Staying the course in Iraq

#1
L

Linux07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
48
Likes
0
#1
does not necessarily mean an unwillingness to adjust a strategy or tactics to achieve strategic goals.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand how hard it is, and I also understand the stakes. And let me go back to Senator Warner. Senator Warner said, if the plan isn't working, adjust. I agree completely. I think the characterization of, you know, stay the course is about a quarter right. Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is don't do what you're doing if it's not working. Change. Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done, and we're going to get the job done in Iraq. And it's important that we do get the job done in Iraq. Defeat in Iraq will embolden an enemy. And I want to repeat to you the reality of the world in which we live. If we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy is coming after us, and most Americans understand we've gotta defeat them there so we don't face them here. It's a different kind of war, but nevertheless it is a war.

THE PRESIDENT: We're constantly changing tactics to achieve a strategic goal. Our strategic goal is a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself. I understand the stakes, and I'm going to repeat 'em one more time.
 
#3
#3
Whatever you think of Iraq, after WTC in '93, the failed millenium plot, 9/11, the foiled airline plot . . . . I don't see how you can deny that Al Qaeda wants to kill us.
 
#6
#6
Someone please define for me "stay the course" and also tell me what the strategy is for winning in Iraq. I want details of how this is achieved. Don't cut and paste. Give me specifics.
 
#7
#7
Since we obviously are not going to take the gloves off, the solution to defeating the terrorists and the insurgency is going to take a lot of time. The nature of counterinsurgency campaigns take many years until 'victory' is achieved. Also, counterinsurgency experts, including LTC Nagl, agree that only domestic forces can actually achieve victory against an insurgency. Foreign forces can provide support, but ultimately for the insurgency to die out, the local population must feel as though the local government and forces are able to protect them. So, 'staying the course' is actually the best course of action. Continue to train and build the Iraqi National Guard and the Iraqi police forces. Continue to protect the local governments. Protect all the people who come forward with intel about insurgents. Slowly build the faith of the people in their own government.

Conventional wars are usually very short in duration. The enemy is readily identifiable and therefore can be closed with and destroyed in a fairly short period of time (WWII took a little over 3 years and in those 3 years we forced the Germans out of Africa and destroyed Fortress Europa.) In unconventional, or assymetrical, warfare, the enemy is not identifiable to foreign troops. Foreign troops must rely on the local populus for all intel in which to mount operations. This is complicated by the fact that we have very few infantry troops that speak any Arabic dialects. Therefore, who ever comes forward must be processed at a higher level and that intel then disseminated. That process takes time and usually the intel that should be acted on immediately is not actionable until it is no longer useful. Again, as time goes on, this will be negated as our armed forces are providing incentives for soldiers and marines to attend DLI. Also, as our presence grows in Iraq and we are able to establish and protect more and more schools in Iraq, more Iraqi's will be able to approach our soldiers and provide them intel in English.

The only quick fix to fighting an insurgency is to force a conventional war. I argue strongly for this, however, that would only anger the left even more, as then there probably would actually be about 600,000 civilian casualties.
 
#8
#8
But what defines victory? Killing off everyone that stands against this government? How can that be achieved? Making sure the Iraqi police and military can hold their own? How can that be achieved when 140K American troops cannot accomplish that.

I am not asking this to be smart. I am asking a serious question to those who follow the "stay the course" philosophy as to what will be victory and how it will be achieved. I think this whole issue has been clouded in politics and there are catch phrases used but no substance as to the answers. It's great to use "stay the course" and "cut and run" but neither side is actually legitimately defining how their plan will be achieved.
 
#9
#9
I believe we have achieved victory at the point in which the majority of the populus feels secure enough to come forward routinely and 'out' insurgents. That to me shows that these people not only want to control the destiny of their country, but that they are willing to. Once that 'victory' is achieved, then I believe that while the US cannot just pack up the forces and go home, we can slowly turn over our presence patrols to local forces, and keep a sufficient amount of forces on permanent American installations in Iraq for times when the Iraqi forces feel they need support.

That victory is still very vague and very hard to determine. However, instead of politicking over timetables, milestones, and troop pullouts, I think we should be providing the Iraqi people with confidence by furthering construction on permanent installations and by using congress to assign which division will call Iraq their home for the next 25-50 years. (ie, 2 ID in South Korea, 1 ID in Germany.)
 
#10
#10
So you're defining multiple victories. Are you saying that when people routinely turn over insurgents to a consistent point that is one victory?

And who will pay for this construction you mention?

And you mention stationing troops there permanently. What if the Iraqis do not want this?
 
#11
#11
CSpindizzy said:
So you're defining multiple victories. Are you saying that when people routinely turn over insurgents to a consistent point that is one victory?

And who will pay for this construction you mention?

And you mention stationing troops there permanently. What if the Iraqis do not want this?
Click to expand...
Yes, when people routinely turn over insurgents that is a huge indicator of victory in Iraq.

The construction would be paid for by the U.S.

Not all Iraqis will want a permanent US presence in Iraq. That is too bad for them.
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
Yes, when people routinely turn over insurgents that is a huge indicator of victory in Iraq.

The construction would be paid for by the U.S.

Not all Iraqis will want a permanent US presence in Iraq. That is too bad for them.
Click to expand...

So despite levels of violence and destruction and instability, as long as people are turning in insurgents, that is victory?

Paid for by the US - as in taxpayers?

So you are saying that we should force permanent presence in a democratic government whether they exercise their sovereignty or not?
 
#13
#13
If people are tipping off insurgents by a great majority, then the violence, destruction, and instability will not be a factor. As the percentage of people who are willing to put themselves at risk (basically as the risk of tipping off insurgents lessens) that will lead to better intel for the forces on the ground. This intel can be used to target those who wish violence upon Iraqi and US forces. This will lead to a reduction of persons wishing to commit violence, which will lead to the Iraqi forces taking over more of the patrols, in turn leading to even more intel being gathered. That cycle will continue.

Yes, paid for by the US taxpayers, just as our installations in S. Korea, Germany, Japan, Panama, etc. are.

We will keep a military presence in Iraq whether or not the people of Iraq like the idea. However, I strongly doubt that the residents of Iraq will be opposed to a few US military installations, after all, it is because of our sacrifices that they would have a democratic and sovereign government.
 
#14
#14
So essentially you are saying Iraq should be an occupied nation and clearly cannot be a sovereign nation like we claim because we will continue dictating their actions. So much for quelling the violence. Your policy would add to it.
 
#15
#15
CSpindizzy said:
So essentially you are saying Iraq should be an occupied nation and clearly cannot be a sovereign nation like we claim because we will continue dictating their actions. So much for quelling the violence. Your policy would add to it.
Click to expand...
In so much as West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Panama are/were not sovereign nations.
 
#16
#16
You can't force democrary on people that don't want it for themselves. The longer we stay over there, the richer the big wigs get (Dick Cheney's Halliburton), the more our boys get killed, and the more the US taxpayers suffer.
 
#17
#17
SWIL said:
You can't force democrary on people that don't want it for themselves. The longer we stay over there, the richer the big wigs get (Dick Cheney's Halliburton), the more our boys get killed, and the more the US taxpayers suffer.
Click to expand...
KBRs expenses in Iraq greatly outnumbered their revenues from the no bid contract they had with the government. In other words, Halliburton got poorer "over there."

Also, who said anything about forcing democracy on people that don't want it? When people are risking their lives to get out and vote, that is a sign that they want democracy. Are there struggles associated with young democracies? Yes. I doubt you would have given the American experience much of a chance of surviving: 2 rebellions in the first 10 years, a tough war against Britain in 1812, years of bitter feuding between 1820 through 1850, the Kansas war in the 1850s, the War Between the States in the 1860s, another revolution in the 1960s...

I do not believe that anyone has ever claimed that having a representative republic is easy. However, just because something is difficult does not mean that you back away.
 
#18
#18
Well if they lost so much then they failed in their fiduciary responsibility. Don't forget all of that money government auditors all could not account for from these companies. I do recall quite a bit of money had to be reimbursed due to overbilling and squandering. That was only after it was discovered. Who's to say there isn't more if more intense audits were issued.

You bring up the American experience. Funny you should. I don't recall the Iraqi people standing up to fight against an outside power until now. There is a distinct difference between our experience and the one in Iraq. We fought and we decided our fate. The Iraqis had their fate handed to them.
 
#19
#19
CSpindizzy said:
Well if they lost so much then they failed in their fiduciary responsibility. Don't forget all of that money government auditors all could not account for from these companies. I do recall quite a bit of money had to be reimbursed due to overbilling and squandering. That was only after it was discovered. Who's to say there isn't more if more intense audits were issued.

You bring up the American experience. Funny you should. I don't recall the Iraqi people standing up to fight against an outside power until now. There is a distinct difference between our experience and the one in Iraq. We fought and we decided our fate. The Iraqis had their fate handed to them.
Click to expand...
Check Halliburton's financial reports in 2003, 2004, and 2005. They lost a ton of money. The government contract, a contract they had with the US prior to OIF, was a cost plus contract of 1.5%. The reason the government did not offer any bids was because they just extended this contract with KBR. The thing is, cost plus contracts only cover certain costs. In peace time, most costs are covered. However, due to the stresses of the environment, KBR was spending way more money than they were being paid by the US government. Anyone who cannot look at their financials and see that it was an awful deal for Halliburton and KBR has probably not looked at many financials in their life. I also believe that KBR's CFO and COO were both released over this. As, any exec with a brain should have gone over the contract with a fine toothed comb and then run some pro forma financials to see what would happen. Their pro forma's were apparently way off or they never ran them.

