Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
I'm watching Gen. David Petraeus in his inquisition before congress as I post this. Who said the following; him, someone else?
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces,
and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers.
In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses
plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start,
yet failed to inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command
to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn,
do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
- Robert E. Lee, 1863
Tom
'A Man's got to have a code...
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." -John Bernard Books. Jan. 22, 1901
Eric M. wrote:Just like I always say--"Stinkin liberals"
Eric
Well, the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq yesterday...
That may be true Junior, or is at least a point for debate. But what is not up for debate is the disgraceful behavior of those self appointed and otherwise "Liberals" in power in the District of Consternation.
If the Dems/Liberals really had the pulseof America, and the guts, they would form ranks and pull the plug. They have the Power. But they won't and haven't. Ever wondered why?
There was no call for today's behavior. Period.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough. מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976 Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
Well the first time I have ever seen a report of success by US Forces viewed as a failure....
No matter your opinion on whether we should be there or not....shouldn't every American want us to succeed?
Redneck suicide note: Here, hold my beer and watch this!!
I want us out of Iraq just like you do Junior.
I don't want to see one more American Soldier killed for those corrupt ungrateful Iraqi pukes.
My problem lies with the liberal pukes in congress, playing politics with a great Soldier and General.
Bush's approval ratings are low, but listening to these yellow belly scoundrels in congress, I can see why their approval rating is much lower than the President's.
We can only thank God that these losers weren't in Congress during WWII, or we would be speaking German right now.
You are a good man Junior, and you should be mad as hell, and going to your local caucus, to boot these pigs out.
The politicians are interested in a rally of their respective power bases.....they care not one bit of any soldier or any other human being for that matter. They only care about raising money to keep themselves in power.....Junior, you should be supporting America, not a party.....If this were a Democratic war, the conservatives would support it. The 'Crats should be ashamed playing games with lives.
Less than 5% of our country is/was willing to serve in our current volunteer military. It disgusts me to see any politician impune the character of an officer which in turn reflects their feelings about the enlisted.
Like the war or not, respect those that are willing to do that which most of us are not.
Tubby, I support America. I just see the Iraq War as the most dangerous thing to happen to America since the Civil War. Yes, more dangerous than Word War II. In that war, our enemies were countries and were finite in number. Now our enemy is an idea and the fanatics who support the idea grow in number every day. We are creating our own enemies.
Junior wrote:Tubby, I support America. I just see the Iraq War as the most dangerous thing to happen to America since the Civil War. Yes, more dangerous than Word War II. In that war, our enemies were countries and were finite in number. Now our enemy is an idea and the fanatics who support the idea grow in number every day. We are creating our own enemies.
Junior, I'm not a lockstep Big C Republician...mostly, but not lockstep. Bush is not doing a very good job with this, but if the White House goes to a D, they will continue to procecute the war in spite of their present dissent. If an R re-takes, the policy will remain the same, I'd wager. Remember, Clinton signed the law making Regime Change in Iraq Public Law and there were WMDs..........Dems = Politics and Reps = Whoop Rag Butt IMHO and YYMV
The problem was not going into Iraq; it's what the leadership decided to "accomplish" once we got there.
The article from Stratfor below was written over three years ago, and has only become truer with age.
"Iraq: New Strategies
May 17, 2004
By George Friedman
Last week, Stratfor published an analysis, "The Edge of the Razor," that sketched out the problems facing the United States in Iraq. In an avalanche of responses, one important theme stood out: Readers wanted to know what we would do, if we were in a position to do anything. Put differently, it is easy to catalogue problems, more difficult to provide solutions.
The point is not only absolutely true, but lies at the heart of intelligence. Intelligence organizations should not give policy suggestions. First, the craft of intelligence and state-craft are very different things. Second, and far more important, intelligence professionals should always resist the temptation to become policy advocates because, being mostly human, intelligence analysts want to be right -- and when they are advocates of a strategy, they will be tempted to find evidence that proves that policy to be correct and ignore evidence that might prove the policy in error. Advocating policies impairs the critical faculties. Besides, in a world in which opinions are commonplace, there is a rare value in withholding opinions. Finally, intelligence, as a profession, should be neutral. Now, we are far from personally neutral in any issue affecting our country, but in our professional -- as opposed to our personal -- lives, our task is to look at the world through the eyes of all of the players. Suggesting a strategy for defeating one side makes that obviously difficult.
