Really, when you think about it, our troops suck.

[Bill]

They've got the most money, the best weapons, armored vehicles and equipment out of science fiction, and the most costly and intensive training of any military that has ever existed.

But they can't kill the right iraqis.

So a comparitively small guerilla force operates with impunity and leads them around by the nose.

Kinda embarrassing, when you think about it.

[stefan segal]

Bill...I'm surprised at your assessment.

I'm not one to blindly wave the flag...in fact I am terrifically ashamed of our country and growing moreso every day (I listened to the Iranian UN response and feel "we've" been out manuevered in the eyes of the world and mine too). but when fighting an unidentified opponet who doesn't even bother to pull on a ski mask, it gets difficult to figure where to point these wonderful weapons.

There's a couple of other things fucking up a decent fight...one is, although when pressed, the Islam types can put together a very reasonable and cultured seeming rational for thier actions, allthough I deduce from their actions, that there must also exist a strain of insanity along with their powers of reason.

To wit: A second year college engineer with excellen grades and a fine future, having a wealthy family and living in privelged circumstances, is accosted by his cousin who asks/tells him to strap on a dynamite vest to blow up some Jews...tells him to take his time and think it over...the student thinks it over, straps on the vest and blows himself away...I assume he was hot for those seventy-odd virgins...you remember how it was when we were kids.

My point being that there is no profiling of enemy combatants...no age or sex limits on who will kill you...and if you add to this IED's penetrating power and how many vehicles on hand that can survive such a hit...coupled with each man's vested interest in not taking a chance on killing children, women, camels and goats...pissing on olive trees...as the whole world is up the soldier's ass these days, then with this in mind, I think you should give them high marks for dealing with all this shit.

Hell...I give them high marks for not stuffing butch's plastic turkey with a shit-seeking short fused IED. could have save the world and us a world of trouble.

In fact I would feel so moved by the "accident" that I would push to personaly deliver his eulogy...just thinking about it makes me tremble with a rush of patriotism...or is that laughter....whatever.

[exarmyranger]

...you remember how it was when we were kids.As for me Stefan not really.:confused:

My point being that there is no profiling of enemy combatants...no age or sex limits on who will kill you... not taking a chance on killing children, women, camels and goats...pissing on olive trees...as the whole world is up the soldier's ass these days, then with this in mind, I think you should give them high marks for dealing with all this shit. HooRah!

Hell...I give them high marks for not stuffing butch's plastic turkey with a shit-seeking short fused IED.:thumbsup: I'd give em higher marks if they did do a "Boob Job" on the Bird...

In fact I would feel so moved by the "accident" that I would push to personaly deliver his eulogy...just thinking about it makes me tremble with a rush of patriotism...or is that laughter....whatever.[/QUOTE]Me to,I penned a short inscription for the Headstone;Here Rest's a Man Full of Truth...because it sure never came out of his mouth!:lmao2: t/c ex

[Bill]

I'm just sayin', isn't the lesson here, that the military talks a big game, but when push comes to shove, it can't get the job done?

All over this planet military people are looking at this war, and thinking, "Aha, so that's their weakness...".

We had to give the afghanis hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stingers and recoilless rifles and other gear before they fought the russians to a standstill.

The iraqis get their aid as small donations smuggled over the border from saudi shopkeepers, make their own bombs, and use the old guns and munitions we left laying all over iraq after the invasion.

And they're fighting our troops to a standstill. It doesn't look good. Americans might not have enough sense to see this, but the rest of the world sure does.

[stefan segal]

Bill...I don't argue that we're making a bad showing there...but I am separating apple from oranges...the captains aren't running this war...and add to that that there's no way to win such a war.

I was spealing of the boots on patrol...it seems you were commenting on our AWOL (missed that class) warrior in chief.

Stefan

[Linkster]

Bill - the situation is exactly the same as it was in Vietnam - there are no "marching orders" that the generals can give their men and women - so they just do the best they can to present an appearance of being there and fighting
When you have no "established goals" its impossible to draw up any battle plans let alone fight anyone - at least in vietnam commanders on the ground took the initiative and just blew away anyone that looked the wrong way - with this one they are too scared for their jobs and afraid they will be locked up for doing anything at all.
The patrols you see on tv are done to show that they are "in control" but even that is obviously not working

[Bill]

What if Iraq WAS a real war, and not a fake war to steal a weak little countries oil?

What if Iraq was really fighting us, rather than fighting each other?

What if they really had help, say from China, who also wanted their oil, giving them modern weapons and money? (like we did in afghanistan with the russians)

Pretty much our guys just drive thru in armor, or walk thru in armor, jerking off, axccomplishing nothing.

Iraqis are just waiting for us to get out of the way.

There's a huge gap here, between what we say we can do. and what the evidence on the ground shows we can do.

Sure, this time the war was stupid at it's root, started by incompentents who can't even knock over a defenseless little country and bring home it's loot.

But if it was real, I'm not seeing much sign things would go any better.

If you hire some carpenters to build you a garden shed, and the garden shed never gets built, but the money is gone, do you say, "Dang, those carpenters sure are nice guys.".

Or do you say, "I got screwed, those carpenters suck.".

[Bill]

Linkster, I know you know we DO have a clear cut goal for Iraq.

Just not one that the people in charge of this country will speak out loud.

Still, every single officer knows what it is.

Permanent occupation of our new slave country, in our giant brand new state-of-the-art bases, permanent basing of a regionwide middle east occupying force, and control of the oil.

It's a simple, straightforward, clearcut military objective. All the officers know it.

There's no confusion.

Our guys just don't seem to be very good at the job they've been given.

[Kinky Jones]

it just goes to show that the "America is the best at everything" propoganda is bullshit... isn't it ironic that Iraqi officials were saying "we are gonna draw you into a trap and the sands of our homeland will run red with American blood" has come true and that EVERY FUCKING THING dumbya's cabinet and the republicans have said has been COMPLETELY FUCKIN WRONG? and the saddest part is that the pro-war sheep are too stupid to figure out that they should be more pissed than anyone at the way the war has been run, it has made us the laughing stock to the rest of the world :banghead:

what was that Iraqi information offical called? Baghdad Bob? everybody laughed and made fun of him but all the stuff he said came true or is coming true

[exarmyranger]

Bill - the situation is exactly the same as it was in Vietnam - there are no "marching orders" that the generals can give their men and women - so they just do the best they can to present an appearance of being there and fighting
When you have no "established goals" its impossible to draw up any battle plans let alone fight anyone - at least in vietnam commanders on the ground took the initiative and just blew away anyone that looked the wrong way - with this one they are too scared for their jobs and afraid they will be locked up for doing anything at all.
The patrols you see on tv are done to show that they are "in control" but even that is obviously not working
:dunno: "Shit,LT.sir somebody popped a couple off in the air,to get thier attention so the terp could talk...tell-em we only wanna know last time Charlie came thru...ya-know... and I don't know sir...somebody got spooked,I guess.:talktothehand: "Yeah okay Sgt.stack-em up...,I do'nt suppose there are any survi...I did'nt think so.Give me your B.C. burn-it and boggie your ass outta here!":thumbsup: HOORAH! True nuff Linkster I Copy...ex

[Mr. Blue]

It's the video game mentality of war now...people have some peculiar notion that you press a big red button enough and it means you win. It's just not the case.

[kres24GT]

They've got the most money, the best weapons, armored vehicles and equipment out of science fiction, and the most costly and intensive training of any military that has ever existed.

But they can't kill the right iraqis.

So a comparitively small guerilla force operates with impunity and leads them around by the nose.

Kinda embarrassing, when you think about it.


They also have more restrictions and more scrutiny on them than any other fighting force in history.

[Bill]

They also have more restrictions and more scrutiny on them than any other fighting force in history.

That's true, at least as far as scrutiny goes, but much the same could be said for any military force fighting anywhere on the planet nowadays.

50 years ago we would have only heard about the Janjaweed months or years after an attack.

Why should scrutiny have any effect on military effectiveness?

If anything, scrutiny will intensify, as information technology spreads around the globe, so whatever our troops are doing, they'd better get used to it.

This is the new way of war.

[Kinky Jones]

They also have more restrictions and more scrutiny on them than any other fighting force in history.


I don't see them being restricted, the only thing being restricted is what the dumb American public is allowed to see and/or know about... have you seen the videos that the DOD puts out to show how good we are doing fighting side by side with the Iraqis? to kill a sniper or two we call in airstrikes and level entire buildings, look at that country, it is a shithole of American bullet holes and bomb scars, the damage the "terrorists" are doing compared to us is minimal... it's just like Vietnam now, our troops have no real "mission" to accomplish but they do blow up pretty much whatever moves when they go out on patrol, and can you blame them? not one bit... our plan is: go out on patrol, try to avoid booby traps, make contact and try to kill before the enemy disappears... sound familiar? we just aren't allowed to see the damage we do on tv in the states, only what the "terrorists" do... well unless the dumb ass DOD puts out video of us calling in air strikes 4 years after the mission was accomplished... those hearts and minds will come around eventually if we kill enough of them seems to be the "mission" and seeing that we have had some of our troops "go off the reservation" and do some really hienous shit, gitmo, abu ghraib, and a dozen other fucked up things the scrutiny is well deserved...

the really sad thing in this mess is how our troops are left to fend for themselves once they get back home and discharged, the VA is so overwhelmed with PTSD cases, tons of horrible injuries since the injury per active troop is the highest it has been in any war we have ever fought do to medical advances and reaction time, and thousands and thousands of injuries that military commanders will tell you that you are a "pussy" if you complain about it

[kres24GT]

I don't see them being restricted, the only thing being restricted is what the dumb American public is allowed to see and/or know about... have you seen the videos that the DOD puts out to show how good we are doing fighting side by side with the Iraqis? to kill a sniper or two we call in airstrikes and level entire buildings, look at that country, it is a shithole of American bullet holes and bomb scars, the damage the "terrorists" are doing compared to us is minimal... it's just like Vietnam now, our troops have no real "mission" to accomplish but they do blow up pretty much whatever moves when they go out on patrol, and can you blame them? not one bit... our plan is: go out on patrol, try to avoid booby traps, make contact and try to kill before the enemy disappears... sound familiar? we just aren't allowed to see the damage we do on tv in the states, only what the "terrorists" do... well unless the dumb ass DOD puts out video of us calling in air strikes 4 years after the mission was accomplished... those hearts and minds will come around eventually if we kill enough of them seems to be the "mission" and seeing that we have had some of our troops "go off the reservation" and do some really hienous shit, gitmo, abu ghraib, and a dozen other fucked up things the scrutiny is well deserved...

the really sad thing in this mess is how our troops are left to fend for themselves once they get back home and discharged, the VA is so overwhelmed with PTSD cases, tons of horrible injuries since the injury per active troop is the highest it has been in any war we have ever fought do to medical advances and reaction time, and thousands and thousands of injuries that military commanders will tell you that you are a "pussy" if you complain about it


The war sucks nd is a stupid one, that was not the point. To say our troops don't have their hands tied is ridiculous though. I saw many Marines killed when I was there because of the constant scrutinization and the bogus ROEs.

[Kinky Jones]

The war sucks nd is a stupid one, that was not the point. To say our troops don't have their hands tied is ridiculous though. I saw many Marines killed when I was there because of the constant scrutinization and the bogus ROEs.

what are the ROEs over there right now? pretty much we are sending quickly trained aka half-ass trained troops over there and telling them to drive around in hummers and if you are lucky armor and telling them not to die. you know that is probably the biggest factor in the fighting, but we can't really go full out with our firepower or there will be nothing left of the country so our troops are the ones who suffer :(

But still you have to face the truth that our troops can and do sometimes "suck" when fighting in a foreign country, my guess would be because they don't believe in their mission and hence are just trying to make sure they and all there buddies come home alive and in one piece. We have good troops and bad troops the same as any other country.

Who is the scrutinization coming from that is causing them to die? The scrutiny comes with every war, we haven't scrutinized our enemies at all? Hell we refer to them as "terrorists" when they are both defending their homeland from an occupying force and fighting a civil war against each other in the only way possible for them, thru guerilla tactics.

[kres24GT]

what are the ROEs over there right now? pretty much we are sending quickly trained aka half-ass trained troops over there and telling them to drive around in hummers and if you are lucky armor and telling them not to die. you know that is probably the biggest factor in the fighting, but we can't really go full out with our firepower or there will be nothing left of the country so our troops are the ones who suffer :(

But still you have to face the truth that our troops can and do sometimes "suck" when fighting in a foreign country, my guess would be because they don't believe in their mission and hence are just trying to make sure they and all there buddies come home alive and in one piece. We have good troops and bad troops the same as any other country.

Who is the scrutinization coming from that is causing them to die? The scrutiny comes with every war, we haven't scrutinized our enemies at all? Hell we refer to them as "terrorists" when they are both defending their homeland from an occupying force and fighting a civil war against each other in the only way possible for them, thru guerilla tactics.



Dude, I agree with you, the war is stupid. Stop trying to convince me. That doesn't change anything I said. I am going to go out on a wild limb here and say you have never served.

[Kinky Jones]

Dude, I agree with you, the war is stupid. Stop trying to convince me. That doesn't change anything I said. I am going to go out on a wild limb here and say you have never served.

I was agreeing with you Kres not trying to convince you, and elaborating on your point that the ROEs are fucked and that is a major reason why it is going so badly, trying to discuss the thread topic and not just take a bitter stance against everything... and no I have never served (the endless hounding of recruiters and reading the recent history of US wars in high school taught me personally to stay away from our military, I won't kill another person for somebody elses political ideals or religious beliefs) but I do have a younger brother whom the Corp and going to Iraq turned into a complete pyschopath so much so that he tried to kill me and two other people (3 seperate occasions, 1 arrest, and no help from the gov't for PTSD or anything else, and the rest of my family seem to take the outta sight, outta mind approach so I haven't been able to help him either) since he got back to the states so I do know a little about how this war affects people... the Marines turned him into "a card carrying republican" and a "killer for life" and it disgusts me to no end and I understand your bitterness towards all of our politicians 110%, I despise every single one of them that voted yes to the war...

but to say scrutiny is killing Marines doesn't make sense to me and I was asking you to explain your statement further to try and understand what you meant, not stir up shit, just trying to see your view of it...

[Bill]

Has anybody watched the postwar Japanese movies, typically lowbudget yakusa or martial arts type movies?

They all depict the american occupying soldiers the same way - as arrogant and corrupt, always as rapists, often as casual murderers, always as theives and extortionists.

The archetypal _Brutal Occupiers_. This is how the japanese people saw us when we there with guns in their streets, after they lost.

Occupation is a special military problem. You either have to be ruthlessly fair and impartial... or you have to be absolutely ruthless and terrifying.

Our soldiers have been mistrained - their ROE says they can't be ruthless, but they obviously haven't been fair. We've sent a hundred thousand pissed off boys with a totally false idea about their "enemy" to occupy a defeated country. They don't speak the language, they don't know the culture, everything they do is profoundly insulting, and they hate the people they are supposed to guard.

The officers are more to blame for this than the enlisted men, arguably, but there is still a bottom line - can our military do this kind of job or not?

Since Korea there have been two kinds of wars - the quick in-and-out, and occupations. This isn't the first time we've occupied. We should be better at than we have been in this war.

[stefan segal]

Occupation is a special military problem. You either have to be ruthlessly fair and impartial... or you have to be absolutely ruthless and terrifying.

Bill...this is the most true assessment I have yet to read...it should be tattooed somewhere prominent of every soldier so his buddies can't look at each other without reading it.

This is the kernal wisdom of the whole campaign as it has now devolved.

Cudos Bill

Stefan

[Kinky Jones]

after actually thinking about this subject and realizing that i'm a blind jackass the only answer is no, our troops don't suck, they really are the best in the world... it is our horrible politicians on both sides that suck... kres sorry man, I don't think quite rite all the time when I'm sober, it's a sorry ass excuse but a true one

[kres24GT]

I was agreeing with you Kres not trying to convince you, and elaborating on your point that the ROEs are fucked and that is a major reason why it is going so badly, trying to discuss the thread topic and not just take a bitter stance against everything... and no I have never served (the endless hounding of recruiters and reading the recent history of US wars in high school taught me personally to stay away from our military, I won't kill another person for somebody elses political ideals or religious beliefs) but I do have a younger brother whom the Corp and going to Iraq turned into a complete pyschopath so much so that he tried to kill me and two other people (3 seperate occasions, 1 arrest, and no help from the gov't for PTSD or anything else, and the rest of my family seem to take the outta sight, outta mind approach so I haven't been able to help him either) since he got back to the states so I do know a little about how this war affects people... the Marines turned him into "a card carrying republican" and a "killer for life" and it disgusts me to no end and I understand your bitterness towards all of our politicians 110%, I despise every single one of them that voted yes to the war...

but to say scrutiny is killing Marines doesn't make sense to me and I was asking you to explain your statement further to try and understand what you meant, not stir up shit, just trying to see your view of it...

