Political Crossfire Forums

[Timmytour]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/21/eveningnews/main2204339.shtml

Quote: Of the 140,000 American troops in Iraq, 5,000 of them are training and advising Iraqi forces. But according to the trainers themselves, the army did not prepare them to accomplish their mission, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

Training is what counter insurgency warfare is all about — training local forces to take over the fighting — and the linchpin of the American exit strategy.

But in reports recording their experiences in Iraq, advisors like Colonel Nicholas Demas said the training he received before leaving the U.S. "was a phenomenal waste of time … nearly irrelevant to the current situation" in Iraq.

Lt. Col. Paul Ciesinski said counterinsurgency was our most important mission in Iraq but "there was zero training provided on it."

Because of complaints like that, the army opened a new school at Fort Riley, Kan., to train the trainers. So far 500 have graduated with another 550 there now — a fraction of what's needed.

"The institutional army has not caught up ... with the challenges of counterinsurgency," said Lt. Col. Paul Yingling after he returned from Iraq last March.

Yingling took part in one of the highlights of the war — the retaking of the city of Tal Afar by 3,000 American and 8,000 Iraqi troops, a model for what commanders hoped would happen in other violent cities.

“At the end, the Iraqi police will be the senior partner and the Iraqi army will be the junior partner and the U.S. and the coalition forces will be out of here,” says Col. Sean Mcfarland, commanding officer of the 1st Brigade.

Tal Afar proved "the most important thing we do in counter insurgency is building (Iraqi) security forces," Yingling said. "Yet (the army is) designed around the least important line of operations: combat operations."

And it's not just the army. Col. Joseph Disalvo said when he asked State Department officers to teach Iraqis the basics of city management, "they brought nothing to the fight. They were vastly inexperienced."

Army officers say they can double the number going through the school at Fort Riley, but admit they'll still be playing catch up. And commanders in Iraq are calling for even more trainers.

I get a sense there's an increasingly willingness within the Us military to speak out about their frustration over the whole Iraq debacle.

Once again this illustrates how George Bush has been happy making pretty little sppeches about what was going to happen and how the war was going to be won, instead of addressing what has really been happening.

I really fail to comprehend the mindset that can argue that people who call for withdrwawal are against the soldiers, yet are happy to see those soldiers contine to endure and suffer the consequence of wretched decisions made by a wretched commander-in-chief and his cohorts.

[Tono]

I don't see the point of pulling out if we're identifying and correcting problems that have set us back in the past. Seems to me that real progress is being made now that people don't get fired for speaking their minds.

[Dookiestix]

Fortunately, the military in general has become more emboldened to speak their minds because this war has become so unpopular. Unfortunately, the "stay the course" bullsh!t went on far too long, and as a result, many more soldiers and Iraqis have been killed because of this black and white strategy.

Bush should have listened to the generals on the ground in the early days of the conflict instead of firing them because he, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't like what they were saying. Our civilian leadership is beyond inept, and they have denigrated our troops with their corporate war in Iraq.

How can we possibly fight an insurgency that is deft enough to blend in with the general population and infiltrate these Iraqi troops? And how can we expect conventional warefare and training to be effective in combating a highly sophisticated and stealth like insurgency, including those who are willing to blow themselves up?

It's no surprise that George Bush is probably the most unintelligent, narrowminded individual to occupy the White House in quite some time. Americans are waking up to this unfortunate reality, and are realizing how devestating and dangerous it has been with Bush in charge. But it's a little late in the game, as we've already lost close to 3,000 U.S. troops and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis in this conflict.

[Venom]

Quote: Bush should have listened to the generals on the ground in the early days of the conflict instead of firing them because he, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't like what they were saying. Our civilian leadership is beyond inept, and they have denigrated our troops with their corporate war in Iraq.
Read Tommy Franks book, it was his decision for the low number of troops. There are generals that agree with Bush as well... but lets ignore them because it doesn't go with the liberal agenda.
Oh and if you don't know Tommy Franks was a general in charge of the US forces in the Middle East during Afghanistan and the Iraq invasion.


Quote: It's no surprise that George Bush is probably the most unintelligent, narrowminded individual to occupy the White House in quite some time
This pretty much sums up the stance of the liberals.... um Bush to stupid!!!! We don't have a plan but Bush is a moron. Come on you gotta have better than since he is already going through his second term of office.

[Timmytour]

Tono wrote: I don't see the point of pulling out if we're identifying and correcting problems that have set us back in the past. Seems to me that real progress is being made now that people don't get fired for speaking their minds.

Those problems which are now being identified and corrected, were being carefully glossed over two years ago.

How long has Bush given his speeches about the Iraqi forces being trained up and that as they stand up the US will stand down?

And yet, in the light of that, why the hell have we reached the situation now where the problem hasn´t been fixed, it´s just that we´ve begun to reach a stage where some people with important criticisms to make are only now beginning to feel the climate is such that they will be listened to rather than harangued as unpatriotic traitors.

How long can it be before those in the military start voicing long held concerns about what is actually being achieved in Iraq?