That said, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. We normally try to figure out what is going to happen, what other people are going to do -- whether they know it or not -- and explain the actions of others. At times, people confuse Stratfor's analysis for our political position. This time -- this once -- we will write for ourselves -- or more precisely, for myself, since at Stratfor our views on the war range even wider than those among the general public.
The Mission
The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea. Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea among a series of even worse ideas. In the spring of 2003, the United States had no way to engage or defeat al Qaeda. The only way to achieve that was to force Saudi Arabia -- and lesser enabling countries such as Iran and Syria -- to change their policies on al Qaeda and crack down on its financial and logistical systems. In order to do that, the United States needed two things. First, it had to demonstrate its will and competence in waging war -- something seriously doubted by many in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Second, it had to be in a position to threaten follow-on actions in the region.
There were many drawbacks to the invasion, ranging from the need to occupy a large and complex country to the difficulty of gathering intelligence. Unlike many, we expected extended resistance in Iraq, although we did not expect the complexity of the guerrilla war that emerged. Moreover, we understood that the invasion would generate hostility toward the United States within the Islamic world, but we felt this would be compensated by dramatic shifts in the behavior of governments in the region. All of this has happened.
The essential point is that the invasion of Iraq was not and never should have been thought of as an end in itself. Iraq's only importance was its geographic location: It is the most strategically located country between the Mediterranean and the Hindu Kush. The United States needed it as a base of operations and a lever against the Saudis and others, but it had no interest -- or should have had no interest -- in the internal governance of Iraq.
This is the critical point on which the mission became complex, and the worst conceivable thing in a military operation took place: mission creep. Rather than focus on the follow-on operations that had to be undertaken against al Qaeda, the Bush administration created a new goal: the occupation and administration of Iraq by the United States, with most of the burden falling on the U.S. military. More important, the United States also dismantled the Iraqi government bureaucracy and military under the principle that de-Baathification had to be accomplished. Over time, this evolved to a new mission: the creation of democracy in Iraq.
Under the best of circumstances, this was not something the United States had the resources to achieve. Iraq is a complex and multi-layered society with many competing interests. The idea that the United States would be able to effectively preside over this society, shepherding it to democracy, was difficult to conceive even in the best of circumstances. Under the circumstances that began to emerge only days after the fall of Baghdad, it was an unachievable goal and an impossible mission. The creation of a viable democracy in the midst of a civil war, even if Iraqi society were amenable to copying American institutions, was an impossibility. The one thing that should have been learned in Vietnam was that the evolution of political institutions in the midst of a sustained guerrilla war is impossible.
The administration pursued this goal for a single reason: From the beginning, it consistently underestimated the Iraqis' capability to resist the United States. It underestimated the tenacity, courage and cleverness of the Sunni guerrillas. It underestimated the political sophistication of the Shiite leadership. It underestimated the forms of military and political resistance that would limit what the United States could achieve. In my view, the underestimation of the enemy in Iraq is the greatest failure of this administration, and the one for which the media rarely hold it accountable.
This miscalculation drew the U.S. Army into the two types of warfare for which it is least suited.
First, it drew the Army into the cities, where the work of reconstruction -- physical and political -- had to be carried out. Having dismantled Iraqi military and police institutions, the Army found itself in the role of policing the cities. This would have been difficult enough had there not been a guerrilla war. With a guerrilla war -- much of it concentrated in heavily urbanized areas and the roads connecting cities -- the Army found itself trapped in low-intensity urban warfare in which its technical advantages dissolved and the political consequences of successful counterattacks outweighed the value of defeating the guerrillas. Destroying three blocks of Baghdad to take out a guerrilla squad made military sense, but no political sense. The Army could neither act effectively nor withdraw.
Second, the Army was lured into counterinsurgency warfare. No subject has been studied more extensively by the U.S. Army, and no subject remains as opaque. The guerrilla seeks to embed himself among the general population. Distinguishing him is virtually impossible, particularly for a 20-year-old soldier or Marine who speaks not a word of the language nor understands the social cues that might guide him. In this circumstance, the soldier is simply a target, a casualty waiting to happen.
