Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:41 am

Marco Zee wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00745.html

Excerpt: Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

Marco

Another widely known and respected research organization: the "RT" poll.

Funny enough, the latest findings of the internationally renowned Bah Hahbah Lobster Chowdah poll found exactly the opposite conclusions. They found that members of the administration dressing up in drag and pretending to be people they are not--honest politicians--does NOT help the war effort at all!! This has been revealed to be demoralizing to the entire world. And I know this is a fair and balanced survey--Clem is a crusty 80 year old conservative sternman on a lobster boat who thinks we still should be dropping nukes on Japan. And "Walks-on-Lilly-Pads," an arch-liberal trust baby, feels that we should be dropping rose-petals, not bombs, in Iraq.

You can find more factual research at: http//www.AnyCrapYouWantOn TheNet.com/.

marcoGobbldyGook

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:05 pm

<<Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:32 am?? ?Post subject: Poll: Dems seen as politically motivated and hurting morale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00745.html

Excerpt: Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage." >>

I suppose that referring to that right-wing conspiratory rag, the Washington Post, is just "another irreputable" source for polling info just shows my bias to relying exclusively on "conservative publications".

I would argue that the Dems are hurting themselves and the country more than they are hurting Bush with their current political actions, and are further cementing their reputations as "weak on defense" and "untrustworthy" with regards to National Security issues. And if they keep staying "all negative, all the time" it is they (the Dems) who will suffer at the ballot box in 06 and 08.

Have you noticed that Hillary is not jumping on the "immediate withdrawal" bandwagon?

Marco

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:45 pm

Marco Zee wrote:<<Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:32 am?? ?Post subject: Poll: Dems seen as politically motivated and hurting morale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00745.html

Excerpt: Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage." >>

I suppose that referring to that right-wing conspiratory rag, the Washington Post, is just "another irreputable" source for polling info just shows my bias to relying exclusively on "conservative publications".

I would argue that the Dems are hurting themselves and the country more than they are hurting Bush with their current political actions, and are further cementing their reputations as "weak on defense" and "untrustworthy" with regards to National Security issues. And if they keep staying "all negative, all the time" it is they (the Dems) who will suffer at the ballot box in 06 and 08.

Have you noticed that Hillary is not jumping on the "immediate withdrawal" bandwagon?

Marco

Alright Marco--you never did comment on my war plan after begging me to give you one.

So I have a pretty simple question for you:

With American fatalities and injuries increasing, as well as the number and intensity of terrorist attacks--how is it possible to interpret that "things are getting better" in Iraq??

As for Hillary--who knows? Maybe in a strange twist of fate she has been brainwashed by the neo-cons!

marcoHillaryAndCondi08(butchBattle?)

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:17 am

Hey Marc

If all you hear is the bad news about any place, you naturally think that things are terrible there.

The local Baltimore news talks about murders, arsens, rapes, robberies, and assaults constantly....if you did not hear or witness all the "good" things happening around Baltimore, you would think that Bmore ( or even DC) was a hellhole with rampant crime.

Same goes for Iraq, the media fails to mention the good things that are happening (because they are not newsworthy) which are allowing a general improvement to the lives of the majority of the population, now that Saddam is gone.

Similarly, the gen pop only hears about hang gliding when there is a bad or fatal accident.....they think that HG is synonymous with suicide, which we know is an incorrect perception.

Trust me, Nobody wants this victory secured faster than I do, but hard things take time, patience, and perseverance.

As Liebermann stated, we MUST win this war, as anything less is simply unacceptable and would make us much less secure.

Marco

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:37 am

Marco Zee wrote:Hey Marc

If all you hear is the bad news about any place, you naturally think that things are terrible there.

The local Baltimore news talks about murders, arsens, rapes, robberies, and assaults constantly....if you did not hear or witness all the "good" things happening around Baltimore, you would think that Bmore ( or even DC) was a hellhole with rampant crime.

Same goes for Iraq, the media fails to mention the good things that are happening (because they are not newsworthy) which are allowing a general improvement to the lives of the majority of the population, now that Saddam is gone.

