Iraq...forgotten?

[CSpindizzy]

Sending a conventional force into Iraq did not at all take the focus away from the extremely unconventional nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. Prior to ever even thinking about about Iraq, the military brass was reluctant to placing a large conventional force in Afghanistan for the following reasons:
A large conventional force would not fair very well in that terrain.
They did not want to be perceived in the way the Russians were in the 80s.

However, continue to use the most trite argument concerning our involvement in Iraq. Keep on thinking that it has taken away the focus in Afghanistan. You are definitely free to be as ignorant as you want to be.

Extremely unconventional? A large conventional force would not fare well? Kind of like how a small unconventional force has not fared very well either? Or the fact that there is a pretty significant size conventional force still there?

I'll use this argument as long as facts continue to prove this correct. If you think we are focusing maximum efforts in Afghanistan to capture or end the threat there and have done so since 2002 then you are the ignorant one here. We've blamed weather, seasons, terrain, logistics, etc. in a revolving pattern of excuses knowing well that these conditions change in our favor but yet still have little to show for it. Over 32K forces are still there, it takes an international military presence to protect a democracy, Taliban is resurgent, al Qaeda is resurgent, still haven't captured leaders from 9/11 events, etc.

 

[CSpindizzy]

One thing that has not been mentioned was Libya's surrender of materials that supported its nuclear programs. That seemed to be a direct result of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was a positive turn of events. It was a lot of material (not nuclear material - but equipment), and it is all here in the US now.

People like to use this as an example of success. One thing is that Momar is not exactly your ideological leader. He's not the fanatic we deal with in the region. He came to his senses because he did not want to be grouped with religious zealots bringing the wrath of the West. He's a survivalist. He could easily keep his mouth shut if it meant opening trade and bringing in the money. He had been engaging the west much earlier than us moving military to the region. So in actuality he came to his senses more for the money than he did a threat of military invasion.

 

[therealUT]

Extremely unconventional? A large conventional force would not fare well? Kind of like how a small unconventional force has not fared very well either? Or the fact that there is a pretty significant size conventional force still there?

I'll use this argument as long as facts continue to prove this correct. If you think we are focusing maximum efforts in Afghanistan to capture or end the threat there and have done so since 2002 then you are the ignorant one here. We've blamed weather, seasons, terrain, logistics, etc. in a revolving pattern of excuses knowing well that these conditions change in our favor but yet still have little to show for it. Over 32K forces are still there, it takes an international military presence to protect a democracy, Taliban is resurgent, al Qaeda is resurgent, still haven't captured leaders from 9/11 events, etc.

There is not a significant sized conventional element in Afghanistan. There are very significant teams working in Afghanistan that come out of our SOC community. Sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into Afghanistan will do absolutely nothing to restrict the millions of mountain passes around Paktika, Gardez, etc. in and out of Pakistan (see concentrating our entire military force in Vietnam trying to restrict the passage of supplies and people in to Vietnam for a historical antidote of exactly how well this works...) The only way to end the passage between Afghanistan and Pakistan would be to create a fortified DMZ as in Korea. That will never happen and most likely should never happen.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not resurgent in Afghanistan. They are simply making noise in the mountains and occasionally coming out to murder Afghani civilians (something that actually hurts their cause in a guerrilla war.)

 

[CSpindizzy]

Did I ever say we need to send hundreds of thousands of American soldiers? Nope. Nice stretch there though.

Both are resurgent in Afghanistan. What you label as making noise and murdering Afghan civilians is labeled something far different by the ISAF command there. Look at Karzai's recent actions. In what the US is severely condemning, Karzai is even calling for a Taliban presence in the government again. After recent violence and the Taliban making even more bold moves into towns once hailed as Taliban-free, he's calling for a direct line of talks and a presence for them at the table.

 

[TennTradition]

People like to use this as an example of success. One thing is that Momar is not exactly your ideological leader. He's not the fanatic we deal with in the region. He came to his senses because he did not want to be grouped with religious zealots bringing the wrath of the West. He's a survivalist. He could easily keep his mouth shut if it meant opening trade and bringing in the money. He had been engaging the west much earlier than us moving military to the region. So in actuality he came to his senses more for the money than he did a threat of military invasion.

I don't know the details of how it happened - just what happened. But, the timing seems suspect for the saber rattling and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to have nothing to do with it. Again, that is just speculation, though.

 

[JTrainDavis]

If you really think the military is "volunteer", then you're right, you don't have a clue.

Stupid Ass. Typical of a progressive flag-burner. I served 4 years in a combat MOS, and everyone was there on their own free will, nobody said they joined because they couldnt get a job, or there was nowhere else for them to go. Keep believing your Obama garbage and see where it gets you.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Stupid Ass. Typical of a progressive flag-burner. I served 4 years in a combat MOS, and everyone was there on their own free will, nobody said they joined because they couldnt get a job, or there was nowhere else for them to go. Keep believing your Obama garbage and see where it gets you.

he's very typical of the protesting crowd. ill informed on most fronts or just plain stupid, sometimes both.

 

[KentheOrange]

You're right there is a difference. If the administration was truly provided with all the evidence, and that information logically believed them to the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction under production and a terrorist threat - then I would not feel lied to either. I would rather that be the case, without a doubt.

However, I don't think that is what happened. I think that more evidence pointed to no weapons of mass destruction evidence than to it. I strongly believe this to be true in the nuclear arena. The little evidence we had was told to the administration to be wrong (for example, aluminum tubes and Niger).

So. If I shoot your neighbor and tell you that I used my last bullet to do it, have a box of cartridges by my side but you can't make out the caliber so you don't really know if they fit the gun or not, you would not believe me to be a threat to you or any other neighbors?

I really find that hard to believe.

 

[myrobbins7]

Stupid Ass. Typical of a progressive flag-burner. I served 4 years in a combat MOS, and everyone was there on their own free will, nobody said they joined because they couldnt get a job, or there was nowhere else for them to go. Keep believing your Obama garbage and see where it gets you.

LOL..:good!: Thanks for your service to our great USA, heres to you sir.. :toast:

 

[TennTradition]

So. If I shoot your neighbor and tell you that I used my last bullet to do it, have a box of cartridges by my side but you can't make out the caliber so you don't really know if they fit the gun or not, you would not believe me to be a threat to you or any other neighbors?

I really find that hard to believe.

I don't think that is an accurate representation of our intelligence situation with reference to the aluminum tubes.

Let's say you kill my neighbor. Then, I find out that you have ordered a gun barrel. I would be perfectly within my rights to fear you might come after me with the gun you are building. But, I can't go to the police and tell them that you are building a grenade launcher - and I know that you have to be because you ordered this gun barrel. The police would tell me, no he is building a gun. That is pretty much what happened. The CIA analyst found the aluminum tube orders...we even intercepted a shipment. Our nuclear analysts at Department of Energy (Oak Ridge, in particular) as well as Department of State said that these tubes couldn't be used in centrifuges - they were for artillery. There is no way they would work for enrichment. Now, if the police didn't trust you with a gun or if the world didn't trust Iraq with conventional artillery, that is another whole matter. But, you weren't building a grenade launcher and Iraq was not using the aluminum tubes for enrichment.

 

[f1ip]

From my perspective, there are definitely more patrols out (can't really even say "outside the wire" anymore, since Infantry Platoons and Companys are no longer even living in FOBs) at any given time than there were in '03-'04. Even the Stryker guys are dismounted while they patrol the neighborhoods (which I never imagined I would see). The IA is taking over a lot more of the combat patrols, and they are actually showing up to work. Mortar attacks against FOBs are down, probably because insurgents are now trying to figure out how to overrun infantry combat outposts.

From my point of view, Petreaus has forced the insurgents to take a standing fight to US and IA troops. Fortunately, there are few militants in the entire world who can stand and fight, and win against US forces. We are definitely kicking *ss in these fights.

Thanks for the update that does not have the politically correct twist to it as we get from the networks.

You sir are a true Volunteer!!!!!! :salute:

 

[CSpindizzy]

he's very typical of the protesting crowd. ill informed on most fronts or just plain stupid, sometimes both.

So is that your broad and ignorant generalization that everyone protesting the war in Iraq is ill informed or stupid or both?

 

[BigPapaVol]

So is that your broad and ignorant generalization that everyone protesting the war in Iraq is ill informed or stupid or both?

dadgummit, I knew I forgot to ask you for the gospel (read: poll results).

The day I need lumination from you or any time I'm concerned with your opinion of my comments, I will stop posting altogether. Please don't construe that to mean, even for a second, that I don't appreciate your genius.

 

[Fine Vol]

Someone pointed out that we have Iraq and Afgan. and it could be a way to surround Iran. I put no faith in it.

 

[CSpindizzy]

dadgummit, I knew I forgot to ask you for the gospel (read: poll results).

For someone who despises polls you sure seem obsessed with them. It seems every time someone questions you on something that cannot spur a logical response your reaction is "poll". I'm not sure why that is your standard reply. Perhaps that is the only thing you can think of. Or better yet, what might Freud say with this obsession?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Someone pointed out that we have Iraq and Afgan. and it could be a way to surround Iran. I put no faith in it.

We had two directions for Iraq as well. What good did that do? I find it ironic we're again discussing regime change when every attempt we've made on this usually brings more headaches at minimum. We trade one crackpot tyrant for about 50,000 insurgents and suicide bombers.

 

[Fine Vol]

We had two directions for Iraq as well. What good did that do? I find it ironic we're again discussing regime change when every attempt we've made on this usually brings more headaches at minimum. We trade one crackpot tyrant for about 50,000 insurgents and suicide bombers.

agreed

 

[U-T]

From my perspective, there are definitely more patrols out (can't really even say "outside the wire" anymore, since Infantry Platoons and Companys are no longer even living in FOBs) at any given time than there were in '03-'04. Even the Stryker guys are dismounted while they patrol the neighborhoods (which I never imagined I would see).

Agreed

The IA is taking over a lot more of the combat patrols, and they are actually showing up to work. Mortar attacks against FOBs are down, probably because insurgents are now trying to figure out how to overrun infantry combat outposts.

The IA's controls are still minimum at best and their future still hangs in the balance (and that is being nice) in most areas. I find the truth of the IA lies in between what you read on Fox News and what you read on CNN in terms of their abilities (though nobody actually "gets it" exactly but that isn't surprising).

They are rush in some places, pushed in others, and just flat out unprepared for any sort of exclusion from United States protection.

It is scary for me to think of men that I have seen on their own without any American protection but the truth is in short time, that will become a reality.

From my point of view, Petreaus has forced the insurgents to take a standing fight to US and IA troops.

To each his own I guess. The insurgents have not stayed the same since Day 1. Their type of attacks change monthly it seems in where, when, and how. Them coming from a new direction will not stay static for long. Never will.

What we need is a new direction top to bottom.

I of course respect Petreaus and think very highly of him but his statements seem to only continue the same failing strategy that we are currently on. As different as it may seem, it really isn't when it comes to actual and results on the ground.

 

[U-T]

It wasn't just the US admin. using this intelligence in such a manner though. There has to have been some sort of general consensus in the UN about it for them to have issued the resolutions.

Unless of course, you think we strong armed Britan, Russia, China, and France to "do what we say!"

Because Russia and France had said several times that they didn't find the US evidence to be enough but neither had the balls to stand up and scream it.

Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4

French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html

 

[U-T]

Now that the tide is very obviously turning in Iraq, it seems that this forum is intriguingly silent...

What's the deal?

I meant to get to this...tide is obviously turning in Iraq? Where specifically? Maybe I am just missing it....

 

[BigPapaVol]

I of course respect Petreaus and think very highly of him but his statements seem to only continue the same failing strategy that we are currently on. As different as it may seem, it really isn't when it comes to actual and results on the ground.

You just asked trUT to validate his position and he's one of the few here who might actually know first hand. You, on the other hand, assume we're continuing to fail with little knowledge beyond what you grasp from various news sources, all with an agenda. I'd rather you figure out how to dispute what he presented as opposed to regurgitating for us the news cycle. Can you somehow support that the tide is not turning, without quoting me CNN or NYT?

 

[utvolpj]

You just asked trUT to validate his position and he's one of the few here who might actually know first hand. You, on the other hand, assume we're continuing to fail with little knowledge beyond what you grasp from various news sources, all with an agenda. I'd rather you figure out how to dispute what he presented as opposed to regurgitating for us the news cycle. Can you somehow support that the tide is not turning, without quoting me CNN or NYT?

I'm pretty sure U-T just got back

 

[Fine Vol]

edit

 

[allvol123]

edit

Is that some secret coded message for "tide"?

 

[Fine Vol]

Is that some secret coded message for "tide"?

ssshhhhhhhh:shades: