Did anyone ever read James Webb's "The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty"?

[Yeager]

Mav, we could continue this discussion for the sake of everything and still get nowhere.  Bottom line here, Bush is CIC and he has completely and totally screwed this operation up.  I always used to give the guy the benifit of a doubt, and I always believed he surrounded himself with extremely bright people who had only the long term best interest of the United States at heart (you know, the type of people that actually pronounce basic words correctly), but I do not believe this now.  Not by a long shot.  I still do believe that long term success in Iraq is possible and I hope the "new" strategy"...yes, the one that should have been implimented in spring of 2005, will finally turn this thing around but I'll tell you this, if we get to December of 2007 and things have not started to seriously improve in Iraq then we will be screwed like we havent been screwed as a nation since late 1941.  We will be looking at a very bleak global picture and George Bush will be the dolt that engineered it all.

[Maverick]

Yeag,

This isn't just for you but for quite a few others who say pretty much the same thing.

It's easy to criticise. It takes no real mental effort to lay blame and claim thigs have failed. It might be a bit more effective to say there were mistakes and this is how it should have been done. Then again that would mean sufficient thought was exercised to actually have an alternative in mind.

I really want to know just what strategy folks think would have prevented the situation, or at least controlled it better once the main combat was over. That's why I asked the question. Having heard nothing to date all I can do is be reminded of the same old stuff we heard in the last Presidential election.  "I would do it better"; "I have a plan", with nothing added to the phrases to actually make that claim valid. I really want too hear what the real good strategy would be. So far the only strategy I have heard in a lot of the debate (here and in the news) is just pack up and leave. The rest is simply repeating the same old stuff. Failure, quagmire, disaster, etc etc with nothing to offer as an alternative.

[Hap]

Originally posted by Maverick
So far the only strategy I have heard in a lot of the debate (here and in the news) is just pack up and leave. The rest is simply repeating the same old stuff. Failure, quagmire, disaster, etc etc with nothing to offer as an alternative.

Ok, so you can say you "heard" it.  To win hands down in Iraq, and make the Mid-East into gas pump for the West, you'll have to destroy it, kill millions, and fashion the way the West wants it.


Now, here's hap's plan: turn our backs on oil.  Go electric, rubber bands, or horse and buggy, I don't care.  Though I prefer electric.

Done,

hap

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Eagler
thx Red Tail, we are fine - the tornandoes hit east of us. we had a bad line of thunderstorms and high winds but the middle of the state got hammered

appreciate your concern

good to know you and yours are fine, we now return you to our regularly scheduled debating...er...programming

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Hap
Ok, so you can say you "heard" it.  To win hands down in Iraq, and make the Mid-East into gas pump for the West, you'll have to destroy it, kill millions, and fashion the way the West wants it.


Now, here's hap's plan: turn our backs on oil.  Go electric, rubber bands, or horse and buggy, I don't care.  Though I prefer electric.

Done,

hap

When you have a sane, realistic, workable plan, let us know. Nothing in your post is even close to based in reality.

In fact, what you posted is no different than John Kerry's "I have a plan (I'm not telling you what it is, but I have a plan)" and "I would have done it differently and better (but I won't tell you how I'd have done it better)".

Any idiot can offer a "plan" that is completely useless and call it a "plan". But such a "plan" is of no worth to anyone since it cannot be executed, and is in fact worse than no plan at all.

However just such a "plan" is evidently all you need to get elected, as November 2006 proved.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Toad
How do you know a strategy is unworkable until it has been tried?

Rumsfeld's war strategy was untried; many people, me included, thought the in-theater forces were insufficient for the job. His strategy there proved correct and almost incredibly so.

He had a similar strategy for the peace; most thought it included insufficient forces once again. Then again, there was a presumption the Iraqis would have a little more tolerance for their fellow Iraqis of different Muslim sects. That presumption proved unfounded.

What Rumsfeld was missing was the ability to adjust his post-war strategy. He just didn't seem to be able to admit it wasn't working.

If you insist upon a parallel, perhaps it is there. McNamara never had a strategy that worked in practice. His war-fighting plan was a failure and he never was able to admit it didn't work.

So you can parallel McNamara's unwillingness to adjust his war plan with Rumsfeld's unwillingness to adjust his peace plan.

I'm not buying into the "unworkable from before the start" allegation however.

There's an old saying String: the battle plan is usually the first casualty. I don't know how one knows a plan is irrevocably unworkable until you give it a try. OTOH, the willingness to re-evaluate and re-plan is essential. Rumsfeld failed to do that after winning the war. McNamara failed to do it throughout the war.

Toad,
Yes, that is the parallel I was referring to....you just restated it.  Both were unwilling to re-evaluate and re-plan.  And that's not insisting on a parallel.....it is THE parallel that counts.

And the assumption that the differing sects would just get along all of a sudden..... .    Hell, we KNEW Saddam hated the *****es,  ...the ones that happen to populate Iran...his bitter enemy.  We counted on him to hate them...he WAS our counter-balance to Iran.   He brutalized them in his own country (of which they are the majority), and we thought they'd all just sing kumbaya??   My guess is revenge and power grab were not terms tossed about in the what-if sessions.

We did for Iran, what Iran couldn't do for itself.  Now THAT's irony....

[Toad]

Originally posted by Stringer
The parellel is neither one had a workable strategy to acheive success for their situation.  

So what you really meant to say is the parallel is not the above quote, it's this quote?

Both were unwilling to re-evaluate and re-plan.

That's true.

But again, Rumsfeld won his war in short order. McNamara never, ever knew how to fight the war.

And without winning the war, there's no need for a peace plan.

Yeah, Rumsfeld should have re-evaluated. Bush should have fired him when he would not.

Water over the dam now.

[Toad]

BTW, Mav, I think for starters we needed way more occupation troops. On the order of double at a minimum. And yes, I do think that troops on every corner would have made a difference.

[Toad]

And String... back to the topic at hand, what do you think of Webb and his becoming what he decried in 1995?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Toad
BTW, Mav, I think for starters we needed way more occupation troops. On the order of double at a minimum. And yes, I do think that troops on every corner would have made a difference.

I think that thought is overstated.
I do not think triple the troops would have made a difference if they were not allowed to handle the "insurgency" any differently than the original troops were allowed to. Even then, how do you fight someone who is willing to blow themselves up to kill you, their enemy of their god. Israel is still working on that one. IMO we would have still had 3k killed by now even with the additional feet on the ground. It is one of those ‘what ifs’ that ppl like to say it should have been done this way instead the way it was.
Now if we’d used the additional troops (imo aircraft) to send Syria and Iran a very strong message as soon as we determined that many if not most of the cheekboness and their weapons were entering Iraq from their borders, maybe that would have stemmed the flow and enable the Iraqi/US/GB forces to establish control.
At least now we are getting additional aircraft into place to send that message if the right opportunity presents itself

[Toad]

Well, additional troops would have allowed a serious presence on the streets but there would have had to be ROE changes as well. al Sadr was wanted on murder charges but it was determined that he was a "hands off" case. Should have brought him to justice I think.


As for suicide bombers, take your Israel example. They don't have it every day like Iraq seems to; how are they accomplishing that? By taking troops/police off the streets and reducing their numbers? Correct me if I'm wrong but they increased their checkpoints.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Toad
And String... back to the topic at hand, what do you think of Webb and his becoming what he decried in 1995?

What do I think?  I think these are quotes more relevant to today...


Qoute--

" In one of the most passionate commentaries on the Iraqi war, the decorated war veteran spoke of his family’s military past, his own passionate attachment to the military, and the way in which previous presidents had always attempted to ensure that all precautions had been taken when sending young Americans into harm’s way. Here are the words that put the boot into Bush: “We owed (our leaders) our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

“The president took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf war, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed.”

And this--

Quote--

"What we really need to do is to get into the arena where we can talk about a strategy, talk about the pluses and the minuses of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and work toward a solution that, on the one hand, will allow us to remove our combat troops, but on the other, will increase the stability of the region, allow us to continue to fight against international terrorism and allow us, as a nation, to address our strategic interests around the world. And this is—this is one of the drawbacks that we've had with so many troops having been put into this constant rotational basis inside one country when we have a war against international terrorism that's global."
When asked by Wolf Blitzer if he would ever support the efforts of Dennis Kucinich to cut funding for the war, Webb responded by stating "I—you know, I lived through Vietnam. I lived through it as a Marine and I know that those sorts of approaches, while they seem attractive on one level are really not that realistic. What we want to do—and I was talking with a number of senators today—is to try to get some of these so-called emergency legislation packages back into the committee process so that the committees can actually play


And your water over the dam dismissal......I don't buy that.  As long as Iraq is the way it is and that region is destabalized as bad as it is, THAT is not water over the dam.

People still can't get over Clinton, BJ's, and lying....this has just tad bit more consequences associated with it.  (for the record, it's about the lying, not about the BJ's)

[Maverick]

I have to agree with Eagler on this one. The issue is not how many troops are on the ground it's got more to do with the ROE and the battlefield environment. The enemy has no ROE other than cause casualties. If their own non combatant folks die then that what allah wanted. If they kill themselves and take out one or more of the enemy then that's what allah wanted.

As long as one side is limited in their response and the other side is not, you cannot stop attacks from being made or effective. If the goal is to save as many lives as possible (Western thinking and frankly, I think it's the best way to think) and the other side has the concept of kill them all and let allah sort them out, the choice of battlefield is given to one side alone. Allowing collateral damage to limit your options means your response will be limited as well particularly when the opposition embeds themselves in the area you are trying to protect. Lebanon was a wonderful example of this last year. Playing the world media like a violin also is a force multiplier of incredible power as long as one side is concerned with what the rest of the world thinks.

We're back to the concept of not bombing the missile sites in hanoi because they are located next to a hospital or school.

