listening to some random democrat on the news hour tonight pontificate on the disappearance of explosives from al qaqaa (now there's an apt metaphor for the times' reputation), the mantra of "too few troops" came up again. on the face of it, this seems a valid arguement, but it raises several questions. -there were/are over 10,000 weapons sites in iraq. how many troops would it take to secure them? -John Kerry has talked about how our troops our over-stretched. we have 130k in iraq, and 20k in afghanistan. in 1991 we had over 500k in the gulf. why are we over-stretched now? -why, if the theft of weapons from unsecured sites has posed such a mortal danger to our troops, have these sites been left unsecured? -if the answer to the above is "too few troops", why haven't commanders on the ground demanded more? -if they have, and they've been rebiffed by the neocon cabal that rules the pentagon and enforces its will on the whitehouse, haven't we heard from some disgruntled commander? surely they value the lives of their men. if US troop policy had put them at risk, someone would have spoken up. and don't say shinseki- that was prewar. what about now? is there a commander who has been in the field that has asked for more troops to secure these weapons sites, and been turned down?
If this is a truism, aren't those the guys then "somewhat"responsible for our soldiers dying? They need to demand what the brave soldiers need to do their job and to minimize risk. I heard an ex-Marine talk about this the other night. He was tap-dancing around it a bit, but the gist was that Marines provide excellent leadership for their men while he implied that the army does not. Seems to fit here... we don't need Yes-Men.
They did, and they were. Does this flap ring a bell? Pentagon contradicts general More: But Franks is apparently a company man. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1 Though sometimes those jackasses are a bit much even for him. Feith was Perle's protégé. According to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "Feith was not popular with the military. He appeared to equate policy with paper." Woodward wrote that General Tommy Franks "tried to ignore Feith though it was not easy. The general once confided to several colleagues about Feith: "I have to deal with the f-cking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day." (Woodward, Plan of Attack, p. 281.) [aside] the best part of the first article: ....and this incompetent/liar (its either one of the two, and likely both) is still employed. Frightening.
Bremmer didn't arrive until a month after the capture of baghdad. he didn't "request" more troops, until a week before he left, 14 months later.
No basso, I saw that. But I ignored it intentionally, because your limitation was completely bogus and exposes your reasoning. Your current flat earth contention is that we actually did and do have enough troops to secure Iraq. That's like arguing that the Yankees just won the World Series. Tell that to the families of however many got killed today. In any event, the damage was done within the first few critical weeks. You can't move 100,000 extra security forces in a few days after the people on the ground realize "holy sh-t, they're not greeting us with flowers like Rumsfield and Cheney and Wolfowitz said after all and this place is a hellhole!" But here, how about 58% of all people in the military? Poll: Military believes too few troops sent to Iraq? And here's an extensive article from the weekly standard which indicates that various generals on the ground (Sanchez, Abazid) have expressed that there are not enough given current events. Oh yes, and it details Rumsfields stileted, failed attempts to get more. http://www.gees.org/pdf/525/ Anyway enough of that silliness, what do you say to the failure of Bush to hold anybody accountable for the massive degree of incompetence on display with regard to the catastrophe that is the postwar state of Iraq? I have been asking this on this message board for weeks, and nobody can respond. He's only got a few more days to do it, and then he's going to be held accountable, as well he should.
It's far more than a superficial argument. Almost every military analyst, including many retired generals, have all concluded we went in with too few troops. Lots and lots. We don't have enough. LOL! WAKE UP, dude! EVERYBODY is talking about this! Anybody with a brain knows we didn't and don't have enough boots on the ground to keep the peace! It's not just a democratic talking point- it's a fact! Okay- I'm totally baffled. in '91 we had half a million troops, right now we have 150K split between Iraq and Afghanistan, and you're asking why we're overstretched now? You ever read your own material? Because we don't have enough troops! LOL! WAKE UP! We don't have enough men to fight the insurgency, protect the people and infrastructure, and protect every site and every pipline! You need hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men, as the administration was adamantly told by the pentagon before invasion. Rummy ovverrode them, said we're going in with 150K or less, and he was wrong. This is no longer a point of debate, basso. Wake up. History has already borne out the answer to this question. If there was no insurgency, if Zarqawi didn't expand his operations, 130K might have been enough. Rummy went in without a contingency plan because he thought we'd be greeted with candy and dancing. The burden falls upon our leaders to have a good plan for the war and for the peace. They failed us. This is the best you've got? This is the best you can do? As evidence that we have enough troops in Iraq, you propose that no disgruntled commanders have come forward to be whistleblowers? This is just so crazy, dude. You literally are fighting reality here, you know that? Reality is staring you in the face and you've cooked this up to try and get around it. Stop being a wuss and face the facts. Military is all about chain of command and obedience. Just look at Colin Powell. Everybody knows that he disagreed with the neocons, and the plan to do the war on the cheap, and he still does. But he's not going to come forward and call them out on it, because he's a good soldier. Do you think there's a single commander in Iraq right now saying, "nope, don't need any more troops right now, please don't send anymore, I have too many, really. Even though we don't have enough men to protect all the Iraqi civilians, infrastructure, secure all the weapons sites, and fight the insurgency, by no means would I want more men. Heavens no, sir. Everything's fine here, everything's under control, don't need any more forces." Of course they need more men! Does that mean that commanders are going to step forward and publicly complain about it? The burden of proof is not for us to find some current active commander in Iraq who will step forward about requesting more troops and being turned down. The burden of proof is taking a look at reality! Do we have enough troops in Iraq? No! Very convenient of you to preclude anybody complaining prewar (after all, that would include most of the pentagon.) Once Rummy's persistence made them agree to the war redux plan, they stuck to it. History has already borne out who was right and who was wrong. The Pentagon/Powell "overwhelming force" crowd was right, and Rummy and the neocon "war on the cheap with candy and dancing in the streets" crowd were wrong. Everybody knows it. Franks himself has said that they didn't go in with enough forces and weren't prepared for an insurgency. So has Rummy. The only person that doesn't see it is you, basso. I guess the consolation the neocon administration has, is despite the massive egg on their face, they have the blind allegience of followers to concoct half-baked reasoning to support the War Against Reality. Must be tough, defending the Iraq war with no ground to stand on. First no WMD's. Then the State Department, CIA, 911 commission, Powell, and Rummy all confirm that there's no AQ/Sadaam connection. Now everybody knows that the administration went into the war without a plan to win the peace. Nice try defending it, but... well, actualy, no, it wasn't a nice try, it was weak. Stop defending their mistakes, basso. The administration is responsible for failures in planning and should be held accountable for such. If you want to support them in spite of their failings, just say so. But stop marching in step with them in this silly "no mistakes were made" crusade. Vote for them and support them for reasons within the realm of reality.
