What happened to the military??

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Mike wrote:I heard on the radio that recruitment is down again
Thought you might find this chart interesting, Mike.

Image

Also, check out today's WSJ. Interesting article about ROTC making its way back onto Ivy League campuses. These programs were shut down in te 1960s as a protest against the Vietnam War. And now they are possibly coming back. The stumbling blocks though are interesting, such as gays in the military vs. Ivy League school policies on gay rights.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Mike

Here's another "interesting" article today. Don't shoot the messenger, BTW. I'm just passing the news along.

- Bill

Bush Acknowledges Iraqi Troops Aren't Ready
At News Conference, President Also Vows to Slash Deficit
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP


WASHINGTON (Dec. 20) -- President Bush pointedly acknowledged Monday that U.S.-trained Iraqi troops are not ready to take over their country's security, and cautioned that next month's elections there are only the beginning of a long process toward democracy.

''I certainly don't expect the process to be trouble-free,'' Bush said at a year-end news conference in which he signaled tough spending cuts to come and declined to offer specific solutions to Social Security's solvency.

Bush also gave a fresh vote of confidence to embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ''He's doing a very fine job,'' the president said.

{snip}

On Iraq, Bush accused insurgents there of trying to ''disrupt the democratic process'' and urged the American people to remain patient well beyond the Jan. 30 elections as Iraqis craft a constitution and strengthen their security forces.

''The elections in January are the beginning of a process and it is important for the American people to understand that,'' he said.

Critics have raised questions about whether enough U.S. troops are in Iraq to bring security for the elections. More than 1,300 American troops have died since the war began in March 2003. Also, soldiers have complained about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment.

Bush said ''I would call the results mixed'' on a U.S. effort to put Iraqi security in the hands of its own people.

''There have been some cases where, when the heat got on, they left the battlefield - that is unacceptable,'' he said. ''... We are under no illusion that this Iraqi force is not ready to fight in toto.''

Essential to the American strategy for withdrawing its troops from Iraq is the effort to train Iraqi forces for security and combat. But doubts have been raised from several quarters about the effectiveness of the effort and the reliability of Iraqi security forces.

{snip}

As for Rumsfeld, a growing number of lawmakers, including Republicans, have voiced no confidence in the defense secretary. But Bush defended his Pentagon chief.

''Beneath that rough and gruff no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being who cares deeply about the military and the grief that war causes,'' Bush said, batting away criticism that Rumsfeld had not personally signed condolence letters to the families of troops who have died.

Rumsfeld agreed to Bush's request this month to stay in the Cabinet during the president's second term and has received steadfast support from the White House since.

Bush defended his close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has had disagreements over the war on terror and, more recently, over the disputed elections in Ukraine. U.S. and Soviet officials said Monday that Bush and Putin would meet in Slovakia on Feb. 24 as part of an effort to improve U.S. relations with European nations.

''The relationship's an important relationship and I would call the relationship a good relationship,'' Bush said, adding that he's talked with Putin about getting Russia admitted to the World Trade Organization.

Bush also said he will work toward giving both Russia and the United States equal access to nuclear storage sites.

Earlier this month, Putin said he could not imagine how Iraqi elections could be held under ''conditions of occupation by foreign forces,'' a pointed reference to the United States.

{snip}
mikemurphy
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Contact:

more and more

Post by mikemurphy »

Bill sensei,

I've been watching this thing too. It's amazing that Bush will continue to pour in bad money after good in a losing effort (a la Vietnam) until someday, someone will realize this and we'll get out of there. It's a shame that more lives will be lost before this conclusion becomes evident in the White House. Rumsfeld ought to be warming up his pen, he'll be busy when those "elections" get started.

mike
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

As the new defense secretary, what is your policy on Iraq, Mr. Murphy?

- Bill
mikemurphy
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Contact:

Mr. Sec. of Defense?

Post by mikemurphy »

Well, as Sec. of Defense, my police would not be a popular one amoung the Iron Youth of America, but it would certainly be popular amoung those who wish to see Daddy or Mommy or one of the kids home for the holidays.

Listen, this is rehashing the argument, but we are embroiled in a place where no peace or democracy (as we want it) is ever going to exist. Why can't we accept that? I know that you think Mr. Bush is there for all the right reasons, but personally I think it is all BS (and you know the reasons I am alluding to), but it's simply a matter of being idealistic or realistic at this point. Idealistically, if we could make Iraq an example to the world that peace and democracy can be brought to a place of such instability, and that the citizens of the US were willing to spend 1 Billion/wk on for as long as it took, then I may go with that. But as Sec. of Defense, I would certainly make sure they went with the proper equipment and listen to the advice of my military commanders seeing that I have no military experience.