Bush took the US military into the deep doo doos. It´s time the talk was now not of what isvictory or what is defeat, but simply what is the best course to take.

For me its a case of wallowing even longer in the unpleasant stuff, or getting out and having a shower followed by a good long soak in a bath.

[Timmytour]

Venom wrote: Quote: Bush should have listened to the generals on the ground in the early days of the conflict instead of firing them because he, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't like what they were saying. Our civilian leadership is beyond inept, and they have denigrated our troops with their corporate war in Iraq.
Read Tommy Franks book, it was his decision for the low number of troops. There are generals that agree with Bush as well... but lets ignore them because it doesn't go with the liberal agenda.
Oh and if you don't know Tommy Franks was a general in charge of the US forces in the Middle East during Afghanistan and the Iraq invasion.



Tommy Franks. "We don´t do body counts"

The reason George Bush never had any credibility when he either denied reports of how many had died in the conflict or tried to put up his own number.

Tommy Franks is right up there on the list of wretched cohorts sharing responsibility for the wretched performance of his commander-in-chief.

[Tono]

Timmytour wrote: Bush took the US military into the deep doo doos. It´s time the talk was now not of what isvictory or what is defeat, but simply what is the best course to take.

Sure, but generally, I'd say victory is a better course than defeat. Nobody wants us to pull out, not even Kofi.

[Venom]

Quote: Tommy Franks. "We don´t do body counts"

The reason George Bush never had any credibility when he either denied reports of how many had died in the conflict or tried to put up his own number.

Tommy Franks is right up there on the list of wretched cohorts sharing responsibility for the wretched performance of his commander-in-chief.
So let me get this straight, a general who Bush listens to isn't a reliable source, but some other general that opposes Bush is?
You wanted Bush to listen to the generals... he did. He listened to the CENTCOM commander and he is wrong for it... he doesn't listen to other generals and he is wrong for it.
Apparently ole Bush can't be right if he listens or not.

[Timmytour]

Tono wrote: Timmytour wrote: Bush took the US military into the deep doo doos. It´s time the talk was now not of what isvictory or what is defeat, but simply what is the best course to take.

Sure, but generally, I'd say victory is a better course than defeat. Nobody wants us to pull out, not even Kofi.

I think there´s a misapprehension about pulling out that it spells defeat.

There´s two things about that.

One is that "victory can only be gained by sticking in there", Perhaps this is true, but those who declare it remind me more and more of helpless gambling addicts who continue to pour their money down the drain while insisting the big win that will eradicate all their losses to date is just around the corner

The second is the flawed notion that withdrawal is defeat. I don´t believe it is. Like Dunkirk in 2WW I see it as a regrouping.

Many people seem to predict carnage in Iraq should the US leave. for me the trouble is that, as bad as it is, everyone, Kofi Annan included, has become comfortable with the situation. Keeping the status quo , however difficult things appear to be, is sometimes the easier choice then stiking out into the unknown.

For me I simply I don´t think anything will be resolved while the Americans are there. So to keep them there is just, in my opinion, prolonging the agony, taking the pressure off the Iraqis to handle things themselves, and costing needless American lives among others.

For me the steps are as follows.

First and foremost. An admission from Bush that he got it and called it wrong. It´s sometimes how amazingly effective a little humility can be. It serves to undermine so much of the criticism and anger that would otherwise follow in spades.

Secondly, the withdrawal of Us forces from all security operations.

And finally the planned withdrawal, in a short timeframe, of troops from Iraq.

The time has come for the Iraqis to sink or swim. I believe that without the responsibility they are shirking their duty. given no option, they will rise to the occasion.

And if it all goes wrong? Well I don´t think there´s anything taken place over the past three years that would convince me it ever had a chance of going right, so in that circumstances I would be grateful that the action has at least spared more US casualties.

I´m not advocating something that doesn´t call for keeping a close eye on things in the future and constant monitoring. But I would not be obsessed with the idea of Iraq having democracy either. Even if an autocratic government was established that could at least bring about stability in the country, that would be massive progress.

It´s important that America is able to disassociate itself from failings which belong to the Bush administration alone, leave the past where it belongs and stride forward with the lessons learned

[Charlie Man]

Venom, it's not abeout reliable and unreliable at this point. We've moved a bit, to right and wrong. The critical commanders are right. Bush, those advising him, and those endorsing him were wrong. It's true that this is more political, but it's also far more effective at getting Iraq turned around.

[Timmytour]

Venom wrote:
You wanted Bush to listen to the generals... he did. .

It must be so convenient for you to debate around things you claim other said but they never did.

I imagine you feel all kind of pleased and fluffy with yourself. Good for you.

In the meantime, if you ever feel like coming over and debating in the real world, then you´ll find us waiting.....

[bigstick61]

Really, this isn't the job the Army should be doing. Marines, on the other hand, are trained for this and have fought these sorts of wars for over a century, with most of the conflicts being successes. Having the wrong people do the job is a major part of why things went wrong in Vietnam.