War in Iraq - The Coming Escalation

[michaeledward]

The term being thrown about is 'surge'.

We currently have more than a quarter of a million United States personnel serving in Iraq (140,000 US military and greater than 100,000 contractors). Adding 10% or 15% to that figure is not going to make a significant impact to any datapoint except the deaths and expenditures.

The August 'surge', 'Forward Together', brought about increased attacks and increased fatalities in Iraq. Quite possibly, by the the time the new year begins, there will be more than 3,000 United States Military fatalities in Iraq. Projections are that this invasion is going to cost the American Taxpayer more than 2.3 Trillion dollars before it is completed; even without continuing any further with the military conflict.

Our military is broken. There are zero 'combat ready', non-deployed military units in the Amry at this time. All the functional equipment in our military is in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military has insufficient functional hardward to conduct training operations.

It is past time to 'Declare Victory and Get Out'.

But, the President has his eyes fixed on one of two places - a time fifty years in the future, where he imagines himself one of the great leaders of all time by bring peace to a part of the world that has not known peace for its 5,000 year history - or, to January 20, 2009, when he dumps this problem on the next office holder. The first is a fantasy that ignores the reality taking place as it passes over his desk each day. The second is cause for mutiny.

George Will, this weekend passed, indicated that a Shi'ite ethnic cleansing in Baghdad might be "tranquilizing". What have we wrought?

Against the political cover and face saving 'Iraq Study Group', against the best advice of the 'generals on the ground', against the Democratic Majority in both houses of congress, and the voters who put them there, and against the wishes of more than 70% of Americans; President Bush is planning to put more American Soldiers into the shooting gallery that is Iraq; without a definable outcome of success, without measurable tactical objectives and without a possibility of victory.

Is there no way to stop this madness?

 

[MA-Caver]

I don't know if it's accurate to say that everything we have is in Iraq. Dispite the president's insistence that we surge on in Iraq it's doubtful that he (and the pentagon) have left this country vunerable. True we have a large troop deployment going on... we did so in WWII and in Vietnam... however we still managed to maintain adequate defense force here on the home front, plus the (unconcious) assurance that Americans will rise to our nations defense should the need calls for it.
Why have we not been invaded (on a large scale) in a long time? The "Red Dawn" scenario that is the creme-de-la-creme of invasion movies for a lot of people hasn't and probably won't ever happen. I believe we are too strongly defended against a large invading force. So the deployment isn't the issue.
Sometimes wars are won by popularity. We defeated Germany and Japan becaue it was a "popular" thing to do... they (Japan) hurt us and evidence that Germany was preparing to do the same (Nazi spy subs off our coasts).
Terrorist hurt us on 9/11 ... problem is there was no specific place to attack. Oh, they're in Afganistan, oh now they're in Iraq, next they'll be in Iran. Like Vietnam the enemy was well hidden among the native populace and thus very difficult to pin down and eradicate for the common good.
We're not at war with Iraq... we're at war with the terrorist (supposedly) in Iraq.
True Saddam was killing... no, slaughtering his own people and innocent nomadic groups in his country. Josef Stalin murdered millions in his country... funny how we didn't go in and rescue those poor people. Oh but the Ruskies had Nuclear weapons... who'd be dumb enough to start a war that might escalate into that? The "Cold War" was just as George Carlin said it was... a bunch of prick waving!

Why we don't pull out (another Carlin joke there :wink1: ) is going to be a mystery. Hopefully Saddam's recent plea for Iraqis to get along together may help but it isn't likely. We got rid of one devil. Surely Bush and the others would've realized that cutting the head of one serpent is going to cause two more to grow back in it's place? Iraq is going to have internal problems for a long time ... I'd like to think that they're mature enough to work it out for themselves.

 

[michaeledward]

The newly sworn Democratic congress has weighed in on the President's coming Escalation. They say - No!

For credibility's sake, the Congressional Leaders cite one of the military commanders - specifically, the Central Command Combatant Commander, General Abizaid

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

The President has said that he listens to the commanders on the ground. Maybe, not so much.

The Military, by the way, has informed the President that they can only field an additional 9,000 troops into Iraq as part of any 'Surge'. That does not seem like much of a surge is possible.

 

[Carol]

Really good info on the Surge, Mike.

For awhile I've been very reluctant to support pulling the troops out.

But, enough is enough. Time to bring them home.

