Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sakai on December 01, 2005, 02:19:59 PM
-
This sums it up--standing around saying "we good, we win" is neither a plan nor leadership, it's pedantry and demagoguery. It's why we won't win with a strategy as pathetic as W's, as badly as we need to win.
Plan: We Win
We've seen it before: an embattled president so swathed in his inner circle that he completely loses touch with the public and wanders around among small knots of people who agree with him. There was Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's, Richard Nixon in the 1970's, and George H. W. Bush in the 1990's. Now it's his son's turn.
It has been obvious for months that Americans don't believe the war is going just fine, and they needed to hear that President Bush gets that. They wanted to see that he had learned from his mistakes and adjusted his course, and that he had a measurable and realistic plan for making Iraq safe enough to withdraw United States troops. Americans didn't need to be convinced of Mr. Bush's commitment to his idealized version of the war. They needed to be reassured that he recognized the reality of the war.
Instead, Mr. Bush traveled 32 miles from the White House to the Naval Academy and spoke to yet another of the well-behaved, uniformed audiences that have screened him from the rest of America lately. If you do not happen to be a midshipman, you'd have to have been watching cable news at midmorning on a weekday to catch him.
The address was accompanied by a voluminous handout entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which the White House grandly calls the newly declassified version of the plan that has been driving the war. If there was something secret about that plan, we can't figure out what it was. The document, and Mr. Bush's speech, were almost entirely a rehash of the same tired argument that everything's going just fine. Mr. Bush also offered the usual false choice between sticking to his policy and beating a hasty and cowardly retreat.
On the critical question of the progress of the Iraqi military, the president was particularly optimistic, and misleading. He said, for instance, that Iraqi security forces control major areas, including the northern and southern provinces and cities like Najaf. That's true if you believe a nation can be built out of a change of clothing: these forces are based on party and sectarian militias that have controlled many of these same areas since the fall of Saddam Hussein but now wear Iraqi Army uniforms. In other regions, the most powerful Iraqi security forces are rogue militias that refuse to disarm and have on occasion turned their guns against American troops, like Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
Mr. Bush's vision of the next big step is equally troubling: training Iraqi forces well enough to free American forces for more of the bloody and ineffective search-and-destroy sweeps that accomplish little beyond alienating the populace.
What Americans wanted to hear was a genuine counterinsurgency plan, perhaps like one proposed by Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a leading writer on military strategy: find the most secure areas with capable Iraqi forces. Embed American trainers with those forces and make the region safe enough to spend money on reconstruction, thus making friends and draining the insurgency. Then slowly expand those zones and withdraw American forces.
Americans have been clamoring for believable goals in Iraq, but Mr. Bush stuck to his notion of staying until "total victory." His strategy document defines that as an Iraq that "has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency"; is "peaceful, united, stable, democratic and secure"; and is a partner in the war on terror, an integral part of the international community, and "an engine for regional economic growth and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region."
That may be the most grandiose set of ambitions for the region since the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's son Belshazzar, who saw the hand writing on the wall. Mr. Bush hates comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. But after watching the president, we couldn't resist reading Richard Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization speech. Substitute the Iraqi constitutional process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr. Bush's ideas about the Iraqi Army are not much different from Nixon's plans - except Nixon admitted the war was going very badly (which was easier for him to do because he didn't start it), and he was very clear about the risks and huge sacrifices ahead.
A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon needs to get out more.
-
so, whats your "plan"?
-
I'm planning on not voting for any incumbents.
That's my plan.
;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
so, whats your "plan"?
Knowing and pointing out that something is wrong doesnt mean you must have a plan. If you havent noticed this bunch of leaders doesnt listen to anyone who doesnt march in lockstep with them.
It is our duty as Americans to point out the mistakes and misrepresentations of our current leaders and to question them.
Or are you saying that even if the pres is wrong we shouldnt criticise him as we dont have a plan?
And by the way you can google as well as I. The dems have always had a plan... http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
The Reps just choose to ignore them as they dont have power..
-
Everyone seems to think we are losing, except for the guys over there
-
In Vietnam, we won almost all the battles over there, too...
-
Plan: We Win
If that is the plan I am all for it.....
After all.... to fight till we win is the same plan the U.S. had in WW2. It worked then, why is that a "bad" plan now?
