No troops are being sent to Iraq that were not already scheduled to go there.
I just read a wonderful post at Mudville Gazette that gives a blow-by-blow breakdown on what the planned surge in US troops "is" and "isn't."…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Nancy
Other 'facts' about the Surge which BushCo hasn't bothered to think about or mention to Congress or the public: there isn't enough equipment over there for the current level of troops to do their jobs, let alone the addional numbers being sent in The Surge. Those over there now are scrambling to cope with inadequate weapons, supplies, armor, vehicles, & even food on occasion.
Heckuva job, Bushie.
27 - troll
we'd best get those manufacturers cranking with cost plus plus plus contracts huh
28 - Bird of Paradise
Nancy et al, Just wondering. Are you among the 30%+ of Democrats who do not want the US to be successful in Iraq . . . who want the US to lose? Or . . . if you aren't, how do you suggest that we win? How would you define victory? What would happen in Iraq if we left too soon . . . (such as Obama's Senate resolution that requires we be gone by Spring of 2008)?
29 - D'oh
Bird says: "Nancy et al, Just wondering. Are you among the 30%+ of Democrats who do not want the US to be successful in Iraq "
Once again, some like to try and paint those who question or disagree as unpatriotic somehow.
I've got a clip for that.
the Tao of D'oh
30 - Dave Nalle
Maybe I'm weird, but it seems to me that actually taking pleasure in the idea of the US military being defeated by terrorists is a hell of a lot more than just 'disagreeing'.
31 - Nancy
BoP, there is NO American of ANY party who doesn't want the US to "win"; but some of us don't define increasing the dangers to our troops for the sake of Bush's ego & lies so they get slaughtered by a bunch of muslim maniacs to be "victory" - as defined by Dirty Dick "Madman" Cheney, apparently YOUR loonie leader. Don't pull that 'if you don't agree with me you're a traitor' Karl Rove maggot bullshit with me, fool.
32 - Dave Nalle
Nancy, are you familiar with Shark? He'd clearly be happier if the US lost in Iraq. Anything to take down Bush.
Dave
33 - troll
Vox - I fear that you've missed SHARK's point which is that the US has already lost...
thanks GWB - !
some of us have seen this show before although set in greener environs
34 - Nancy
No, that's not true. Try - TRY REAL HARD - to separate Fearless Leader & Dirty Dick from our troops & US interests, because they are neither. One can utterly support our troops (I have friends & family among them) by NOT wanting them to be subjected to middle eastern barbarian brawls for the sake of a pack of lies concocted by a wannabe War Prez/faux cowboy & his maniac VP straight out of Psycho who wants to Rule The World. I believe Shark is in that category, it's just that he's a lot more sarcastic & oblique about it than I am.
35 - D'oh
Vox, I don't know of any who actively want anyone in the military hurt, or desire for the U.S. to "lose".
However, I would ask that those defending the so called policy , please state clearly exactly WHAT fucking goals constitute "winning"?
How is it that this entire bullshit operation has lasted longer than WW2?
What kind of military strategic planning does not have victory conditions from the outset?
How does one trust an administration to run things properly when they themselves (as in W) has stated that he planned on leaving the entire Iraq problem for the NEXT president to solve?
I could get into the whole timing of the invasion, how the boondoggle has taken resources away from Afghanistan...so no bin Laden, and al Qaeda is with the Taliban taking that country back, with the money they got form the opi9um crop last year, grown in Afghanistan, that made up 95% of the opium produced last year.
All this after constantly shifting goalposts as to why we are there, and what we are attempting to do...all the while spending 10 million dollars an HOUR on the fiasco, with over $9 billion last year that just disappeared according to the GAO.
So, we should trust ANYTHING from this administration....why?
Their decision to fight this invasion/occupation on the cheap...too few troops and inadequate equipment/supplies is heinous in the extreme and does our military a far greater disservice (including some of them dead or injured/maimed/crippled because of it).
