Things seem to be falling apart. We will send more troops (more are in the pipeline), more of our people will be killed and maimed, more Iraqis will suffer the same, and nothing will basically change. The madness continues. D&D. Replicant City.
^^^^ Yeah, what's another few months, a few hundred more dead Americans and untold Iraqis before republicans finally come to their senses and pull the plug on Jr's little war?
Look with enough conventional bombing we can hold them at bay indefinitely, so the Basso's of the USA should be able to sleep and be proud of our country. We can always nuke them as many conservative Texans will promptly say. It is getting harder all the time. As "our" Iraqis keep dwindling, the fight against the majority of Iraqis keeps getting dicier. If you really support our troops, you want them out of this Dien Phu sp? situation. If you support President Bush only, you want to hold out as long as poltically advantageous for him or his legacy etc. If you care about the GOP mainly, you may be irked at Bush Cheney for 2008 and beyond.
Sishir, you are a smart guy and very very very precise like Hayes. Your background is not that important to me for any reason. Just mainly curious. Perhaps it is the Midwestern USA/ Western European background of me and my parents that makes me so forward wrt to ethnic backgrounds. I can't seem to help letting my own background effect how I view the world. How do you do it?
McCain never ceases to amaze: McCain blames Petraeus for his armed escort in Baghdad… McCain just dissed the man that he and the administration are hailing as the savior of Iraq. …And I'll be glad to go back to that market with or without military protection and, and humvees, etc. I say we take him up on his pledge. Let's ask his campaign team when he'll be going back to Iraq without protection and see if he can purchase a few more items, but hopefully spend a little more money this time. I'd hate to see him do it in reality, but if he's going to put it on the table, be my guest,…(full transcript via MSNBC below the fold) MR. RUSSERT: …you said, "I believe we've achieved significant goals"; 2005, we view it as, as "hopeful," we're making "progress"; 2006, we're on the "right track," "I want to emphasize again" the "good things happening"; we're "showing signs of success" in 2007. It's upbeat, upbeat, upbeat. SEN. McCAIN: I think… MR. RUSSERT: And yet the reality is quite different than that kind of optimistic message. SEN. McCAIN: You know, Tim, I think it would be fair also to put the statements that I made when I came back from Iraq that said it was a failed policy, that we had to have more troops on the ground, that we were not carrying out the right kind of effort at training and equipping the Iraqis, that the Iraqi government wasn't–so it might be fair to flash some of those statements up, including the long speech I gave, after I came back from Iraq, to the Council on Foreign Relations, where I said if we pursue this failed policy, we will fail in Iraq. So I think that that might balance it out a bit. Do I think we had, we had made some progress? Yes. And do I think that we have had some significant setbacks? Yes. We– both is–are the case. MR. RUSSERT: You made a lot of news back in April when you went to Iraq. You went on a radio show and said never–had a news conference, "never been able to go out in the city as I was today." And then later these photographs were released, where we saw–(clears throat) excuse me–John McCain in the marketplace, surrounded, wearing a flack jacket. The next day the papers said that, "A day after members of an American congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain pointed to their brief visit" in "Baghdad's central Market as evidence that the new security plan for the city was working, the merchants were incredulous about" "Americans' conclusions. `What are they talking about?'" "the owner of an electrical supply shop said. `The security procedures were abnormal.' The delegation arrived at the market" "more than 100 soldiers in armored humvees–the equivalent of an entire company," "attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior" "military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area" "restricted access to the American." "The congressmen wore bulletproof vests" through the hour-long visit. `They paralyzed the market when they came,'" "`This was only for the media.'" SEN. McCAIN: Well, I don't… MR. RUSSERT: Wasn't that… SEN. McCAIN: …I don't know who Mr. Faiyad is, and I'm sorry that I didn't see him. I talked with many, many of the merchants. We stayed there for more, more than an hour. That same place was not a functioning market a short time before. A bomb had gone off in that area and killed many, many people. There, there was a group of people that I talked to, as I traveled–walked around that, that shopping area for over an hour who said, "I'm glad to see you. Things are better." They–some–a guy came and complained about a sniper that, that they'd had problems with, and the police chief we talked to about that. My point is the neighborhoods are safer. They are not safe. That's why we have to continue what we're doing. We have a new strategy that, that can succeed. I was glad to walk through that market. I will go walk through a market as often as I can. It was not allowed to go through a market a short time before that. MR. RUSSERT: But, senator, you had an armed escort. SEN. McCAIN: I had an armed escort because, because that's what General Petraeus thought we ought to have. I was glad to go outside of Baghdad and have over an hour opportunity to talk to the people that I talked to. Now, they are very different from the people that, that you are quoting here and others. They said, "I'm glad to see you. Things are better here. We have, we have seen improvement." That's what I was told, and that's what the other two members of Congress were told when we were there. You can find a lot of difference of opinion if you want to, but I believe that it's important for me to go out and meet those people if I can and be around them. I didn't call for the kind of, quote, "protection" that was around me. But I am not afraid, and I'm glad to go any place that I can to talk to the people of Iraq and tell them of my commitment to see that they have a free, democratic government where they don't have to face the bombs going off and the suicide bombers and the–and can start leading normal lives. And I'll do that every chance I get. MR. RUSSERT: But the military felt you needed that protection, and the number of suicide bombers has gone up since the surge began. SEN. McCAIN: The military–the suicide bombers have gone up because they know that this is probably the most effective way publicitywise. It's not the most effective way if you're talking about winning a conflict. Suicide bombers are the most difficult of any to counter, people who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others'. You can ask the Israelis; I think they'll tell you that. They have literally sealed their borders, and yet suicide bombers get across. And again, is this long and hard and difficult? Is that market safe? No, but it's safer than it was before. And that, in my view, is the key to whether we will succeed or fail or not. And I'll be glad to go back to that market with or without military protection and, and humvees, etc. But the fact is, I walked through narrow streets. I didn't have people all around me. I don't know what, what–where they get their information, but I was glad to walk around and talk to people and have contact with them and tell them that I, as an American, will do everything I can to let them lead the normal lives which are God-given rights to everybody on earth. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/14/mccain-blames-petraeus-for-his-armed-escort-in-baghdad/#more-17264
Not at all surprising given the level of technology we have and how that technology is used to protect the troops. What is distressing is that supporters of the war will claim that our losses are so much lower than Vietnam and as such, Iraq must be a more "successful" police action. American casualties in Iraq's civil war need to cease. The only way for that to happen at this point is withdrawal. The only point of contention now is how and when it will happen.
basso, that graph is meaningless in the context of Iraq. If you would, why don't you give us a post that describes how Iraq is like Vietnam in the context of today. I'm curious to hear your viewpoint. The number of US troops in Vietnam totaled 537,000 in 1968, more than the total number of personnel in the US Army right now. Here's an article from December of '06... U.S. needs a bigger military, Bush says By Thom Shanker and Jim Rutenberg Wednesday, December 20, 2006 WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush has said that the United States should expand the size of its armed forces, acknowledging that the military has been strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would need to grow to cope with what he suggested would be a long battle against Islamic extremism. "I'm inclined to believe it's important and necessary to do," Bush said Tuesday. "The reason why is, it is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while, and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and help us achieve peace." Speaking in an interview with The Washington Post, Bush did not specify how large an increase he is contemplating, or put a dollar figure on the cost. He said that he had asked his new defense secretary, Robert Gates, to bring him a proposal, and that the budget he unveils at the beginning of February would seek approval for the plan from Congress, where many members of both parties have been urging an increase in the size of the military. In interviews Tuesday, administration officials said the president had been speaking generally about the broader campaign against terrorism, and was not foreshadowing a decision on whether to send additional troops into Iraq in coming months in an effort to stabilize Baghdad. Any big change in the size of the military would take years to realize. Bush told the Post, which excerpted the interview Tuesday on its Web site, that he had not made a decision about sending more troops to Iraq. Coming the day after Gates was sworn in as defense secretary, Bush's comments indicated that the administration was breaking abruptly with the stance taken by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who long championed the view that high technology and better intelligence could substitute for a bigger military. Bush said his plan would focus on ground forces rather than on the navy and air force, telling The Post, "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the army, the Marines." There are about 507,000 active-duty army soldiers and 180,000 active-duty marines. Bush's comments were his most direct assessment that the strain on the armed forces is so serious that the nation should invest billions of dollars in expanding the military. The president has come under increasing pressure from allies and critics, including Democrats and Republicans in Congress and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who have warned that the army could break under the stress of the demands it faces. "I also believe that the suggestions I've heard from outside our government, plus people inside the government — particularly the Pentagon — that we need to think about increasing our force structure makes sense, and I will work with Secretary Gates to do so," Bush said. Congress authorized a 30,000-soldier increase in the active-duty army after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States in what was described as a temporary measure. Army officials say they hope to reach that authorized total troop strength of 512,000 by next year, and would like to make that a permanent floor, not a ceiling. To that end, the army already has drawn up proposals to grow to 535,000 and 540,000, with some retired officers advocating an even larger increase. The active-duty army peaked at 1.6 million troops during the Korean War and stood at just below that figure during the war in Vietnam, before hovering around 800,000 for much of the 1970s and 1980s, according to Pentagon statistics. Following the first Gulf War, which coincided with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the army's active- duty force dropped first to below 600,00 and then below 500,000 prior to the increases ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks. Any decision to increase the size of the army and Marine Corps would do little to meet the need for more troops should Bush order a significant increase of U.S. forces in Iraq in 2007, as it takes considerable time to recruit, train and deploy new troops. General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff, said last week that the army probably could grow by only 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers per year. Army officials have estimated that each 10,000 soldiers added to the force would cost about $1.2 billion. While not likely to determine the administration's decision about a short- term increase in troop levels in Iraq, a substantial increase in the size of the U.S. military could give the United States more flexibility in setting and maintaining troop levels in Iraq over the long run. Army officials already had drawn up proposals for sustaining the Iraq and Afghan missions by drawing heavily on the National Guard and Reserves over the next several years. But the prospect of a continuing reliance on large numbers of those part- time soldiers would present Bush with a hugely vexing political problem as the Republican Party prepares for a campaign to hold the White House in 2008. The administration has promised to limit overseas deployments for the Guard and Reserve, which have been used extensively since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Pentagon and military officials who were briefed on the president's discussions with the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week said that the classified briefing ranged broader than just how to win in Iraq. The chiefs argued that the country must not let the military's other capabilities lapse from commitments of personnel, equipment and money for Iraq, these officials said. In particular, the chiefs expressed concerns that the United States must show enough strength to deter potential adversaries from aggressive moves based on an assumption that U.S. power was bogged down in Iraq. That led to a discussion on the merits of expanding the military, officials said. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12...ws/military.php It's astonishing that Bush, only late last year, finally said this: "...the suggestions I've heard from outside our government, plus people inside the government — particularly the Pentagon — that we need to think about increasing our force structure makes sense, and I will work with Secretary Gates to do so..." That we need to think about increasing our force structure. After years of experts in and out of the military calling for increasing the size of the Army, in particular. Your hero can't make a decision until he's so smacked in the face by reality that he simply can't wish his troubles away. Losing control of Congress at least got his attention. You know who you remind me of, basso? Dan Rather. You know why? Because he started calling for "courage," when he signed off on the evening news, and promptly got mugged. You accuse Democrats of far worse than a lack of courage, yet you blithely ignore the complete lack of courage on the part of Bush to face up to reality. His inability, for years, to ignore the need for an increase in the number of troops in the Army and Marines is simply one in a litany of mistakes he's made. You can't make an argument supporting him now without resorting to slanderous attacks on people here, or posting rubbish like the graph above, with your comment being that it's "fascinating." Fascinating how? Our military is so stretched that the volunteer concept may be irretrievably broken. That people will begin to stop joining the National Guard, as well as the standing Army, because of repeated deployments that are getting larger and longer. The strain could have been addressed, at least a bit, had Bush called for increasing the size of the Army long ago, with his GOP Congress willing to do anything as long as the pork rolled in, with never a veto of a spending bill. Golly, at least Bush is thinking about doing something, years late, of course, leaving whoever follows him an incredible mess to deal with. I'm sure you will be happily posting about his successor's problems dealing with this catastrophe of a legacy. If it's a Democrat. If somehow a Republican is elected, I hope I can look forward to more imagination while giving us the tired excuses. Be a pal, basso, and put a little work into it, OK? Thanks in advance. D&D. Replicant City.
