And just HOW is the war going?

[michaeledward]

Yeah he just refused to send more back up for the troops who were stuck there.

This is an interesting supposition, with which I do not know enough of the history to be able to address off the top of my head. You may very well be correct. But, you may also be less than accurate.

As I recall, there was a general vibe coming from the military that was pretty disrespectful of President Clinton. The whole 'draft dodger', 'pot smoking', 'gays in the military' thing from the campaign certainly set a bad tone for the relationship between the military and its commander in chief.

That may be why Les Aspin, a Republican, was chosen as Secretary of Defense. Again, it goes back to President Bush deploying additional troops to Somalia in December 1992. The reports we have seen is that the incoming Clinton Administration was expecting that the UN would be meeting the needs in Somalia.

So, the US did have a policy to get out of Somalia. When the Pentagon asked for tanks to go to Mogadishu, they were turned down. It's unclear from what I have seen whether it was Clinton or Aspin who made that denial.

After Aideed killed the Pakistani's, however, it seems the Pentagon did not want to play. Admiral Howe apparently went after Aideed, and the Pentagon told him the Special Forces were sufficient.

Here is what Richard Clarke reports Clinton said, and did, after the Black Hawk Down incident.

Okay, here's what we're going to do. We are not running away with our tail between our legs. I've already heard from Congress and that's what they all want to do, get out tomorrow. We're staying. We are also not gonna flatten Mogadishu to prove we are the big badass superpower. Everybody in the world knows we could do that. We don't have to prove that to anybody.
We are going to send in more troops, with tanks and aircraft and anything else they need. We are going to show force. And we are going to keep delivering the food. If anybody f***s with us, we will respond, massively. And we are going to get the UN to finally show up and take over. Tell Boutros he has six months to do that, not one day more. Then... We will leave

For what its worth.

 

[michaeledward]

I almost don't want to post this link. It is the home video of one very scared civilian contractor in Iraq, and what happened to his convoy.

This article, and its video, are a year old at this point. There are no official comments from the military units involved or the Pentagon.

Halliburton takes no responsibility - surprise.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Home_video_shows_US_troops_abandon_0928.html

 

[Blotan Hunka]

"Currently we are infested with a generation of leaders who are not willing to commit to the slaughter. When American bodies were beaten, drug, abused and put on television after the battle in Somalia in 1993, there was no response. Recently in Iraq, four American bodies were burned, abused, hacked and torn apart and hung as trophies. The American military and leadership response was zero. Great rhetoric spewed from the mouths of our military leadership, but nothing happened. This is because we have raised a generation of poilitical ******* that look at their bosses (not leaders) and shrug their shoulders. They are more worried about the "political" decision than doing what their guts tell them."

-MSG Paul R Howe U.S.Army (ret) Delta Force leader in Somalia

 

[HKphooey]

This is an interesting supposition, with which I do not know enough of the history to be able to address off the top of my head. You may very well be correct. But, you may also be less than accurate.

As I recall, there was a general vibe coming from the military that was pretty disrespectful of President Clinton. The whole 'draft dodger', 'pot smoking', 'gays in the military' thing from the campaign certainly set a bad tone for the relationship between the military and its commander in chief.

That may be why Les Aspin, a Republican, was chosen as Secretary of Defense. Again, it goes back to President Bush deploying additional troops to Somalia in December 1992. The reports we have seen is that the incoming Clinton Administration was expecting that the UN would be meeting the needs in Somalia.

So, the US did have a policy to get out of Somalia. When the Pentagon asked for tanks to go to Mogadishu, they were turned down. It's unclear from what I have seen whether it was Clinton or Aspin who made that denial.

After Aideed killed the Pakistani's, however, it seems the Pentagon did not want to play. Admiral Howe apparently went after Aideed, and the Pentagon told him the Special Forces were sufficient.

Here is what Richard Clarke reports Clinton said, and did, after the Black Hawk Down incident.

For what its worth.

I am not for either side. I see many of your points. I agree Bush sent them in the first place. But in you cannot send a firefighter into a burning building with a hose and then turn off the water once he is surrounded by flames; and then say it was the other guys fault. And I know it will be said Bush is doing the same in Iraq. To which I agree. We are either in or out.

