Article

2007-01-03 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-01-03 01:47|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The plan(s) had a small miscalculation.
1. The assumption that Iraq is a nation.
2. The assumption that Iraquis want freedom as Americans understand the term.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-01-03 09:28|| 2007-01-03 09:28|| Front Page Top

#2 Nice job on the formatting.

And does it irk anyone else the op-ed refers to the President as "Mr. Bush"? Reminds me of Olbermann for some reason.

Posted by Anon4021 2007-01-03 11:15|| 2007-01-03 11:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Apologies on the formatting - preview wasn't working at the time. It's not an op-ed, it's an article. And I think it probably gets the story pretty much right - it's the actual strategy and performance of the real players that is so upsetting, not the reporting, in this case.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-01-03 11:40|| 2007-01-03 11:40|| Front Page Top

#4 This is truly a bigger f**ked up mess than even VietNam. Mostly for the same reasons. No real resaon to be there and no strategy, just rocking back and forth from one mess to another. It seems from here that Americans are not even allowed to fight and protect themselves. They serve only as targets. This, in my opinion, is criminal. At least Johnson had enough soul to realize what a gawd awful mess he created. He didn't stop it. Be he stopped. Now, from the British press, we hear that the new plan is to install up to 40,000 more troops. For what? To get picked off? Or, to turn them loose as fighters and exterminate thousands of these dogs, as should have happened three years ago. I feel for every American there. This is unconscionable behavior from the very top. There has never been a stated purpose that even a five year old would believe as to why we went there. If American lives are being sacrificed we must demand an explanation. One that has a shred of plausability. We lost 58,000 young Americans 40 years ago, and found that it was for naught. Gained nothing. Shouldn't have been there. Is this the same ? Just had a big discussion in my VFW last night. No one, out of about 20, favors more troops into this mess now.

Posted by SpecOp35 2007-01-03 11:52|| 2007-01-03 11:52|| Front Page Top

#5 There has never been a stated purpose that even a five year old would believe as to why we went there.

Because otherwise there would be more attacks like 9/11 over here. I understand you being furious at this report, SpecOp35, but really! Chemical weapon precursers have been found, ready to load into warheads, there was an article yesterday that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program was shipped to Syria even as the 2003 invasion was beginning, remember the pictures of truck caravans heading over the Lebanese border, which participants later confessed contained Iraq's gold reserves and other, mmmm, things. Iraq is merely one of the first battles of the War on Jihadi Islam, or whatever we're calling it these days, and our foothold in the Middle East. Clearly the execution is less than ideal, but do you really argue we should not fight this?

I think I need to lie down quietly for a bit.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-03 12:10|| 2007-01-03 12:10|| Front Page Top

#6 TW for president! ;-)

Posted by twobyfour 2007-01-03 12:43|| 2007-01-03 12:43|| Front Page Top

#7 SpecOp35 - many forget we had a treaty obligation to South Vietnam, and one that was shared with Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. Other allies provided tropps at the time. One argument at the time (1968?) was that the government in power wasn't worth fighting for, suggesting treaties really are not worth the paper they're printed on.

We'll promise to protect you, [insert country] but then you gotta do what we want - sort of like the calls here and now to get rid of Maliki. The Iraqis elected him; we are not permitted to vote him in or out, or even get the ACLU to sue to have him impeached.

Had we never gone into Vietman and not even signed the treaty, the world would be a different place, that's for sure. Maybe not better, but certainly different. Somebody ought to write a book!

Posted by Bobby 2007-01-03 13:34|| 2007-01-03 13:34|| Front Page Top

#8 The big problem we had is we never quarantined the borders of Iraq. It wasn't just the fighters,weapons and money comming in. It was the Sunni perception that the bad guys had never ending resources.
Why work with the government and be killed when the radicals had streams of foreign fighters pouring in? By the time the Sunni figured out they'd made a mistake, they were being driven out of Iraq.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2007-01-03 13:59|| 2007-01-03 13:59|| Front Page Top

#9 there was an article yesterday that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program was shipped to Syria even as the 2003 invasion was beginning

TW, was that posted on RB? I can't find it. If not posted, it should be.

Posted by KBK 2007-01-03 16:51|| 2007-01-03 16:51|| Front Page Top

#10 It may not have been yesterday, KBK -- I've never been good with the space-time continuum (that's why I married an engineer!). But it was recently, and I'm pretty sure it was here -- Rantburg is my primary news source. Sorry.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-03 16:57|| 2007-01-03 16:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Here it is, KBK.

Key bit for our purposes:

But what really broke the camels back was a recent report from the well-informed Kuwaiti daily newspaper Al Seyassah. It quoted European intelligence sources as saying that Syria has an advanced nuclear program in a secret site located in the province of Al Hassaka, close to the Turkish and Iraqi borders. British sources quoted by the paper believe that it is President Assads brother, Colonel Maher Assad and his cousin Rami Makhlouf, who supervise the program.

This nuclear weapons program is based on material that Saddam Husseins two sons shipped to Syria before and during the U.S. war against Iraq. According to the Kuwaiti newspaper, this explains why international investigative teams found no proof of Husseins nuclear program.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-03 17:11|| 2007-01-03 17:11|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks very much. I missed it in opinion.

That site should be surveilled, at the very least!

Posted by KBK 2007-01-03 17:24|| 2007-01-03 17:24|| Front Page Top

#13 I watched the Joint Chief's testimony recently, I recollect Gen. Peter Pace. My thought at the time was, "These guys look whipped. Time for a change of management."

Posted by KBK 2007-01-03 17:27|| 2007-01-03 17:27|| Front Page Top

#14 We could not clear and hold, Stephen J. Hadley

We hear this time and time again. One has to wonder about how Bush Sr.(23) and Clinton's (40+) base closing, troop reductions affected the decision to keep the number of troops so low.

Posted by Icerigger 2007-01-03 18:04|| 2007-01-03 18:04|| Front Page Top

#15 This is just part of a larger war and it is from that perspective, not Iraq isolated in the view, that determines the strategy.

Could anyone show the single consistent overall strategy from Washington, the War Department, or any other federal body that formulated the objectives of the 19th Century consolidation of the West? What evolved were spurts and spasms to a very general concept of 'civilizing' the West that employed both military and civilian actions. However, there was no 'Plan'. It was just done. It appears that in the end, it worked.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-01-03 19:17|| 2007-01-03 19:17|| Front Page Top

#16 In the 1800's the US did have a plan. It was called Manifest Destiny, i.e. colonization. The rest flowed from that. Colonization would also work today.

Posted by ed 2007-01-03 20:02|| 2007-01-03 20:02|| Front Page Top

#17 Manifest Destiny was not uniformly applauded as a policy. There was a constant back and forth among the regions about how to deal with the west and the indians. It is remarkable how consistent the positions of the regions have been. But not so amazing if one has read Albion's Seed.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-01-03 20:48|| 2007-01-03 20:48|| Front Page Top

#18 Because otherwise there would be more attacks like 9/11 over here. I understand you being furious at this report, SpecOp35, but really!

Thanks Trailing wife...

I think this may be the entire point of the Iraq, Afghanistan invasions (sorry campaigns).

We took the war back to them. Instead of fighting on US or UK soil post 911, the insurgents, Al Qaeda, The Iranians and all of those vigorously fighting an ideological war against Infidels (thats us) do so on their own soil, perfect!

The money is well spent, the resolve to remain is appropriate, as the cost of fighting at home would be more costly in every aspect.

Whether the US and "coalition of the willing" are considered losers or victors is beside the point - the destruction is in their back yard where it belongs, not ours.

Posted by Creang Ebbereper9270 2007-01-03 21:15|| 2007-01-03 21:15|| Front Page Top

#19 Iff the general strategy to preclude the USA from invading many Rogue or Terror-supporting Nations-States, but instead destroy = contain Radical Islam by letting them attack superior US or US-Allied Milfors on battlegrounds of the USA-Allies own choosing, and while promoting-empowering democratic efforts inside the Rogues, THEN IT IS WORKING VV RADICAL ISLAM BEING DESTROYED INSIDE IRAG-AFGHANISTAN, AND ELSEWHERE. SUCH A PLAN REQUIRES THAT THE BORDER AREAS WILFULLY BE LEFT UNSECURED SO THAT SIZABLE ISLAMIST UNITS FROM AROUND THE WORLD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND BE DESTROYED BY WHAT AMER DOES BEST > SMASH-THRU-ANYTHING/ANYONE MASSIVE FIREPOWER AND HI-TECH.

That being said, this kind of plan must ALWAYS by definition be subject to US Two-Party = National Politix, etc. espec PC. "DA PLAN" is NOT working within the specific scope that the US Voter in 2006 Elex did not see any viable "regime change" take place inside RADICAL IRAN, THE WEST/WORLD-ACKNOWLEDGED PRINCIPAL SPONSOR OF RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISM. IFF NOT FOR THE LATTER OF IRAN-SPECIFIC REGIME CHANGE, THE GOP WOULD LIKELY STILL CONTROL THE CONGRESS IN 2007.

THE ABOVE IS NUTHIN NEW, AND WAS HOTLY DEBATED ON THE NET + INSIDE WASHINGTON SINCE JUST AFTER 9-11. The above is why Dubya says it will = may take years to defeat Radical Islamist Terror and aligned, and by this plan he is correct. AS SAID TIMES BEFORE, THE GREATEST DANGER FOR THE USA IS NOT RADICAL IRAN PER SE, BUT THE RUSSO-CHICOM MILITARY = MILPOL REACTION [read - GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR] TO THE USA-WEST-ALLIES USING DE FACTO LINEAR MIL FORCE TO UNILATERALLY TAKE OUT ITS RADICAL GUBMINT.

Dubya is successful in that scores -000's of violence-centric, armed Radical Islamists are being destroyed, de-armed, andor contained, while indigenous democratic movements, Govts, and local DemoCapitalism are getting stronger. THE DEMOLEFT WANTS THE OPPOSITE > THEY WANT GUBMINT + TOTALITARIANISM IN CHARGE OF EVERYDAY LIFE, WANT RADICAL ISLAM , ETAL, TO BE PAID OFF SO AS NOT TO ATTACK US, AND AMERICA UNDER ANTI-US OWG + ANTI-AMER AMERICAN SOCIALISM, WHERE THE USA PAYS EVERYBODY'S BILLS WHILE NOT BEING IN CHARGE OF ITS OWN DESTINY, GUBMINT, + AFFAIRS. A GOOD ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT THE LEFTIES WANT A NATIONAL-TRANSI-GLOBAL ANARCHY/WARLORD
/MAFIA/NEPOTIST STATE, WHERE LAW + TRUTH + FREEDOM, ETC. IS ONLY AS PER HOW MUCH YOU PAY FOR IT = HOW MUCH YOU PAY NOT FOR YOU AND YOURS TO BE KILLED OR EXECUTED. GULAGS AND DEATH CAMPS ARE FOR EVERYONE ELSE, ENEMIES OF THE SOCIALIST STATE, NOT THE LEFTIES.

"USSA, not USSR" > America = Amerika must be ruled by Mackinder's World Island of Eurasia, aka Russia-China + SCO, aka Commie Asia, as long as the Lefties + TreasonCrats, etc don't have to move or live there, pay anything or be affected by any consequences. Nuthin will change in an Amerikan USSA = Global SSR/USR wid gulags + death/work camps + Motherly Commie Airborne aka United Nations [Peacekeeping]Forces in USA [NORAM] - YOU KNOW, PATRIOTISM, since STALINISM/SOVIETISM = LIFE [Glitch -not necessarily a LONG LIFE]. EVEN UNDER COMMIE-CONTROLLED "FASCISM/RIGHTISM", etc THE COMMIE BLOC ARE STILL DEMOGRAPHICALLY DYING.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-01-03 22:02|| 2007-01-03 22:02|| Front Page Top

23:59 gromgoru
23:58 Tony&Ban&James
23:55 gromgoru
23:54 gromgoru
23:52 Jimmy Carter
23:49 Jimmy Carter
23:47 gromgoru
23:40 gromgoru
23:39 crazyhorse
23:39 gromgoru
23:36 gromgoru
23:34 gromgoru
23:27 gromgoru
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:10 Silentbrick
23:08 bigjim-ky
22:47 RWV
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:19 DMFD
22:11 ed