Realistically speaking though, they are never going to accept us, nor is the region as a whole. Change has to come from within and not be forced down their collective throats. Democracy works for us, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone. There are plenty of working, happy societies on the planet that are not democracies. Does this mean that leaving Saddam in power was the right choice? Absolutely not, but staying in this place without global support (argue that if you wish, but the US and Britain are the one's footing the bill) is a no win situation, and we'll eventually have to leave anyway. Do it now while we have the chance I say.

Here's a plan if we really did not do this for the oil and really care about bringing a better life to the Iraqi people. Why don't we do what we did in Vietnam and threaten to pull our troops out of South Korea to bring to Iraq. South Korea would then volunteer their troops go instead, and we all know the success they had in dealing with the enemy in Vietnam??? Just a suggestion from your Sec. of Defense.

mike

PS. Isn't it funny how I posted that last comment and then the news of the attack on the US base occured.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Mr. Secretary

I am most impressed by the respect and caring you show for your troops. And I am happy to see you have not completely lost your idealism.

Here's what I see...
Mike wrote:Democracy works for us, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone. There are plenty of working, happy societies on the planet that are not democracies. Does this mean that leaving Saddam in power was the right choice? Absolutely not, but staying in this place without global support (argue that if you wish, but the US and Britain are the one's footing the bill) is a no win situation, and we'll eventually have to leave anyway. Do it now while we have the chance I say.
Where is cxt when we need him (in proper dose, of course... :wink: )? What you expressed, sir, is the exact sentiment that bin Laden preached of Americans. 'They are weak. When they meet the least bit of resistance, they will run. We ultimately will defeat them, because they do not have the heart of Allah.'

Please study the history of Afghanistan. If we leave Iraq now, we will turn that place into a terrorist playground that will make post-Soviet Afghanistan look like a kindergarten playground. With Syria to the west and Iran to the east, they will be able to create all the terrorist training camps that an infidel hater could ever want. And then 9/11 will look like a dress rehersal.

We don't HAVE to install a Jeffersonian democracy. But we cannot leave the country. Nature abhors a vacuum. Chaos will ensue, and terrorists love chaos. They will have absolutely no problem operating "under the radar" until it is too late.

Iraq may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11 before Bush and the coalition invaded. But if we leave without restoring SOME kind of JUST order, it will have EVERYTHING to do with it at the end of the day. We don't want to go there. Most any leader - Democrat or Republican - knows that now.
Mike wrote:Isn't it funny how I posted that last comment and then the news of the attack on the US base occured.
That tragedy occurred at lunch on Iraq time. I heard it in the morning - before I asked you that question (on XM radio). I'm a news junkie.

Speaking of which... Rumsfeld himself is speaking to the nation now as I type. Nice to know that both you and he give a damn, even if we don't always agree.

- Bill
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Bill Glasheen wrote: Iraq may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11 before Bush and the coalition invaded. But if we leave without restoring SOME kind of JUST order, it will have EVERYTHING to do with it at the end of the day.
Let's just stick with Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, since that's what all the available evidence, or lack thereof indicates. And I get what you're saying, that if we leave now there will just be more terrorism, but I hate to see you implying a connection between Iraq and 9/11 when time and again it's been made clear that there is none.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

You can stick with what you want to stick with, Justin, just as long as you acknowledge the facts.

- Bill
THE FIGHT FOR IRAQ

Questions Mount
Over Failure to Hit
Zarqawi's Camp


By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 25, 2004; Page A3


As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country.

The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.

Senior Pentagon officials who were involved in planning the attack said that even by spring 2002 Mr. Zarqawi had been identified as a significant terrorist target, based in part on intelligence that the camp he earlier ran in Afghanistan had been attempting to make chemical weapons, and because he was known as the head of a group that was plotting, and training for, attacks against the West. He already was identified as the ringleader in several failed terrorist plots against Israeli and European targets. In addition, by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.

Image

But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who was in the White House as the National Security Council's director for combatting terrorism at the time, said an NSC working group, led by the Defense Department, had been in charge of reviewing the plans to target the camp. She said the camp was "definitely a stronghold, and we knew that certain individuals were there including Zarqawi." Ms. Gordon-Hagerty said she wasn't part of the working group and never learned the reason why the camp wasn't hit. But she said that much later, when reports surfaced that Mr. Zarqawi was behind a series of bloody attacks in Iraq, she said "I remember my response," adding, "I said why didn't we get that ['son of a b-'] when we could."

Administration officials say the attack was set aside for a variety of reasons, including uncertain intelligence reports on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts and the difficulties of hitting him within a large complex.

"Because there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal, action taken against the facility would have been ineffective," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the NSC. "It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war."

Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq." Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.

Still, after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush had said he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide. Mr. Bush also had decided upon a policy of pre-emptive strikes, in which the U.S. wouldn't wait to be struck before hitting enemies who posed a threat. An attack on Mr. Zarqawi would have amounted to such a pre-emptive strike. The story of the debate over his camp shows how difficult the policy can be to carry out; Mr. Zarqawi's subsequent resurgence highlights that while pre-emptive strikes entail considerable risks, the risk of not making them can be significant too, a factor that may weigh in future decisions on when to attack terrorist leaders.

Some former officials said the intelligence on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts was sound. In addition, retired Gen. John M. Keane, the U.S. Army's vice chief of staff when the strike was considered, said that because the camp was isolated in the thinly populated, mountainous borderlands of northeastern Iraq, the risk of collateral damage was minimal. Former military officials said that adding to the target's allure was intelligence indicating that Mr. Zarqawi himself was in the camp at the time. A strike at the camp, they believed, meant at least a chance of killing or incapacitating him.

Gen. Keane characterized the camp "as one of the best targets we ever had," and questioned the decision not to attack it. When the U.S. did strike the camp a day after the war started, Mr. Zarqawi, many of his followers and Kurdish extremists belonging to his organization already had fled, people involved with intelligence say.

In recent months, Mr. Zarqawi's group has been blamed for a series of beheadings of foreigners and deadly car bombings in Iraq, as well as the recent kidnapping of Margaret Hassan, the director of CARE International there. According to wire-service reports, Mr. Zarqawi's group, recently renamed the Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq, on Sunday claimed responsibility for the massacre of more than 40 Iraqi army recruits in eastern Iraq.

The U.S. military over the weekend announced it arrested what it said was a newly promoted senior leader in Mr. Zarqawi's group. The man's name wasn't released.

Targeting of the camp and Mr. Zarqawi before the war first was reported in an NBC Nightly News item in March, but administration officials subsequently denied it, and the report didn't give details of the planning of the attack and deliberations over it.

According to those who were involved during 2002 in planning an attack, the impetus came from Central Intelligence Agency reports that al Qaeda fighters were in the camp and that preparations and training were under way there for attacks on Western interests. Under the aegis of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tentative plans were drawn up and sent to the White House in the last week of June 2002. Officials involved in planning had expected a swift decision, but they said they were surprised when weeks went by with no response from the White House.

Then, in midsummer, word somehow leaked out in the Turkish press that the U.S. was considering targeting the camp, and intelligence reports showed that Mr. Zarqawi's group had fled the camp. But the CIA reported that around the end of 2002 the group had reoccupied the camp. The military's plans for hitting it quickly were revived.

Gen. Tommy Franks, who was commander of the U.S. Central Command and who lately has been campaigning on behalf of Mr. Bush, suggests in his recently published memoir, "American Soldier," that Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been in the camp during the months before the war. Gen. Franks declined to be interviewed or answer written questions for this article. In referring to several camps in northern Iraq occupied by al Qaeda fighters who had fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, Gen. Franks wrote: "These camps were examples of the terrorist 'harbors' that President Bush had vowed to crush. One known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi who had joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- where he specialized in developing chemical and biological weapons -- was now confirmed to operate from one of the camps in Iraq." Gen. Franks's book doesn't mention the plans to target the camp.

Questions about whether the U.S. missed an opportunity to take out Mr. Zarqawi have been enhanced recently by a CIA report on Mr. Zarqawi, commissioned by Vice President Dick Cheney. Individuals who have been briefed on the report's contents say it specifically cites evidence that Mr. Zarqawi was in the camp during those prewar months. They said the CIA's conclusion was based in part on a review of electronic intercepts, which show that Mr. Zarqawi was using a satellite telephone to discuss matters relating to the camp, and that the intercepts indicated the probability that the calls were being made from inside the camp.
mikemurphy
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Contact:

idealism to the end!

Post by mikemurphy »

Bill sensei,

Let me take this time off of my busy schedule as Sec. of Defense to speak to what you wrote (I certainly don't have to prep for new's briefs as yesterday's debacle certainly shows). BTW, what a job telling the reporter that she probably knows more about their missile defense system than he. Instills confidence I tell you! Next thing he might tell you is that we should have armor on our humvees, or we're not there for the oil....oops! Don't want to give away all the government's highly kept secrets.

Anyway, back to business

<Mr. Secretary

I am most impressed by the respect and caring you show for your troops. And I am happy to see you have not completely lost your idealism. >>


(alter ego) As Sec. of Defense, all I have left is idealism. F*** realism! Let me press the button and I'll show them all realism. Which country am I blowing up? Oh yeah, Detroit. Gotcha!