Similarly, the gen pop only hears about hang gliding when there is a bad or fatal accident.....they think that HG is synonymous with suicide, which we know is an incorrect perception.

Trust me, Nobody wants this victory secured faster than I do, but hard things take time, patience, and perseverance.

As Liebermann stated, we MUST win this war, as anything less is simply unacceptable and would make us much less secure.

Marco

Therein lies the rub, Marco. You and the prez and the neo-conks all talk in terms of "victory" and winning the war at all costs.

Bit this is not a war with objectives that have been defined to us by the administration. History has shown time and again that deploying military forces without the clear objective of total victory is sheer folly. Victory is defined by completely overwhelming and destroying an enemy's capacity to resist and force capitulation.

The administration repeatedly demonstrates that it has no idea who the "enemy" is, much less in what ways "victory" can be measured. The administration tells us that there are 3 groups in Iraq, but this is a gross over-simplification of the dozens of resistance groups which are united only in their efforts to kill Americans and anyone allied with our cause. And the number of these groups are growing, with increasing support from outside entities--exactly what we are supposedly trying to prevent.

There was one, and only one, victory acheived. The administration sought to depose Saddam--and in this they succeeded. All the subsequent bloodshed, death, economic and political costs are a direct result of the administration's single-mindedness in acheiving this goal.

Anyone who seriously believes that what we are doing in Iraq serves as a shining example of democracy which will spread to the neighboring countries is overdosing on the newly over-abundant Afgan heroin!

marcoZamboni

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:55 pm

<<Anyone who seriously believes that what we are doing in Iraq serves as a shining example of democracy which will spread to the neighboring countries is overdosing on the newly over-abundant Afgan heroin! >>

Marc,
The great challenge of this conflict will be to establish democracy with the potential to spread democracy throughout the region. You have the opinion that this is improbable, if not impossible. Others, myself included, disagree.
Evidence of democratic desires has been evidenced in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan in the past year or so.

I guess we will have to wait and see how things unfold. But in the meantime, it is in our best interests to help establish a stable, West-friendly, democratic government in Iraq.

Marco

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:43 am

Perhaps it is in our interest to bring stability and some form of democracy to the region--but invading is not a short time fix for bringing about change to a region with extremely complex cultural/religious history (which I'm sure neither you or I have a clue of understanding). In fact, evidence suggests that our presence in the region has served as a galvinizing force for the more radical conservative branches of religious parties which have a direct influence, if not control, on the majority of governments in the region.

The way I see it, you are not going to be able to bring this kind of sea-change within a span of a few years, or even by deposing a few dictatorial leaders. Unless we are prepared to invade and destroy these countries--I don't see how we can realistically bring lasting change through short-term intervention.

Believe it or not, I hope ultimately you are right and I am wrong--peace and stability is desirable everywhere. But in the meantime death and destruction continue, and our military is now adapting to the demands of being nation-builders and state police.

I think Bush is hell-bent on making this work no matter what--and no matter where that may lead us. I just hope our country can survive to the end of his tenure without him dragging us into some kind of underground world war.

marc

Post by **mcelrah** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:16 pm

Yup, it's in our interest to establish a stable, democratic Iraq; and the best way to do that may be to reduce U.S. troop presence sooner rather than later. This is a difficult judgment call and the administration seems to be taking the position that calling for withdrawal before they actually start withdrawing (see Rumsfeld's statement on the Jim Lehrer news hour - the place to go for real news reporting instead of headlines or shouting - 25,000 coming home after the election) is a BAAAAD thing. So Bush is claiming he has the Goldilocks solution ("not too fast, not too slow - it's just right!") and anyone who wants to go faster - or slower - is wrong. Everything he has done up to now gives me confidence in his unique wisdom - not! - Hugh

>From: Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com>
>Date: Thu Dec 08 12:55:08 CST 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

>
>
>
>Marc,
>The great challenge of this conflict will be to establish democracy with the potential to spread democracy throughout the region. You have the opinion that this is improbable, if not impossible. Others, myself included, disagree.
>Evidence of democratic desires has been evidenced in Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan in the past year or so.
>
>I guess we will have to wait and see how things unfold. But in the meantime, it is in our best interests to help establish a stable, West-friendly, democratic government in Iraq.
>
>Marco

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:57 am

Marc Stated: <<Believe it or not, I hope ultimately you are right and I am wrong--peace and stability is desirable everywhere. But in the meantime death and destruction continue, and our military is now adapting to the demands of being nation-builders and state police.