The usual solution is to raise an indigenous force to fight the guerrillas. The problem is that the most eager recruits for this force are the guerrillas themselves: They not only get great intelligence, but weapons, ammunition and three square meals a day. Sometimes, pre-existing militias are used, via a political arrangement. But these militias have very different agendas than those of the occupying force, and frequently maneuver the occupier into doing their job for them.
Strategies
The United States must begin by recognizing that it cannot possibly pacify Iraq with the force available or, for that matter, with a larger military force. It can continue to patrol, it can continue to question people, it can continue to take casualties. However, it can never permanently defeat the guerrilla forces in the Sunni triangle using this strategy. It certainly cannot displace the power and authority of the Shiite leadership in the south. Urban warfare and counterinsurgency in the Iraqi environment cannot be successful.
This means the goal of reshaping Iraqi society is beyond the reach of the United States. Iraq is what it is. The United States, having performed the service of removing Saddam Hussein from power, cannot reshape a society that has millennia of layers. The attempt to do so will generate resistance -- while that resistance can be endured, it cannot be suppressed.
The United States must recall its original mission, which was to occupy Iraq in order to prosecute the war against al Qaeda. If that mission is remembered, and the mission creep of reshaping Iraq forgotten, some obvious strategic solutions re-emerge. The first, and most important, is that the United States has no national interest in the nature of Iraqi government or society. Except for not supporting al Qaeda, Iraq's government does not matter. Since the Iraqi Shia have an inherent aversion to Wahabbi al Qaeda, the political path on that is fairly clear.
The United States now cannot withdraw from Iraq. We can wonder about the wisdom of the invasion, but a withdrawal under pressure would be used by al Qaeda and radical Islamists as demonstration of their core point: that the United States is inherently weak and, like the Soviet Union, ripe for defeat. Having gone in, withdrawal in the near term is not an option.
That does not mean U.S. forces must be positioned in and near urban areas. There is a major repositioning under way to reduce the size of the U.S. presence in the cities, but there is, nevertheless, a more fundamental shift to be made. The United States undertook responsibility for security in Iraq after its invasion. It cannot carry out this mission. Therefore, it has to abandon the mission. Some might argue this would leave a vacuum. We would argue there already is a vacuum, filled only with American and coalition targets. It is not a question of creating anarchy; anarchy already exists. It is a question of whether the United States wishes to lose soldiers in an anarchic situation.
The geography of Iraq provides a solution.
The bulk of Iraq's population lives in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys. To the south and west of the Euphrates River, there is a vast and relatively uninhabited region of Iraq -- not very hospitable, but with less shooting than on the other side. The western half of Iraq borders Saudi Arabia and Syria, two of the countries about which the United States harbors the most concern. A withdrawal from the river basins would allow the United States to carry out its primary mission -- maintaining regional pressure -- without engaging in an impossible war. Moreover, in the Kurdish regions of the northeast, where U.S. Special Forces have operated for a very long time, U.S. forces could be based -- and supplied -- in order to maintain a presence on the Iranian border.
Iraq should then be encouraged to develop a Shiite-dominated government, the best guarantor against al Qaeda and the greatest incentive for the Iranians not to destabilize the situation. The fate of the Sunnis will rest in the deal they can negotiate with the Shia and Kurds -- and, as they say, that is their problem.
The United States could supply the forces in western and southern Iraq from Kuwait, without the fear that convoy routes would be cut in urban areas. In the relatively uninhabited regions, distinguishing guerrillas from rocks would be somewhat easier than distinguishing them from innocent bystanders. The force could, if it chose, execute a broad crescent around Iraq, touching all the borders but not the populations.
The Iraqi government might demand at some point that the United States withdraw, but they would have no way to impose their demand, as they would if U.S. forces could continue to be picked off with improvised explosive devices and sniper fire. The geographical move would help to insulate U.S. forces from even this demand, assuming political arrangements could not be made. Certainly the land is inhospitable, and serious engineering and logistical efforts would be required to accommodate basing for large numbers of troops. However, large numbers of troops might not be necessary -- and the engineering and logistical problems certainly will not make headlines around the world.