<<Here's what I see... >>
From Barry Goldwater type spectacles.


<<Where is cxt when we need him (in proper dose, of course... )? What you expressed, sir, is the exact sentiment that bin Laden preached of Americans. 'They are weak. When they meet the least bit of resistance, they will run. We ultimately will defeat them, because they do not have the heart of Allah.' >>

You refuse to state all the facts here though. Bin Laden, not that I'm justifying anything he does, is leading a fight that he and his followers, as well as many other rebel groups, have a personal stake in. Where is our personal stake in this? Economy? US interests? Oh, comon! You kill me here. So we are to stay in Iraq, where we can't win, because the bully on the block says we're weak if we don't? Oh, the life of a super power! How about just trying to be the silent power, who is called upon only when needed, and not the corporate big brother who steps in where he is not needed nor wanted, and now finds himself stuck waste deep.

What you describe is exactly Vietnam in 1969, and that would take us four more years to get out and many lives more. Was it just as "embarrassing or weak" to see our helecopters take off the embassey in Saigon in 1975, or Congress shoot down Gerald Ford's request for even more money to help the South Vietnamese governemnt? You know what? We left, and we survived the international "I told you so" thrown at us from many places.
Tell me Bill sensei, looking in your crystal ball, when is enough, enough? How many more lives and dollars will it take before you concede your point? Is there a limit, to this "save face" attitude of those who think as you do? I'm real curious to know.


<<Please study the history of Afghanistan. If we leave Iraq now, we will turn that place into a terrorist playground that will make post-Soviet Afghanistan look like a kindergarten playground. With Syria to the west and Iran to the east, they will be able to create all the terrorist training camps that an infidel hater could ever want. And then 9/11 will look like a dress rehersal.>>

How does one relate to the other? If we leave Iraq, you're looking at a massive civil war. That is the only thing, if any, we can be sure of. As you said, Iraq is already surrounded by countries that advocate, supply, fund, train, and breed terrorists and anti-American/Israeli ideology, who cares where the next terrorist playground is going to be? We are supposed to have the most technologically advanced military in the world. Why not keep a naval presence in the region and destroy the bases as they are built? Viable option? Sure is! I mean, if we invade sovereign borders in a Roosevelt Corollary-type of justification now, then what's the difference in keeping a few spy satillites stationary over the region and dropping a few Cruise missiles in whenever something occurs which we don't like or agree with? (alter ego again) "Cruise missiles? We got some of them?"

<<We don't HAVE to install a Jeffersonian democracy. But we cannot leave the country. Nature abhors a vacuum.>>

Why can't we leave? We've done it before, and will do it again. You may think that nature abhors a vacuum, but it is a natural occurance, and from your self-proclaimed "rubble", something good may come of it.

<<Chaos will ensue, and terrorists love chaos. They will have absolutely no problem operating "under the radar" until it is too late. >>

Let's not get so melodramatic here. Although it makes for good 1938 propaganda film, chaos does not always ensue. Unless of course, your crystal ball tells us something different ;-) As for the terrorists having problems operating under the radar, they do now? It's already too late, as evidenced by 9/11, or any other time they hit the US or the world. They are the proverbial asteroid on the collision course to Earth. When you only have a handful of people looking at the sky for them, don't be surprised when one hits your backyard.

<<Iraq may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11 before Bush and the coalition invaded. But if we leave without restoring SOME kind of JUST order, it will have EVERYTHING to do with it at the end of the day. We don't want to go there. Most any leader - Democrat or Republican - knows that now.>>


Will you please define "JUST" for me? Don't you think it's a little hypocritical for the US to yell about what is just and not? Anyway, I would love to hear your definition of a word that is so subjective. And (just realizing this) are you admitting that the Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? This would be major step toward your recovery Bill sensei :-)

<<Speaking of which... Rumsfeld himself is speaking to the nation now as I type. Nice to know that both you and he give a damn, even if we don't always agree. >>

What a press conference that was. I can tell you that I went away with so much more confidence in the Sec. of Defense and the overall war effort.

To care about an issue is to debate it's virtures whether you argree with the moral majority or not. That is truely the gift given to us Americans that make it worth living here in the greatest nation on the planet. (alter ego again) "And that planet would be Mars...no Venus...oh wait, I know..Krypton!"

Have a great holiday Bill sensei!
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

The nice thing about these forums, Mike, is that they will freeze our words and beliefs in time. Let's come back 10 years from now, and see whose version of history was closer.