If you haven't served I don't expect you to understand. I saw too many Marines, and soldiers die because bogus ROEs or an attached camera crew prevented them from protecting themselves. You obviously have your agenda on the war, and that's great, but no need to say our troops suck to perpetuate your propaganda.

If in WWII or American Revolution, or any other War where America kicked ass, if they had constant camera crews on them, constant scrutiny of every move they make by the politicians and media back home, etc., we would have got our ass kicked as well.

[kres24GT]

after actually thinking about this subject and realizing that i'm a blind jackass the only answer is no, our troops don't suck, they really are the best in the world... it is our horrible politicians on both sides that suck... kres sorry man, I don't think quite rite all the time when I'm sober, it's a sorry ass excuse but a true one


Saw this after I made the last post. You don't have to apologize to me, you are entitled to your opinion. however unless you have served in an area where someone could blow your head off at any minute it's hard to understand.

I saw too many guys get killed because of this BS, and I am very passionate about it. Everyone back home gets this idea from movies that war is supposed to be honorable with guys raising flags and two armies meeting on the battlefield absent of civilians.

It doesn't work that way, war is fucked up, and our troops are trying to be forced by the politicians and the media to fight a war like a movie. It's making it impossible for us to fight a war.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

Says alot for guerilla warfare, which Rumsfeld said we would not encounter.

[Kinky Jones]

Saw this after I made the last post. You don't have to apologize to me, you are entitled to your opinion. however unless you have served in an area where someone could blow your head off at any minute it's hard to understand.

I saw too many guys get killed because of this BS, and I am very passionate about it. Everyone back home gets this idea from movies that war is supposed to be honorable with guys raising flags and two armies meeting on the battlefield absent of civilians.

It doesn't work that way, war is fucked up, and our troops are trying to be forced by the politicians and the media to fight a war like a movie. It's making it impossible for us to fight a war.

yeah I do owe you the apology, along with every single last one of our troops, you deserve alot more respect than I was giving you, but I thought I already was type thing if that makes sense... I'm sitting around thinking I support the troops as much as I can but I was full of shit, my opinion was shit, nobody else is helping my brother but neither am I so who am I to bitch about it? :banghead:

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

This is typical military crybaby crap. If you've noticed, the military has an excuse for everything, which is how they're trained to think. It's always the media fault. You military don't realize this is what you get for being in bed with the GOP. You're not fighting for freedom in Iraq, you're fighting for Bush's daddy's oil pals. The American people have been lied to from the begining about this war. Bush doesn't give a damn about those dying & woundeed in Iraq. It's all about making money for his family & friends. Can't you military types see that or are you just happy to get a chance to play " ARMY"?

[kres24GT]

This is typical military crybaby crap. If you've noticed, the military has an excuse for everything, which is how they're trained to think. It's always the media fault. You military don't realize this is what you get for being in bed with the GOP. You're not fighting for freedom in Iraq, you're fighting for Bush's daddy's oil pals. The American people have been lied to from the begining about this war. Bush doesn't give a damn about those dying & woundeed in Iraq. It's all about making money for his family & friends. Can't you military types see that or are you just happy to get a chance to play " ARMY"?


How is the military in bed with the GOP? Because the commander in chief is Republican? I guess they were in bed with Dems in the 90's???

[stefan segal]

Originally Posted by imgonnaeaturlunch
This is typical military crybaby crap. If you've noticed, the military has an excuse for everything, which is how they're trained to think.

Lunch....what planet do you hail from? The military is given a job...they do the job...no excuses...There is no excuses...no "I got you"..."No you didn't"...these people die for administration mistakes...no second chances...no life at all.

Where do you get off criticizing men who if they spoke the truth would get hauled off to jail...they are under contract, but greater than that, they are under peer pressure not to do anything that weakens the unit.

Again, these are kids...can you remember when you were 19...of someone gave you a autofire rifle and all the ammo you want (which is untrue...sometimes the supply is short), and pointed you toward those people who attacked WTC and threaten to piss in our water supply, what would you have done? I would have been a yahoo...fry eggs on my gun barrel...probably gotten shot, because who can remember to be cautious at a party?

Stefan

[Kinky Jones]

This is typical military crybaby crap. If you've noticed, the military has an excuse for everything, which is how they're trained to think. It's always the media fault. You military don't realize this is what you get for being in bed with the GOP. You're not fighting for freedom in Iraq, you're fighting for Bush's daddy's oil pals. The American people have been lied to from the begining about this war. Bush doesn't give a damn about those dying & woundeed in Iraq. It's all about making money for his family & friends. Can't you military types see that or are you just happy to get a chance to play " ARMY"?

if you really think about it... our troops are all volunteer, answer to any political party that "we the people" vote in, and regardless of whether you believe the reasons and excuses that politicians give us, our troops really our doing the right thing, they are doing what they are told to do, that is what troops do... hate the politicians, the practices, the slogans and all the other bullshit bit if you start hating the troops well why the fuck should they protect you? you can't seriously use the word "play" when referring to war and expect to be considered smart on the subject when referring to the troops, politicians are the ones playing, the troops are over there for real and dying every day

[Bill]

If you haven't served I don't expect you to understand. I saw too many Marines, and soldiers die because bogus ROEs or an attached camera crew prevented them from protecting themselves.

That does not sound believeable.

[kres24GT]

That does not sound believeable.

I don't even know how to respond to this comment, sorry.

[Bill]

You respond to it by giving a real world example.

It would be exceedingly rare for a ROE to disallow self defense.

If fact, I've never heard of such a ROE order being given, except in the movies.

And how could a cameraman have any effect on wether or not a troop was allowed to return fire or self-defend?

---

There's another element to be considered - the purpose of war, and the purpose of ROEs.

War is not done for it's own sake, it's an extention of a political goal, and it's purpose is to acheive a political goal.

ROE orders are given because the acheiving a political result is the goal of war.

The goal of war is not to let men with guns have a good time. Troops are there, to die if necessary, to acheive the political will of the people who have sent them.

[Betty Blowtorch]

The real issue is the difference between 3rd generation warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_generation_warfare)
and 4th generation warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare).

In the initial invasion of Iraq, U.S. armed forces did an excellent
job of defeating conventional Iraqi forces in just a few weeks.
The defeat of Saddam's military was a picture-perfect example
of 3rd generation blitzkrieg tactics.

The problem now is that U.S. armed forces are no longer fighting
a conventional 3rd generation war in Iraq. Now they're fighting
a 4th generation guerrilla war, which is not their strong suit.
Rumsfeld designed the U.S. military to be a highly technological
and lean fighting machine well-suited to fight a 3rd generation
war but ill-equipped to fight a 4th generation war.

Fighting a 4th generation war is more of a policing function than
a military function. It requires "lots of boots" on the ground --
hundreds of thousands of grunts armed with M-16's. It also
requires intelligent political strategy and diplomacy in order to
win the hearts and minds of the people. The Bush gangsters
apparently have the diplomatic skill of a bull in a china shop.

Don't blame the military for the quagmire in Iraq. It's obvious
who deserves the blame:

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3614/rummybackoffdontgimmeshmd2.jpg

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/799/apcheneygrowl300pa5.jpg

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/4189/sbrainoj1.png






And let's not forget this putz.
He had something to do with it.
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4650/bushdumbassqv0.jpg

[Bill]

There's a lot of truth in your statements about 3rd and 4th generation warfare, BB.

But, your apology for the military at the end does not follow from your observations.

The military knew that it would be tasked with occupation and asymetrical war. It's especially known it in the period that started right after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", when we began building 4 of the biggest military bases in the world, at billions of dollars each, at critical strategic locations in iraq.

There is only one reason to spend that much money on giant bases. Occupation.

Eventually you reach a bottom line. Yes, the people who sent them there were incompetent and profoundly ignorant.

But a military has to know how to do it's job, despite bad leaders, especially in a democracy where the leadership regularly changes.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Maybe I should have said "Don't blame the troops."

The troops don't suck, but their leadership sure does.

[kres24GT]

You respond to it by giving a real world example.

It would be exceedingly rare for a ROE to disallow self defense.

If fact, I've never heard of such a ROE order being given, except in the movies.

And how could a cameraman have any effect on wether or not a troop was allowed to return fire or self-defend?

---

There's another element to be considered - the purpose of war, and the purpose of ROEs.

War is not done for it's own sake, it's an extention of a political goal, and it's purpose is to acheive a political goal.

ROE orders are given because the acheiving a political result is the goal of war.

The goal of war is not to let men with guns have a good time. Troops are there, to die if necessary, to acheive the political will of the people who have sent them.


Here was a common tactic in the early day of the wars.

A bunch of insurgents or sometimes even guard would get behing a gorup of civilians waiving white flags, then order the civilians to hit the ground and they would open fire. Even though we had caught on to this trick, we were still not allowed to fire on them until the the trick had been started and we were getting shot at.

Another example is a building with a sniper, because the ROEs called to preserve infrastructure, we could not bomb the building, ti had to be taken room by room, so one sniper could pick of a marine/solider and then his buddies could take out a few more once inside. If we could have just bombed the building more US troops alive.

I could go on.

[exarmyranger]

:rolleyes: This is typical military crybaby crap. If you've noticed, the military has an excuse for everything, which is how they're trained to think. It's always the media fault. You military don't realize this is what you get for being in bed with the GOP. You're not fighting for freedom in Iraq, you're fighting for Bush's daddy's oil pals. The American people have been lied to from the begining about this war. Bush doesn't give a damn about those dying & woundeed in Iraq. It's all about making money for his family & friends. Can't you military types see that or are you just happy to get a chance to play " ARMY"?:saywhat: Normally I ignore fool's,and thier opinions/views,reguarding subjects they actually know something about.Very seldom (if ever) do I bother to argue with anyone so obviously delusional and foolish enough to make statements about things they know less than nothing of... So I will refrain from telling you "If you made those remarks,within range of my hearing...it would be my sustinct pleasure to turn your pussy ass into a fubar pile!:cool: ex

[Bill]

I could go on.

You do understand the purpose of those ROEs, don't you?

What you've just said underscores and crisply outlines my original point - that there is something fundamentally wrong with our military.

[exarmyranger]

You respond to it by giving a real world example.

It would be exceedingly rare for a ROE to disallow self defense.

If fact, I've never heard of such a ROE order being given, except in the movies.

And how could a cameraman have any effect on wether or not a troop was allowed to return fire or self-defend?

---

There's another element to be considered - the purpose of war, and the purpose of ROEs.

War is not done for it's own sake, it's an extention of a political goal, and it's purpose is to acheive a political goal.

ROE orders are given because the acheiving a political result is the goal of war.

The goal of war is not to let men with guns have a good time. Troops are there, to die if necessary, to acheive the political will of the people who have sent them.
:thumbsup: There are/were times a recon teams orders specifically state "avoid contact,or engagement... if possible".Assimulate Logistical Data,return... Mai Lai was far from the top of the "Whoop's,Oh well shit happens list"The 179th div.depopulated a larger (more populated) village 10 clicks north a month or so earlier." :oldman: "Kids Today Ehh Bill"...ex

[kres24GT]

You do understand the purpose of those ROEs, don't you?

What you've just said underscores and crisply outlines my original point - that there is something fundamentally wrong with our military.


Yes, ROEs are PC garbage that are in place because of the movie like mentality the American people have of war.

if you are saying this is the problem with our military, then yes, I agree, however, it doesn't mean our troops suck.

[Betty Blowtorch]

A military has to know how to do it's job, despite bad leaders,
especially in a democracy where the leadership regularly changes.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, some top generals warned Rumsfeld
and Bush that at least 300,000 troops would be needed to pacify
Iraq, but Bush and Rumsfeld had a bad habit of dumping people
who disagree with them.

Rumsfeld was strongly committed to using a smaller army,

but he was proven wrong http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/70/rumsfeldog1.jpg
and he got dumped. Three years too late. Praise Jeevus.


http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/5921/hitlercarab8.jpg
German soldiers in World War II performed amazing military feats,
but were led by an intelligent nutcase and ultimately lost the war.



Today, U.S. soldiers are in the same boat...
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/954/carriersunk2wk6.jpg


except nobody would accuse Dubya
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/5790/bushglobeft1.png
of being intelligent.

[stefan segal]

EX...you'll find this interesting...show what troops can do without chain of command interferance.
Hi Blowtorch :) good to see you back on board.
Stefan

This is not the full article about elite terrorist hunters.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/03/ocf_the_elite_terrorist_hunter.html?referrer=email &referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Elite Terrorist Hunters in Iraq
U.S. "black" special operations forces in Iraq have conducted as many as 300 "takedown" operations, an activity that an influential retired general calls "simply magic."

The assessment appears in an eight-page trip report written by retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an adjunct professor at West Point, consultant and frequent television commentator, who recently toured Iraq and Kuwait and met with U.S. commanders at all levels.

McCaffrey's report is covered today in The Washington Post.

Buried in the candid assessment of the war and its prospects is a rare reference to what the U.S. government euphemistically calls Other Coalition Forces-Iraq (OCF-I), the group of clandestine special operators who operate semi-independently in pursuit of high value targets.

Like all magic, though, there is also a bit of illusion here. It is beyond dispute that the United States has and needs to cultivate a force to capture or kill terrorists. The question is whether an overall strategy of "takedowns" to go after terrorists produces anything beyond a never-ending pursuit.

Adopting the name "OCF" or "other coalition forces" to mirror the CIA's paramilitary units, often innocuously referred to as "OGA" or "other government agencies," the United States has developed a cadre of terrorist-hunters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. All are part of the North Carolina-based Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

JSOC's various task forces have been known by numerous names since Sept. 11, Task Force (TF) 11, TF 121, TF 145, and TF 6-26. They have also gone by other named designations, such as Task Force Omaha. These Task Force designations change periodically for "operational security" reasons and are used to identify specific country and/or unit deployments.

According to military sources familiar with special operations organization, the current designations are Task Force 11-9, Task Force 16, and Task Force 373. Task Force 88 is also used as the overall designation for JSOC in Iraq, seemingly synonymous with OCF-I, except that OCF describes the headquarters element and includes non-U.S. forces such as British SAS rather than the assigned units.

The units assigned to the OCF and making up the Task Forces are Army "Delta Force" and Navy SEAL teams, as well as various Air Force special operators and specialized clandestine intelligence units (often referred to as "Gray Fox"). These are the "Tier 1" units.

Tier 2 units, those that operate in support of JSOC and the Task Forces, include Army Rangers and special operations helicopters.

The best estimate is that there are a total of some 1,000 soldiers and civilians assigned to JSOC and its subordinate units, including a large headquarters staff comprising significant intelligence analysis and mission-preparation capabilities.

(The vast bulk of special operations forces are in the "white" world of Special Forces (Green Berets), SEALs, Air Force special operations, psychological operations and civil affairs, even Army Rangers when not assigned to clandestine missions.)

Here's what Gen. McCaffrey says about the current OCF effort in Iraq:

"The US Tier One special operations capability is simply magic. They are deadly in getting their target--with normally zero collateral damage--and with minimal friendly losses or injuries. Some of these assault elements have done 200-300 takedown operations at platoon level. The comprehensive intelligence system is phenomenal. We need to re-think how we view these forces. They are a national strategic system akin to a B1 bomber. We need to understand that the required investment level in the creation of these forces demands substantial dedicated UAV systems, intelligence, and communications resources. These special operations formations cannot by themselves win the nation's wars. However, with them we have a tool of enormous and decisive strategic significance which has crucial importance in the global war on terrorists."

[exarmyranger]

:hi: BBT,Howzit goin... Take's me back,to the day's of my youth...Back when nobody got all bent out of shape,just because some unlucky bus full of friendly's did'nt make a light,and was :censored: shread's. I'm kidding,:pokefun: HaHa... Point it out on the map,gear-em up,watch the show...Thanx for the post,Stefan..."Give-em Hell Boy's"...HOORAH!.

[Bill]

Yes, ROEs are PC garbage that are in place because of the movie like mentality the American people have of war.

Kres, you usually don't say things which I consider grossly mistaken and foolish, but you just did.