So, you see any "pleasure" there? Or perhaps a hopping fucking mad ex-military person who knows better than to trust in politicians when it comes to military matters?
And Rummy was a politician, NOT any kind of military strategist...same with Perle and Wolfowitz and all the rest of the neocon planners of this fiasco.
But they set it up, and threw our troops into a meatgrinder for their purposes, NOT for the good or security of our nation.
Any student of strategy would tell you that sending those troops and resources into Afghanistan..bringing that nation into the 20th century, destroying the Taliban and al Qaeda...THAT would accomplish all the bullshit about showing the middle east how a democracy could work in their region.
Instead it was left to rot, in favor of Iraq being invaded half assed on a political, NOT military, timetable.
So, who exactly is it that you think is "taking pleasure" from all of this?
Then ask yourself, who is making a fortune from it.
the Tao of D'oh
36 - Clavos
What kind of military strategic planning does not have victory conditions from the outset?
That's an easy one, D'oh: ALL American strategic military planning since the end of WWII.
We have NO business entering into war ANYWHERE; we don't have the stomach for it.
37 - D'oh
Clavos, the Sec of State at the time had literally written the book on it, it was used in the first Gulf War...they called it the "Powell Doctrine".
It states to know why you are there, set clear goals, and use overwhelming force...then get the hell out once done...occupations are NEVER good.
This was tossed aside by those who never served and who had political reasons, NOT valid national security concerns by a cadre of people who had NEVER served, or even properly studied the subject.
As for your bit about "not having the stomach for it"... I call bullshit.
This nation, indeed the entire fucking world...was fine and behind us for Afghanistan, it was crystal clear and cut and dried. Hell, even the Chinese and the Russians said "go for it, do you want any help with anything?"
I don't know of ANY instance where ANY one has bitched about Afghanistan, except to say we aren't doing the job there.
THAT kind of thing, where our interests are clear and not clouded by bullshit...the public can and does get behind.
Made up bullshit, or imperialistic neocon adventurism...well, the public may fall for it briefly, but then they wake up and get cranky.
As November's election results began to show, expect more tidal changes depending on what happens in Iraq between now and Nov '08.
38 - Nancy
Additional info straight from the troopers themselves (yesterday's WP on direct info from a soldier recently killed in battle): the surge will do no good, because the troops in Iraq are already scrambling to stay alive because they lack adequate supplies, weapons, armor, vehicles, etc. But neither BushCo nor any of their carefully vetted Pentagon spokespieces are letting on about that. All the additional troops in the world won't do any good, because there ISN'T ANY MATERIAL SUPPORT OVER THERE for them - capeesh? Dubya's sending the guys to fight, but he forgot to send anything for them to fight WITH! Jez-us H. Christ! What part of that do you not understand? How are they gonna win if they don't have vehicles? Weapons? Bullets? Armor? If they're short on all these things, because the Boy Blunder sitting yonder in the WH hasn't provided those little details, ya see. He's been busy letting Dirty Dick's Halliburton buddies & his trick pony, Zawahiri, sack the funds sent over. $9 BILLION spent on swimming pools in police academys that were abandoned due to shoddy building, supplies &/or facilities never built/delivered to begin with, cash handed out by the bagful to Iraqi 'authorities', weapons & communications equipment & armor - even vehicles & fuel - casually "lost" or "mislaid" or "missappropriated" by the half-wit brass there who never learned how to track their materiel because it always has just come pouring out of a bountiful Pentagon? What the fuck???!!! How many brain cells are you still needing to catch any of this BushCo fiasco? Wake up & smell the Bush-shit.