I might add that Rumsfeld and GW Bush themselves have admitted that they miscalculated on their planning for post invasion Iraq. It sounds to me like they're aware of the problems but for, probably political, reasons aren't going to change tactics.
fair enough, nolen, except you misunderstood the context for "stretched thin," and this misunderstanding renders most of your rant moot. it wasn't that they are stretched too thin in iraq, kerry, and others, maintain they're stretched too thin worldwide. too thin to fight a war in iraq and one in korea, or iran, or syria. that's why he wants an extra 40,000 troops. my question, and part of the disconnect, is why do we need 40k more troops if there were enough 12 years ago to send 500k to iraq? and as for my defending the administration- i wasn't. as i said, there's a disconnect between the too few rhetoric and the response of the commanders. there's a parallel disconnect between the response of the commanders and the obvious actions (looting munitions- using them to blow up our troops) of the terrorists in iraq. i'm just trying to make sense of the contradictions. there have been plenty of soldiers and commanders who have returned from iraq and retired to able to speak freely about this. whya aren't they supporting the charge?
They are. I mentioned Marine General, and former Bush defense policy maker Jack Sheehan. We've had the same people who mentioned before the invasion still mentioning it after the invasion, and Anthony Zinni as well. There are numerous commanders both civilian and military who have spoken about the problem both before and since the operation. I think if there wasn't concern about not appearing to support the troops there now, there would be even more outspoken military folk.
Well, let's see, aside from the 90,000 out of 150,000 that support the charge that you are purposefully ignoring, there is plenty of anectdotal evidence, which I will provide so that you can purposefully ignore it also: http://www.ivaw.net/ This thread is overwhelmingly absurd. I will ask you the following question again because I know you won't answer it: What do you say to the failure of Bush to hold anybody accountable for the massive degree of incompetence on display with regard to the catastrophe that is the postwar state of Iraq?
the survey was of active duty personell and their families, not of those who've seved in iraq. what i'm looking for is anyone who's been in a position of authority in iraq, not necessarily at the sanchez/abazid level, who has asked for more troops and been rebuffed. anyone? as to your other question, i'd say bush recognizes that mistakes are rampant in war. anyone who has studied war or history understands this. you're just posturing. was rooselvelt made to acknoledge every mistake in WW2, some of which cost thousands of lives? there is no such thing as a mistake free war. iraq is far from a catastrophe, but it's way too soon to know whether it will ultimately be counted a success. try again in 20 years, o ye of faint heart.
Okay, I'm close to giving up here, basso. It's really looking like you're beyond rational discourse invovling facts. Nothing like TJ, don't get me wrong. Re-read your original post that you created this thread with: If we expand your definition of "stretched thin" which you obviously didn't make clear in the first place to a global level, how does that change the relevance of my answers to your questions above? In response to my post, you began by saying "fair enough." Fair enough what? Point taken, there aren't enough troops in Iraq? You are asserting that we aren't stretched thin militarily because active commanders haven't come to publicly act as whistleblowers because they asked for troops and were rebuffed. This is bogus. When faced with the poll of active military members, you refute it. When shown military leaders who have spoken out, you ignore it and shrink your criteria again to "not necessarily at the Sanchez/Abazid level" Your bogus argument holds no water. As for your last post, that is a pathetic excuse for the mistakes that have been made. Awful. There are mistakes, and then there are mistakes. You clearly won't hold W accountable for anything. It's clear he won't either.
OK, so we have Paul Bremer, the two top ranked generals on the ground, a survey of the rank and file of all active military personnel, , the military activating the stop loss policy to keep involuntarily keep reservists and guardsmen around -- all against a backdrop widespread chaos and escalating violence (18 months after we were welcomed with flowers) -- but yet you assert that there is no credible evidence that we don't have enough troops? Then I give up. And your last answer looks like "hey everybody makes mistakes", which is true, but mistakes that kill tens of thousands, make America less safe, and costs billions of dollars are the kinds that I think we should hold people accountable for. I guess you don't.
What I can't understand, basso, is why you seem to think that active duty Lieutenants, Captains and Majors would "speak out" about the shortage of troops. Do you have the impression that there should be hundreds of "lower level" officers flooding American streets, and cable news channels, talking about this problem? You seriously believe that, with stop-loss orders in effect, preventing so many of our people due to retire, or end their term of service, from doing so, that they would speak out on this issue while they are in the service and in the field?? If you believe that, then you really don't understand military culture and discipline. Keep D&D Civil!!
If a democrat calls it a back door draft, and puts some bold text in their post, then by golly I think they must have all the answers. I call it URM. Usual Response Mode. Conversly if a republican says hey I put a link, does that make it factual? Also URM.
