Give War a Chance

Very interesting article. Let's hope they're right!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 30 2007, 05:24 AM) [snapback]487363[/snapback]</div>

The Iraqi football players "rock", as my kids would say.

Looks like "bottom up" is working better than "top down", and there is a chance it could work. Now, if we convince the politicos there to scrap their stupid Euro-style parlimentary system and implement a decentralized federation of states with a bicameral legislature, a civilian President elected for four years at a time, and an independent judiciary, they might have a chance.

(If we are imperialists, how come we're so lousy at exporting our own form of government?)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 30 2007, 05:24 AM) [snapback]487363[/snapback]</div>

Hello! Any liberals home? Nothing to say, eh? :lol:

Wildkow

 

Interesting article. As a lifelong conservative, I think Bush created a disaster of epic proportions with his misguided push for and handling of this war. Unfortunately we will be in clean up mode for a long time and will pay a very high price in blood and treasure for his stupidity. For the price, I think we have bought precious little in the way of security and arguably have made our circumstances much less secure.

However, as much as I have advocated that we should draw down in order to force the people of Iraq step up to the plate, my fear is we have now passed a point of no return in which this can be successfully done in the near term. If we withdraw now, the ethnic tensions and instability will most certainly become a full-scale civil war. At this point, it is mainly the collective disgust of ordinary Iraqis that will determine success - in large measure it won't be imposed by an external military force or for that matter, congressional timelines - without the will and support of the Iraqi people. The article hints that in this important way, things are starting to turn.

There are no easy answers, but I'm inclined to give things another 9 - 12 months. If conditions improve enough and Iraqis rise to the occasion, the cause may be redeemable and worthy of continued support. If not by then, it may never be.

 

Well that's the worst news ever!

. . . at least it is for all those Democrats who were more than eager to sell out the Iraqi people with their call for enacting a cut and run policy - only because it would make President Bush look bad.

The worst outcome for the Dems would be for President Bush ending up looking like an extremely strong leader who faced up to the harsh onslaught of criticism, didn't fold to the pressure, and was proven to be right all along. (Kind of sounds Lincoln-ish)

Yep, that would really suck!

 

Gee the Dems are cussing you out there dbermanmd, I think its the discredit dbermanmd theme...

Good piece of research.....

Of course the dems will be upset at the thought of good news coming from Iraq...

 

Those vehicles could be the thing that take away the insurgent's greatest tool/weapon against US forces. If the vehicle continues to be effective it will be a significant improvement for our men and women.

I'm not a big Joe Biden fan, but I have to give him serious credit for introducing an amendment that would boost MRAP spending by $25 billion in 2008.

Most of the money would be spent on MRAPs for the Army, allowing it to replace each of its Humvees with the new armored vehicles.

The amendment is costly, Biden said in a statement submitted with his amendment, but necessary.

"I'm willing to waste money and equipment if it means we don't waste lives and limbs," Biden said.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 31 2007, 01:18 AM) [snapback]487858[/snapback]</div>

Well, here's a liberal. And I think it's great. I hope it's true. You see, I don't give the tiniest crap about discrediting Bush - he does enough of that to himself, and I'll always think he's an idiot anyway, unless he changes himself drastically - I am just glad that fewer people may die. Sure, I want us out of Iraq (simply because people are dying), but I have enough sense to realize that Iraq still didn't have it's sh*t together yet, and we couldn't just leave them in the lurch. The sooner they can get their sh*t together, the better! And this looks hopeful.

I just want a plan for getting out of Iraq... I want somebody to set some damn goals... it just didn't seem to me that old George was doing much of that; he seemed to know how to get into a war, but not how to get out. I'm glad something is finally working, and I hope it continues to do so, no matter who is in office. I'm glad to hear good news from over there; I don't care what political machine claims 'credit' for it. I think all the credit for anything good goes to the soldiers.

Heck, all I want for Iraq is for everyone to live in peace, for a change. I think most of them deserve some damn happiness. All I want for our soldiers is to be able to come home alive and whole. As for the political crap of it all, I Just. Don't. Care.

 

What I see as a problem right now is that for a long time the TTP for an IED was to accelerate through the ambush, not stop and find the bastiges. This is changing slowly. Also we did too much 'smash and grab' operations in the towns. I know if some one smashed into my house when they could have knocked would just piss me off, and I would look to hurt the people doing it.

The Army has been using the Buffalo anti mine vehicle
http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/buffalo.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/cougar.htm <-nice
But what would happen is the diggers would wait until the vehicle would pass, then plant the device.
Second problem is most vehicles in the bone yard are the HEMMETs, HETTS, and 5 tons, not the up-armored HMMVs.
But my fear is not the old arty rounds that they use, but the EFP devices
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/040...ysis-070407.htm
will still take out our rolling stock. There are EFP devices that will knock down a bridge so a vehicle just doesn't stand a chance :-(

The enemy is smart and will continue to adapt, the procurement process is slow and the logistics of getting a completely new vehicle to the battle field with repair parts is more that just putting it on a boat and rolling it off in Kuwait. There is more to fielding than most armchair generals are aware of.

My $.25

MAJ Keith Jessup
Engineer

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(You me and da Pri @ Jul 31 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]488154[/snapback]</div>

I actually agree with a good portion of your thoughts.

With regard to having a "plan," I think having a formal plan is necessary to be able to measure progress and goals. However, a plan can be misleading sometimes as the plan needs to alter many times after "contact with the enemy." Once the enemy starts to adapt to the plan, the original plan has to change -- that can be on a tactical as well as strategic level.

The one thing I am worried about is the level of commitment we have as a country to see these things through. I am a big believer in the saying that the most committed side will win. With that said, we should not tolorate more casualites that are absolutely necessary to accomplish a mission. But, with the quick fix, instant gratification society we seem to find ourselves in now, people are less inclined to be commited and "stick with it." This makes fighting any war or engaging in any struggle difficult because you already handicap yourself to a certain extent.

Let's just hope this surge or whatever it is going to be called once it changes continues to show success so we can get our people the hell out of there.

 

What's really a shame is you've got the Democratic Whip, James Clyburn from my own state, saying that a positive report on the Iraq “surge†from General Petraeus would be “a problem for us.â€

Not “good news for the countryâ€â€” a “problem.â€

"Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,†Clyburn said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...3001380_pf.html

I wish they cared as much about my children's futures as they do their own.

 

We won!Congratulations! Mission accomplished.Now lets go home.We'll have a ticker tape parade.
The truth appears to be obscured.The authors began the article by misrepresenting themselves.Something tells me they arent being trustworthy in their analysis.
"The Op-Ed is an exercise in rank deceit from the start. To lavish themselves with credibility -- as though they are war skeptics whom you can trust -- they identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ings/index.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jul 31 2007, 05:56 PM) [snapback]488325[/snapback]</div>

Go back to what Jim Clyburn said. To quote the WSJ, "What does it say about Clyburn's party that if things go well for America, it would be 'a real big problem for us'?"

 

Here, I made a bumper sticker.

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/prod.aspx?p=Army5339.155627462

 

For every idiot Democrat saying "good news in Iraq is bad news for us",
You can find a Republican saying "We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush ".

They are ALL self serving idiots.