If, as has been suggested, the majority of the problem has been outside insurgents then the border needs to be locked down like a drum head. Strikes on infiltration in quick response where there would be little regard for collateral damage would be picking the battlefield of our choosing and the full weight of arms can be brought to bear.

On the other hand, if this is primarily a civil or internal strife, not too much can be done until one side or the other decides there has been a victor.

One of the problems with unconventional warfare is that it cannot be effectively dealt with conventionally unless the opposition decides to engage in a pitched battle. IE. the TET ofensive which effectively wiped out the VC as a force in spite of the media reports. The best way to combat it is with unconventional warfare in return. That means infiltration of the enemy forces, intel and strikes when they gather. It's also going to be a long conflict as you have to wear the other side down and those that supply them.

At this point in time I'm starting to shift to the thought that the best role for the west to play right now is simple. One of score keeper. Tell both sides that the west will withdraw to a specific line away from the area of conflict. Both sides are invited to deal with their situation until they decide it's been resolved. We'll then deal with the victor diplomatically. Of course that's overly simplistic and could be bad news depending on who wins and their ideology. It's still a nice thought but would require a civilized victor willing to engage in diplomacy. It also wouldn't be thought well of in the "civilized" world any more than paving the area except for the oil fields and allowing an entity like the UN to have a "stewardship of the resources.

No matter what strategy is adopted, the one certainty is that people will die in fairly large numbers. What remains, is to choose which people and where. There's that nasty national interest thing popping up again.


]

Originally posted by Eagler
I think that thought is overstated.
I do not think triple the troops would have made a difference if they were not allowed to handle the "insurgency" any differently than the original troops were allowed to. Even then, how do you fight someone who is willing to blow themselves up to kill you, their enemy of their god. Israel is still working on that one. IMO we would have still had 3k killed by now even with the additional feet on the ground. It is one of those ‘what ifs’ that ppl like to say it should have been done this way instead the way it was.
Now if we’d used the additional troops (imo aircraft) to send Syria and Iran a very strong message as soon as we determined that many if not most of the cheekboness and their weapons were entering Iraq from their borders, maybe that would have stemmed the flow and enable the Iraqi/US/GB forces to establish control.
At least now we are getting additional aircraft into place to send that message if the right opportunity presents itself

[Toad]

OK, String,

Here's what I said:

Yeah, Rumsfeld should have re-evaluated. Bush should have fired him when he would not.

Water over the dam now

And you said:

And your water over the dam dismissal......I don't buy that. As long as Iraq is the way it is and that region is destabalized as bad as it is, THAT is not water over the dam.

Englighten me. If Rumsfeld's failure to re-evaluate and Bush's failure to fire Rumsfeld earlier are NOT water over the dam.... then you tell me how you address those two issues now.

As for Webb, let's take a look at his relevant quotes TODAY..Sunday.. on Chris Wallace/Fox.

Read the transcript, particularly the part at the end where Wallace asks him:

WALLACE: Okay. You, as you point out, fought in Vietnam where you won the Navy Cross. And back in 1985, you had this to say. Let's put it up on the screen.

"If I had one lesson that stands out in my mind, it is that you cannot fight a war and debate it at the same time." Senator, why not? What's the problem, especially for our troops, when we're trying to fight a war and debating it at the same time here at home?

Read it and tell me if Webb ever answers that directly, despite repeated requests from Wallace. The part on Petraeus and his plan is illuminating as well.

Wallace/Webb


Sorry, I don't have much respect for Webb. He is exactly like the people he decried post-Vietnam.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by Toad
.... then you tell me how you address those two issues now.

Because we will be dealing with the consequences of those failures for a long while....that's why, to me, it's not water over the dam.  

That's just me.  You know how I felt about this, and you know my political leanings.  I actual believe in power projection and use.  I certainly am disappointed that it was squandered....along with ALOT of our money.

How we deal with them....I admit, I do like alot of what the Baker-Hamilton report suggests.  I don't think force surge alone is the answer.  I think get the soldiers on the street corners like you suggest.  Back that up with the things that make  people happier....electricity, working sewers, infrastructure stuff...but make sure it gets done, not go into some slush fund.  

Actually manage the damn thing.  Something this admin did not do after it won the war....it did not manage and win the peace.  Kind of makes winning the war less of an accomplishment when applied to it's overall goal.  WWI should have taught us that.

You don't like Webb...fine by me, I didn't even know who he was before your post.  

Of course, Webb must be the first evar politician not to answer a question directly.  He happens to be your ox to gord.  Mine are Rummy, et. al.  

I read the entire transcript.  I guess you'll have to point out how this interview differs from what we get on both sides of the aisle.

I do think Wallace hit the nail on the head here:
 

because it would seem — I know it does to a lot of people — that Iran is thoroughly enjoying the fact that we're tied down and that our blood and treasure is being spent in Iraq.

What did you think of the entire content?

BTW, we need to get Rude and Milo, You and I together for another BBQ Lunch!

I can get away most days for some lunch depending on my meeting schedule!