Cutting Losses
Certainly, as a psychological matter, there is a retreat. The United States would be cutting losses. But it has no choice. It will not be able to defeat the insurgencies it faces without heavy casualties and creating chaos in Iraqi society. Moreover, a victory in this war would not provide the United States with anything that is in its national interest. Unless you are an ideologue -- which I am not -- who believes bringing American-style democracy to the world is a holy mission, it follows that the nature of the Iraqi government -- or chaos -- does not affect me.
What does affect me is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is trying to kill me. Countries such as Saudi Arabia permitted al Qaeda to flourish. The presence of a couple of U.S. armored divisions along the kingdom's northern border has been a very sobering thought. That pressure cannot be removed. Whatever chaos there is in Saudi Arabia, that is the key to breaking al Qaeda -- not Baghdad.
The key to al Qaeda is in Riyadh and in Islamabad. The invasion of Iraq was a stepping-stone toward policy change in Riyadh, and it worked. The pressure must be maintained and now extended to Islamabad. However, the war was never about Baghdad, and certainly never about Al Fallujah and An Najaf. Muqtada al-Sadr's relationship to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the makeup of the elders in Al Fallujah are matters of utter and absolute indifference to the United States. Getting drawn into those fights is in fact the quagmire -- a word we use carefully and deliberately.
But in the desert west and south of the Euphrates, the United States can carry out the real mission for which it came. And if the arc of responsibility extends along the Turkish frontier to Kurdistan, that is a manageable mission creep. The United States should not get out of Iraq. It must get out of Baghdad, Al Fallujah, An Najaf and the other sinkholes into which the administration's policies have thrown U.S. soldiers.
Again, this differs from our normal analysis in offering policy prescriptions. This is, of course, a very high-level sketch of a solution to an extraordinarily complex situation. Nevertheless, sometimes the solution to complex situations is to simplify them."
Your point was well made RSY.
Bill O'Reilly had some good points on the pin heads that questioned Gen. Petraeus today, and also the far left dems that will get the Republicans control of the Congress and the White House again next year.
It is time to change from REDNECK humor to TRUE AMERICAN Humor!
Only it isn't seen as HUMOR, but the correct way to LIVE YOUR LIFE! If you feel the same, pass this on to your True American friends. Y'all know who they are...
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, "One nation, under God"
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You still say "Christmas" instead of "Winter Festival."
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You bow your head when someone prays.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never burned an American flag.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend
Junior wrote:Tubby, I support America. I just see the Iraq War as the most dangerous thing to happen to America since the Civil War. Yes, more dangerous than Word War II. In that war, our enemies were countries and were finite in number. Now our enemy is an idea and the fanatics who support the idea grow in number every day. We are creating our own enemies.
We are not creating enemies, we are keeping them at bay. Evil people are creating our enemies using religion to give them power. Political power like Al Sadr or some feeling of power as with OBL, or actual power with God like Ahmadinejad (sp?). There's all kinds out there. However we are creating enemies no more than you do when you report a vandal at your Indian site or shoot an intruder into your home.
Quite frankly I would be proud to know that EVIL thinks of me as an enemy.
Sincerely,
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
+1
To Hobie
The enemies have been there since before OIF. Bin Laden was on the USMC watch list since the 90's. But the powers that be at the time were not concerned (Clinton). These terorists are nothing new lets not decieve our selves in to thinking that they would all go away if we leave Iraq. These people have been plotting your death for decades it just took the curent batch of Jihadists to get organized enough to be effective. but these guys are not a new thing. And I am much happier to kill them on their turf then to have to hunt them on mine.
Jeremy
GySgt USMC Ret
To err is human, To forgive is devine, Neither of which is Marine Corps policy Semper Fidelis
Junior wrote:Tubby, I support America. I just see the Iraq War as the most dangerous thing to happen to America since the Civil War. Yes, more dangerous than Word War II. In that war, our enemies were countries and were finite in number. Now our enemy is an idea and the fanatics who support the idea grow in number every day. We are creating our own enemies.
