take it the opposite side, then you should not send people in just nukes, and remove the culture that poses a threat to us.

They've learned this in the past.

Never said they did not.

Jimmy Carter taught them this by his incompetent response to the Iran Hostage situation. Ronald Reagan taught them this by being cowed by the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing. Bill Clinton taught them this by barely responding to the first World Trade Center bombing and responding to the African Embassy bombings by blowing up a 'Chemical Plant'(?) and a few empty tents in the desert. Time and again we've allowed Islamic militants to win the battle of attrition. Now, the left wants Bush to teach them a further lesson by allowing terrorists to force us out of Iraq in defeat. Their purported goal is to save the lives of more American troops, but the ultimate cost of failure will be FAR greater than that.

Do not disagree with your comments about far greater losses. If you commit then you give it 110%, if not then walk away and do not get invovled in the first place.

You misunderstand. This is a talking point pushed and pushed by the left (They can't have stability, it's impossible). The reality is far different. We simply don't understand what creates stability in Islamic culture.

"Civilisation — elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect compromise — here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness." Winston Churchill after the battle of Omdurman 1898

Stability to a Muslim who believes in Islam would want peace, and to allow others their peace. But between the Islamic Fundalmentalist and the Christian Fundalmentalists, both side make the other so mad, that people are willing to rage war to make thier point. To give their life to the cause for what they believe to be right. As long as you have the extremist, on the out side cultures who want them to KNOW the TRUE faith and or to BUY what we are selling them, then those on the inside will be extremists in their defense.

Woudl you give up if they came here and told you all women, including your daughter could not show their face. Or that you were not of the right family, and could have a job. Would you not give it everything you had to defend your life and your way of living, and not be forced to live their way.


This is the conflict. Hence there is no way to stability with such extrenes, unless like I Said you make so afraid, (* which you also referrence *) to try anything. Yet, is this truly their culture anymore? If it us or them attitude, or is it should we all get along? Not my business, other than how I vote and approach the issues.

As to tax dollars, they should be spent to do the job right or not at all in my simplistic point of view.

The British broke the back of Islamic militancy in Omdurman, and it never raised it's head again in that part of the Islamic world as long as the British remained. The myth that the Islamic world is impossible to pacify is just that....a myth. We simply have to understand what it responds to.

You could pacify them if they were left alone and did not have Christian radios broadcasting to them that they are infedels (* equivalent *) for not being a Christian. You could pacify them if we did not expect them to buy our cars, and blue jeans, and what have you. Let them live their way, and let us live our way. I just do not think it will happen though.

The complaint among many Iraqis hasn't been that the US occupation is repressive, or that it is too heavy handed. The complaint among many has been that it is indecisive and not heavy handed enough to bring order. Keep in mind, that nation was used to a certain level of order being maintained under Saddam Hussein. Now, while I don't believe we should return to torturing the Olympic team, we should quit worrying about offending the observers and do what's necessary to restore order.

This is from the sect that is in power now, and the sect that support Saddam, thinks it is too much and that we should not be there at all.

As to beign there, like I said, if we are there then we should do it right, and take the gloves off and go to war, and if you are in a fire fight, standing there with your child as cover, then you put your child there, not us. Yes it is sad to loose, the life at all, but if you are their to make a point with the lose of life then do it.

More importantly, we should give the police forces the latitude to do what is necessary to restore order. See where the 'Iraqi torture chamber' story went after the Iraqi government simply refused to apologize? Bush was unhappy with this, but the Iraqi government criticized him for not allowing them to do what they knew must be done. It's their country, let them use the tools that seem to work in their country.

I agree they should have the right to govern themselves, but it could turn into a cleansing, just like other areas in the world when it turned into religous or tribal differences, where here it woudl be sects within a religion.

As the area where insurgencies are active are limited to 3 provinces of the total 18 in Iraq (Basically, the immediate area around Baghdad called the Sunni Triangle) stability could be brought about if we allowed the current government to appropriately 'respond' as they see fit, with no interference from our Government. (if you think that's a euphemism, you're right).

If they are in charge then they should respond. If we are in charge then we should respond.

Bush is too interested in placating his critics. As there is nothing he can do about them, he should simply ignore them as much as possible.

Never said he was not.

The left has no answers, only criticisms. They haven't been able to deal with the question of Islamic militancy in the past, what makes us think they have answers now or in the future. Nothing I find MORE humorous than watching Jimmy Carter try and tell us what to do about Militant Islam, as it was his incompetent response that has helped contribute to the problem. Also, it is a little known fact that Jimmy Carter began our involvement with the Mujahadeen. (Often mistakenly attributed to Reagan)

I never said they (left) had the answers, never implied the right was "right", I made the statement that in my opinion the comparison was not fair, and that if discussion on taxes was in order then fine, this is politics. Not the capabilities of the military. Their orders may be derived from politics, but their capabilites come from their training and willingness and HEART. Or at least from those I know personally who have been in the most recent conflict.

And once again I did not say I was Left, please stop referring to my replies and imply I am such. Make your statements on your own, let them stand on their not by trying to deflect something I said into your plolitical agenda.

Certain groups are trying to put that perception in to the equation. It doesn't make it true.

Perception can be a powerful tool for politics. I was trying to say that Politics and the Capabilities of the Military are different subjects.

It's actually apples and moon rocks.

Further a field then I wanted to go, but see your point.

 

[michaeledward]

For better or for worse, that model is out of date, I'm afraid.

Why?

And, if that is not the model for the 'New' military can you describe what the current model is? I'm thinking of Sun Tzu and Ecclesiastes - There is nothing new under the sun.

You see, I am of the mind that our government is still equipping the military for a "kill people/capture territory" mission (such as the F-22 Raptor - "penatrate enemy airspace" - "first look" - "first kill").

Certainly, our military had not been trained in basic policing, as indicated by the looting in Iraq (April 2003) ... something described by our Secretary of Defense as "Freedom's untidy".

And this Request for Proposal by USAID is an apparent indication that the military is not a stabilization force, else this money would be directed through DoD.

 

[arnisador]

Peace-keeping, natural disasters, etc. Personally, I'd like to see the Army kept as an Army--but how often has it been dragged into feeding people, evacuating people, policing people, etc.? All good things to do...but not clearly military functions.

 

[michaeledward]

Peace-keeping, natural disasters, etc. Personally, I'd like to see the Army kept as an Army--but how often has it been dragged into feeding people, evacuating people, policing people, etc.? All good things to do...but not clearly military functions.

Well, with these other responsibilities, and with immediate past experience ... I guess we should be funding a 100,000 man military (that's how many it took to take Baghdad), and a 500,000 man peace-keeping force (that's how many Shinseki told us would be required to keep the peace in Iraq).

But, somehow, I don't think that is how my tax dollars are being spent. $0.48 of every tax dollar goes to a military budget item.