 

[tellner]

I'm more than half convinced that The Decider's handlers already know it's lost. But they want to hang on long enough to make the defeat someone else's fault whether it's President McCain or President Obama.

 

[Carol]

I'm more than half convinced that The Decider's handlers already know it's lost. But they want to hang on long enough to make the defeat someone else's fault whether it's President McCain or President Obama.

Can't disagree with you there, unfortunately.

 

[michaeledward]

It seems interesting to me, that the new combatant commander of 'Central Command' is an Admiral. While no doubt qualified, in that he has been a leader for the Pacific Fleet and that he has not voiced an opinion against the coming escalation, it seems odd to put a Sailor in charge of ground wars.

Central Command is responsible for military matters that take place in the Middle East. Originally, CentCom was run from Tampa, Florida. But in the build up of the invasion of Iraq a duplicate operating facility was built in Qatar.

Currently CentCom is heavily involved with fighting two ground wars. One in the Land-Locked country of Afghanistan. The other in Iraq. Iraq has a coastline of less than 60 Kilometers (approximately 35 miles).

Of course, we have always had a military presence in the Persian Gulf. I think it is normally a couple of aircraft carriers. But, it still seems odd that a Naval Commander is given control over these two ground wars. Admiral Fallon is replacing General Abizaid.

Then, I saw a map similiar to the one below. There is one country on this map with an awful long coastline. It has a coastline of more than 1700 Kilometers. This country borders the northeast side of the Persian Gulf. Now, what was the name of that country again?

 

[michaeledward]

Part of the President's escalation plan, is to provide One Billion Dollars to put young Iraqi men to work: apparently cleaning streets and painting over graffiti.

Others have before mentioned that just paying off the Iraqis might be cheaper than fighting the war. Of course, such suggestions were irony laced, at the time.

So, in addition to another 30,000 Americans walking the streets of Baghdad, we are going to simultaneously take $1,000,000,000.00 United States taxpayers dollars and give it to Iraqi's to not shoot our soldiers.

 

[tellner]

If they're like people anywhere else they'll be perfectly happy to take the money and still shoot the invaders

The choice of Fallon does seem odd. Perhaps the President is running out of yes-men in the Army and the Marine Corps.

Maybe it's because of the possible war with Iran. The Iranians have said the the Straits of Hormuz are now an America-free zone. American ships will be attacked. If Bush wants to extend the war to Iran, leaving aside the question of "him and what army?" it would be a perfect causus belli. They attacked us. The Dems will fall into line. At that point we may see firepower supplied by the Navy through cruise missles, planes and maybe *shudder* SLBMS preceding attacks by the ground forces.

 

[michaeledward]

So now we ask the question ....


Are the current airstrikes in Somalia

A) - Designed to Distract the American Public from the true beginnings of the 110th Democratically lead Congressional 'First 100 Hours'.

B) - Designed to 'Set the Scene' for the President's speech Wednesday evening; wherein he listened to Iraqi Prime Minister Al Maliki over the advice of American Generals, to send another 20,000 American Soldiers to killing field that is Baghdad.


... somewhere there is a dog, searching for his tail, eh?

 

[Carol]

It seems interesting to me, that the new combatant commander of 'Central Command' is an Admiral. While no doubt qualified, in that he has been a leader for the Pacific Fleet and that he has not voiced an opinion against the coming escalation, it seems odd to put a Sailor in charge of ground wars.

Central Command is responsible for military matters that take place in the Middle East. Originally, CentCom was run from Tampa, Florida. But in the build up of the invasion of Iraq a duplicate operating facility was built in Qatar.

Currently CentCom is heavily involved with fighting two ground wars. One in the Land-Locked country of Afghanistan. The other in Iraq. Iraq has a coastline of less than 60 Kilometers (approximately 35 miles).

Of course, we have always had a military presence in the Persian Gulf. I think it is normally a couple of aircraft carriers. But, it still seems odd that a Naval Commander is given control over these two ground wars. Admiral Fallon is replacing General Abizaid.

Then, I saw a map similiar to the one below. There is one country on this map with an awful long coastline. It has a coastline of more than 1700 Kilometers. This country borders the northeast side of the Persian Gulf. Now, what was the name of that country again?

WhereToSendTheForcesNextElectionCycle-stan?