Basso, forget math or statistics. Your graph without context is dishonest or silly. Vietnam was a bigger war. A bigger country by far. Watemelons are different than limes,though they are both fruits. We had a draft. I believe your misunderstanding of Vietnam,and faulty analogizing to Iraq makes you blind to the current reality in Iraq, which is now obvious even to the apolitical. They are not blinkered as you are by your reading or possible family stories about Vietnam.
As I said we all are affected by our backgrounds to some extent but as rational people though we're not bound by it.
Well if not as many people are dying I shouldn't really be concerned that such a few soldiers are needlessly losing their lives.
The surge may be leading to a surge in US and Iraqi deaths, but apparently is not winning the war. The whole concept of the "surge" was a useful pr euphemism for "escalation". What will be the next pr prhase? "Light at the end of the tunnel" is discreditied from Vietnam."Surge" is about to lose its sheen. The elections similarly. Will we force a new government? There has got to be a new pr slogan/initiative to keep the faithful 24% supporters of the war on board. Perhaps a replacement for Petraeus? As long as the faithuful war supporters keep tuned to Fox, they should keep the faith. Even Fox might eventually have to shift of lose the confidence and hence viewers and revenue from advertisers. Watch Fox for the real end of the war, though the insular Bush may very well continue till his term ends, barring a rebellion of the generals and or GOP Congress. ************* Newly declassified data show that as additional American troops began streaming into Iraq in March and April, the number of attacks on civilians and security forces there stayed relatively steady or at most declined slightly, in the clearest indication yet that the troop increase could take months to have a widespread impact on security. On April 2, a suicide bomber blew up a truck near a school in Kirkuk, wounding dozens of children. The daily attack figure for April was 149. Even the suggestion of a slight decline could be misleading, since the figures are purely a measure of how many attacks have taken place, not the death toll of each one. American commanders have conceded that since the start of the troop increase, which the United States calls a “surge,” attacks in the form of car bombs with their high death tolls have rise http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/w...273ecb847&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Looks like Jr finally found someone stupid enough to take the war czar job. ----------- Pentagon General to Be 'War Czar' WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush has chosen Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Pentagon's director of operations, to oversee the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a "war czar" after a long search for new leadership, administration officials said Tuesday. In the newly created position, Lute would serve as an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, and would also maintain his military status and rank as a three-star general, according to a Pentagon official. The White House has sought a war coordinator to eliminate conflicts among the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies - and to speak for the president at times. http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070515/D8P53DT80.html speak for the president? Nice -- So now when anyone asks Jr a question about the war he can defer to his czar.
^ Creating a war czar seems like one of the worst ideas of an Admin. with many bad ideas. Lets create another layer of bureacracy and another political appointee to an already confused and top heavy process. And people wonder why the President seems out of touch.
Sishir, losing a little faith, albeit you argue for its Consitutinoality, in the Commander in Chief being king-like in his war powers?