I think Bush is hell-bent on making this work no matter what--and no matter where that may lead us. I just hope our country can survive to the end of his tenure without him dragging us into some kind of underground world war.

marc>>

Reply:

Marc,
I too hope that I am right, and that you are wrong, and this is not because I just want to be right for the sake of being "right", or winning "debating points", but because I think that the USA will be better off if we are ultimately victorious against these enemies.

I think your admission is very statesmanlike, and I applaude you for it. If more people could put the fundamental interests of the country above their personal and political interests, the country would be much better served, and our chances for political and military success would greatly increase.

That's why have implored all of you to be constructive, and even supportive of our efforts in Iraq, even if you don't support the President, his decision to invade, or his management of the war. I know that this is asking alot, but, like I said, it's putting the country first (IMHO).

Mr. Fink, I am drinking a toast to you right now (Kahlua and milk).

Take care,

Marco

Post by **mcelrah** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:02 pm

Marco,
Can you understand that criticizing a misguided policy is also
"supporting the country"? National unity and "trying harder" is not
going to determine whether we have success. It's a lot more in the
Iraqis' hands than it is in ours... - Hugh

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:09 pm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110007669

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril." The media, and his fellow Democrats, seemed agog.

"I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there," Senator Lieberman wrote on these pages November 29. "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will [in Iraq]."

AS OPPOSED TO NANCY PELOSI:
So it's revealing of the party's foreign policy condition that his fellow Democrats are now training their guns not on the enemy in Iraq--but on Mr. Lieberman. "I completely disagree with him," said Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader who went so far as to associate herself with the isolationist Taft Republicans of the early Cold War years.
"I agree with a Republican Senator, Senator Robert Taft," she said, who "said that disagreement in time of war is essential to a governing democracy." That would be fair enough if Ms. Pelosi were merely arguing over the tactics of how to win the war. But she has joined Congressman John Murtha in advocating a six-month deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the consequences. She doesn't want to win; she wants to quit.

Hugh,
Constructive criticism as to how best to win the war should be the job of the "loyal opposition", and even from his own Repub constituents. Criticizing the President personally, including his motives, his intelligence, and his "real agenda", and undermining his credibility are NOT "supporting the country." IMHO. Of course, Pelosi et al are not supporting the country with their rants and ridiculous cut-and-run withdrawal (strategic redeployment) proposals.

Marco

Post by **mcelrah** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:02 am

Seems to me you Republicans are the ones impugning motives of the
opposition. Anyone who offers a different policy proposal is branded
a defeatist. After a reign of terror such as Tom Delay instituted,
there's no wonder that the Democrats have no trust in their
colleagues. In the Senate, Bill Frist is already threatening "the
nuclear option" even though there's little evidence of an impending
filibuster on Alito. The administration rammed through the war
policy without doing the consultation and coalition building required
to see it through. Sure was fun at the time not having to deal
respectfully with the Democrats, or the UN, or the Europeans. Don't
complain now about lack of support. - Hugh
P.S. Administration still has its head in the sand about global
warming ("just a theory" - sorta like the theory of evolution - or
the theory of gravity (maybe the earth just sucks - we should give
equal time in physics class to that idea) - or the germ theory of
disease (equal time for the "evil spirits" theory)) and won't deal.
If you are obstructionist on other issues, don't expect a lot of
support on Iraq...

Post by **mcelrah** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:46 pm

Lieberman will sleep with the fishes. - Hugh

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:21 pm

Hugh stated: << Anyone who offers a different policy proposal is branded a defeatist.>>

Wrong Hugh.....anyone who advocates that we cannot win the war in Iraq, like Howard Dean and John Murtha have very clearly and recently claimed, are by definition defeatists, and are advocating policies of defeatism (cut-and-run policies which are designed to LOSE the war).