This ISN'T my opinion; this is straight from a soldier who was stationed in the thick of it & who managed to get word to Outsiders of what the brass & WH won't admit - just before he bought it. He died. For what: Bush's ego & legacy? So fucking Dick Cheney can rule the world? No American should die for those canards. They wouldn't have to, if Bush & Cheney didn't view average Americans - our troops - as nothing more than cannon fodder for their psychotic, deluded fantasies & ambitions. And if you DO support that rationale for this Iraqi mess, then the traitor & un-American here is YOU. You - you - YOU! Basta!
39 - D'oh
One thing Nancy. A military supply clerk KNOWS where every nut, bolt, bullet and fig newton are.
The military supply line isn't doing the vast majority of logistics, that was farmed out to KBR and other private military firms, who were brought up by the GAO for overbilling.
All part of Rummy's "leaner fighting force".
40 - Clavos
I stand by my statement, and I think both Korea and especially Vietnam are excellent examples of it.
As far as Afghanistan goes: Yes, we were justified. And yes, we won handily: we were Goliath to their David. And, as you pointed out, we then threw it away.
My point is, there was no possibility of massive loss of life there as there is in larger wars, so we "had the stomach" for it.
We're squeamish about killing, which basically, is what you do in war; it's why we don't win real wars anymore.
Hopefully we'll get our balls back someday.
41 - D'oh
And you consider Nam and Korea "real wars"?
Korea you can make a case for, but Nam? You know better. That little fiasco had many of the same root causes as Iraq...with even worse results and so many more dead/wounded.
Funny how no one looks at where going into an area with a long history of sectarian violence that was a cause for at least WW1, and many other conflicts, has been resolved and where things are looking much better than ever. All without bullshit, and with quiet delivery on mission, a dictator who was into genocide removed, regimes changed and all much more stable.
Or don't the Balkans count?
42 - Nancy
Well, on that point, Clavvie, I'll agree: if you're going to go to war, go all the way. Be prepared to kill everybody, wipe out everything without mercy or let. You can't tiptoe around trying to separate the sheep from the goats when they all not only look the same, but ARE the same. We should have just turned the area into one big sheet of molten glass - EXCEPT that would have meant that BushCo wouldn't have access to the oil fields, now, would it? Which is why we waged a half-assed war: BushCo wanted to be careful not to spoil any of the goodies that were the real goal of this tragic farcical lie.
43 - D'oh
I don't agree with the entire "balls" bit.
It ain't about balls, courage or resolve.
It's about the REASON for the war...WHY is there to be killing/dying? Give the public a good, solid reason, and the world remembers why war is America's favorite past time...because we are fucking good at it!
When generation upon generation are squandered on bullshit, the public gets cynical, and wants more info and debate as to why beforehand... Jefferson help the fuckers who deceive and distort to drag the U.S. into a war...once they find out, the peasants get all kinds of uppity, as recent headlines show.
44 - Clavos
D'oh,
I think I wasn't clear enough, you said:
That little fiasco had many of the same root causes as Iraq...with even worse results and so many more dead/wounded.
Which is exactly my point: we tried to fight it half-assed; we had LOTS more we could have thrown into it, but didn't.
I don't like to get personal about VN, but here's a REAL experience:
On patrol. Fired at from a ville. Have to call back, more than one level up the chain of command, to GET PERMISSION TO FIRE BACK. By the time that happens, they (the enemy) are gone; leaving a ville full of not-so-innocent "civilians", who are, officially "non-combatants."
I wasn't there, but I have absolutely no doubt that's how and why My Lai happened.
45 - zingzing
clavos--war has changed since wwII. it changed during wwII. at the outset of the war, we had an antiquated vision of what war was.
because of wwII, total war is not an option. maximum force means complete destruction. insurgent resistance means that we CAN'T go in and just kill, because that's not what you do in this type of warfare. basically, with our understanding of war, we shouldn't fight these types of war. "balls" means stupidity and murder.
what we did in wwII, especially in germany and japan, is arguably criminal. since then, we haven't been fighting to our fullest capability, and even when we get a little bit evil, the inhumanity of it all is inescapable.
the end of wwII changed the way people view war and the value of human life. if you ever want to see us, or anyone, making war like we used to, you'd have to turn back the clock or witness the end of the world.