I personally think we should take care of our own backyard first. And then we can listen to the world b*tch that we do not do our part. We have enough of everything we need on our own turf.

 

[michaeledward]

I am not for either side. I see many of your points. I agree Bush sent them in the first place. But in you cannot send a firefighter into a burning building with a hose and then turn off the water once he is surrounded by flames; and then say it was the other guys fault. And I know it will be said Bush is doing the same in Iraq. To which I agree. We are either in or out.

I personally think we should take care of our own backyard first. And then we can listen to the world b*tch that we do not do our part. We have enough of everything we need on our own turf.

When the first President Bush sent the US Military into Somalia, the objective was not to capture Aideed (Aidid) or to break up the militia's in the country. It was simply to distribute food. If the goal was to kill the militias then the mission failed. But, that was not the mission. The mission succeeded. At least to the extent that the United Nations was able to take over the rebuilding of the country. The United Nations completed their work (apparently) and withdrew in 1995, a year after the US military withdrew from the country.

"Currently we are infested with a generation of leaders who are not willing to commit to the slaughter. When American bodies were beaten, drug, abused and put on television after the battle in Somalia in 1993, there was no response. Recently in Iraq, four American bodies were burned, abused, hacked and torn apart and hung as trophies. The American military and leadership response was zero. Great rhetoric spewed from the mouths of our military leadership, but nothing happened. This is because we have raised a generation of poilitical ******* that look at their bosses (not leaders) and shrug their shoulders. They are more worried about the "political" decision than doing what their guts tell them."

-MSG Paul R Howe U.S.Army (ret) Delta Force leader in Somalia

The quote here says "there was no response" ... that is not quite factually accurate is it?

This from a Frontline Transcript

Clinton's response: withdraw troops
President Clinton decides to cut his losses. He sends substantial combat troops as short term reinforcements, but declares that American troops are to be fully withdrawn from Somalia by March 31.

Perhaps MSG. Howe did not like the response, but there was a response. This looks back to what the rank and file military thought about their Commander in Chief, doesn't it.

 

[jazkiljok]

When the first President Bush sent the US Military into Somalia, the objective was not to capture Aideed (Aidid) or to break up the militia's in the country. It was simply to distribute food. If the goal was to kill the militias then the mission failed. But, that was not the mission. The mission succeeded. At least to the extent that the United Nations was able to take over the rebuilding of the country. The United Nations completed their work (apparently) and withdrew in 1995, a year after the US military withdrew from the country.




The quote here says "there was no response" ... that is not quite factually accurate is it?

This from a Frontline Transcript



Perhaps MSG. Howe did not like the response, but there was a response. This looks back to what the rank and file military thought about their Commander in Chief, doesn't it.

there was no clear plan in somalia- blame whoever on that, the UN, Bush Sr., Bill, lack of any American foreign policy in regards to nonstrategic nations. i don't think any mission succeeded there and it's now under the control of a taliban-like islamic group.

and, crushing the local warlord would not have solved anything in the end.

Not sure when Howe made his comments but levelling fallujah would count as a response one would think.

Rumsfeld today said that everyone greatly underestimated the strength of the insurgency. i recall clearly a number of retired military men hired as consultants on cnn, fox etc- and David Hackworth specifically talking exactly about this situation just before the invasion-- that because saddam had no chance in a straight out battle- he'd have his forces blend with the civilian population and fight it out like the viet cong. the late Col. Hackworth went as far as to call Rumsfeld an arrogant ******* for not understanding the war he was getting into.

 

[michaeledward]

While the methods employed in this survey should be viewed sceptically, it does define an outside edge for consideration.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Study_estimates_655000_Iraqis_died_due_1011.html

A new study estimates that as many as 655,000 Iraqis died since the U.S.-led invasion in March of 2003, and roughly ninety percent of the deaths were directly related to violence, primarily victims of gunfire.

That is, approximately 1 of every 36 Iraqi's has died since the beginning of the invasion. One wonders how that works toward winning the hearts and minds of the locals.

 

[mrhnau]

While the methods employed in this survey should be viewed sceptically, it does define an outside edge for consideration.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Study_estimates_655000_Iraqis_died_due_1011.html



That is, approximately 1 of every 36 Iraqi's has died since the beginning of the invasion. One wonders how that works toward winning the hearts and minds of the locals.

Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion
From CNN

31%... while that is alot, do you wonder where the other 69% come from? Sectarian violence, suicide bombings, things of that nature. Even if we were not there and Saddam not in power, alot of these sectarian events would still be happening.

who are those 31% we are actually killing? How many are foreign fighters that came in from Syria/Iraq/elsewhere?

 

[jazkiljok]

Coalition forces blamed for 31 percent of deaths since 2003 invasion
From CNN

31%... while that is alot, do you wonder where the other 69% come from? Sectarian violence, suicide bombings, things of that nature. Even if we were not there and Saddam not in power, alot of these sectarian events would still be happening.

who are those 31% we are actually killing? How many are foreign fighters that came in from Syria/Iraq/elsewhere?

yes, if we're not there and SADDAM not in power these killings go on- the point is that we're back to "destroying to save" -- our invasion triggered the mess-- it was predictable what would happen and now here are the consequences.

make of it as you will.

 

[mrhnau]

yes, if we're not there and SADDAM not in power these killings go on- the point is that we're back to "destroying to save" -- our invasion triggered the mess-- it was predictable what would happen and now here are the consequences.

make of it as you will.

You think Saddam was not killing his citizens? Think the murders started only when we showed up? Think Suni/Shiite violence just started when we invaded?

Yes, our invasion may have triggered the mess, but there was mess there before we came in. Its now just a different kind of mess.

If the local crazies would calm down for a few months, we would get out of there. If they keep killing and going nuts, think we will cut and run? Well, perhaps if the Dems get in power...

I'm just hoping the Iraqi police forces/armies will be able to calm things down enough where we can legitimately get out. Thigns might require a split up of the nation, but thats not going to be pretty.

 

[michaeledward]

You think Saddam was not killing his citizens? Think the murders started only when we showed up? Think Suni/Shiite violence just started when we invaded?

Yes, our invasion may have triggered the mess, but there was mess there before we came in. Its now just a different kind of mess.

If the local crazies would calm down for a few months, we would get out of there. If they keep killing and going nuts, think we will cut and run? Well, perhaps if the Dems get in power...

I'm just hoping the Iraqi police forces/armies will be able to calm things down enough where we can legitimately get out. Thigns might require a split up of the nation, but thats not going to be pretty.

Actually, I think that in 2001, 2002, 2003, Saddam Hussein was probably committing very little violence upon his own people. He certainly ruled with an iron hand, and over the preceeding decades (including those decades supported by Reagan and Bush), had committed violence upon his people.

But to suppose that the level of Iraqi on Iraqi violence now is equivilent to Iraqi on Iraqi violence in the, oh, let's say 8 years before the invasion, is ridiculous and demands evidence. As I understand it ... the locals are regularly pulling between 50 and 100 bodies a day out of the Tigris river. I look forward to your evidence on Hussien's killings at that level in the early part of this decade.

 

[mrhnau]

Actually, I think that in 2001, 2002, 2003, Saddam Hussein was probably committing very little violence upon his own people. He certainly ruled with an iron hand, and over the preceeding decades (including those decades supported by Reagan and Bush), had committed violence upon his people.

Yeah, after we invaded post-kuwait he seemed to calm down a little bit. Was still shooting at out planes, but I'm not aware of what he was doing to his people.

But to suppose that the level of Iraqi on Iraqi violence now is equivilent to Iraqi on Iraqi violence in the, oh, let's say 8 years before the invasion, is ridiculous and demands evidence. As I understand it ... the locals are regularly pulling between 50 and 100 bodies a day out of the Tigris river. I look forward to your evidence on Hussien's killings at that level in the early part of this decade.

You don't know of his violence? Genocide? Using biological agents in bombings in Iran? How about the large body dumps some of our troops have uncovered? Torturing in the Olympic facilities (and not people taking pictures in their underwear)? People just disappearing? Perhaps you missed the news reports of those things...

Are the numbers equivelant? Probably not. Do you think Saddam gets 100% of the vote in his elections because his people love him? Its fear. Is more violence happening now? I imagine so. We seem to have 1/3 of it. Others located in Iraq are responsible for killing their own people. I'd also love to see how many deaths are coming from foreign fighters.

Like I said before, if they want us out of there, calm down and stop the violence. let the Iraqi police/military gain control and we are out of there. [sarcasm] But NOOO. Lets kill more Americans and innocents! Lets get the US to stay FOREVER! [/sarcasm] Like I said before, I see a split of Iraq. Won't be pretty, but I see it coming.

 

[michaeledward]

Yeah, after we invaded post-kuwait he seemed to calm down a little bit. Was still shooting at out planes, but I'm not aware of what he was doing to his people.

You don't know of his violence? Genocide? Using biological agents in bombings in Iran? How about the large body dumps some of our troops have uncovered? Torturing in the Olympic facilities (and not people taking pictures in their underwear)? People just disappearing? Perhaps you missed the news reports of those things...

Are the numbers equivelant? Probably not. Do you think Saddam gets 100% of the vote in his elections because his people love him? Its fear. Is more violence happening now? I imagine so. We seem to have 1/3 of it. Others located in Iraq are responsible for killing their own people. I'd also love to see how many deaths are coming from foreign fighters.

Like I said before, if they want us out of there, calm down and stop the violence. let the Iraqi police/military gain control and we are out of there. [sarcasm] But NOOO. Lets kill more Americans and innocents! Lets get the US to stay FOREVER! [/sarcasm] Like I said before, I see a split of Iraq. Won't be pretty, but I see it coming.

Well, which is it .... did "things" - Hussien's direct violence on his own people - calm down after he was driven from Kuwait or didn't they.

And for the sake of discussion, I will even waive the horrific helicopter assualts he launched against the Shi'ite and Kurds in 1992 when President GHW Bush encouraged the uprising of those populations; when the President offered words of backing and support which he reneged upon when he allowed President Hussien to fly his armed helicopters. Hussien's repression of that uprising was quite violent.

As for bringing up any of the battles with the Iranian war, that does not represent violence upon his own people. It was a war. AND, the United States was providing President Hussien with intelligence as to where to drop those "biological agents" - (although I believe it was actually 'Chemical Agents').

And, yes, in the past, Hussein has indeed acted violently on his own people; including Chemical attacks on Kurdish villages. That is how dictators establish control and keep control. But, once he had control, the incidents of such violence were proportional to the uprisings.

I'm wondering why on Earth you believe the United States ever planned on leaving Iraq? The US Military still operates in Japan and Germany. We are there to set up a puppet government. Believing anything else is naive.

As for thinking Iraq is going to be split up ... that is not news. I have posted that on this board for a couple of years now. I wrote my Senator before the invasion understanding that any attempt to change the regime in Iraq would result in a disaster - that letter is on this board too.

The truth is Hussien was a brutal dictator. His brutality kept the Shi'ite and Kurds in line. And as long as they behaved, there was relatively little violence.

First, we liberated the Kurds through our No-Fly patrols, and for 12 years now, they have been living as an independent country.

Then we removed the control over the State of Iraq. And replaced it with a wish list. That those controls have been removed, the Shi'ite are taking a two pronged approach to their country - revenge upon the Sunni's who controlled under Hussien - utilize militias to create political power (out with the old bastard, in with the new bastard).

It will take only a moment for this civil war to turn to genocide. And less time for that genocide to turn to World War III.

So, I guess we'd have to say that we are the 'Road to Victory'. Aren't we.

 

[jazkiljok]

Well, which is it .... did "things" - Hussien's direct violence on his own people - calm down after he was driven from Kuwait or didn't they.

And for the sake of discussion, I will even waive the horrific helicopter assualts he launched against the Shi'ite and Kurds in 1992 when President GHW Bush encouraged the uprising of those populations; when the President offered words of backing and support which he reneged upon when he allowed President Hussien to fly his armed helicopters. Hussien's repression of that uprising was quite violent.

As for bringing up any of the battles with the Iranian war, that does not represent violence upon his own people. It was a war. AND, the United States was providing President Hussien with intelligence as to where to drop those "biological agents" - (although I believe it was actually 'Chemical Agents').

And, yes, in the past, Hussein has indeed acted violently on his own people; including Chemical attacks on Kurdish villages. That is how dictators establish control and keep control. But, once he had control, the incidents of such violence were proportional to the uprisings.