Now, I'd have to read the wording of what you were claiming was an infrastructure ROE - I suspect that the infrastructure wording was more like "Don't needlessly destroy property unless returning fire, and don't destroy buildings which may contain women and children."

If it was simply a "preserve infrastructure" ROE, then the source of that ROE should be investigated, and if it was an officer (and not some politico's powerpoint), the officer should be cashiered.

But not firing into civilians to return fire on insurgenst is just basic anti-guerilla doctrine. The guerilla's first strategic goal is to get the occupier to commit atrocities against civilians.

Didn't they talk to you at all about anti-guerilla strategy in your training?

War is not being done for the purpose of preserving enlisted lives. You enlisted in order to risk your life to further the goals of your country.

[Bill]

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, some top generals warned Rumsfeld
and Bush that at least 300,000 troops would be needed to pacify
Iraq, but Bush and Rumsfeld had a bad habit of dumping people
who disagree with them.

This is part of the point I'm trying to make, BB, and once again I think the military NEEDS to be blamed for the elements of the screwup that are the military's fault.

Our officers have become too politicized to be trusted to manage a military. They have to be retrained and many must be replaced.

The same with the enlisted - retraining and replacement.

The officers should have resigned, if they knew they were being tasked with a job they weren't qualified to do.

They should have protested. They should have been HONEST, which is one of the highest ethical codes that officer training is supposed to instill.

This is why I'm saying the troops suck.

You can apologize for them untill the sun dies, but there is still a bottom line. A military isn't supposed to be a poltical entity, and when it becomes a political entity it is a grave danger to it's country.

This is all very, very basic stuff. There is a fundamental flaw in our military, and this war has revealed it clearly to everybody who studies military science.

[Bill]

:hi: BBT,Howzit goin... Take's me back,to the day's of my youth...Back when nobody got all bent out of shape,just because some unlucky bus full of friendly's did'nt make a light,and was :censored: shread's. I'm kidding,:pokefun: HaHa... Point it out on the map,gear-em up,watch the show...Thanx for the post,Stefan..."Give-em Hell Boy's"...HOORAH!.

Yeah, well, we lost that war too Ex.

And for the same reason.

[kres24GT]

Kres, you usually don't say things which I consider grossly mistaken and foolish, but you just did.

Now, I'd have to read the wording of what you were claiming was an infrastructure ROE - I suspect that the infrastructure wording was more like "Don't needlessly destroy property unless returning fire, and don't destroy buildings which may contain women and children."

If it was simply a "preserve infrastructure" ROE, then the source of that ROE should be investigated, and if it was an officer (and not some politico's powerpoint), the officer should be cashiered.

But not firing into civilians to return fire on insurgenst is just basic anti-guerilla doctrine. The guerilla's first strategic goal is to get the occupier to commit atrocities against civilians.

Didn't they talk to you at all about anti-guerilla strategy in your training?

War is not being done for the purpose of preserving enlisted lives. You enlisted in order to risk your life to further the goals of your country.


Again, your definition of war is like a movie, where everyone has good intentions and only the evil are killed except for a tragic hero or two.

It doesn't work that way in real life. If you tie your troops hands and put infrastructure and others lives above their own, they won't win.

I agree with the second part of your post though. Marines die, that's what we're here for. It doesn't change the fact that BS ROEs are tying our troops hands and they will continue to get their asses kicked with them.

I am not saying just turn them lose and let them go rape, murder, and pilage. However if you want them to do something, you need to untie their hands. Marines are trained to kill, not to be a police force. A police force doesn't win a war.

[kres24GT]

This is part of the point I'm trying to make, BB, and once again I think the military NEEDS to be blamed for the elements of the screwup that are the military's fault.

Our officers have become too politicized to be trusted to manage a military. They have to be retrained and many must be replaced.

The same with the enlisted - retraining and replacement.

The officers should have resigned, if they knew they were being tasked with a job they weren't qualified to do.

They should have protested. They should have been HONEST, which is one of the highest ethical codes that officer training is supposed to instill.

This is why I'm saying the troops suck.

You can apologize for them untill the sun dies, but there is still a bottom line. A military isn't supposed to be a poltical entity, and when it becomes a political entity it is a grave danger to it's country.

This is all very, very basic stuff. There is a fundamental flaw in our military, and this war has revealed it clearly to everybody who studies military science.



The military has been ruined by pussification politics, you are right about that. It isn't why we are getting our asses kicked though. Even in our pussified state we can still kick more ass and blow more shit up than any army in the world if properly allowed.

[exarmyranger]

Yeah, well, we lost that war too Ex.

And for the same reason.Well yeah,It may look like that on paper.But the boy's in our team never ran up a :truce: ,or flew The Colours upside down...Hold on,we never brought a flag along,now that I think about it we did'nt even wear dog tags...:cool: ex

[Bill]

I am not saying just turn them lose and let them go rape, murder, and pilage. However if you want them to do something, you need to untie their hands. Marines are trained to kill, not to be a police force. A police force doesn't win a war.

Except, in this case, being a police force is EXACTLY what the military has been tasked to do.

And a police force is the only kind of force we know of that can win a guerilla war. No conventional army has ever won a guerilla war since the doctrine of guerilla warfare was perfected.

But effective policing has stopped many weak guerilla forces, becuase it hits the guerillas were they are strategically vulnerable - in their relationship with their supporting population.

You're thinking like a grunt, which is understandable, but it's grunt thinking that lost this war.

Which, again, is my WHOLE POINT - our military was not properly trained or led to conduct this kind of war.

We went over there, shot the place to shit, made fools of ourselves, and lost the war.

Partly, we lost because grunts want to shoot, and it's shooting that loses this kind of war.

I blame the officers far more than the grunts, and arguably the civilian overseers in the department of defense are even more to blame for funding and building the wrong kind of military, but the the enlisted have to be held accountable too, because they are the sharp end, and the sharp end, in this case, didn't kill the way we needed them to kill.

War is politics, and if you don't acheive your political goal, you frakkin' lose.

[exarmyranger]

Again, your definition of war is like a movie, where everyone has good intentions and only the evil are killed except for a tragic hero or two.

It doesn't work that way in real life. If you tie your troops hands and put infrastructure and others lives above their own, they won't win.

I agree with the second part of your post though. Marines die, that's what we're here for. It doesn't change the fact that BS ROEs are tying our troops hands and they will continue to get their asses kicked with them.

I am not saying just turn them lose and let them go rape, murder, and pilage. However if you want them to do something, you need to untie their hands. Marines are trained to kill, not to be a police force. A police force doesn't win a war.:thumbsup: True nuff,the Army does'nt have a Protect & Serve,school either...The MP's,or (SP's in your case) that I had contact with
made the Texas State Trooper's (Redneck John Birch act) look like The Welcome Wagon. ex

[Mr. Blue]

The thing is...how does the Iraq war compare with previous wars? Death tolls of the troops vs. enemy combatants vs. civilian casualties, etc.

Now I'm not old enough to remember vietnam, korea, wwii, wwi, etc, etc, and can only look at the statistical data involved. If you judge how the U.S. troops have done in this war compared to other wars...how bad of a job did they actually do?

[exarmyranger]

The thing is...how does the Iraq war compare with previous wars? Death tolls of the troops vs. enemy combatants vs. civilian casualties, etc.