So what's your solution, Junior? You post a lot of "party-line" criticism/propaganda, but no alternatives. Your party seems to think that running like cowards will impress our enemies. What's your soultion?
Ok, let's head this back uphill a little............I think your attitude is like blaming the Lady for causing a rape and not the rapist. The war didn't start with 911 and certainly did not end with it. Iraq drew in the crazies to us on Iraqi soil and not ours. Good. The only reason any crazy might be chuckling at us is that half the country would rather concentrate on regaining power in the Capital instead of killing the enemy any possible way we can. That we exist and support Israel and have a presence in the MidEast is reason enough to hate us. The Liberals have taught our enemy how to kill us. Thanks.
Let the Sunnis and the Shiites have their civil war. Iraq will divide the ruins into three states: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. We have zero business in someone else's civil war. After the division, we can easily use Cruise missiles to keep the leaders of each faction under control. That's my point: there will be a leader to rise and control each faction. A Cruise missile through his roof will show him a light not of the sun.
Let the Sunnis and the Shiites have their civil war. Iraq will divide the ruins into three states: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. We have zero business in someone else's civil war. After the division, we can easily use Cruise missiles to keep the leaders of each faction under control. That's my point: there will be a leader to rise and control each faction. A Cruise missile through his roof will show him a light not of the sun.
Let them murder one another without restraint. Oh, and don't we feel so good about allowing that in Cambodia, Rwanda, Somalia and Serbia? Well, don't we?
I heard from a fellow who was on staff intelligence with Gen. Petraeus today. He seems to think that we've done a great deal of good in Iraq and can succeed. Poor fool was deluded by the General and POTUS, I'm sure.
Junior wrote:Let the Sunnis and the Shiites have their civil war. Iraq will divide the ruins into three states: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. We have zero business in someone else's civil war. After the division, we can easily use Cruise missiles to keep the leaders of each faction under control. That's my point: there will be a leader to rise and control each faction. A Cruise missile through his roof will show him a light not of the sun.
So your solution is to nuke anybody who gets out of line. You don't think that will cause any ill will in the Moslem world.
Junior wrote:Let the Sunnis and the Shiites have their civil war. Iraq will divide the ruins into three states: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. We have zero business in someone else's civil war. After the division, we can easily use Cruise missiles to keep the leaders of each faction under control. That's my point: there will be a leader to rise and control each faction. A Cruise missile through his roof will show him a light not of the sun.
So your solution is to nuke anybody who gets out of line. You don't think that will cause any ill will in the Moslem world.
man, I am on this site to talk about and learn about leverguns
However, I do wish to share some information:
This conflict did not start with 9/11/01;
Did not start with Biden Laden;
Not Bush's or Clinton's or George Washington's fault.
Historically, there has been a struggle between islam and christianity for over 1500 years. The average jihadist will trace his lineage back to the time of the crusades and tell you his family history: how his father opposed the jews; grandfather opposed the British and French; great great great grandfather opposed the crusaders. They view this as a continued struggle for generations.
We have been passed the torch of Judeo-Christian based Western Civilization. We are the new standard bearer whether we like it or not...therefore we are the target.
It will not end with this adminstration or Iraq.
Redneck suicide note: Here, hold my beer and watch this!!
Junior wrote:Let the Sunnis and the Shiites have their civil war. Iraq will divide the ruins into three states: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. We have zero business in someone else's civil war. After the division, we can easily use Cruise missiles to keep the leaders of each faction under control. That's my point: there will be a leader to rise and control each faction. A Cruise missile through his roof will show him a light not of the sun.
So your solution is to nuke anybody who gets out of line. You don't think that will cause any ill will in the Moslem world.
It can ONLY be the same a**holes that want Bush & Co impeached. The fact the NP po-lice are impotent is without excuse. Their non- presence at the Monument is indicative of their lack of any sort of commitment.
Junior, I tend to agree with you. BUT your democratic party would rather kiss the behind of the bad guys instead of kick it.
Does this mean that you will vote for Fred Thompson or Rudy???
Your party Junior is controlled by the Rosie O'Donnell's and the Hollywood liberals.
Name one person running for the Dems. that isn't in bed with Move on.org.
You don't think that will cause any ill will in the Moslem world. 