Constructive criticism, which is seldom heard from our Dem minority opposition, as to how best to proceed towards victory is certainly welcome, and is the question I frequently raise on this forum....how best do we proceed, from here & now, to minimize our casualities and maximize our effectiveness so that we can win this war ASAP. The defeatist Dems think we have already lost the war, and therefore we should admit defeat and retreat (ie strategic redeployment).

Marco

Post by **huddlec** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:22 pm

Marco,
How old were you during the Vietnam conflict, say 1970?
Christy

Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:

Hugh stated: >

Wrong Hugh.....anyone who advocates that we cannot win the war in Iraq, like Howard Dean and John Murtha have very clearly and recently claimed, are by definition defeatists, and are advocating policies of defeatism (cut-and-run policies which are designed to LOSE the war).

Constructive criticism, which is seldom heard from our Dem minority opposition, as to how best to proceed towards victory is certainly welcome, and is the question I frequently raise on this forum....how best do we proceed, from here & now, to minimize our casualities and maximize our effectiveness so that we can win this war ASAP. The defeatist Dems think we have already lost the war, and therefore we should admit defeat and retreat (ie strategic redeployment).

Marco

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:33 pm

1970...let's see....I was in junior high at that time. Why do you ask?
Marco

MikeBalk · Post by **MikeBalk** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:33 pm

So Marco, according to you, if I am beating my head against the wall trying
to get through, and my head starts to hurt and bleed. If I stop, I am a
defeatist? I should keep beating my head against the wall until I either
get through or die trying? Some people would consider it smart to stop and
try to find a door to get through.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:21 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

Hugh stated: >

Wrong Hugh.....anyone who advocates that we cannot win the war in Iraq, like
Howard Dean and John Murtha have very clearly and recently claimed, are by
definition defeatists, and are advocating policies of defeatism (cut-and-run
policies which are designed to LOSE the war).

Constructive criticism, which is seldom heard from our Dem minority
opposition, as to how best to proceed towards victory is certainly welcome,
and is the question I frequently raise on this forum....how best do we
proceed, from here & now, to minimize our casualities and maximize our
effectiveness so that we can win this war ASAP. The defeatist Dems think we
have already lost the war, and therefore we should admit defeat and retreat
(ie strategic redeployment).

Marco

Post by **huddlec** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:50 pm

I didn't think you were old enough to have been shipped over or to vividly remember the same?kinds of arguments we're hearing today, about victory in this type of war (i.e., with insurgents on their ground).?
Christy

Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:

1970...let's see....I was in junior high at that time. Why do you ask?
Marco

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Post by **huddlec** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:50 pm

Another option, Mike. You could accept the fact that you're a masochist.
Christy

Mike Balk <mike@talismanenterprises.net> wrote:

So Marco, according to you, if I am beating my head against the wall trying
to get through, and my head starts to hurt and bleed. If I stop, I am a
defeatist? I should keep beating my head against the wall until I either
get through or die trying? Some people would consider it smart to stop and
try to find a door to get through.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:21 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

Hugh stated: >

Wrong Hugh.....anyone who advocates that we cannot win the war in Iraq, like
Howard Dean and John Murtha have very clearly and recently claimed, are by
definition defeatists, and are advocating policies of defeatism (cut-and-run
policies which are designed to LOSE the war).

Constructive criticism, which is seldom heard from our Dem minority
opposition, as to how best to proceed towards victory is certainly welcome,
and is the question I frequently raise on this forum....how best do we
proceed, from here & now, to minimize our casualities and maximize our
effectiveness so that we can win this war ASAP. The defeatist Dems think we
have already lost the war, and therefore we should admit defeat and retreat
(ie strategic redeployment).

Marco

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:21 am

Mike previously stated: <<So Marco, according to you, if I am beating my head against the wall trying to get through, and my head starts to hurt and bleed. If I stop, I am a defeatist? I should keep beating my head against the wall until I either get through or die trying? Some people would consider it smart to stop and try to find a door to get through.
-Mike >>

Reply:

Mike, I don't recall asking you to beat your head against a wall, nor would I routinely recommend it. Depending on how strong the wall is, I would assume that the wall would normally win the battle with your head, and so I would recommend that you stop hitting your head against the wall, if for no other reason, so as to not damage the wall or cover it with your blood....not a pretty sight.

The smarter move would be to find a door, or some other entrance, before using your head as a battering ram.

As for Iraq, there are Dems who sincerely believe we have already "lost" the war, and therefore are promulgating an exit strategy of immediate withdrawal. Fair enough, but if they believe we are defeated, then are they not, by definition, defeatists? If not, what would you call them? The Dems heaped praise on Murtha for his courage, but then voted against immediate withdrawal 403-3 in the House. Dean now claims he was taken out of context, but it is hard to misinterpret his statement in any other way than "we cannot win Iraq".

So once again, many (but not all, ie Lieberman) Dems have had enough, and are ready for retreat, regardless of what this abandonment of Iraq would do to our national security or the Iraqi people.

If the Dems don't like to be called defeatists, then they should stop claiming that we are defeated, and thus demanding an immediate withdrawal as the next logical step.

Marco

MikeBalk · Post by **MikeBalk** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:35 am

There is a big difference between admitting defeat and admitting that we
have done all we can with this strategy and it is time to move to the next
step. My analogy of beating my head against the wall was supposed to imply
that we can not do any more with our military. Staying there and being a
target and not accomplishing anything is like beating your head against the
wall. You say that it is staying the course and we can't stop until we have
won -- I say we aren't going to accomplish any more than we have, so let's
look for a different way to get through the wall.

Our military is the best in the world, and no other military can stand up to
it. We kick ass! But we aren't fighting another army. We are fighting for
the minds and hearts of the world. We can't do that with guns and brute
force - in fact guns and brute force exacerbate the issue.

Bush has outlined a 'Strategy for Victory' that has no clear way of
happening. "When Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down." So our 'Victory'
relies on others, not ourselves.

Has the 4 mile road to the airport been secured? No? Not in how many
years? Why? You would think we could cordon off a road and make travel
secure. How do we define victory?

Those who are questioning our continued policy in Iraq are not by definition
defeatists. We are realists who realize that something else needs to be
done. The first step is to realize this, the next step is to change it.
Once you realize you are hitting your head against the wall, the first thing
you should do is stop hitting your head against the wall!

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:21 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism ?

Mike previously stated:

Reply:

Mike, I don't recall asking you to beat your head against a wall, nor would
I routinely recommend it. Depending on how strong the wall is, I would
assume that the wall would normally win the battle with your head, and so I
would recommend that you stop hitting your head against the wall, if for no
other reason, so as to not damage the wall or cover it with your
blood....not a pretty sight. [Wink]
The smarter move would be to find a door, or some other entrance, before
using your head as a battering ram.

As for Iraq, there are Dems who sincerely believe we have already "lost" the
war, and therefore are promulgating an exit strategy of immediate
withdrawal. Fair enough, but if they believe we are defeated, then are they
not, by definition, defeatists? If not, what would you call them? The Dems
heaped praise on Murtha for his courage, but then voted against immediate
withdrawal 403-3 in the House. Dean now claims he was taken out of context,
but it is hard to misinterpret his statement in any other way than "we
cannot win Iraq".

So once again, many (but not all, ie Lieberman) Dems have had enough, and
are ready for retreat, regardless of what this abandonment of Iraq would do
to our national security or the Iraqi people.

If the Dems don't like to be called defeatists, then they should stop
claiming that we are defeated, and thus demanding an immediate withdrawal as
the next logical step.