Now I'm not old enough to remember vietnam, korea, wwii, wwi, etc, etc, and can only look at the statistical data involved. If you judge how the U.S. troops have done in this war compared to other wars...how bad of a job did they actually do?
I was'nt aware the hostility's were over. :doh: The "War" in S.E.Asia was,designated as a police action,the U.S.A.'s presence in Vietnam,Cambodia,laos...was that of Military Advisor's and Tactical Instructor's.(So it said on paper anyhow) :rolleyes: N.A.T.O.and thier multi-national task(Peacekeeping forces) allowed the U.S. to come out in the light of day,somewhat...The bill came to almost $160,000,000,000.00 give or take a billion,or so.In terms of those who gave lost thier lives,aprox.60,000 K.I.A.'s and 2,031 MIA/POW'S STILL UNACOUNTED FOR...according to the A.C.I.L.(ARMY CENTRAL IDENTIFICATION LABRATORY)as of jan.2000...As for the Enemy K.I.A./American K.I.A. We came out (depending on what side the statisic's came from) on top,the general concensus is 8 to 1,some analists figure 10 to 1 a closer ratio.However many we killed,was'nt near as many as we would have liked though! ex

[Mr. Blue]

I was'nt aware the hostility's were over. :doh: The "War" in S.E.Asia was,designated as a police action,the U.S.A.'s presence in Vietnam,Cambodia,laos...was that of Military Advisor's and Tactical Instructor's.(So it said on paper anyhow) :rolleyes: N.A.T.O.and thier multi-national task(Peacekeeping forces) allowed the U.S. to come out in the light of day,somewhat...The bill came to almost $160,000,000,000.00 give or take a billion,or so.In terms of those who gave lost thier lives,aprox.60,000 K.I.A.'s and 2,031 MIA/POW'S STILL UNACOUNTED FOR...according to the A.C.I.L.(ARMY CENTRAL IDENTIFICATION LABRATORY)as of jan.2000...As for the Enemy K.I.A./American K.I.A. We came out (depending on what side the statisic's came from) on top,the general concensus is 8 to 1,some analists figure 10 to 1 a closer ratio.However many we killed,was'nt near as many as we would have liked though! ex

Well the thing is how do judge a war successful or not? To coin the old phrase, war is hell, and in some ways I think people are forgetting this concept.

[exarmyranger]

Well the thing is how do judge a war successful or not? To coin the old phrase, war is hell, and in some ways I think people are forgetting this concept. I quote him."There is no such thing as a good war;or a bad peace...Ben Franklin...t/c :cool: ex

[Bill]

If you judge how the U.S. troops have done in this war compared to other wars...how bad of a job did they actually do?

Our technology and tactics, nearly science fictional in their sophistication, have kept our casualties incredibly low, and produced massive iraqi casualties.

But if you use low casualties as the indicator of success, then you've forgotten the whole reason to go to war in the first place.

That's just the flip side of the "kill them all let god sort them out" idea of warfare - neither standard leads to a desireable political result.

And a desireable political result is the reason we send men to die and kill in the first place.

[Kit]

They've got the most money, the best weapons, armored vehicles and equipment out of science fiction, and the most costly and intensive training of any military that has ever existed.

But they can't kill the right iraqis.

So a comparitively small guerilla force operates with impunity and leads them around by the nose.

Kinda embarrassing, when you think about it.


Hi! I'm new here and was just passing by searching for a new discussion home, when I spotted your thread and felt I had to register and make a comment.

You're getting very, very close to what happened near the end of my war (Vietnam) in that you seem to be trying to shift the blame for our failure in Iraq from the political masters who screwed the pooch onto the troops themselves. That's dishonest and simplistic, to say the least, and something I have vowed never again to let happen, if I can stop it.

Our troops have done all they've been asked to do, and more. They've done their duty, fought honorably and hard, paid the price, took the risks for YOU and I and for you to sit back here comfortably in the safety of your own home and say they "suck" shows the depths of your depravity and arrogance. How dare you question those who are risking their lives for you?:mad:

If you think the war has been mishandled, fine, so do I, but DON'T blame the troops. Put the blame where it belongs: at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[stefan segal]

Kit...You got it right...No question.

Here's what 1600 Penna. is doing with and to our troops. Read it and weep.
Stefan



http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski178.html

Buried Alive

by Karen Kwiatkowski
by Karen Kwiatkowski

DIGG THIS

Screwed up, screwed over, and just plain screwed. The brutality of this language sadly fails to approximate what is happening to our soldiers and Marines in Iraq, and afterwards.

We knew that the invasion of Iraq was conducted without transparent or comprehensive planning. We knew that the fundamental objectives were hidden from the American people – endless occupation, big permanent American military bases, and the destruction, fragmentation and American political and economic subjection of a once politically important Iraq.

What we didn’t know is that the administration’s recklessness, greed, and callousness extended to the American soldiers and Marines who did the administration’s dirty work.

Our American soldiers and Marines have done what our insane Washington leadership asked them to do, regardless of its fundamental unconstitutionality and idiocy. That alone, under Nuremburg rules, may ultimately be a war crime in some international court. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense. Our young men and women have killed, destroyed, and even tortured at the command of the state. For these choices – native to any war – there will be personal and private suffering for years to come.

In any war, even a corrupt state owes its soldiers a certain standard of care. It owes its veterans a debt that is more than gratitude. In the case of America’s all-volunteer military system, this standard of care for soldiers, and the debt to veterans is spelled out in a contract of sorts.

It is said that we are a nation of laws. My experience and observations as a military officer in an equal opportunity era confirmed that. But perhaps I only believe this because I was never deployed as a grunt soldier in Iraq.

When it comes to protecting our young men and women in Iraq, we seem to be functioning in a collective fugue state. If serving in a forward combat role in Iraq (and also Afghanistan), you are likely to be male. You are also lacking one or more of the following: a clear mission, quality leadership, the proper equipment, armor, and training, a functional and wise set of standard operating procedures for suppressing a hostile local populace that does not speak your language nor share your customs. When you make a mistake or crack under pressure, you will be thrown to the legal wolves. Unless, of course, you are a senior officer, in which case you have an excellent chance of being quickly promoted out of harm’s way.

If you are injured in combat, you will be rushed into the vast system of hospitals, where you will vie for the attention of an overworked, very frustrated, and yet anonymous and unaccountable set of health care professionals who are increasingly overburdened.

If you are female in uniform, and deployed to Iraq, you face all of the above plus a few more. Sexual harassment, pressure for sex from peers and superiors, abuse, rape and even the chance of dying because you cannot safely hydrate yourself for fear of being raped in the night on your way to the latrine – these additive challenges face our female volunteers.

And that’s all before they come home to Walter Reed or Smallville, USA.

The recent flurry of publicity and firings of military figureheads over the dilapidated state of medical care for our wounded and soon-to-be medically discharged Iraq and Afghanistan veterans speaks to one more Washington betrayal.

We have seen an Army General or two fired in response to late-coming national publicity of abhorrent treatment of our maimed and recovering soldiers. But the real crime is much higher than three or four stars.

The administration and the Pentagon didn’t plan for an occupation of Iraq, because that planning would belie our public optimism, betray the propaganda of cakewalks and a thousand flowers, and reveal the truth about the administration’s 2003 force-march to war. Likewise, to have planned for 25,000 injured Iraq and Afghan veterans, many permanently crippled, blinded, disfigured and brain damaged, and 100,000 psychological and emotional head cases trying to reintegrate into their former lives would have revealed the administration’s Iraq narrative to be dead wrong. No matter the cost, the Bush-Cheney narrative must be seen as the "reality."

The lack of planning for medical and hospice care, rehabilitation, counseling and therapy – as with the Congressional decision to close/replace the premier military hospital in 2005 – occurred even after the Pentagon, the administration and the Congress had recognized the bloody human costs the Iraq occupation was bringing home. Instead of attending funerals and visiting amputees and paraplegics at Walter Reed, the Administration and the Pentagon seized an opportunity to spend more tax money and get new stuff – even though that would mean an immediate cutoff of improvement and maintenance funds for Walter Reed, filled to overflowing already with sick solders.

Bush doesn’t like to veto legislation, unless it offends his religiously-couched "love of life" or prevents him from going to war with whomever he pleases, whenever he wants, and for no particular reason. We knew Bush and Cheney had nothing but contempt for the Iraqi and Afghani people. Apparently, that contempt extends to serving Americans as well. Had either Bush or Cheney, or Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz cared about the impacts of their war-play on the people of this country, they would have dealt with this well-known medical care shortfall, shown concern over what BRAC-listing Walter Reed would mean to our recovering veterans. These so-called leaders they would have demanded executable plans to ensure both the bureaucratic and medical capacity was sufficient.

But neither Bush nor Cheney care one whit for the fighting soldiers, and neither wishes to be reminded of the shattered limbs and lives left when the fighting is done. The ugly truth doesn’t fit their carefully constructed narrative of "winning" and "wars on terror" and "patriotism." As a Bush aide explained to Ron Suskind a few years ago, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

That reality means that not only are the hapless targets of our imperialism screwed, but so is every serving soldier and Marine in Iraq. At least in the Roman Army, the milites could expect to share in the booty of conquered lands. In the American empire, that privilege is reserved for Halliburton, as our wasted foot-soldiers are buried alive.

This article originally appeared on MilitaryWeek.com.