Why does it matter whether a country rises up against a weak tyranny or is helped out because their tyrant is too strong to defeat? Pretty arrogant view on your part: We Americans deserved our freedom but the Iraqis do not. That is absolutely ridiculous. Great Britain was economically hamstrung and still suffering from a long war with France. It was not hard for peasants in the late 1700s to mount a resistance, as those in power rarely possessed any critical advantage in firepower. Rising up with small arms again small arms and cannons is a little different than rising up with small arms against T72 tanks and chemical weapons.

If you are going to use this opportunity to say something to the effect of: well, the insurgents are doing a pretty good job against M1's, Apaches, etc with only small IEDs and small arms, then you are forgetting a crucial point. They are able to inflict damage because our forces are not willing to destroy whole towns in order to kill ten insurgents; I believe Saddam had shown he was more than willing.
 
#21
#21
OWB said:
Who is responsible for drawing up those financial reports?
Click to expand...
Halliburton and KBR would draw them up, I believe that either PWC or E&Y are the auditors. After the Arthur Anderson shake up, you will be hard pressed to find any of the Big 4 falsifying anything (especially with a corporation that is in the spotlight, like Halliburton.)
 
#22
#22
They took losses because, again, they had to refund quite a large amount of money.

Well let's see. Since the people have not overwhelmingly come out and demonstrated in the streets for an end to the violence, have not overwhelmingly supported ending the violence, have not overwhelmingly joined the military and police to help put down the violence, I'd say the lack of passion by the people is not exactly a telling story to their desire to be what the US wants them to be.

If the Iraqis want freedom, they have the means to achieve this on their own. Instead we came in and 'gave' them freedom, gave them a government, gave them a constitution, etc. In no way did I say they did not. Try not putting words in people's mouths.

So let me get this straight. You in that last paragraph are saying we should be aggressive in rooting out Iraqi insurgents to the point of destroying whole towns? Are you implying that we should do what Saddam did to achieve peace?
 
#23
#23
CSpindizzy said:
They took losses because, again, they had to refund quite a large amount of money.

Well let's see. Since the people have not overwhelmingly come out and demonstrated in the streets for an end to the violence, have not overwhelmingly supported ending the violence, have not overwhelmingly joined the military and police to help put down the violence, I'd say the lack of passion by the people is not exactly a telling story to their desire to be what the US wants them to be.

If the Iraqis want freedom, they have the means to achieve this on their own. Instead we came in and 'gave' them freedom, gave them a government, gave them a constitution, etc. In no way did I say they did not. Try not putting words in people's mouths.

So let me get this straight. You in that last paragraph are saying we should be aggressive in rooting out Iraqi insurgents to the point of destroying whole towns? Are you implying that we should do what Saddam did to achieve peace?
Click to expand...
In the last paragraph, I was keeping you from forming an argument that the Iraqi populace had the means to rise up against Saddam's regime.

Also, Iraqis are enlisting in their National Guard and their police forces. Does it matter that it is not overwhelming? It is a simple fact of human nature to want to preserve your own life. During our revolution, I would not exactly say that an overwhelming amount of colonists took up arms in the beginning. The army that we did have would have abandoned the cause and gone home, had it not been for Washington's late December success in and around New Jersey.

There were not death squads moving throughout the colonies killing off anyone who supported Independence. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, John Adams, and a handful of others were publishing pamphlets in the name of independence from the Crown. These people were not beheaded and their families were not targeted. It took a lot less courage to stand up against the British in the 1770s than it takes for an Iraqi to stand up against Islamic radicals and insurgents nowadays.
 
#24
#24
Losses from 2002-2004 are mostly attributed to asbestos related lawsuits. In January 2005, KBR exited Chapter 11 due to this lawsuit being settled.

Financials

The company's contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the time they start to expire in 2006, but most offer low margins — less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work [citation needed] making these contracts less profitable than Halliburton's core energy business. The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated. [citation needed]
KBR has contracts in Iraq worth up to $18 billion, including a single no-bid contract known as "Restore Iraqi Oil" (RIO) which has an estimated worth of $7 billion.
An audit of KBR by The Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) found $108 million in "questioned costs" and, as of mid-March 2005, said they still had "major" unresolved issues with Halliburton.
 
#25
#25
therealUT said:
It took a lot less courage to stand up against the British in the 1770s than it takes for an Iraqi to stand up against Islamic radicals and insurgents nowadays.
Click to expand...

Don't forget those same Iraqis who are standing up against each other and the US.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top