Peter Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Bremer - Not enough troops - atmosphere of lawlessness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Bremer - Not enough troops - atmosphere of lawlessness 57232[/snapback] More troops = more targets = bigger cluster !@#$. Troop levels should be kept at the bare minimum...then reduced as the Iraqi forces are trained up to take over. Then, when US troops leave...radical Islamic revolution anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 More troops = more targets = bigger cluster !@#$. Troop levels should be kept at the bare minimum...then reduced as the Iraqi forces are trained up to take over. Then, when US troops leave...radical Islamic revolution anyway... 57404[/snapback] Vietnam, anyone?? On a much smaller scale, but when I saw the story, I IMMEDIATELY thought of it. We are losing lives almost daily for something that will inevitably collapse, as you say. Bremer, :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: . We should be ROTATING guys out only, NOT ADDING to the mess. We obviously have NO people in his office who understand ANYTHING about past mistakes. The only thing missing, luckily, are the certain hippies and the like who disgraced our country with their childish, stupid actions (spitters, babykillers, etc)... At least now almost all Americans who are against Iraq support the troops, but not the actions of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 I think that one of our failures is that we did not have the resources on the ground to ensure that there was sufficient security. When you conguer a country, they should know that they have been conquered and that there is nothing that they could do about it. From the time we "won" the war, there was lawlessness because of the miscalculations of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. As a result, we gave new life to the insurgents. More and more of our guys are getting killed each month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 So what exactly is your point here? I think that everyone would agree after the fact that we did not have enough troops on the ground. Where is the big story here? What we do not know, is what were all the other circumstances surrounding the decision. One thing I can assure you of is that GWB and friends did not sit around saying " why don't we send in only 70% of the troops needed, and in doing so we can get a few more of our fine young soldiers killed" Get real you ass monkey whiners, the decisions were made, and you can spend your whole life second guessing. Get over your self rightous attitudes. Monday morning quarterbacks are called this for a reason. It is because they did not have the balls to put in the time, enrgy, and execution to make something happen. hence, they are back seat drivers, and momma's boys who do not have the guts to make the tough decisions. If you want to see the poster boy for this type of loser....look no further then john kerrys botox injected face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 So what exactly is your point here? I think that everyone would agree after the fact that we did not have enough troops on the ground. Where is the big story here? What we do not know, is what were all the other circumstances surrounding the decision. One thing I can assure you of is that GWB and friends did not sit around saying " why don't we send in only 70% of the troops needed, and in doing so we can get a few more of our fine young soldiers killed" Get real you ass monkey whiners, the decisions were made, and you can spend your whole life second guessing. Get over your self rightous attitudes. Monday morning quarterbacks are called this for a reason. It is because they did not have the balls to put in the time, enrgy, and execution to make something happen. hence, they are back seat drivers, and momma's boys who do not have the guts to make the tough decisions. If you want to see the poster boy for this type of loser....look no further then john kerrys botox injected face. 57468[/snapback] Can you say General Shinseki?!? This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. The civilian leadership ignored the advice of the professionals. Why? In my view, they did so because they wanted to rush to war as quickly as possible to create a fait accompli and before support for the war dissipated. Yes, I know, you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Can you say General Shinseki?!? This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. The civilian leadership ignored the advice of the professionals. Why? In my view, they did so because they wanted to rush to war as quickly as possible to create a fait accompli and before support for the war dissipated. Yes, I know, you disagree. 57477[/snapback] Sorry, but the Pentagon is hardly a good place to laud accomplishment as complaining about troop levels is about 3rd from the top of every war planning checklist (after money and lack of time). If they had their way, they'd have put 1,000,000 on the ground and STILL complained that they didn't have enough manpower to complete the mission. Trust me. Now back to your regularly regurgitated soundbytes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 Sorry, but the Pentagon is hardly a good place to laud accomplishment as complaining about troop levels is about 3rd from the top of every war planning checklist (after money and lack of time). If they had their way, they'd have put 1,000,000 on the ground and STILL complained that they didn't have enough manpower to complete the mission. Trust me. Now back to your regularly regurgitated soundbytes... 