[Mr. Blue]

But if you use low casualties as the indicator of success, then you've forgotten the whole reason to go to war in the first place.

So what was our reason to go to war in the first place?

If you believe it was to remove a dictator, spread democracy, remove a potential threat to America, and bring stability to the region: Mission Failed

If you believe it was to set up the worlds biggest gas station: Mission Accomplished

Is this the first step in resource wars predicted by the peak oil theory? Very well could be and if that's the case you really don't want to create a stable Iraq. In fact you probably want to piss off everyone in the region...since we have our military there already and it's not exactly hard to piss off countries in the middle east...it's not like we can't repeat the process and set up another big gas station...we want a franchise. If that's the case...our troops did amazingly well.

[Bill]

So what was our reason to go to war in the first place?


We don't have to be childlike and pretend this was about democracy or threat.

The reason for the war was to anchor the american empire in the middle east by capturing a client state and establishing a permanent military presence in a strategically critical part of the middle east, from which we can control the cheapest oil on the planet with force of arms.

To accomplish that goal we needed to pacify the client state and set up a loyal puppet government. (we would have claimed that the puppet government was "democracy". Nobody but dumb americans would believe it, but that was the plan.)

The invasion was as simple as one would expect, given our military technology.

But, we can't create a pacified client state with a puppet government that gives us legitimacy for our permanent military presence.

That's the part of the war we lost.

Right now, as soon as our troops pull back to their bases, and we reduce the size of our occupation force, Iran will be the defacto owner of Iraq.

Instead of creating a client state, we've handed the best oil left on the planet to our sworn enemy.

We've given one of the "Axis of Evil" a country worth trillions, and handed the jihadists and wahabis the biggest imaginable gift of highly trained fighters and manpower, and prestige.

That's why we've lost - not because we can't shoot iraqis, but because we can't manage an occupation or field an effective reponse to a guerilla campaign.

---

And yes, It's always been my position that this is the second stage of the great oil wars.

[Bill]

How dare you question those who are risking their lives for you?:mad:

You should read the whole thread.

I suspect I'll be daring a lot more than this mild critique, before this whole thing is thru.

Oh, btw, welcome to the board.

[Kit]

You should read the whole thread.

I suspect I'll be daring a lot more than this mild critique, before this whole thing is thru.

Oh, btw, welcome to the board.


I did read the whole thread and what I see is a lot of justifiable disgruntlement with the administration's handling of the war and some johhny-come-lately discourses on the illegality of it all. No one seemed to question what we now know was altered intelligence back then, so that's not much of a justification for now turning on the troops themselves. In fact, to do so from such a weak philosophical position is mean-spirited and shallow.

Let's not forget that we ALL sent those troops off in our name, showering them with parades, yellow ribbons and almost universal support of the President. Remember the days after 9/11 when even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton stood on the Capitol steps and honestly sang "God Bless America?"

Having sent them off to do our bidding, we owe them nothing less than the same universal support, when they come home, that they had when they left. We do NOT owe the Bush administration anything but our scorn for how they've manipulated the truth and for how they've overused and abused our troops. To shift some of that scorn onto the troops themselves is the cowards way out.

Honor the honest sacrifices of the troops honest and honorable service. They deserve nothing less and have earned our undying admiration for soldiering on under difficult and dangerous circumstances.

As for the administration? All we now owe G.W. Bush is a plane ride back to Texas.

[Mr. Blue]

But, we can't create a pacified client state with a puppet government that gives us legitimacy for our permanent military presence.

That's the part of the war we lost.

The creation of a puppet government might negate the larger goal. Iraq is a nice prize, but why stop there? Destabilizing the region makes more sense. Simple slogans of: "We can't leave Iraq because Iran will take over" or "Iran is developing Nukes" will keep us heavily involved in the region.

So we'll be there as long we want to be there and as long as Iran remains a threat. If everything was cool and calm in Iraq we'd have to roll back the size of our military presence and it would make it harder to instigate further action.

I don't think anyone can determine the success or failure of our troops because the motives, strategies, goals, and objectives aren't clear. The Troops might not have achieved the publicized reasons for going to war, but they might have achieved the shadow reasons.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

Kres, SS, Kinky: You've swallowed it hook , line & sinker. It's obvious that a large portion of the military is in bed with the GOP & those who aren't, like Wes Clark, aren't liked by the military. The majority of the military would just as soon turn their guns on us as they would anyone. And Kinky, yes, they're playing Army, whatelse can you call it when they're breaking doors down & walking through the streets with their sunglasses, fatigues, backpack & weapon. That's playing Army. They aren't protecting us from a thing. If anything they're creating resentment like when these small kids, who've had their parents humiliated in front of them, in their own homes after the door has been broken down, grow up in a few years to hate & kill americans.

[kres24GT]

Kres, SS, Kinky: You've swallowed it hook , line & sinker. It's obvious that a large portion of the military is in bed with the GOP & those who aren't, like Wes Clark, aren't liked by the military. The majority of the military would just as soon turn their guns on us as they would anyone. And Kinky, yes, they're playing Army, whatelse can you call it when they're breaking doors down & walking through the streets with their sunglasses, fatigues, backpack & weapon. That's playing Army. They aren't protecting us from a thing. If anything they're creating resentment like when these small kids, who've had their parents humiliated in front of them, in their own homes after the door has been broken down, grow up in a few years to hate & kill americans.


You are an idiot. I served in Iraq, and never once was I in bed with the GOP.

[Bill]

The creation of a puppet government might negate the larger goal. Iraq is a nice prize, but why stop there? Destabilizing the region makes more sense.

I don't experience the ambiguity that you seem to, Blue.

From the beginning I haven't paid much attention to what the people in charge are saying to the american people. I've only been interested in what is actually done, in a military sense.

If you look at what has been done, there's a clear objective, and it's a relatively straightforward military problem.

If the region is destabilized, the infrastructure to get the oil is compromized.

If you follow the money, the goal looks, as I've said, very simple. We built the giant bases, and continue to improve them. We built the giant fortified embassy.

There was never an exit plan, because the real plan was never to leave.

We needed a politically secure military stronghold in the middle east, not a destabilized middle east.

Officers, in general, aren't as stupid as most americans. They understand that politicians say one thing to their constituents while tasking the military with another. This has been business as usual for the american military since the revolution.

[Bill]

No one seemed to question what we now know was altered intelligence back then, so that's not much of a justification for now turning on the troops themselves. In fact, to do so from such a weak philosophical position is mean-spirited and shallow.

You express the official line with exactitude.

But miltaries are not run by slogan.

We can repeat "support the troops" until the dead rise from their graves, and it will never solve the military problem.

In fact, it's the use of slogans and powerpoints that IS the problem.

Enlisted men are, one could justifiably argue, mostly innocent. It's not their fault that they were programmed with rage and revenge for a task that called for impartiality and subtlety. It's not their fault that they were fooled into believing that this was a war like WW2.

But innocence is useless in war, and triply useless in occupation.

No matter how many times you repeat your slogan, we are still losing this occupation.

And I for one am not a sloganeer.

[Mr. Blue]

There was never an exit plan, because the real plan was never to leave.

We needed a politically secure military stronghold in the middle east, not a destabilized middle east.

I agree with the first part of this statement...

As for destabilizing the region...hasn't that been our middle east policy since the creation of Israel?

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

You are an idiot. I served in Iraq, and never once was I in bed with the GOP.
You were in bed with the GOP the whole time you were in Iraq, you just didn't know it. Now you do, surprise, surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[exarmyranger]

Having sent them off to do our bidding, we owe them nothing less than the same universal support, when they come home, that they had when they left. We do NOT owe the Bush administration anything but our scorn for how they've manipulated the truth and for how they've overused and abused our troops. To shift some of that scorn onto the troops themselves is the cowards way out.

Honor the honest sacrifices of the troops honest and honorable service. They deserve nothing less and have earned our undying admiration for soldiering on under difficult and dangerous circumstances.

As for the administration? All we now owe G.W. Bush is a plane ride back to Texas.[/QUOTE]
Aside from my desire to help insure the Pres.get's to where he fit's in...(Hell or Texas),:oldman: "I'd take Hell",I've been to Texas! To put it briefly,my responce to the rest of your post is...Yeah,What he said!:thumbsup: T/C ex

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

How is the military in bed with the GOP? Because the commander in chief is Republican? I guess they were in bed with Dems in the 90's???
What happened in the '90's that showed the Dems & military were in bed. All Clinton & Wes Clark did was prevent WW3 in Kosovo & Balkans. Compare that to both Bushes killing Arabs to improve thier poll numbers.