Merry Christmas to you too, Mr. Secretary. :x-mas:

- Bill
mikemurphy
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Contact:

Time

Post by mikemurphy »

Bill Sensei,

Let's hope the server lasts that long! :microwave:

mike
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Scccrrrreeeeeecccchhhhh!!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't let this go. I want your job, Mr. Secretary.
Mike wrote:You refuse to state all the facts here though. Bin Laden, not that I'm justifying anything he does, is leading a fight that he and his followers, as well as many other rebel groups, have a personal stake in. Where is our personal stake in this?
Are you serious, Mike? What planet have YOU been living on since 9/11? Perhaps the planes that took off from Logan didn't affect your economy or any lives you knew like they did for all associated with the WTC in New York (and the international economic community) and the Pentagon in Virginia. Fine... But make sure you close Logan down. The rest of the country can't afford your cavalier attitude.

Did you bother to read the WSJ article I posted above for Justin? See the trail? It doesn't take a pattern-recognition genious to see how suicide bombings and beheadings in Iraq are conntected with a fascist cult we invaded in Taliban Afghanistan that wants Western Civilization as we know it to be exterminated.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that these Jew-hating fascists want to reestablish the extermination of Jews in Israel. (And yes, the Palistinian/Israeli problem is another one that needs to be handled yesterday).

You and Justin can keep your heads in the ground, but I'm not. You can flog yourself for all our moral transgressions that brought all this hate down upon us, but I'm looking hate in the eye and saying "No!"
Mike wrote:How about just trying to be the silent power, who is called upon only when needed, and not the corporate big brother who steps in where he is not needed nor wanted, and now finds himself stuck waste deep.
We've been in it waist deep since before the Clinton administration. You can choose to deal with it, or ignore it and let it fester and grow. One way or another, there's going to be some serious loss of American lives. Me? I'd prefer to see them shoot at and blow up young men who are trained and willing to shoot back. That's not a Sophie's choice in my book.

I'll ignore the comments about manlihood. It has nothing to do with that. But nice try... Kind of like the pecker size references some choose to use. No disrespect meant, Mike, but that's what you are doing. It's not about being macho; it's about national security. I'll talk about your Vietnam references in a second.
Mike wrote:We are supposed to have the most technologically advanced military in the world. Why not keep a naval presence in the region and destroy the bases as they are built? Viable option? Sure is!
This is why I want your job, Mr. Secretary.

You are fighting a 20th century war, Mike. This is not a 20th century enemy.

* How many cruise missles have we already lobbed in Afghanistan and Iraq, trying to take out Bin Laden and Hussein? Which one of them killed the bad guy? (I'll give you a hint - they BOTH are still alive.)

* Where is Osama now? (I'll give you a hint. Cruise missles don't penetrate enough earth to kill people hiding in caves and bunkers. And Afghanistan has thousands of them.)

* What did it take finally to get Saddam Hussein?

* What did it take to get Uday and Kusay Hussein?

* Zarqawi was regularly beheading innocent civilians for our viewing pleasure for months. When I discussed the beheading of one civilian, it was so gruesome that even the Canadians were calling ME brutal. What did it take to flush him out of insurgent-infested Fallujah?

* We found the killing rooms and the training camps in Fallujah. Why didn't we just lob one of those nifty cruise missles in there to take him, the killing room, the bomb-making garages, and the training rooms out? (I'll give you a hint. This was happening in the CITY of Fallujah.)

* Where were most of the weapons stored in Fallujah? (I'll give you a hint. It starts with the letter "mosques." And let's not forget the letter "schools.") So, what's it going to look like on CNN when you lob a cruise missle over there to take out the weapons?

Hmm...

Image
Mr. Secretary... You're fired!

This is an enemy without borders, Mike. This is an enemy without a standing army. This is an enemy that hates civilization as we know it.

The vast majority of Iraqis want to vote and want us the hell out of Iraq. So do we. But a stable, representational government in Iraq, whether they be pro- or anti-American, is not in the interest of this loose band of terrorists. They want civil war and chaos. That's how they operated so well and for so long in Afghanistan, and Clinton wasn't able to do a damn thing about it. That's what they want in Iraq, a place that is as promising as any to be the next Afghanistan. History is on their side, and we need to remember it. We (the superpowers) generally run when the going gets a little dirty. Then they (those that thrive in this chaos) step in and have some fun.