CAVALRY
-
It's simple: We stay and get the job done, and we win. The job is getting done, so we are winning.
What's the problem again?
-
Couple of thousand dead sons/husbands/fathers with every possability of plenty more?
Thats one problem.
One dead soldier is one too many, it isnt a reason to give up, pack up and go home, but it IS a reason to modify or adjust your planning, both short term and long term.
If the people at home in the countries that make up the 'Coalition of the willing' grow tired of the deaths of their sons before the people of Iraq and neighbouring regions grow tired of sending their sons to paradise in a fight against the infidel, we then have another problem.
I dont claim to have a solution for either, or for that matter a plan to prevent such problems, but I can understand why folks might want to know what GW Bush's plan is, and the solutions he has in store.
Im all for kicking the living **** out of the radical extremist muslim terrorists/militia/armies over there, but doing so at it's current cost in lives could prove to be untenable in the long term, and long term is what its all about isnt it?
-
You guys should have voted for Kerry b/c he already had 'a plan' in 2004...
My X-mas wish for the US is that somebody will dig up an obscure amendment in the Constitution which allows to dismiss GWB from the White House and force Powell to take the job.
-
"one dead soldier is too many."
soldiers die so civilians dont have to. simple as that. all you have to do is commit seriously to public works projects and the people will respect us (fingers crossed).
also,
you cannot compare our current situation with WWII. they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WARS. you cant win insurgency wars just by killing.
-
Rule #1 in war
You never make your plans public knowledge
-
exactly. just like you dont make it known to everyone when you are leaving. but at least the iraqi government should know that last one.
-
In vietnam we won all the battles and we won complete control of the south... we pulled out and abondened the "plan" (promise) to support the south and they lost the war we had won for them. We won but the south lost.
We have won in Iraq... there are no enemy held positions. we need to help them clear out terrorists for a while and then support their military and police when we pull out after they are sufficiently trained.
sandie... by not voting for any incumbent... you really mean... not voting for any incumbent except the liberal ones.
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
so, whats your "plan"?
As mentioned elsewhere, set goals, meet them and turn the place over. Bush's goals are 1) nebulous and indistinct allowing them to be interpreted too widely depending on the viewpoint so if we say "we won!" the enemy and the world could well say "you lost!" 2) Not feasible. We don't have the number of men or the political will power to stay in that place and fight for 100 years. It is not possible to achieve complete military victory.
The GOP senate said the same. It isn't "liberals wanting to bail" it's Americans acknowledging the reality of the situation. Bush is out of touch, that doesn't mean we have to flush our troops down the drain with his ego.
I know guys hate to say "OK, I voted for him and I was wrong." It's tough, but we can't waste our military like this again.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In vietnam we won all the battles and we won complete control of the south... we pulled out and abondened the "plan" (promise) to support the south and they lost the war we had won for them. We won but the south lost.
We have won in Iraq... there are no enemy held positions. we need to help them clear out terrorists for a while and then support their military and police when we pull out after they are sufficiently trained.
sandie... by not voting for any incumbent... you really mean... not voting for any incumbent except the liberal ones.
lazs
False.
Did we win the Ia Drang Battles?
Not really, we held our own in one and got slaughtered in ambush on another--read Hal Moore's book.
Did we "win the south" absolutely not. As soon as we left they retook whatever area we vacated. Most of "the south" in Vietnam wanted to be communist.
I don't know what BS history rewrite you've read but that's falsifiable: absolute BS.
How many times do we have to retake Fallujah and Ramadi?
"Oh yeah baby, that's a win all right! If you keep retaking it because you can't control it, it's a win!"
Right Dorothy.
Just click your heels together and say "Mission Accomplished".
Viet Nam was not a military victory, period.
Sakai
-
Sakai, that's quite a dissertation (sp?) there. I guess it's easier to jump on the band wagon, or follow the crowd, or kick a man when he's down (or choose your own metaphor) than it is to try and imagine what the long-term reults of any action might be. (that might tax your reasoning ability beyond its limit).
Or perhaps you just like to see your ideas in print. Kinda like some folks just like to hear themselves talk.
-
saki... moores book doesn't really get much past 1969...
Read sorleys book " A better War" to see just how much area was controlled by 72. under westmoreland you are correct... when we pulled out they pulled back in... that was not the case under Abrams. There was no major offensive mounted by the North for years... even after we left the South held on with what was left ion country for a few years... down to a few bullets a man.
I don't know what you want.... do you want every plan the U.S. strategists come up with to be published for your scrutiny? What would satisfy you for a plan?
I'm sorry but..It seems hypocritical to me that you want a more detailed plan than that given but that you offer no details at all for your plan for withdrawal...
surely... you must have some withdrawal plan that you like?
lazs
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Sakai, that's quite a dissertation (sp?) there. I guess it's easier to jump on the band wagon, or follow the crowd, or kick a man when he's down (or choose your own metaphor) than it is to try and imagine what the long-term reults of any action might be. (that might tax your reasoning ability beyond its limit).
Or perhaps you just like to see your ideas in print. Kinda like some folks just like to hear themselves talk.
Right, there's long term thinking in these guys' plans, that is why no one has ever espoused a plan and none of them knew what would happen when they invaded, what the peace would be like etc. See, they thought so long term that planning the next five years was out, right? Boy does that make sense!
Who here is not thinking long term?
Bush didn't, his apologists keep excusing the poor planning and stupid handling as "being visionary." Oh yeah baby!
Right. It's just covert vision we can't know about because it's too secret, right? That's why we were greeted by rose petals and the peace was so easy to maintain, right?
Zero effective planning matey, zero.
No clue as to what would happen when we took over, none. They wer ecaught flat footed and eveyrone in the world knows it, even Bush admits it now. So who was thinking long term here?
Oh and your boy's speech? Here you go, he lied again:
What's that adage about the first casualty of war?
In his speech on Iraq yesterday, George W. Bush cited military operations in Tal Afar as proof of the progress that Iraqi security forces are making. In Fallujah a year ago, the president said, the Iraqis' role was mostly "limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops." In Tal Afar this year, Bush said, "it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces -- 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support."
Time magazine reporter Michael Ware was embedded with U.S. troops who fought at Tal Afar, and he says things didn't play out quite like the president claimed. In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper last night -- Think Progress has the video -- Ware said: "I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaida. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. Green Beret Special Forces with them -- Green Berets who were following an American plan of attack, who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing."
Now, if you have a vision and it's working why do you keep having to lie or miscite data to make your point? Shouldn't it sell itself on its obvious merits?
Sakai
-
Ike's plan for D-day
dear mr hitler, we are planing to invade normandy as soon as we get a break in the weather, i will let you know the date when we are ready.
Ike
-
Saki.. yer take on Vietnam is neither complete or correct.
Next, before you hop on any wagon it's always a good idea to check if it's got wheels.
I'm a huge fan of ending the war in Iraq in the strongest terms.. being a Vietnam vet I have the view that we are wasting troops and shadow boxing a very difficult to eradicate enemy.
I'd like to see a massive ramp up on the war on terror. I'd like this country to adopt a 'total war' footing, return the draft, re-tool the war industry and kick massive butt on the same scale as WWII. No more brush-fire skirmishes.. no more peeing mens lives away in piddly little pointless skirmishes. Take out the goverments that sponsor terror, worldwide. End it. The iron-shod boot of a Pax-Americana, world-wide. We're a super-power, time we put this Islamic Jihad crap back in the latrine.
If we can't get THAT, then at the very least I'm for letting the Iraqi's get the lions share of the combat work in Iraq NOW. I have no objection to American led Iraqi units. Putting 4 of our guys in charge of 100 Iraqi fighters is better than 25,000 of our kids under fire 24/7 with the Iraqi's getting 1 week outta 4 home on leave, as it stands now.
I'm not comfortable with a drawn-out 5 year rebuild program in Iraq. We can do better. America needs to make the commitment. Problem is, the media and the liberal snipers are gonna keep ramping up the at-home indignation to this new 'vietnam'.. It does not bode well for our trroops, the iraqi people or the region.
Either kick bellybutton on the grand scale, or lets focus on getting the kids out in the most expedient way possible. I don't see Islam ramping down their 'plan' for area domination. We're fools to think we can play this game and win with anything less than a maximum concentrated and extremely convincing show of determination and commitment on a completely global scale.
Just my .02