[Mr. Blue]

What happened in the '90's that showed the Dems & military were in bed. All Clinton & Wes Clark did was prevent WW3 in Kosovo & Balkans. Compare that to both Bushes killing Arabs to improve thier poll numbers.

So, why did we go into Kosovo? How did it benefit America? Also what about Haiti? How did that fiasco help us?

America should stay at home and avoid meddling in foreign entanglements. The only time we should use our troops is if our territory has been attacked and that's it.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

Kosovo & The Balkans are in the area where both WW1 & 2 started. Milosevic was intent killing lots of people, primarily muslims. We had to do something because the world was demanding it. Haiti was a response to a terrible problem in our own hemisphere which couldn't be ignored.

[Mr. Blue]

Kosovo & The Balkans are in the area where both WW1 & 2 started. Milosevic was intent killing lots of people, primarily muslims. We had to do something because the world was demanding it. Haiti was a response to a terrible problem in our own hemisphere which couldn't be ignored.

Horseshit, that was a European problem, they should have completely handled it. We're not the policeman to the world and we should start realizing that fact.

And your "reason" for going to war is just as convoluted as those people that support the Iraq war by saying Saddam was a brutal dictator that was killing lots of people. If that's our benchmark for getting involved in foreign conflicts why didn't Clinton step in with the Genocide in Rwanda? Or Bush ignoring Darfur? Egad, maybe they both hate black people.

And the "World Demands It"...Fuck 'em...since when did America become ruled by world opinion?

Haiti was a clusterfuck and a disaster...we did shit nothing there other than waste money.

U.S. needs to rethink it's use of our troops abroad. Our military should only be used to protect our interests and nothing else...the second we start being a wet nurse to other countries we're fucked...oh wait...too late.

[imgonnaeaturlunch]

Horseshit, that was a European problem, they should have completely handled it. We're not the policeman to the world and we should start realizing that fact.

And your "reason" for going to war is just as convoluted as those people that support the Iraq war by saying Saddam was a brutal dictator that was killing lots of people. If that's our benchmark for getting involved in foreign conflicts why didn't Clinton step in with the Genocide in Rwanda? Or Bush ignoring Darfur? Egad, maybe they both hate black people.

And the "World Demands It"...Fuck 'em...since when did America become ruled by world opinion?

Haiti was a clusterfuck and a disaster...we did shit nothing there other than waste money.

U.S. needs to rethink it's use of our troops abroad. Our military should only be used to protect our interests and nothing else...the second we start being a wet nurse to other countries we're fucked...oh wait...too late.
Each situation needs to be looked at on an individual basis. The reason Clinton didn't do more in Rawanda & Darfur is because he had little political capital to spend, especially when it came to a racist GOP who wasn't going to let him intervene in those "African" countries. As far as the Balkans is concerned, yes Europe should've intervened but Europe is a basket case when it comes to these things, in part because both WW1 & 2 were fought on thier soils. There is no comparison between Iraq & the Balkans. Plus, in Kosovo & the Balkans how many U S soldiers died, next to none. That's because Clinton was brilliant, Bush is anything but.

[Mr. Blue]

Each situation needs to be looked at on an individual basis. The reason Clinton didn't do more in Rawanda & Darfur is because he had little political capital to spend, especially when it came to a racist GOP who wasn't going to let him intervene in those "African" countries. As far as the Balkans is concerned, yes Europe should've intervened but Europe is a basket case when it comes to these things, in part because both WW1 & 2 were fought on thier soils. There is no comparison between Iraq & the Balkans. Plus, in Kosovo & the Balkans how many U S soldiers died, next to none. That's because Clinton was brilliant, Bush is anything but.

Clinton was right in doing nothing in Rwanda. I agree with that action. As for Kosovo, etc, it should have been handled by Europeans...we as a country can't start intervening in things that don't directly involve us...otherwise we set ourselves up for this policeman role that doesn't benefit us.

The problem is every military action is going to be different...you never know how one is going to turn out...I'm sure when Kennedy started sending advisers into Vietnam he thought it would turn out different or LBJ when he escalated our involvement.

What America needs to do is stop sending our military into harms way unless it's absolutely necessary. When you look at the wars we fought and managed to get ourselves involved with...we've either gone to war for some wild ideological principle of spreading democracy or to bail out Europeans from their own inability to deal with situations.

Switzerland does okay staying neutral...let's try the same...maybe it's impossible to do now because we have a track record that dictates otherwise, but no U.S. soldier should die unless it's directly protecting U.S. interests.

[kres24GT]

Clinton was right in doing nothing in Rwanda. I agree with that action. As for Kosovo, etc, it should have been handled by Europeans...we as a country can't start intervening in things that don't directly involve us...otherwise we set ourselves up for this policeman role that doesn't benefit us.

The problem is every military action is going to be different...you never know how one is going to turn out...I'm sure when Kennedy started sending advisers into Vietnam he thought it would turn out different or LBJ when he escalated our involvement.

What America needs to do is stop sending our military into harms way unless it's absolutely necessary. When you look at the wars we fought and managed to get ourselves involved with...we've either gone to war for some wild ideological principle of spreading democracy or to bail out Europeans from their own inability to deal with situations.

Switzerland does okay staying neutral...let's try the same...maybe it's impossible to do now because we have a track record that dictates otherwise, but no U.S. soldier should die unless it's directly protecting U.S. interests.

While I disagree with you, you are wasting your time talking to that guy, he is a party sheep. Dems can do no wrong, Reps can do no right.

[Bill]

The problem is every military action is going to be different...you never know how one is going to turn out....

Interestingly enough, Blue, military actions, as seen by military historians and scientists, tend to be surprisingly similar.

I was reading the other day about the war that was the original source of the word "guerilla" - Napolean had "invaded" Spain (based on a complex set of secret negotiations, in which Spain gave Nappy "permission" to secretly use a part of spain as a logistics route by which to attack Portugal, which was defying Nappy's blockades of the british.

Once in Spain, Nappy decided that controlling the country militarily was necessary to his other plans, so he moved in about 100,000 troops at first, later increased to 300,000.

The spanish didn't like this, and the spanish royalty had conflicts within the family, so they started an insurrection that is strikingly similar to Iraq today. The spanish patriots beceme known as "guerillas', a popular term that meant "little war".

Nappy used all sorts of horrible suppression tactics, many of which are shown in famous paintings and etchings by Goya.

The thing that's fascinating about it is how very similar it is to Iraq. And Vietnam. And Algeirs. And dozens of other similar conflicts.

So, I'm going to say that history doesn't support your idea in this case.

Oh, and Nappy? He was forced out of spain, and the losses of the spanish conflict was a major factor in his eventual destruction.

[Mr. Blue]

So, I'm going to say that history doesn't support your idea in this case.

You use one historical reference point to say history doesn't support my idea...which is kind of silly as for the one historical example you give I could give another in it's place. Example, the close of WWII, Himmler prior to the war ending created Werewolf, an organization that used guerrilla tactics, and during the American occupation (10 years I believe) they had success, but not enough to do much damage. Now, you can say it was a different set of circumstances, etc, but well...that's kind of the point of me saying not every military action turns out exactly the way people plan it.

American actions / wars whatever you may call them leading up to Iraq was relatively painless with little loss of life. Casualties that were in "acceptable" range for Americans to swallow. Examples:

Desert Storm - hardly a hiccup
Kosovo & Balkans - Hardly a hiccup
Haiti - Eventhough it was a dismal waste of money, still it was relatively painless.
Afghanistan - Relatively painless to take the country, granted failures after the fact, but still Afghanistan would have been considered a success if Bush didn't divert troops to Iraq.

Those recent examples pretty much led a complacent congress to believe Iraq would just be another quickie for the U.S....it allowed the Hawkish Democrats that supported Clinton's military actions to feel comfortable in giving Bushtard the okay to go into Iraq.

So, I don't really have to go that far back in history to pull examples of how every military action doesn't have the same outcome, do I?

Americans have become soft when it comes to war, they expect easy victories, video game victories, and Iraq was a wake-up call, it bloodied our noses, and reminded us that war is hell. Maybe it's a good thing as getting roughed up by some insurrgents is better than getting roughed up by a conflict with say...China.