Marco

Post by **mcelrah** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:22 pm

Mike,
I agree with you completely about realism vs defeatism and the
mismatch between conventional military occupation and counter-
insurgency. One small factual point: they have finally secured the
airport road, more or less. But it required a change in tactics that
came much too slowly. Bush/marco are setting up a strawman by
lumping all critics of their stumbling policy with "immediate
withdrawal". That's certainly not Kerry's position. "Gradual
withdrawal" is, in fact if not in name, the administration policy.
9,000 are coming home next month. Bush will manipulate the
milestones to justify further withdrawals - which will be driven by
non-availability of fresh troops as much as by conditions on the
ground in Iraq. We know the number of back-to-back deployments it
takes to break an Army unit: three (3). That's when the career NCOs
and junior officers decide to look for other employment. We have
ten (10) active Army divisions, plus three (3) Marine Corps
divisions. (I don't know about Guard and reserve of the top of my
head.) So it becomes a math exercise. Most units (especially Guard
and reserve) have had two or even three deployments. The decision
was made not to increase troop levels - their costs would have
starved out Rumsfeld's beloved "transformation". It's too late to
change that. So withdrawal is going to happen willy-nilly. "Stay
the course"?!? With these bozos driving? They are zig-zagging all
over the ocean... - Hugh
P.S. In the normal course of things, one might expect the "strategy
for victory" to be laid out before going in, not 3 years late, after
several mid-course corrections... Remember Bremer?

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:40 pm

mcelrah wrote:Mike,
I agree with you completely about realism vs defeatism and the
mismatch between conventional military occupation and counter-
insurgency. One small factual point: they have finally secured the
airport road, more or less. But it required a change in tactics that
came much too slowly. Bush/marco are setting up a strawman by
lumping all critics of their stumbling policy with "immediate
withdrawal". That's certainly not Kerry's position. "Gradual
withdrawal" is, in fact if not in name, the administration policy.
9,000 are coming home next month. Bush will manipulate the
milestones to justify further withdrawals - which will be driven by
non-availability of fresh troops as much as by conditions on the
ground in Iraq. We know the number of back-to-back deployments it
takes to break an Army unit: three (3). That's when the career NCOs
and junior officers decide to look for other employment. We have
ten (10) active Army divisions, plus three (3) Marine Corps
divisions. (I don't know about Guard and reserve of the top of my
head.) So it becomes a math exercise. Most units (especially Guard
and reserve) have had two or even three deployments. The decision
was made not to increase troop levels - their costs would have
starved out Rumsfeld's beloved "transformation". It's too late to
change that. So withdrawal is going to happen willy-nilly. "Stay
the course"?!? With these bozos driving? They are zig-zagging all
over the ocean... - Hugh
P.S. In the normal course of things, one might expect the "strategy
for victory" to be laid out before going in, not 3 years late, after
several mid-course corrections... Remember Bremer?

Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand the essence of strategerizing?

marc

Marco Zee · Post by **Marco Zee** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:23 am

Mike stated: <<We are realists who realize that something else needs to be done. The first step is to realize this, the next step is to change it. >>

Reply:

Ok Mike, you are a realist...so what are you suggesting that we realistically do? What "something else" is it that "needs to be done"? Murtha and others want immediate withdrawal, McCain wants to increase the number of troops, Bush will probably decrease troop levels thru 2006....so what is your "next step" in this conflict?

Do you want zero troops (Murtha), more troops (McCain), or some form of gradual drawdown of troops (Bush)? I'm betting that you want some form of gradual withdrawal, just not Bush's gradual withdrawal. Or perhaps you are the one who will finally come up with the "better Victory Plan for Iraq" as others have failed to offer.

Marco

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:42 am

Marco Zee wrote:Mike stated: <<We are realists who realize that something else needs to be done. The first step is to realize this, the next step is to change it. >>

Reply:

Ok Mike, you are a realist...so what are you suggesting that we realistically do? What "something else" is it that "needs to be done"? Murtha and others want immediate withdrawal, McCain wants to increase the number of troops, Bush will probably decrease troop levels thru 2006....so what is your "next step" in this conflict?

Do you want zero troops (Murtha), more troops (McCain), or some form of gradual drawdown of troops (Bush)? I'm betting that you want some form of gradual withdrawal, just not Bush's gradual withdrawal. Or perhaps you are the one who will finally come up with the "better Victory Plan for Iraq" as others have failed to offer.

Marco

I already submitted my better plan which you failed to acknoweldge or discuss. That removes that plate off the table, marco.

marcochickenhawkeo

chgpa.org