And just HOW is the war going?

[FearlessFreep]

Dick Cheney under Bush Sr was articulating the views of his boss
Dick Cheney under Bush Jr is implementing the views of his boss

Remember that Bush Sr, candidate, called Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics", before he was Bush Sr, vice-president.

Welcome to politics, where conviction is expediency

 

[jazkiljok]

Dick Cheney under Bush Sr was articulating the views of his boss

ok

Dick Cheney under Bush Jr is implementing the views of his boss

Dick Cheney has a boss? well, that'll be news to him

so-- let's check in again on the war's progress.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.main/index.html

 

[michaeledward]

How's this metric ...

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
Victory in Europe (VE Day) was declared on May 8, 1945.

Do the math ... that is less time than we have spent in Iraq (March 20, 2003 to August 18, 2006).

I suppose in a few months, we can compare Iraq to our struggle against Japan (December 7, 1941 to August 14, 1945).

 

[jazkiljok]

How's this metric ...

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
Victory in Europe (VE Day) was declared on May 8, 1945.

Do the math ... that is less time than we have spent in Iraq (March 20, 2003 to August 18, 2006).

Germany... no, not a true comparison.

I suppose in a few months, we can compare Iraq to our struggle against Japan (December 7, 1941 to August 14, 1945).

Japan, no...

Korea? no, not it.

i know there are similarities to some recent war we had, just can't remember which one...

i tell you what, give me another 15 years, it'll come to me.

 

[jazkiljok]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14499338/

is your psyche less strained?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Steve,

Let me first say that I agree with you totally. I did 2 med tours, went to haiti, albania, bosnia twice, israel, turkey, liberia, tunisa etc.

I had my fair share of trouble spots while in the Corps 92-97. I was never in support of the Iraq invasion. Sorry, I am a former Sergeant etc. So before anyone calls me a traitor or something to that effect let me assure you I am not.

There was no point into going into Iraq, yes the trade centers were an absolute horrible tragedy. However, I am under the firm belief that Saddam was a ruler much like Castro. Not the nicest guy, however he liked things the way they were and was not rocking the boat.

Afganistan and the fall of the Al Quada is another issue entirely. What begs the question though, "If Al Quada and the Taliban were fighting the Russians, until Russia gave up. Why, if they saw Russia as the 'Evil' supremeist etc, then why would they not view America in the same way?"

It just seems that National Security should have been better. I believe during the Clinton era that it was. Sorry, just my opinion. Plus civil liberties losses were not in place the way they are now.

Thank you. :asian:

 

[crushing]

It just seems that National Security should have been better. I believe during the Clinton era that it was. Sorry, just my opinion. Plus civil liberties losses were not in place the way they are now.

It has been a gradual process for decades independent of the party holding the Presidency. The Patriot Act didn't just come out of the blue, it especially builds on the the post '93 WTC bombing and OKC bombing reaction and resulting legislation (remember, when national security was better?). FBI wiretapping was dramatically increased, the Brady law with crackdowns and raids on gun retailers, no to mention the whole Waco deal, etc. Then, like now, was all done for our own safety. It's all the same, only the names have changed.

The difference is that opponents of such bills were characterized as right-wing anti-government militia types. Now, opponents of similar types of legislation are lableled traitors and anti-American.

Yeah, I think there's a Bon Jovi quote in my post. hehe

 

[michaeledward]

It has been a gradual process for decades independent of the party holding the Presidency. The Patriot Act didn't just come out of the blue, it especially builds on the the post '93 WTC bombing and OKC bombing reaction and resulting legislation (remember, when national security was better?). FBI wiretapping was dramatically increased, the Brady law with crackdowns and raids on gun retailers, no to mention the whole Waco deal, etc. Then, like now, was all done for our own safety. It's all the same, only the names have changed.

The difference is that opponents of such bills were characterized as right-wing anti-government militia types. Now, opponents of similar types of legislation are lableled traitors and anti-American.

Yeah, I think there's a Bon Jovi quote in my post. hehe

The Patriot Act DID come out of the blue. It came as a thoughtless reaction to the blue skies over New York City on September 11, 2001. Had members of congress read the USA Patriot Act before voting on it, it never would have passed.

The language of this Bill was completely incomprehensible. Often, it refered to sub paragraphs of other laws, and changed a single word, which created big changes in the meaning of the original law.

Congress did not take the appropriate time to consider and debate this Bill before passage. The only redeeming value for Congress, is that they built in an automatic expiration. We watched that fight this past December didn't we.

Most citizens are completely unaware of the rights their congress people burned on October 24, 2001 ... just 43 days after September 11, 2001; Out of the Blue.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

 

[jazkiljok]

The Patriot Act DID come out of the blue. It came as a thoughtless reaction to the blue skies over New York City on September 11, 2001. Had members of congress read the USA Patriot Act before voting on it, it never would have passed.

The language of this Bill was completely incomprehensible. Often, it refered to sub paragraphs of other laws, and changed a single word, which created big changes in the meaning of the original law.

Congress did not take the appropriate time to consider and debate this Bill before passage. The only redeeming value for Congress, is that they built in an automatic expiration. We watched that fight this past December didn't we.

Most citizens are completely unaware of the rights their congress people burned on October 24, 2001 ... just 43 days after September 11, 2001; Out of the Blue.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

you mean freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Is there a list of what right have been lost to this act anywhere?

 

[michaeledward]

Is there a list of what right have been lost to this act anywhere?

I have not seen a clear, CONSICE, breakdown of the new government powers from the USA Patriot Act.

But this page, shows the provisions of the Act in use.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/default.html


EDIT - P.S.

This link

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/jud_comm_request.html

Reports some of the questions of Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Coyners concerning different sections of the USA Patriot Act. The questions are interesting.

END EDIT

 

[mrhnau]

How's this metric ...

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
Victory in Europe (VE Day) was declared on May 8, 1945.

Do the math ... that is less time than we have spent in Iraq (March 20, 2003 to August 18, 2006).

I suppose in a few months, we can compare Iraq to our struggle against Japan (December 7, 1941 to August 14, 1945).

Different circumstances.

We no longer have a formal nation to fight against, rather an enemy dispersed over large areas and never in "uniform". We can't drop bombs on large concentration of combatants, since most of them are not massing together that often. We no longer have borders that must be crossed (at least not of our primary foe), a capital that must be conquered and a peace treaty to sign at the end of hostilities. We fight against a religious idealogy rather than for national goals/agenda. We don't have a "general" or "president" to negotiate with. rather than the enemy dropping bombs, or the enemy sinking our ships with their ships. We now have lone fighters running around with suicide vests, lone/small groups running around planting IED's and hijacking planes. We have DRASTICALLY less casualties so far than WW2. If we had a capital to conquer, a ruler to depose and a general/president to surrender, we could have declared victory in a few weeks. It ain't that easy. We also did not have to fight the media back in WW2, telling our enemies our methods of surveillance. Think Bin Laden is calling the US much or using a cell phone? Sure not anymore!

Different time. Different place. Different enemy. Bad metric.

 

[michaeledward]

Different circumstances.

We no longer have a formal nation to fight against, rather an enemy dispersed over large areas and never in "uniform". We can't drop bombs on large concentration of combatants, since most of them are not massing together that often. We no longer have borders that must be crossed (at least not of our primary foe), a capital that must be conquered and a peace treaty to sign at the end of hostilities. We fight against a religious idealogy rather than for national goals/agenda. We don't have a "general" or "president" to negotiate with. rather than the enemy dropping bombs, or the enemy sinking our ships with their ships. We now have lone fighters running around with suicide vests, lone/small groups running around planting IED's and hijacking planes. We have DRASTICALLY less casualties so far than WW2. If we had a capital to conquer, a ruler to depose and a general/president to surrender, we could have declared victory in a few weeks. It ain't that easy. We also did not have to fight the media back in WW2, telling our enemies our methods of surveillance. Think Bin Laden is calling the US much or using a cell phone? Sure not anymore!

Different time. Different place. Different enemy. Bad metric.

I don't disagree with any of that ...

Therefore, given that the "War" has no state players, what metrics are we using to determine our success?

Last month, more than 3,000 Iraqi civilians died in violence within the borders of a country the United States invaded and occupies. If we are succeeding, next month, do we expect that number to be lower?

Because the 'War' is a borderless war, how do we account for enemy actors moving across state borders? Are they still legal combatants, and able to be targeted in other countries?

Can we get a clear definition of what this 'War' is? And how to tell if we are progressing or regressing?

Or, do we just blunder along blindfolded, shooting at every creek in the floor, and every shadow on the wall?

 

[mrhnau]

I don't disagree with any of that ...

Therefore, given that the "War" has no state players, what metrics are we using to determine our success?

Last month, more than 3,000 Iraqi civilians died in violence within the borders of a country the United States invaded and occupies. If we are succeeding, next month, do we expect that number to be lower?

Because the 'War' is a borderless war, how do we account for enemy actors moving across state borders? Are they still legal combatants, and able to be targeted in other countries?

Can we get a clear definition of what this 'War' is? And how to tell if we are progressing or regressing?

Or, do we just blunder along blindfolded, shooting at every creek in the floor, and every shadow on the wall?

I totally understand and agree. Its hard to get a viable metric. Is "success" getting to a state that we can leave and transition to the Iraqi forces? We have pourous borders with Iran. Its hard to guard hundreds of miles of barren dessert. Same problem with Lebanon and the Syria border.

As far as a valid metric, I don't have one to be totally honest. If casualties went down, that would be nice. How much of that is because of our efforts and how much is sectarian violence? Is the place more inherantly violent, or did we just unleash the factions that were restrained by Saddam? Would Civil War be considered a failure? Say we get a three state country. Is that a failure? Lets say our procedures in Afghanistan and Iraq results in no more major attacks in the US. Its hard to directly couple the lack of attacks with the offensive. The opposite might hold true though, that if we did get attacks, we could possibly draw the lines back to Iraq/Afghanistan. If we don't get attacks, is that a success? If we do, is that a failure?

It ain't easy to measure, I'll give you that.

If I had to define the war, it would be an attempt to eliminate a threat from terrorist. But, as just stated, it makes it near impossible to gauge success. If we eliminate enough leaders, is that sufficient? Another one tends to pop right up. Kill enough fighters? You grow a new crop of orphans that grow to hate you... its just messy.

The ideal solution - Stop the violence. Let our troops come home. No more sectarian violence in Iraq. You want to seperate? Do it diplomatically rather than blowing up Mosques. Let the populace rise up and hand over those neanderthals that think they get more rewards from Allah if they blow up enough buildings/children. If you have a point to make, make it with diplomacy. Go to the UN if you want to.

I doubt it will happen, but a guy can dream, can't he? The human race has a habit of not chosing diplomacy very often...

 

[michaeledward]

I totally understand and agree. Its hard to get a viable metric. Is "success" getting to a state that we can leave and transition to the Iraqi forces? We have pourous borders with Iran. Its hard to guard hundreds of miles of barren dessert. Same problem with Lebanon and the Syria border.

As far as a valid metric, I don't have one to be totally honest. If casualties went down, that would be nice. How much of that is because of our efforts and how much is sectarian violence? Is the place more inherantly violent, or did we just unleash the factions that were restrained by Saddam? Would Civil War be considered a failure? Say we get a three state country. Is that a failure? Lets say our procedures in Afghanistan and Iraq results in no more major attacks in the US. Its hard to directly couple the lack of attacks with the offensive. The opposite might hold true though, that if we did get attacks, we could possibly draw the lines back to Iraq/Afghanistan. If we don't get attacks, is that a success? If we do, is that a failure?

It ain't easy to measure, I'll give you that.

If I had to define the war, it would be an attempt to eliminate a threat from terrorist. But, as just stated, it makes it near impossible to gauge success. If we eliminate enough leaders, is that sufficient? Another one tends to pop right up. Kill enough fighters? You grow a new crop of orphans that grow to hate you... its just messy.

The ideal solution - Stop the violence. Let our troops come home. No more sectarian violence in Iraq. You want to seperate? Do it diplomatically rather than blowing up Mosques. Let the populace rise up and hand over those neanderthals that think they get more rewards from Allah if they blow up enough buildings/children. If you have a point to make, make it with diplomacy. Go to the UN if you want to.

I doubt it will happen, but a guy can dream, can't he? The human race has a habit of not chosing diplomacy very often...

It is unfortunate that we are 40 + months into this war, and 2621 American deaths into this war, and most Americans are only now getting around to figuring out these questions must be asked.

I choose to draw your attention to this thread.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220858&postcount=1

.... and specifically, these paragraphs, which I wrote four years ago.

At what point does ‘pre-emptive self-defense’ simply become the actions of an aggressor nation. My friend believes that we can and should take actions against the government of Iraq. He justifies this belief with the statement, ‘we are the Good Guys”. How can we remain the ‘Good Guys’, when attacking people, within the borders of their country, without their request?

In America, every discussion about the use of force generally includes question of the ‘exit strategy’. In my observations, the exit strategy discussion is not taking place concerning the proposed Iraqi Regime Change. I believe we must ask not just ‘What to Change’, but also ‘What to Change to’.

Mr. Smith, I certainly do not know the answers to these questions. Before we as a people vote to allow the President of the United States to use military force against an established state, these questions should be discussed, if not clearly answered and defined.

While the President has the authority to use the United States military to protect and defend our way of life, you, as a member of the Senate, are the check and balance to his authority. Please use your vote to preserve the three separate, but equal branches of government. Please use your vote to keep the United States of America as the ‘Good Guys’. Please use your vote to support this constituent.

 

[jazkiljok]

more than 50 died and more than 200 were wounded in todays' bombings in iraq-- i'm not sure how that's an improvement but i guess in the rubric of what we measure success by-- it's back to good old body counts (in vietnam, the more the better-- in iraq, less.)

but here's an interesting passage...

from the NY Times:

"Things were somewhat brighter on the political front, where Iraqi politicians said Shiite and Kurdish leaders had put to rest, for now, their differences with the speaker of Parliament, a firebrand Sunni Arab, after weeks of pressuring him to step down.

The speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, reached an understanding with the Shiite and Kurdish leaders after meeting with several of them, the politicians said in interviews. “The whole issue has been settled,” said Hassan al-Shammari, a member of the main Shiite bloc in Parliament. He declined to give details.

The position of speaker of Parliament is the third highest-ranking job in the Iraqi government, and an ouster of Mr. Mashhadani would have been the biggest shake-up in Iraqi politics since the government was installed in late May.

A senior Kurdish legislator, Mahmoud Othman, said the Kurdish parties had backed down from their call for Mr. Mashhadani to withdraw after the Shiites made peace with him. The Kurds had simply been supporting the Shiites, Mr. Othman said.

“The Kurds had nothing specific against him,” he added.

He said the Shiites had become incensed over Mr. Mashhadani’s criticism of a possible Shiite autonomous region in the south, an idea championed by the head of the Shiite bloc, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Sunni Arabs are generally opposed to carving Iraq up into autonomous regions because of the lack of oil in provinces where they are in the majority.

Mr. Mashhadani said in an interview on Aug. 14 that he might resign because of the groups’ pressure.

American officials have expressed displeasure with the speaker, who earlier this summer called the American occupation “the work of butchers” and suggested that statues be built for insurgents who kill American soldiers.

Ali Adeeb contributed reporting for this article.

 

[jazkiljok]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14622992/

 

[michaeledward]

"I will not be a political leader any more. I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

With this pronouncement, Iraq is officially in a civil war.

Sistani was a force in Iraq for a peaceful transition from Hussein to something else. He steadfastly refused to talk with coalition forces. For the past three and a half years, any pronouncements issued by Sistani were followed by the 60% of Shia Iraqis, pretty much without question.

Recent uprisings of Sunni insurgents in Iraq had gone mostly unanswered by the coalition, as we desperately pretended to train Iraqi civil defense forces. As such, many of Sistani's Shia followers have switched their allegience to al-Sadr, and his Mahdi militia.

Look now for a full scale genocide Iraqi Shia attempting to wipe out Iraqi Sunni.
Look for the Kurds will secede from Iraq's government.
Look for middle eastern Shia to expand the civil war to a regional conflict, Iran and Syria v Saudi Arabia.

Is this enough of a disaster yet?

Has anyone here seen my old friend Abraham?

 

[jazkiljok]

remind me, what did Eisenhower say about the military-industrial complex...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14686871/

 

[Touch Of Death]

I hear talk of the recognition of the three seperate nation states within Iraq. We will simply occupy Kurdistan and slap down up risings in Shii-stan and help when we can with Suni-stan. Its the original plan actualy.
Sean