I'd also like you to read a section of Grossman's book On Killing, Mike. It's section III: Killing and Physical Distance: From a Distance, You Don't Look Anything Like a Friend. Killing from a submarine where you launch a cruise missile is easy.
Chapter Two
Killing at Maximum and Long Range:
No Need for Repentance or Regret
Killing face-to-face takes overcoming our species' programmed aversion to killing.
In modern battle, which is delivered with combatants so far apart, man has come to have a horror of man. He comes to hand-to-hand fighting only to defend his body or if forced to it.
- Ardant du Picq
Battle Studies
If killing from a distance allows an individual to sleep at night, does that make that individual morally superior? Food for thought.
Mike wrote:Why can't we leave? We've done it before, and will do it again.
This is exactly what the terrorists know and want, Mike. Read bin Laden's own work!!! And once we leave, we'll get bitten in the ass on another day so hard that you or I may not be around to talk about it.
Mike wrote:Let's not get so melodramatic here. Although it makes for good 1938 propaganda film, chaos does not always ensue.
That's funny, Mike. How would you characterize Iraq today? A nice place to get a cup of Starbucks while children are flying kites? And what will that place be like if the only security they know today is gone?

Remember - for better or for worse, Rumsfield disbanded their military and police force. It was part of the "de-Baathification" of Iraq. Sun Tzu would frown on that (and I do as well) but it's now a done deal.

If the police department disbands in Richmond, you'd bet your sweet ass there would be chaos here. And guess what? I know a few "West Enders" who would not be unprepared... :twisted:
Mike wrote:Will you please define "JUST" for me? Don't you think it's a little hypocritical for the US to yell about what is just and not?
I don't care what Michael Moore or the French think, Mike. The right thing to do is help the Iraqis build a representational government. Give them elections ON TIME - period. That's what their leaders have asked for, and that's what we'll give them.

Wouldn't it be interesting if they got a greater percentage voting than we did in our last presidential election...

By the way, did you check out the Afghanistan elections? Pretty cool, eh? Doesn't Bush deserve some kudos there, or would that be asking too much?
Mike wrote:And (just realizing this) are you admitting that the Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? This would be major step toward your recovery Bill sensei. :lol:
Pardon me for pulling this out of my pocket but... You liberals really are into the guilt thing, aren't you? Want some confession?

Once again. Please read the WSJ article I posted above. Follow the trail. Do the pattern recognition exercises.

Call what exists today "Fred" if it makes you feel better. But I'm not playing the liberal guilt exercise. I'm too busy concerning myself with the remnants of the Taliban al qaeda. Sorry to confuse you with the facts I posted above...

And no, killing bin Laden will not make it all go away.

Oh and nice try but... I'm not biting on your reference to The Moral Majority. That's Fallwell's group, in case you didn't remember. He's over here in Lynchburg, Virginia. And Ian and I have already discussed Evangelicals in the Republican tent. Go fight that battle there...

Can you say "Libertarian"?

Now for the military of the 21st Century, go see ANOTHER article I posted on my forum recently. (You really should drop by and read some time...)

Future of U.S. Military

Sorry, but Rummy is asking for something that isn't very "sexy." No new aircraft carriers and anti-ballistic missile systems. No star wars. Just a light, fast military that can act in minutes. And more/better intelligence. We have to make up for the dismantling of the CIA and our intelligence that happened in the 1970s. (I'm not naming names...) We can't be flying blind any more, and shooting cruise missiles at ghosts. This is going to be a very, very long, quiet, behind-the-scenes war that will go on past our generation. And if we have any degree of success, we won't be talking about major terrorist events over on this side of the pond.

- Bill
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Mike

"Where is cxt when we need him?"

Running back and forth from airport to airport trying to make sure that the circus I call a family all get were they need to be this Christmas.

FOLKS

Merry Christmas!

And have a safe and happy New Year!!
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Know what you mean, guy!

Santa has his work to do here as well!!!

:x-mas:
mikemurphy
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Contact:

Gosh, I stepped in it....

Post by mikemurphy »

Bill Sensei,

You shouldn't really get the blood pressure up that much. I'm sure you can find a wonderful article to tell us all the dangers of that too. hmmm ;-)


<<Are you serious, Mike? What planet have YOU been living on since 9/11? Perhaps the planes that took off from Logan didn't affect your economy or any lives you knew like they did for all associated with the WTC in New York (and the international economic community) and the Pentagon in Virginia. Fine... But make sure you close Logan down. The rest of the country can't afford your cavalier attitude.>>

Gee, do you think that if we weren't sticking our noses, both corporate and political (one in the same for this administration) into everyone's businesses, would he have struck the US? Where is all the attacks from Bin Laden on Switzerland, Norway, Canada, China, etc., etc. The only attacks I hear about are on countries with expansive foreigan policies.