57483[/snapback] I have more confidence in Shinseki than I do in Wolfowitz, Feith et al on the number of troops that were necessary. Apparently you disagree and think that Wolfowitz et al know more than the professional military. Wasn't one of the legs of the Powell doctrine that you crush the enemy with overwhelming force. P.S. Sound bite? Regurgitate? Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Can you say General Shinseki?!? This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. The civilian leadership ignored the advice of the professionals. Why? In my view, they did so because they wanted to rush to war as quickly as possible to create a fait accompli and before support for the war dissipated. Yes, I know, you disagree. 57477[/snapback] Your point is well taken but you cannot consider the opinion of one man to be the do all end all in tis matter. He had his opinion, and in hindsight it appeared that he may have been right. The point that i made was there may have been ten other generals who had differing opinions, we will never know. The point is, that second guessing and monday morning QBing is easy...leadership is not. Useing your logic, I guess that we can find someone who said that if we would have stopped all flights over NYC on 9-11, then two planes would have never hit the WTC. Well........duhhhhhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Sorry, but the Pentagon is hardly a good place to laud accomplishment as complaining about troop levels is about 3rd from the top of every war planning checklist (after money and lack of time). If they had their way, they'd have put 1,000,000 on the ground and STILL complained that they didn't have enough manpower to complete the mission. Trust me. Now back to your regularly regurgitated soundbytes... 57483[/snapback] And even if they did somehow put a million troops on the ground...at the 3/4 percent per annum attrition they're running, that's 7500 dead in a year. If we're losing the war now with 125k troops and a thousand dead, imagine how badly we'd be getting our asses kicked with a million and 7500 dead. As long as the success or failure is judged by body counts, raising troop levels only guarantees a greater level of failure through providing more targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I have more confidence in Shinseki than I do in Wolfowitz, Feith et al on the number of troops that were necessary. Apparently you disagree and think that Wolfowitz et al know more than the professional military. Wasn't one of the legs of the Powell doctrine that you crush the enemy with overwhelming force. P.S. Sound bite? Regurgitate? Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. 57510[/snapback] We did crush the enemy on the battlefield. I guess you missed that part. We don't have enough of the kind of troops required for the current work. That isn't going to change for at least a decade - if the necessary changes are being put in place now. I don't know that they are because I'm no longer in the middle of it. Maybe BIB can answer. As I have stated "ad nauseum" on this board, our government has been all too willing to allow the Pentagon to keep their empires in place until the current administration took office. The downside of that is a military force that was still mostly configured to fight the Cold War. Contrary to all the "anti-Rumsfeld" rhetoric that has been thrown around, he has been more than willing to fight the battle. It's not pretty and it certainly hasn't been won yet. There are nowhere near enough trained operators/security personnel in the U.S. military, especially for the kind of conflict we are currently engaged in. There have been strides made in that direction but because the government is involved, they are baby steps. I have given numerous examples of this over the years right here. When we fought in the Desert the first time, my home unit had to hire civilian contract security to police the base we left behind. Other bases in the command worked their ops guys 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for almost 3 years. Divorces were at over 50% annually, which at the time was VERY high for the military. Did that get us more boots? Nope. More bureaucrats and tiger teams to study the effects. Hence the reason we have over 1.5 million troops but fewer than 600,000 are actually combat operators. But hey, as long as they keep the base open in my district and the weapons factory down the street churning out stevestojan we don't need, what do I care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 We did crush the enemy on the battlefield. I guess you missed that part. We don't have enough of the kind of troops required for the current work. That isn't going to change for at least a decade - if the necessary changes are being put in place now. I don't know that they are because I'm no longer in the middle of it. Maybe BIB can answer. As I have stated "ad nauseum" on this board, our government has been all too willing to allow the Pentagon to keep their empires in place until the current administration took office. The downside of that is a military force that was still mostly configured to fight the Cold War. Contrary to all the "anti-Rumsfeld" rhetoric that has been thrown around, he has been more than willing to fight the battle. It's not pretty and it certainly hasn't been won yet. There are nowhere near enough trained operators/security personnel in the U.S. military, especially for the kind of conflict we are currently engaged in. There have been strides made in that direction but because the government is involved, they are baby steps. I have given numerous examples of this over the years right here. When we fought in the Desert the first time, my home unit had to hire civilian contract security to police the base we left behind. Other bases in the command worked their ops guys 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for