 

[Mariachi Joe]

Our military is not broken, who told you that load of bs. Every friend I have in the military says that they are wining and just need time to finish their mission, I figure they know better than me so I trust them.

 

[Monadnock]

Our military is not broken, who told you that load of bs. Every friend I have in the military says that they are wining and just need time to finish their mission, I figure they know better than me so I trust them.

They need time, along with a plan. 2 things the Dems will not put into that plan are money and more troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp_8

Send more help?

Another senior Democrat, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, said one option under consideration would be for lawmakers to vote on denying the use of funds for any increase in the U.S. deployment.

Tie the hands of the Commander in Chief?

Sen. Barack Obama a potential presidential candidate, said that while he opposes any measure that would increase the risk to troops already deployed, "the central question then becomes, is there a way of conditioning appropriations so that the president is constrained and that's something that we're investigating right now."

 

[michaeledward]

Our military is not broken, who told you that load of bs. Every friend I have in the military says that they are wining and just need time to finish their mission, I figure they know better than me so I trust them.

This is not a question of someone telling me anything. This determination is based on reports from people with much greater knowledge and experience than me.

Unless your friends in the military are overseeing the readiness of then entire force structure, their individual opinions are the equivilent of the fleas making a veterinary diagnosis of the dog.

Each year since the war began, the military has been changing standards in order to be able to state that enlistment goals are being met. Eligible ages have been increased. More waivers for past inappropriate behavior have been issued. Recent discussions have included ending the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' program, to get more openly gay men and women to enlist. Also there are discussions about increasing the number of non-citizens the military will accept; and then fast-tracking those non-citizens toward citizenship (Robert Heinlein anyone?).

This is the text of a letter submitted to members of Congress.

August 1, 2006
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Democratic Leader United States House of Representatives The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid Democratic Leader United States Senate The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Leader Pelosi and Leader Reid:

We are writing to express our deep concern about the U.S. Army's current state of readiness and to urge you to take immediate action to address this urgent problem. We have recently learned that:

• Two thirds of the Army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready.
• There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.

The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded.

This is particularly dangerous at a time when the United States is engaged in a global effort to counter terrorism and is facing numerous crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran and North Korea. The lack of a ready strategic reserve in our Army weakens our ability to deter undesired actions by these nations, as well as our ability to respond effectively to such actions.

This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals. We called attention to this looming problem in an earlier report, "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk," January 2006, but that report was met with indifference and denial by the administration. This problem can no longer be denied.

Restoring the Army's readiness requires additional funding, but, inexplicably, the administration is underfunding the Army. It has not requested funding adequate to support the roles and missions envisioned for the Army by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, nor has it provided adequate funding to support the operational demands being placed on the Army today. Remarkably, the Office of Management and Budget recently cut the Army's request for FY06 supplemental appropriations by $4.9 Billion, undermining the Army's efforts to "get well" after substantial equipment degradation and losses in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We believe this constitutes a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.

The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable. The readiness degradation that has already occurred could lead to a downward spiral that will take years to correct unless promptly addressed. Under these conditions, it is important for the Congress to step forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities for equipping and training the Armed Services.
Therefore, we call on you to take all necessary steps to address this situation on an urgent basis, including increasing funding to restore the Army's readiness to the levels needed to safeguard this nation's interests at home and abroad. The most immediate opportunity is the FY07 defense appropriations bill that will soon come to the floor of the Senate. We urge you to offer an amendment to increase funding to address the Army's readiness shortfalls. We also suggest that the Armed Services Committees hold hearings to determine the full depth of the readiness problems already manifested in the Army and possibly looming for the Marines.

Sincerely,
William J. Perry Chair, National Security Advisory Group
Madeleine K. Albright
Graham T. Allison
Samuel R. Berger
Ashton B. Carter
Wesley K. Clark
Thomas E. Donilon
Michele A. Flournoy
John D. Podesta
Susan E. Rice
John M. Shalikashvili
Wendy R. Sherman
Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall
James B. Steinberg

This link also offers some insights. I remind you that Congressman Murtha is a United States Marine.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/PRmilreadiness0913.html

 

[michaeledward]

They need time, along with a plan. 2 things the Dems will not put into that plan are money and more troops.

Send more help?

Tie the hands of the Commander in Chief?

The American Public was told the war would take six days, or six weeks. Our Secretary of Defense said that he doubted it would take six months.

Since the President and his Administration planned and executed so well for the first eight attempts at a war that was less than six months, how many 'Do Overs' does he get?

The Congress of the United States, in case you forgot, is a co-equal branch of government. They have a responsibility to effect a 'check and balance' on the President, and the Supreme Court for that matter.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

Kind of like they check and balanced Pres. Clinton when he bombed Serbia into the Stone Age? One of those friends is a Captain in the Army who did a couple of tours in Irap which he volunteered for. If he tell me they are winning I'll take his word for it. Sen John Macain was also a veteran of Vietnam and he feels we should finish the job in Iraq, why is his opinion less than Congressman Murtha in your eyes?

 

[michaeledward]

Kind of like they check and balanced Pres. Clinton when he bombed Serbia into the Stone Age? One of those friends is a Captain in the Army who did a couple of tours in Irap which he volunteered for. If he tell me they are winning I'll take his word for it. Sen John Macain was also a veteran of Vietnam and he feels we should finish the job in Iraq, why is his opinion less than Congressman Murtha in your eyes?

When President Clinton acted in the Balkans, I will point out, that both Houses of Congress were acting under Republican leadership, weren't they? I know they were busy worrying about who was schlepping whom, and when Mr. A was going to get take them to the Verizon, but it was the Republicans. Oh, yeah, and how many Americans died in Serbia? And how much did that military campaign cost the US Taxpayer?



I am familiar with Senator McCain. I have not indicated that my his opinion is "less than" that of Congressman Murtha. After McCain, Lieberman and Bush, what do you have next. On the other end, there are Hagel, Abizaid, Casey, Collins, Wilson, and the list goes on, and on.

EDIT --- Oh, yeah, and there is that Blair guy from Britian. He's opposed to the idea, too - END EDIT

And, if you look closely, you'll see even 'Straight Talk Express' McCain, himself, is beginning to see the political calculus in this.

Even Sen. John McCain, a Republican who advocates sending more troops in Iraq, said he wouldn't support sending in the additional forces unless the number was adequate enough to finally tamp down the violence.

"I need to know if it's enough or not," McCain said.

So, I think it is a fair question to ask why are so many of the leaders in the Military, and in the Congress are opposed to the Escalation of forces in Iraq?

Once again I will say - if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, suddenly every problem starts to look like a nail.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

It seems interesting to me, that the new combatant commander of 'Central Command' is an Admiral. While no doubt qualified, in that he has been a leader for the Pacific Fleet and that he has not voiced an opinion against the coming escalation, it seems odd to put a Sailor in charge of ground wars.

I think you are probably reading a bit too much into this. At the higher levels of command, Generals and Admirals alike receive a lot of education and have experience (remember, the Marines are part of the Navy) with the concepts and strategies of ground warfare.

Jeff

 

[michaeledward]

I think you are probably reading a bit too much into this. At the higher levels of command, Generals and Admirals alike receive a lot of education and have experience (remember, the Marines are part of the Navy) with the concepts and strategies of ground warfare.

Jeff

Jeff, you are probably correct on this. My assertion is a bit toward, if not over, the edge.

But, I think the question I raised is something to consider. Are there no Army commanders who have trained for desert warfare, or urban combat, or fighting insurgents available? Yes, Patreaus is moving up through the chain of command in that arena, but are there no other two stars or three stars that can be moved up? Is there a credible reason to select a Navy commander over an Army commander?

And, I think you might find some Marines who are not terribly pleased with your assertion that they are part of the Navy. I'm sure they will acknowledge the heritage, but since 1947, they have been their own service.

Mike

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Jeff, you are probably correct on this. My assertion is a bit toward, if not over, the edge.

But, I think the question I raised is something to consider. Are there no Army commanders who have trained for desert warfare, or urban combat, or fighting insurgents available? Yes, Patreaus is moving up through the chain of command in that arena, but are there no other two stars or three stars that can be moved up? Is there a credible reason to select a Navy commander over an Army commander?

And, I think you might find some Marines who are not terribly pleased with your assertion that they are part of the Navy. I'm sure they will acknowledge the heritage, but since 1947, they have been their own service.

Mike

They are kind of their own service. They still are part of the Department of the Navy.

I'll do a little digging around and find out what I can about his quals. I've often thought most of the area commanders should be Army or Marines just because when it comes down to it, I like my commanders to have been boots on the ground at some point, 'cause you don't win without that.

Jeff