What the country CAN'T afford here Bill is the expense of over 1 billion dollars a week into these losing battles. Maybe to save money, we can shut down Virginia. ;-)


<<Did you bother to read the WSJ article I posted above for Justin? See the trail? It doesn't take a pattern-recognition genious to see how suicide bombings and beheadings in Iraq are conntected with a fascist cult we invaded in Taliban Afghanistan that wants Western Civilization as we know it to be exterminated.>>

I guess the question here would be who cares? If we weren't there, why would we care if someone got beheaded or there was another suicide bombing? Sorry to sound so cold, but that's just the way it is. We care because they are happening to Americans. And when did the WSJ corner the market on the end-all in journalism? By point was that the government's report has no such connection. End of story.

<<It doesn't take a genius to realize that these Jew-hating fascists want to reestablish the extermination of Jews in Israel. (And yes, the Palistinian/Israeli problem is another one that needs to be handled yesterday). >>

What's wrong with Fascism? I don't like the Jew-hating part, but if the people are happy with a Fascist government, then so be it. It is not our job to change that. BTW, it seems to me that you could argue that the Arab-hating Jews in Israel would love to see the area rid of Arabs. Are you just making that point because the US is allied with Israel?

<<You and Justin can keep your heads in the ground, but I'm not. You can flog yourself for all our moral transgressions that brought all this hate down upon us, but I'm looking hate in the eye and saying "No!" >>

No, you're taking the word of a government that has constantly lied to you, has toppled governments without cause or justification, and continues to steer this country down the road of economic ruin. Then you'll see chaos. I'd say, take your head out of the sand and look what is going on. If you like it, then grab a gun and put your money where your mouth is. As this bleeding heart liberal you claim I am, I'd grab a gun in a second if my country is threatened, but as a good red-blooded American citizen, I choose not to fight the battle which is not mine and let my government know that.

Now I know that you are too old to go Bill, but I would hate to see your son have to go, or mine. There are better battles to be fought.


<<We've been in it waist deep since before the Clinton administration. You can choose to deal with it, or ignore it and let it fester and grow.>>

No Bill, you can get away from it.

<<One way or another, there's going to be some serious loss of American lives. Me? I'd prefer to see them shoot at and blow up young men who are trained and willing to shoot back.>>

There doesn't have to be any loss of US lives here, and these young men you so callously throw out in the open, yeah have how much training???? How many years of Uechi training do you consider enough to feel comfortable in? I know of boys almost right out of boot camp going, or Weekend Warriors from the National Guard who are out there. Long story short, they are just boys regardless of how willing they are to shoot back.


<<It's not about being macho; it's about national security.>>

Bill it's foreign policy 101. We can't get out because of the bad rap we'd get in the international community. We are too concerned with our image.


<<You are fighting a 20th century war, Mike. This is not a 20th century enemy.>>

COOL, let's arm our guys with rocks and sticks and give them extensive 2 month training, put a little color on the old Irish tan and send them over.


<<* How many cruise missles have we already lobbed in Afghanistan and Iraq, trying to take out Bin Laden and Hussein? Which one of them killed the bad guy? (I'll give you a hint - they BOTH are still alive.) >>

And we are still in both locations too.

<<* Where is Osama now? (I'll give you a hint. Cruise missles don't penetrate enough earth to kill people hiding in caves and bunkers. And Afghanistan has thousands of them.) >>

How do you know he's in the ground? He could be sitting in a highrise in Manhatten right now and you wouldn't know it. Let's not pretend he's places we don't know.


<<* What did it take finally to get Saddam Hussein? >>

Bribing some Iraqis.

<<* What did it take to get Uday and Kusay Hussein? >>

Bribing some Iraqis.

<<* Zarqawi was regularly beheading innocent civilians for our viewing pleasure for months. When I discussed the beheading of one civilian, it was so gruesome that even the Canadians were calling ME brutal. What did it take to flush him out of insurgent-infested Fallujah? >>

Did we capture him yet? I didn't hear about it.

<<* We found the killing rooms and the training camps in Fallujah. Why didn't we just lob one of those nifty cruise missles in there to take him, the killing room, the bomb-making garages, and the training rooms out? (I'll give you a hint. This was happening in the CITY of Fallujah.) >>

Are you talking about the prison?

<<* Where were most of the weapons stored in Fallujah? (I'll give you a hint. It starts with the letter "mosques." And let's not forget the letter "schools.") So, what's it going to look like on CNN when you lob a cruise missle over there to take out the weapons? >>

Are you talking about all those weapons of mass destruction again?

Hmm... (I'll just leave this as a quote by us both)


<<Mr. Secretary... You're fired! >>

Good, maybe they'll higher someone with a little more experience, like an automobile executive. Wait, that was already done. Get back to you on this one.

