Republican lawmakers urge shift in Iraq plans A Republican congressman called for a deadline to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, while some other members of President Bush's party urged on Sunday that his administration come to grips with a persistent insurgency and revamp Iraq policy. Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina conservative, said on ABC's "This Week" that he would offer legislation this week setting a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. "I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we've done about as much as we can do," said Jones, who had coined the phrase "freedom fries" to lash out at the French for opposing the Iraq invasion. Other Republicans on Sunday talk shows joined Democrats in criticizing the administration for playing down the insurgency, while overestimating the ability of Iraq's fledgling forces to fight without U.S. soldiers in the lead and failing to plan for the post-invasion occupation. "The insurgency is alive and well. We underestimated the viability of the insurgency," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, said on CBS' Face the Nation. He said the administration has "been slow to adjust when it comes to troop strength and supporting our troops." Graham said the Army is contending with a serious shortfall in recruiting "because this war is going sour in terms of word of mouth from parents and grandparents." He said "if we don't adjust, public opinion is going to keep slipping away." Jones, a member of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said "primarily the neoconservatives" in the administration were to blame for flawed war planning. "The reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," he said. Jones joins some of Congress' most liberal Democrats in demanding a deadline to withdraw troops from a conflict they said has been too costly in U.S. lives and money. The Bush administration contends that setting a withdrawal date would fuel an insurgency that Vice President Dick Cheney recently said was in "the last throes." Graham opposed setting a date. "If the insurgents drive us out ... we've lost a big battle in the war on terror," he said. Jones said he was pushing the legislation because his "heart aches" at the nearly 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and 12,000 seriously wounded in Iraq. He said Iraqis should defend themselves once their forces are trained. Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican who just returned from Iraq, joined several Democrats saying the administration must be more candid and acknowledge that it could take about two years to train Iraqi forces to replace U.S. soldiers and allow a significant pullout. "We can't come back to America and have our people being convinced that the Iraqi troops are prepared to take over, when they're not," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. Weldon also said the administration must "come to grips" with a rising insurgency, boosted by fighters from Syria and Iran, "which for some reason our intelligence community does not want to acknowledge or deal with." Weldon said he heard "a common theme" in Iraq that the largest number of foreign insurgents may be coming from Syria, but that "Iran overwhelmingly has the quality behind the insurgency." Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said on CNN's Late Edition, that "many of us warned this administration before we ever put a boot on the ground" that it would face a long-term conflict. "We didn't have plans for it. And we are now where we are," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050613/us_nm/corrected_bc_iraq_usa_republicans_dc_1
I'm so confused! So? Who's right? GOP: Closing Gitmo won't fix image WASHINGTON - Prominent Senate Republicans said Tuesday that closing the Guantanamo Bay prison will not fix a U.S. image tarnished by allegations of American troops mistreating terrorism suspects. "To cut and run because of image problems is the wrong, wrong thing to do," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said there's no doubt that the United States has an image problem because of allegations of abuse and torture at the prison in Cuba. However, he added: "The key to this is to move the judicial process forward so that these individuals will be brought to trial for any crime that they are accused of rather than residing in Guantanamo facility in perpetuity." A few of their GOP colleagues are raising questions about keeping the prison in Cuba open, arguing that it has given the country a bad name abroad and undermined the war on terrorism. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050614/ap_on_go_co/congress_guantanamo ---------------------- Cheney Responds to Guantanamo Critics However, Cheney said that "the track record there is on the whole pretty good." "Now, does this hurt us from the standpoint of international opinion?" he asked. "I frankly don't think so. And my own personal view of it is that those who are most urgently advocating that we shut down Guantanamo probably don't agree with our policies anyway." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050613...LED5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
"We are witnessing the last throes of the insurgency in Iraq" -- Dick Cheney 5/31/05 Can you say delusional?
Yeah, prescient. Only trouble is, it looks like the "last throes" will certainly last through the "last throes" of Bush's 2nd term.
I'll do you one better. You have more of a chance not to fail when you consider all possibilities through proper planning.