I'm wondering why on Earth you believe the United States ever planned on leaving Iraq? The US Military still operates in Japan and Germany. We are there to set up a puppet government. Believing anything else is naive.

As for thinking Iraq is going to be split up ... that is not news. I have posted that on this board for a couple of years now. I wrote my Senator before the invasion understanding that any attempt to change the regime in Iraq would result in a disaster - that letter is on this board too.

The truth is Hussien was a brutal dictator. His brutality kept the Shi'ite and Kurds in line. And as long as they behaved, there was relatively little violence.

First, we liberated the Kurds through our No-Fly patrols, and for 12 years now, they have been living as an independent country.

Then we removed the control over the State of Iraq. And replaced it with a wish list. That those controls have been removed, the Shi'ite are taking a two pronged approach to their country - revenge upon the Sunni's who controlled under Hussien - utilize militias to create political power (out with the old bastard, in with the new bastard).

It will take only a moment for this civil war to turn to genocide. And less time for that genocide to turn to World War III.

So, I guess we'd have to say that we are the 'Road to Victory'. Aren't we.

dictatorships usually have the effect of controlling different religious and cultural groups from killing each other. yugoslavia was held together by a dictator and when he was gone it take long for the killing to begin. iraq is the same way-- take the strong man out of the picture and we get a torrent of violence.

does this mean we wish to have a dictator back in power? well-- we seem not to mine Perv Musharaff.... Qaddafi's back in our good graces... is there really a democratic gov't in egypt? can't wait to see if Putin ever loses an election. saudi arabia?

this gov't is not ready to do anything about dafur. we of course let rwanda happen, and i guess no one remembers the killing fields of Pol Pot. took our nemesis in vietnam to save the day there.

but my radical view is that we're not the world police. we can't save them all.

also like to point out that had saddam NOT invaded Kuwait-- there wouldn't even be this discussion of what his kid was doing to their olympic team nor would we care whatever violence he did leash upon his people. he'd probably be having tea with rumsfeld right now, planning with him the invasion of iran.

 

[michaeledward]

I like to consider myself a realist, and not a cynic ... but I see I have a ways to go, yet.

Thanks - and keep fighting the good fight.


Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Leaks abound ...


The 10 Member Baker Commission was assembled to review the current situation in Iraq, and offer the President options to move forward through the war.

According to a leak to the NY Sun, in an article to be published Sunday, the Baker Commission has decided to put forth two choices.

Stability First.

Redeploy and Contain.


Stability First is about securing the city of Baghdad with military forces, allowing the rest of the country, apparently, to go to hell in the proverbial handbasket. Once Stability of the capital city has been established, the American Embassy will work for a political solution with the insurgent forces in the country.

Doesn't that sound like a great idea ... working to put the Mahdi Militia into political power. Great!


Redeploy and Contain is the phased withdrawl idea that has been floating around Democratic circles for a couple of years; reaching the tipping point of an idea when verbalized by Congressman Murtha.

Of course, the official report will not be released until after the election.

Apparently, after mid terms - the President will tell us his plan has always been to Cut and Run.

 

[Makalakumu]

Apparently, after mid terms - the President will tell us his plan has always been to Cut and Run.

Mr. President, the Rapture is not an exit strategy...

 

[jazkiljok]

welcome to the coalition of the not-as-willing-as-we-used-to-be.


Report: UK's top general looks for Iraq pullout

The chief of the British Army, calling for a pullout of British troops from Iraq, says plans for post-invasion Iraq were "probably based more on optimism." Gen. Richard Dannatt told a British newspaper: "Our presence exacerbates security problems." Dannatt's views directly contradict the position of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a staunch supporter of the war and President Bush's strategy.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.general/index.html

 

[jazkiljok]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/457789p-385241c.html

can't we just all taliban-along.

 

[michaeledward]

The Bush Administration is now working on its own 'Cut and Run' policy.

“We’re trying to come up with ways to get the Iraqis to step up to the plate, to push them along, because the time is coming,” a senior Bush administration official said. “We can’t be there forever.”

Hopefully, Secretary Rice will have convienently forgotten her predecessor's 'Pottery Barn Rule".