<<This is an enemy without borders, Mike. This is an enemy without a standing army. This is an enemy that hates civilization as we know it.>>

Which civilizations does it hate? Once again, they have left much of the known world alone in their terrorism. It seems as if they only target certain countries.

<<The vast majority of Iraqis want to vote and want us the hell out of Iraq. So do we.>>

This is where I get a good laugh. You say something we both kind of agree on (they want us out), but then you say in the same statement "so do we." Where is the proof in that? Everything Bush has done and said is contrary to that remark.

<<But a stable, representational government in Iraq, whether they be pro- or anti-American, is not in the interest of this loose band of terrorists. They want civil war and chaos.>>

They'll get it there or somewhere else. Why do you think for one instance that changing Iraqs political being will somehow alter how these terrorists behave or operate? It won't.

<< That's how they operated so well and for so long in Afghanistan, and Clinton wasn't able to do a damn thing about it. That's what they want in Iraq, a place that is as promising as any to be the next Afghanistan. History is on their side, and we need to remember it. We (the superpowers) generally run when the going gets a little dirty. Then they (those that thrive in this chaos) step in and have some fun. >>

You seem to think there is some remarkable turnover in Afghanistan? Are the terrorists still operating out of there? Yes they are, AND we have already pulled out many of our men and equipment there. You can claim victory in the election there if you wish, but I think that a couple months is still early, and the Afghanis, US, and Pakistan have not finished the job yet. How long before we say forget it, and Pakistan closes up the border again?


<<This is exactly what the terrorists know and want, Mike. Read bin Laden's own work!!! And once we leave, we'll get bitten in the ass on another day so hard that you or I may not be around to talk about it. >>

I say to you again Bill because you never address this issue. Do you think that is going to stop? Do you think that by turning Iraq around at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives that terrorism is going to stop in the US? Who's got their head in the sand here?

<<That's funny, Mike. How would you characterize Iraq today? A nice place to get a cup of Starbucks while children are flying kites? And what will that place be like if the only security they know today is gone? >>

I'd characterize it by saying it's a place I don't want to go. It's a place where it's NOT THE JOB OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to be their security force. Let the Arabs police the Arabs.

<<Remember - for better or for worse, Rumsfield disbanded their military and police force. It was part of the "de-Baathification" of Iraq. Sun Tzu would frown on that (and I do as well) but it's now a done deal. >>

Great job!!! (golf claps all around)


<<If the police department disbands in Richmond, you'd bet your sweet ass there would be chaos here. And guess what? I know a few "West Enders" who would not be unprepared...>>

Just goes to show you the type of people living in Richmond these days ;-)



<<I don't care what Michael Moore or the French think, Mike. The right thing to do is help the Iraqis build a representational government. Give them elections ON TIME - period. That's what their leaders have asked for, and that's what we'll give them. >>

First of all, don't put me in the either one of those categories. I'm not a big MM fan, and I can't run fast enough to stay with the French. It seems like you have this "right" thing cornered. You seem to take just what the government is saying and make it gospel. Good for you. I'm sure you'd love it if someone came into your house and started telling you how to do everything and they weren't going to leave until you got it just the way they want it. We'll sure give it to them, I have no doubts on that at all, but whether it is "right" for us to do it, you'll have to get a bigger halo to prove that to me.


<<Wouldn't it be interesting if they got a greater percentage voting than we did in our last presidential election... >>

I wonder how many dead iraqis are allowed to vote????




<<Pardon me for pulling this out of my pocket but... You liberals really are into the guilt thing, aren't you? Want some confession?>>

US liberals? I'm more of a moderate, but I'll play. I really don't try to do a guilt thing, but with Bush as Pres., it's too easy. BTW, speaking of guilt, have you read any of your posts for the last 100 years????? Talk about guilt trips. You could be my mother! Wait, that would only be legal in Alabama.

<<Call what exists today "Fred" if it makes you feel better. But I'm not playing the liberal guilt exercise. I'm too busy concerning myself with the remnants of the Taliban al qaeda. Sorry to confuse you with the facts I posted above... >>

See above.

<<And no, killing bin Laden will not make it all go away.>>

Why are we trying so hard to do it then?

<<Oh and nice try but... I'm not biting on your reference to The Moral Majority. That's Fallwell's group, in case you didn't remember. He's over here in Lynchburg, Virginia. And Ian and I have already discussed Evangelicals in the Republican tent. Go fight that battle there... >>

Lynchburg, Richmond, only a bible toss away.

<<Can you say "Libertarian"?>>

You? A Libertarian? You have a lot of explaining to the party hierarchy then with arguments like this.

Cya at church!

mike
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”