Winston Churchill once remarked, “In war, nothing ever goes according to plan except occasionally, and then by accident.” http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4562 -- One of history’s best examples of this is the near-disastrous USAAF air raid against the German-run oil refineries in Ploesti, Romania on August 1, 1943. The lessons of this event resonate with relevance and verity to this day. The Ploesti refinery complex was responsible for producing almost 35% of the oil used by the German military-industrial complex and a similar percentage of their aviation fuel. Allied war planners considered this target to be of the utmost strategic importance, and felt, with some justification, that the complete destruction of Ploesti’s refineries would have an extremely significant impact on Germany’s ability to wage war. The U.S. high command conceived a plan to attack the refineries using two groups of B-24 Liberator bombers, the 367th and the 98th, of the US 9th Air Force based in Libya, and three groups from the 8th Air Force, the 93rd, 44th, and 389th which flew down from England to Africa to join the other two. In 1943, there were no long-range fighter aircraft capable of escorting the bombers on the entirety of the trip—2700 miles round-trip from Libya to Romania and back—so mission planners made the decision that the bombers would fly at extremely low level to avoid enemy radar detection and mitigate their lack of fighter protection. The rationale was that a large strike force coming in essentially by surprise at treetop level would overwhelm the German defenses by catching them off guard and assure a precision strike from point-blank range. The five groups practiced for weeks in the African desert, making full-distance flights against dummy targets set up to resemble the actual refineries as closely as possible. The B-24 was designed as a high- altitude bomber (18,000-25,000 feet), and the aircraft was very difficult to handle in the heavy atmosphere only a few hundred feet above the ground. Nonetheless, by the end of July, the groups were ready to go. The mission was set for August 1st, 1943. This was certainly the most ambitious long-range strategic bombing attack ever attempted in history. The American command was well aware of the incredible risks, but such was the perceived importance of the mission that Brigadier General Uzal Ent was moved to say, “If nobody comes back, the results will have been worth the cost.” In all, 178 Liberators, loaded well past the normal safety margin with bombs and fuel, left Benghazi Libya that day and headed out on their 10-hour flight towards Ploesti. Almost immediately, things began to go wrong. One of the lead planes suffered multiple engine failure and plummeted to earth shortly after takeoff, killing 8 of 10 crewmen. Planes had difficulty maintaining proper formation because of the low altitude and their over-loaded condition. The original flight plan had called for the groups to follow slightly different courses, so in the event of enemy detection, their final destination would not be immediately apparent. About three-quarters through the flight, each group was to pivot towards Ploesti after reaching a pre-determined landmark and attack en masse, saturating the defenses and rendering them ineffective. This proved to be far more difficult to execute in reality than in the pre-mission practice runs. The 376th Group mistook the town of Targoviste for their pivot point of Floresti and made the wrong turn. Disastrously off course and headed to nowhere, Major Ramsey Potts broke the heretofore strictly-held radio silence to warn the 93rd group and attempt to re-assemble some semblance of mission coherence. By now, the German defenses were fully alerted and as the disjointed, confused Americans headed into the target area, they were met with an incomprehensibly hellish combination of anti-aircraft fire and German fighter plane attacks. Dozens upon dozens of American bombers were shot down, and virtually the entire attacking fleet was eliminated as a meaningful offensive force. Of the approximately 120 aircraft that somehow survived the attack itself, only 31 would ever fly again. Incredible instances of superhuman bravery were the order of the day. Group leader Lt. Col. Addison E. Baker and his pilot Major John Jerstad (who had previously completed his combat tour but had volunteered for this mission), their Liberator shot to ribbons and ablaze, led their group directly into the target area rather than safely setting their plane down in an open field short of the target. They willingly sacrificed their own lives in order to assure a productive bombing run, such was their dedication to what they believed was a mission on which the war’s outcome would turn. Twenty-one-year-old Second Lieutenant Lloyd Hughes of the 389th Group, on only his fifth combat mission, flew through intense anti-aircraft fire to successfully strike the target. He emerged with his B-24 streaming fire and gasoline from its belly and wings. He made a desperate attempt to save his crew by crash-landing his crippled plane on a lakebed but one wing of the blazing B-24 hit a riverbank and the plane exploded. In all, the Army Air Force awarded five Medals of Honor—three posthumously—for acts of heroism and bravery, a record for a single air action. Despite the apparent “failure” of the mission, the raid inflicted considerable damage on Ploesti’s refineries. Some areas were barely touched, but others were almost completely destroyed. Net oil production was considerably reduced for months. Germany was forced to expend considerable time and effort re-building its capacity and, additionally, was forced to strengthen its defenses around the area, thus denying other vital fronts of those resources. The lessons learned from the Ploesti mission are clear and well worth remembering: In spite of the best intentions and the most arduous training, it is never possible to foresee or allow for every imaginable contingency in any given situation or endeavor. Hindsight is always 20-20. But undertakings like Ploesti that have a huge potential upside payoff for the good of mankind (as its goal of mortally crippling the Nazi war effort surely did) are always worth the cost. There is a momentum to such efforts—efforts borne of unambiguous, unquestioned moral correctness—that accrues to the initiator and makes the eventual achievement of the goal more certain. That’s as true today as it was in 1943.
The point is that they didn't plan appropriately in the first place in order for that plan to go awry. The current situation is a direct result of a LACK of planning, not the plan falling apart.
The thing is the Bush Admin. painted themselves into a corner from the beginning. To sell the war they had to drastically hype the threat and lowball the costs and sacrifice. This made it impossible for them to devote the resources and build the necessary national resolve to realistically prevail in Iraq. They gambled (and by gamble I don't mean a throw of the dice, the odds were more akin to buying a lottery ticket) that things would just fall into place and they lost- Big.
undertakings like Ploesti that have a huge potential upside payoff for the good of mankind (as its goal of mortally crippling the Nazi war effort surely did) are always worth the cost. There is a momentum to such efforts—efforts borne of unambiguous, unquestioned moral correctness—that accrues to the initiator and makes the eventual achievement of the goal more certain. That’s as true today as it was in 1943. in your confused moral universe andy, does the plan going awry mitigate the decision to go to war?
Good point, though of course in the absence of threat there was no need to attack Iraq. Even Tom Friedman is all but jumping ship. In today's NYT he still thinks we can do great things, if we could just double the number of troops. He knows that isn't going to happen. With the outher countries pulling out and declining enlistments, we will actually be seeing less foreign troops in Iraq to fight the insurgents. Congrats conservatives!! You are creating the Iraqi Syndrome-- the godson of the Vietnam Syndrome.
How nice it is to meet another Churchill admirer on this BBS. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good... and would spread a lively terror..." -- Winston Churchill commenting on the British use of poison gas against the Iraqis after the First World War
You did not address my point. My point was that there was NO plan to go awry in the first place. Everyone who tried to realistically plan was forced out of their position and publicly eviscerated until the only people left were the ones who told tales of WMDs and/or a cakewalk of an operation. I didn't respond to your Churchhill reference because it didn't deserve a response. Hitler is to Saddam like an Uzi is to a bananna.
----snip---- Twenty-one-year-old Second Lieutenant Lloyd Hughes of the 389th Group, on only his fifth combat mission, flew through intense anti-aircraft fire to successfully strike the target. He emerged with his B-24 streaming fire and gasoline from its belly and wings. He made a desperate attempt to save his crew by crash-landing his crippled plane on a lakebed but one wing of the blazing B-24 hit a riverbank and the plane exploded. ----snip---- A correction please: He was 22 years old and he was my uncle. See www.rajordan.com/pete According to his Medal of Honor citation, the plane did not explode, it was "consumed." Out of a ten-man crew, four survived the crash. Two of those died of their wounds soon after and two survived to become prisoners of war. "Second Lieutenant Lloyd H. Hughes, Air Corps, United States Army. For conspicuous gallantry in action and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. On 1 August 1943 Lieutenant Hughes served in the capacity of pilot of a heavy bombardment aircraft participating in a long and hazardous minimum altitude attack against the Axis oil refineries of Ploesti, Rumania, launched from the northern shores of Africa. Flying in the last formation to attack the target, he arrived in the target area after previous flights had thoroughly alerted the enemy defenses. Approaching the target through intense and accurate antiaircraft fire and dense balloon barrages at dangerously low altitude, his airplane received several direct hits from both large and small caliber antiaircraft guns which seriously damaged his aircraft, causing sheets of escaping gasoline to stream from the bomb bay and from the left wing. This damage was inflicted at a time prior to reaching the target when Lieutenant Hughes could have made a forced landing in any of the grain fields readily available at that time. The target area was blazing with burning oil tanks and damaged refinery installations from which flames leaped high above the bombing level of the formation. Will full knowledge of the consequences of entering this blazing inferno when his airplane was profusely leaking gasoline in two separate locations, Lieutenant Hughes, motivated only by his high conception of duty which called for the destruction of his assigned target at any cost, did not elect to make a forced landing or turn back from the attack. Instead, rather than jeopardize the formation and the success of the attack, he unhesitatingly entered the blazing area and dropped his bomb load with great precision. After successfully bombing the objective, his aircraft emerged from the conflagration with the left wing aflame. Only then did he attempt a forced landing, but because of the advanced stage of the fire enveloping his aircraft, the airplane crashed and was consumed. By Lieutenant Hughes' heroic decision to complete his mission regardless of the consequences, in utter disregard for his own life, and by his gallant and valorous execution of this decision, he rendered a service to our country in the defeat of our enemies which will be everlastingly outstanding in the annals of our nation's history."
Yes - because if you failed to plan for your war properly, then you set yourself up to fail, meaning you aren't going to accomplish the objectives you wanted to - and in fact, the end result may be that you set yourself back in your overall objectives, as we have seen in this case where we created a NEW terrorist breeding ground without shutting down any. The plan didn't "go awry". Plenty of people - including both the State Dept and CIA - pretty well predicted how it would go. It went exactly as should have been expected. The decision to go to war is based in part how effective your strategy and planning is. If you don't have any, you probably shouldn't go to war.