46 - D'oh
Those were command decisions (and fucked up ones) by Westmoreland, as you know Clavos.
He was to Nam what Rummy was to Iraq in many ways. But look at the differences too, we had a lot of troops in country, and suffered what, over 58,000 casualties and I have no clue how many wounded/maimed/crippled come out of that mess.
I can't think of a single instance in history where it worked out well for any occupying force in a foreign land over the long term....ever.
Big difference between fighting a war, and occupation.
47 - Nancy
Yeah ... somehow occupying forces seem to bring out the worst in the natives, don't they?
48 - Martin Lav
"This nation, indeed the entire fucking world...was fine and behind us for Afghanistan, it was crystal clear and cut and dried. Hell, even the Chinese and the Russians said "go for it, do you want any help with anything?"
Don't forget about Iran, they were at the table too!
49 - Clavos
D'oh,
As often happens, we're getting near agreement on this, you and I.
It WAS Westy's bad strategy, but it WAS forced by LBJ and the Congress, which goes to my point about balls.
I have no clue how many wounded/maimed/crippled come out of that mess.
I don't either, but I'm a VA patient myself, and the Miami VA Medical Center is full of Nam vets, and increasingly, Iraq ones, too.
Big difference between fighting a war, and occupation.
Which is why it's imperative to fight to win; then get the hell out.
50 - D'oh
Which was exactly why I quoted the Powell doctrine, says just that, and noted that the policy was thrown out.
The lesson is that a war against a tangible enemy, when there are REAL national security concerns, can be fought an won by the U.S.
It's when you get half assed attempts at bullshit unclear objectives that really don't have any direct bearing on national security that problems arise as the public grows more aware and more soldiers return in boxes or in pieces.
NO amount of "balls" can solve an occupation, never has...never will. the insurgents LIVE there, they ain't going away...and a man will die for his home much faster than he will for somebody else's profits.
THAT was the lesson of Nam, and THAT was the lesson completely thrown aside in Iraq.
51 - Clavos
zing #45,
I respectfully disagree with your entire comment.
Though WE (and some of our allies) have changed the way we view war and the value of human life, none of our enemies since then have. Particularly not those whose cultures do NOT value human life.
We will probably never win another war under those circumstances, which is why I advocate leaving now and bringing all our troops around the world home.
52 - Martin Lav
What culture that you know of does not value human life?
That's ridiculous for even you to say Clavos.
53 - Clavos
Well, for starters, martin, how about those who use suicide bombers??
54 - Martin Lav
They are poor uneducated people heavily influenced by a religion that uses "martyrdom" as a form offensive fire power. If they had the sophisticated weaponry that west has then I doubt you would see much of this form.
Either way, dying for a cause, does not indicate a level of value placed on human life.
What about abortion in the West?
55 - D'oh
Careful, Clavos..you start getting into the ends versus means argument.
And it's my contention that the American view is that the ends never justify the means, the means are an end in and of themselves.
the Tao of D'oh
56 - troll
imo invading Afghanistan in response to 911 took us down the wrong path
rather we should have invested our treasure in massive r&d to change the game - energy independence and freedom from the family Saud
had we done so we'd be there now
57 - zingzing
well, clavos, i'm only talking about OUR willingness to commit to total war. we just aren't willing to do it because our technology allows us to do things that our humanity will not.
that's why we will never fight a war with the abandon of wwII again. we can win that way, but we can't fight that way anymore. if we were willing to fight that way, of course we could defeat our enemy--we'd just blow them off the map. easy.
unfortunately, that's not the goal of this war. the goals of a war determine how you fight it. so... since we can't fight the way we can win (because we won't let ourselves and it's not what we want to do here), we have to learn to fight another way. unfortunately, the past 40 years has taught us that we suck when fighting this type of war. we haven't learned how to get around that fact.
58 - D'oh
A rare instance where we have some disagreement, troll.
Your solution, that I do think needs to be part of the overall answer, does not address the very real problem of the Taliban/al Qaeda in Afghanistan, especially in light of the sympathetic and nuclear Pakistan right next door.
59 - Martin Lav
We won this war with ease.
Yet we weren't prepared to occupy the country and still aren't. If we had taken lessons from the Nazi's in WWII in France or Poland then we could have had some success in controlling events in Iraq.
Our dumbass leaders however thought we would be greeted as liberators, not occupiers and that my friends is the crux of the problem.
60 - Clavos
They are poor uneducated people heavily influenced by a religion that uses "martyrdom" as a form offensive fire power.
Correct, martin. And is their religion not an important part of their culture?
Their level of sophistication, or weaponry, is irrelevant, they buy it. You didn't ask what "sophisticated, advanced culture" does not value human life.
The point is, you asked which culture doesn't value human life and I pointed out the martyrdom aspect of the islamist religion. You might also look at the wahhabists, who advocate extermination of every non believer. Same religion, different sect.
There are several religions and cultures in the world which place a very different value on human life from what we in the west customarily do.
There are even political beliefs which value an individual life less than that of the group.
You asked what about abortion in the West. I'm not sure what you're asking there, but there ARE people who would probably point to it as a sign that we don't value human life, either.
I wouldn't agree with them.
61 - Clavos
Yours is a very Americocentric view, martin. We Americans tend to do that; looking at the world through red, white, and blue glasses.
The vast majority of us never even bother to learn another language, expecting the rest of the world to speak English to us.
Having grown up in another culture and having one foot in each, I'm particularly sensitive to that.
IMO, it's one of the major reasons we screw up so much in our international relations.
62 - Martin Lav
Clavos,
Christianity has martyrdom prevelant in it as well. However, they don't believe they are oppressed people's and don't use it as an offensive or defensive weapon.
I get it.
I get wahhabism as well.
I don't believe that these radical elements would last long if the ruling elite didn't oppress their people.
And......I would imagine that the Muslim's of the world look at the millions of abortions performed in the US per year and they probably think we are an obvious example of one of those:
"cultures do NOT value human life."
63 - Baronius
Martin, that's just wrong. Suicide bombers tend to come from the educated middle class. They're not particularly religious. They don't fit the Western image of the poor, desperate fanatic.
We claim we want to understand our enemy, but we use old templates: founding fathers, peasants rebelling, religious fanatics. Currently there's an effort to portray all Muslims as unworthy of our aid. We get very little information about the Afghan, Iraqi, or Kurdish cultures.
There's the old saying about fighting the last war. We're fighting the current war, but the press is covering Vietnam.
64 - D'oh
Baronius, I think you have that a bit backward.
We are fighting Nam all over again, having learned nothing, but the MSM coverage is all 21st century.
Last time, you saw body bags, reporters roamed freely and wrote and photographed whatever they could find, bringing moments, not photo ops... no reporters with Stockholm syndrome from embedding.
I think you get the idea.
65 - troll
D'oh - but for their barbaric social and religious practices - and their attacks on the US - what's the real problem with the taliban and al qaeda - ?
their complaint is valid - the US has occupied (economically) the ME
66 - D'oh
My objection is to the attacks by al Qaeda on the U.S.
The why is not my problem, their decision, backed by the Taliban government, was to attack and kill civilians.
That's still an act of war, by all standards, and as you know, I'm a firm believer in self defense.
Our strategic goal should be to oust the Taliban regime, destroy/kill capture al Qaeda, and THEN rebuild Afghanistan into a 21st century nation, then get the hell out of there.
Solves the military problem, takes some of the sting out of potential nuclear weapons in the hands of al Qaeda from Pakistani sources, and makes Afghanistan into a fine example of what can happen anywhere once tyrants are removed and people can govern themselves.
Unfortunately, none of this has occurred.
As for their complain that the U.S. has bases in their holy lands (Saudi Arabia), that would be between the Saudis and the U.S. , and really not the concern of any Afghani, wouldn't you think?
I have not forgotten that bin Laden and many in al Qaeda are indeed Saudis, as were most of the 9/11 hijackers...but that is another thing all together.
67 - troll
what makes you think that we could succeed in nation building in Poppyville - ?
I suspect that we'd be bogged down in yet another guerrilla war no matter how much force we used
68 - D'oh
I should have been clearer...not "nation building", you let the Afghanis do that shit for themselves.
I meant literally building up the country, repair road damage, fix the one big road that serves the country, help them with infrastructure while they sort out the business of creating their own nation the way they see fit.
Stay only by invitation, and get the fuck out as soon as possible after military objectives are achieved.
We were doing just fine with exactly that, and a lot of locals were coming around and actually began to think that the Taliban was gone and they could move on...a U.S. soldier considered a benign sight.
Until Iraq, of course.
69 - Emry
"Our strategic goal should be to... rebuild Afghanistan into a 21st century nation,..."
"...a fine example of what can happen anywhere once tyrants are removed and people can govern themselves."
Then maybe they will follow the example of Great Britain by interfering in other people's business in other parts of the world and generally causing a whole lot of trouble that will come back to haunt them.
BTW, thanks for the links to the excellent videos.
70 - Martin Lav
"Martin, that's just wrong. Suicide bombers tend to come from the educated middle class."
I don't believe this is true, but so what. Your point is not my point at all.
What I'm saying is that these people don't want to die for some religious reason, they want to fight us for religious reasons and they use their religion to allow for this insane practice.
Suicide bombing is a relatively new phenomenum yet the Koran has been around for a number of years hasn't it?
71 - D'oh
Emry - big difference in dealing with a nation that attacked you, and then fixing it up afterwards Marshall plan style, and moving in, taking over and never intending to leave a la British Imperialism of an earlier age.
It's the imperialism part that bugs the shit out of me, as opposed to a proper military objective that is important to national security.
Hence my part of this thread's conversation.
Oh yeah, and I'm glad the videos were entertaining...extra points if you ponder them a moment , and figure out WHY I link as I do...it's pretty easy, but you'd be surprised how many miss things.
72 - SHARK
Clavos: "We're squeamish about killing..."
Americans? You must be joking!
We'd love a good reason to go kill The Other in some semi-romantic, not-too-godfersaken part of the world.
Shit, Nalle is so desperate to use his guns, he's takin pot-shots at feral dogs, ferchrissakes!
And I don't know about you, but I live in Texas -- where we're required by law to carry concealed weapons. Hell, I can spit out my door and hit some half-enraged gun-totin' fellow American just WAITIN' blow somebody away because they scratched his BMW by mistake.
Man, I'm so sick of this "we don't have the stomach for war" shit. It's Vietnam redux. We've heard it before. Blame the pansy-ass liberal protesters!
Here's the deal, Clavos; AMERICANS FUCKING LOVE WAR. We love guns, killin', black-white moral choices, simple solutions to complex problems, etc etc.
It's just that we haven't had a "decent", JUSTIFIABLE war since WWII. Vietnam and Iraq were socio-political experiments by Capitalistic, Imperialistic, Scared-shitlessisitc, Irrational, Doughy, Golf-Playing, Military-Industrial-Complex Shareholding, Overweight White Men.
73 - SHARK
And we lost before we started.
Same in Iraq: fuzzy objectives.
74 - SHARK
And dare I add:
WHAT D'OH SAID.
75 - Clavos
We'd love a good reason to go kill The Other in some semi-romantic, not-too-godfersaken part of the world.
Then why is such a hue and cry being raised about the killing we're doing in Iraq?
Sorry, shark. Not buyin'