almost 3 years. Divorces were at over 50% annually, which at the time was VERY high for the military. Did that get us more boots? Nope. More bureaucrats and tiger teams to study the effects. Hence the reason we have over 1.5 million troops but fewer than 600,000 are actually combat operators. But hey, as long as they keep the base open in my district and the weapons factory down the street churning out stevestojan we don't need, what do I care? 57645[/snapback] I missed the part where we won. That has not happened - yet. It remains to be seen whether the goals that we had going in will ever be accomplished. As for your comments regarding "empires," I do not disagree with a lot of what you say. P.S. The insurgents seemed to learn from the first Gulf war that they should not congregate in the open desert waiting to be killed. Instead, they have undertaken a guerrilla war that appears to be far from over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I missed the part where we won. That has not happened - yet. It remains to be seen whether the goals that we had going in will ever be accomplished. As for your comments regarding "empires," I do not disagree with a lot of what you say. P.S. The insurgents seemed to learn from the first Gulf war that they should not congregate in the open desert waiting to be killed. Instead, they have undertaken a guerrilla war that appears to be far from over. 57688[/snapback] It hasn't happened? Really? Are we still fighting the Iraqi Army? Which mechanized division is causing us trouble? !@#$, talking to you is like talking to the television. I throw together 10 minutes of actuals and you toss back the typical soundbyte and "don't disagree" (because you couldn't AGREE) with what I say? Gee, thanks Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 We did crush the enemy on the battlefield. I guess you missed that part. Only the ones that stuck around to fight, the rest retreated into the general population and are now part of the ongoing guerilla warfare. When people say mistakes were made but get over it, I have to ask what is their threshold for the number and significance of mistakes before they admit that the people who made the mistakes should be held accountable? Rewarding people for mistakes just emboldens them to continue making the same mistakes. While we're at it, how about renegotiating Bledsoe and Mike Williams contracts and giving them longer deals for more money. They've made mistakes, but get over it and reward them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 5, 2004 Author Share Posted October 5, 2004 It hasn't happened? Really? Are we still fighting the Iraqi Army? Which mechanized division is causing us trouble? !@#$, talking to you is like talking to the television. I throw together 10 minutes of actuals and you toss back the typical soundbyte and "don't disagree" (because you couldn't AGREE) with what I say? Gee, thanks Pete. 57694[/snapback] You are a piece of work. If you think that we have won this war, please take your head out of the sand. We won every %*%*%* battle in Vietnam, but ended up losing the %*%*%* war. More Americans have died since GWB made his speech on the Abraham Lincoln than after. If you do not think that the war is still going on then you may want to ask our guys who are getting shot (and killed) at what they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Only the ones that stuck around to fight, the rest retreated into the general population and are now part of the ongoing guerilla warfare. When people say mistakes were made but get over it, I have to ask what is their threshold for the number and significance of mistakes before they admit that the people who made the mistakes should be held accountable? Rewarding people for mistakes just emboldens them to continue making the same mistakes. While we're at it, how about renegotiating Bledsoe and Mike Williams contracts and giving them longer deals for more money. They've made mistakes, but get over it and reward them. 57705[/snapback] Where exactly did I state "mistakes were made, get over it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Where exactly did I state "mistakes were made, get over it?" The second part was actually responding to Rich, which is why I said "people" and not "you". I'm sorry for the implied guilt by association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 You are a piece of work. I know. If you think that we have won this war, please take your head out of the sand. I never said we've won the war. The peace is always harder to win than the battle. Public school history needs revamping. We won every %*%*%* battle in Vietnam, but ended up losing the %*%*%* war. Really? My history book reads a little differently on winning every battle. More Americans have died since GWB made his speech on the Abraham Lincoln than after. YEAH! Soundbytes. If you do not think that the war is still going on then you may want to ask our guys who are getting shot (and killed) at what they think. Asked and answered. The biggest reason I was against the war had everything to do with our population not having the stomach for the aftermath of the military battle coupled with the knowledge that we don't have the right composition for the job. Once again, proven correct. FWIW, I talk to my compadres on the ground fairly regularly. I doubt you have the same luxury of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 more troops, more casualties, fewer results. Welcome to the quagmire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 more troops, more casualties, fewer results. Welcome to the quagmire. 57753[/snapback] Ah, stevestojan. Tenny and I agree on something. Someone shoot me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts