Originally Posted By ElKay Beau: "If you talk to THE TROOPS, they will tell you that we are winning and all this hand wringing and democrat hyteria is only serving to help the enemy." You know don't you, Beau, that the military clamps down on soldiers who speaks out against the military in any significant way. It's ok to grip about the food or the weather, but expressing doubts about their mission or leadership is very effectively censored. A lot of enlisted soldiers don't have independent views due to their young age. The rely on their parents view or on the indoctrination of the military. It well known that soldiers in combat aren't fighting for the national objectives, but essentially for their buddies in the next foxhole or hummer in a convoy. There's a LOT of dissention amoung the Guardsmen and Reservists who tend to be several years older than the Regulars. They have families and careers and the constant pressure they've been put under by up to three tours of duty and the military's use of essentially involuntary service is lowering morale. Check out this article: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz ine/article/0</a>,9171,1132819,00.html >>In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner, joined by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls "ground truth"--the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq. "We wanted the view from men who had been on the tip of the spear, and we got it," said John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman who declined to comment on what was said at the meeting but confirmed that some Capitol Hill staff members were also present. According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat. There are about 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, a number U.S. commanders in the region plan to maintain at least through the Iraqi national assembly elections on Dec. 15. But the battalion commanders, according to sources close to last week's meeting, said that because there are not enough troops, they have to "leapfrog" around Iraq to keep insurgents from returning to towns that have been cleared out. The officers also stressed that the lack of manpower--rather than of protective armor or signal jammers--posed one of the biggest obstacles in dealing with roadside bombs, which have caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The commanders, according to the meeting sources, said there are simply "never enough" explosives experts on the ground. So far, no officer has been willing to go on record to complain about the need for more troops. But there is one positive sign: the Army recently decided to double the number of explosives experts to 2,500 over the next few years.<< That's far from the rosy picture that the Pentagon or White House paints of the conditions in Iraq. Also why is there not enough troops in Iraq. Besides the phobia Rummy has about proving Gen. Shinseki correct that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to occupy post conflict Iraq. The Army is having terrible trouble meeting their recruiting goals even after lowering their minimum recruit standards. "Of course this is nothing new. We need to have the next Iraqi election, train the Iraqi forces, and pull out when things stabilize." Yeah, that right "this is nothing new." Rummy and Bush have been saying that for two years now and nothing has changed, except that there are MORE attacks on US troops than two years ago. There has been two elections and a third coming up in a couple of weeks and the Admin. keeps saying that things will get better after the election. Well, they aren't. The attacks on both civilians, Iraqi security forces and our own keep getting more frequent and more deadly. As far as training Iraqis to defend themselves, so we don't have too. Things are getting worse according to the Pentagon's own testimony. Going from three independently capable battalions down to ONE is not an improvement. It could take several more years just to get a majority Iraqi units combat ready without knowing IF they will fight or use their skills for the militias of their religious sect. The US is training Iraqi combat and police units, but the Iraqi military lack logistics infrastructure to support their troops. We do all of that now and maybe for years to come. How can we leave if the Iraqis don't have airlift, supply, communications or even paymasters? Beau, you're inhailing the "smoke" the Admin. is blowing you way. All of your arguments are very simplistic and you NEVER support your rants with evidence. "Talking about leaving before the job is done is foolish and shortsided." The basic definition of mental illness is repeatedly doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. Yes, Syria is next. Something has to be done about them. Of course this is nothing new. We need to have the next Iraqi election, train the Iraqi forces, and pull out when things stabilize. Talking about leaving before the job is done is foolish and shortsided. "Yes, Syria is next. Something has to be done about them." Deja vue? Something had to be done about Iraq. Now you're advocating going into Syria when we can't quell the insergency in Iraq. Beau, if YOU and your ilk, don't sign up to fight how are we going to take on Syria? What about Iran or North Korea? We got into this mess based on feebled mindedness like what YOU advocate. It's really chicken to rant about attacking other countries, then relying on other's who are poorer or less intelligent to carry out your plans. Oops, I was referring to YOU, it was just a coincidence that it sounded like I was talking about Bush in Vietnam.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The "chilling challenge" is literally to "find a way out!"> I nominate that as "2005's Best DL Reference in World Events."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rummy and Bush have been saying that for two years now and nothing has changed, except that there are MORE attacks on US troops than two years ago.> Things have changed. There is now an Iraqi government in place, with a ratified constitution. More infrastructure has been repaired, more areas are stable, more Iraqi troops have been trained, and we're tightening the noose on the areas that aren't. More arabs are beginning to see the terrorists as they are, killers of innocents, instead of some glorious crusaders.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Elkay, you should take your act to a local military base and see what they tell you. Gather a roomfull of soldiers, all ages and just let er rip. Tell them why Bush is a war criminal and tell them how they are losing the war and have failed on all levels. Then... this is the best part... tell them your plan to defeat terrorism and bring peace to the middle east. Go see if they agree with a single piece of your leftist propaganda.
Originally Posted By ElKay "Things have changed. There is now an Iraqi government in place, with a ratified constitution. More infrastructure has been repaired, more areas are stable, more Iraqi troops have been trained, and we're tightening the noose on the areas that aren't. More arabs are beginning to see the terrorists as they are, killers of innocents, instead of some glorious crusaders." Like I said, NOTHING has changed. Except a rise in the number of attacks against US servicemen and innocent civilians. The Pentagon and the White House even before the war told the American people that things are going just fine. Pointing to several areas or individual programs that have gone well doesn't negate the fact that violence is rampant, weighing down any consistant stability in the country. Just take the oil industry, the #1 revenue export (besides newly minted terrorists) in the country. It's a constant target by the insergents, which causes havoc in the whole Iraqi economy. In a country with something like the 3rd largest reserves of oil, the people can't even get a tank of gas without waiting a whole day in line. Much of the gas has to be imported from Kuwait. Additionally, Iraq's electrical network is stymied by the fact that it can't generate enough electricity dispite the fact oil is so plentyful. Again, insergents blow the fuel lines to the powerstations, keeping large sections of Baghdad and other parts of the country in the dark and without air conditioning. Without a realiable source of electricity, reconstruction is seriously hampered down to basic industries like cement manufacturing. There's no way that we can get out of Iraq unless the insergency is dismantled and the people can start living normal lives. The current Admin. plan is essentially to hold on until a number of Iraqi battalions are able to fight for themselves. However, we tried that route with the ARVN battalions in VietNam, we were there for over 20 years and the NVA soldiers cut through our US trained troops like butter once the US left. Is that going to happen in Iraq? Will we have to fight an insergency for decades, only to see our client government collapse like soggy cardboard?
Originally Posted By ElKay "Gather a roomfull of soldiers, all ages and just let er rip. Tell them why Bush is a war criminal and tell them how they are losing the war and have failed on all levels." Well, Beau, I guess I could to Walter Reed Army Hospital or Bethesda Naval Hospital and ask those questions and I'll bet I get responses that you wouldn't like to hear. Rep. Murtha had consistantly visted the wounded and changed his pro-Bush, pro-war positions. Beau, how many military hospitals have you visited lately? There are scores of wounded Guardsmen returning from service in Iraq that faced shoddy care or cutting off of their active duty pay and other benefits. I doubt they'll agree with your viewpoint. I saw a report over the weekend that categorized the number of casualties by state and California had the most wounded and KIAs. Because we have the largest population of any other single state. If you're not too lazy, go ahead and read this article in the LA Times. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-morale22nov22" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/na tionworld/world/la-fg-morale22nov22</a>,1,3442654.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true >> FORWARD OPERATING BASE FALCON, Iraq — A handful of Delta Company soldiers leaned against a barracks wall the other night, smoking. The subject of conversation: what limb they would rather part with, if they had a choice. On the door of a portable toilet a few feet away, someone was keeping the company death toll amid a scribble of obscenities: five KIA. "When I first got here, I felt like I could actually do some good for the Iraqi people," Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Barker said. But the last six months had hardened him, he said. "We're not going to change the Iraqis. I don't care how many halal meals we give out," he added, referring to food prepared according to Islamic dietary laws. f the 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, some have been deployed to the country for the first time. Others are returning for their second or third tours of duty. Those returning find a country that has become even more dangerous. Since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, attacks on American troops using roadside bombs have steadily risen, as have military casualties. In conversations with troops in the tense cities of Baghdad, Mosul and Tikrit during the last four weeks, morale seemed a fragile thing, especially among those in the line of fire, shot through with a sense of dread. Many expressed pride in their mission, and the hope that the budding political process would eventually destroy the insurgency. But others described a seemingly never-ending fight against an invisible enemy, and the toll of seeing friends die. "Morale is a roller coaster," said Lt. Rusten Currie, who has spent 10 months in Iraq. "We were all idealistic to begin with, wanting to find Osama bin Laden and [Abu Musab] Zarqawi, and bring them to justice — whatever that means. Now we just want to go home." The bracelet on his slim wrist read: "Let them hate, as long as they fear." "We've become the cliche of every war movie — the grizzled veterans," said Currie, who became embittered after losing a friend, Capt. Raymond Hill — "a big, happy-go-lucky guy," killed by a roadside bomb Oct. 29. "It doesn't make any sense to kill Roy Hill," Currie said. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq, says tensions are understandable when troops are attacked with remotely detonated explosives and there's no way to fight back. "Soldiers can indeed get frustrated because they're not looking at an enemy who's looking back at them," Lynch said. But he added that "morale is generally good." Barker remembers the day — it was Sept. 15, a Thursday — that changed how he felt about Iraq. Afterward, the mission no longer made sense. "It's the most helpless feeling I have ever felt," said Barker, of the California National Guard's 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, who lost his friend and second in command, Sgt. Alfredo Silva, to a roadside bomb that day. "We were the walking dead," he said, speaking of the days after the attack. "It was no longer a matter of making it home alive and in one piece. Just alive would be fine." After that day, the explosions never seemed to stop. In Delta Company, morale plummeted after four men were killed in nine days, Barker said. In the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Falcon, just south of Baghdad, soldiers on crutches precariously balanced food trays and sodas as they hobbled among the rows of tables. There were other, invisible injuries — backs and legs refusing to heal. Many soldiers have been struck by explosives repeatedly — three or four times — since arriving at Falcon base this year. The medics call them "frequent fliers." Delta Company soldiers have had trouble sleeping. "One of my buddies, he's also a gunner," said Spc. Evan Bozajian, 23, from Inglewood. "In the beginning, he was really gung-ho. Not anymore. Some of the guys, they hate it. They don't want to do this anymore." Bozajian, however, still thinks he's doing something worthwhile.<< It's really bad if these young soldiers totally give up hope of risking their lives for nothing. What really telling is how some of the soldiers and marines see the difference from their first tour of duty to their 2nd or now their 3rd. Things aren't getting better, their getting more deadly. Beau, you don't do any critical thinking. If it's not on Fox, then it's a lie. You allow blowhard like Hannity and O'Reily do your own thinking for you. IF I saw reports that the basic infrastructure in Iraq was steadily improving (instead of US funds rebuilding them, only to have them blow-up by the insergents) or that the Iraq factions finally coming together, instead of trading car bombs--then I"ll objectively admit my opposition to this misbegotten occupation just MIGHT be working and we can turn over control to the new government. Hopeful wishing isn't going to make Iraq peaceful and prosperious. Bush is a Reagan optimist. When he sees a pile of manure, he jumps in looking for the pony he's sure is there, somewhere.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Just take the oil industry, the #1 revenue export (besides newly minted terrorists) in the country. It's a constant target by the insergents, which causes havoc in the whole Iraqi economy. In a country with something like the 3rd largest reserves of oil, the people can't even get a tank of gas without waiting a whole day in line.> Iraqi oil revenues in September were the highest ever. <Additionally, Iraq's electrical network is stymied by the fact that it can't generate enough electricity dispite the fact oil is so plentyful. Again, insergents blow the fuel lines to the powerstations, keeping large sections of Baghdad and other parts of the country in the dark and without air conditioning.> Iraq's power output is now higer than pre-war levels. <IF I saw reports that the basic infrastructure in Iraq was steadily improving (instead of US funds rebuilding them, only to have them blow-up by the insergents) or that the Iraq factions finally coming together, instead of trading car bombs--then I"ll objectively admit my opposition to this misbegotten occupation just MIGHT be working and we can turn over control to the new government.> It's happening. All you have to do is look for it. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crawford200511090801.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/crawford200511090801.asp</a> <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007245" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ extra/?id=110007245</a> <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/smitht/smith200511210820.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ smitht/smith200511210820.asp</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Elkay, I read the LA Times piece where they found a few soldiers with bad attitudes. Typical LA Times painting a picture to the public that the troops are ready to surrender. And who eats this defeatist garbage up and celebrates every problem the troops experience? You Elkay. I can also find some Disneyland CM's with bad attitudes who say the park and the guests suck. If you think Murtha had the right idea to leave Iraq, then you have no clue about what we are really facing with terrorism. Liberals have no clue what is at stake here. They seem to think that defeating Bush will somehow make their life better. Even if that means the terrorists gain strength and attack us here at home. Pathetic and disgraceful.
Originally Posted By ElKay Beau, see you proved my assessment of folks like you. Anything that doesn't appear on Fox has to be wrong. These are real soldiers expressing their actual opinions. Get over it. Stop speaking for people doing a job that you won't! "I can also find some Disneyland CM's with bad attitudes who say the park and the guests suck." LOL, so you haven't read both Miceage AND Mouseplanet. There is in fact huge troubles in DLR. The Foods dept. is in pretty much chaos with scores of experienced CMs leaving because of their new tighter attendance policy, after years of easy going policies. CM's both full timers or casuals either think they could get more money at In 'n Out Burgers or can't fit their college classes in this new policy. Over at DCA, CM's are trying to relax the union rules that seperated the shift policies that were negociated when DLR wrongly assumed that DCA would be the "in" place to work and tried to prevent DL CMs from migrating to DCA. Now DCA CM want out in the worst way. There may even be a strike next year at DLR. So just because YOU refuse to see what ACTUALLY going on somewhere, doesn't mean it's not actually happening. Before the war, Wolfowitz claimed that it would be unnecessary for the Coalition to have more troops occupying that to fight the war. He also said that Iraq's oil revenues would quickly pay for the reconstruction. Do YOU also believe that too? What about Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny? I guess you ALWAYS believe what you are told, huh?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey Elkay, your DL and DCA opinion actually kind of made some sense and was interesting. I didn't know a lot of that stuff. Of course now I will need to verify it and see if it Fox News worthy. LOL
