Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Yes - they are still trying to get those supply lines established after 8 years of solving complex problems like “don’t show me yours and I won’t show you mine (unless your a chubby lil intern)” while the rest of the world plotted to destroy us - four more years of such complex decision making by our democratic commrades really would have strenghtened our position in the world

There is a very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal re the army we have. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110324205308102830,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Fcommentaries

Since many of you won’t be able the access the WSJ, let me quote the first part,

A few weeks ago Rep. Duncan Hunter handed me a reason that has largely escaped media attention as to why our troops don’t have all the armor they need. It was a piece of ballistic glass the size of a small dinner plate and as transparent as a normal windshield. But as it was four sheets of glass glued together, it was very thick and extremely heavy. In Iraq, this glass is saving lives.
The problem, the House Armed Services Committee chairman explained, is that a ballistic windshield is too heavy for some military vehicles. The window frames simply cannot support it. That means some soldiers are driving vehicles with regular windshields as the bureaucracy figures out what to do.
While the troops wait, he complained, the military could install two-inch-thick ballistic glass, which would likely stop 80% of the shrapnel that penetrates ordinary windshields. But the military is loath to adopt an interim, if imperfect, remedy. It prefers to wait for the “100% solution,” Mr. Hunter said. In other words, in military procurement, the perfect has become the enemy of the good.
Procure is a problem that the military has to work on. This is not a Rumsfeld creation, but it is currently his responsibility.

By the way, I am not defending Rumsfeld. Politically, I think he needs to go. It would improve the climate around the Pentagon. But I don’t think everything is his fault.

Well, as much as Rumsfeld reminds me of McNamara, today’s article in the Washington Post regarding the presidential order for hiding prisoners at Gitmo, I’m not convinced he’s the real problem.

Actually, when it comes to invading and occupying a country, it’s best to go in with as many divisions as you can. We need enough soldiers to do the following:

*Seal the Borders
*Keep Law and Order
*Put down uprisings in one city and move on another without removing troops from the first city.

Put concisely we need to have this war over before we can start trying to recover from it. Otherwise, every success we have is at the mercy of the enemy, and our moral strength and standing will be strained by the incessant fighting. This is why many others and I spoke up against the rushing of the elections and the handover of sovereignty, because in essence they would be fictions wrought for political convenience, not true stepping stones towards victory.

The creation of a Democracy must occur in a nation at peace, because more than any other system, Democracy is vulnerable in the face of war- people grab power, and people allow power to be grabbed, and as we’ve observed, many checks and balances are thrown to the side.

I say we should do what it takes to win this war, then try to reshape Iraq for the best. We’re not going to be able to do both at the same time without tripping over ourselves.

Rumsfeld doesn’t seem to understand the difference between winning a battle and winning a war - and we are still at war in Iraq.

Bill Kristol aside, this would be my opinion exactly - if it were about Democrats and the left.

Let me tell you precisely what this whole Rumsfeld issue is about. The original target for this criticism of ‘failing to protect the troops’ (essentially meaning sending them to war in the first place) and job termination was Bush. Once that failed Rumsfeld became the next target.

I don’t see this criticism as valid at all. There is no malfeasance here. The premise as I understand it is that the troops are not fully protected. Yet most vehicles in Iraq have armor. They are not normal SUV’s. The equipment in the armed forces is continually improved over time. The newest improvement is heavier armor for all vehicles. Yet this is not a case of using unarmored vehicles when there are armored vehicles available. It is a case of the best armored vehicles in American history being upgraded to even better armor.

The real argument that the left is putting forth is not that armor was withheld. After all Kerry voted against funding for this very armor. The real argument is that we sent them to war without first armoring all of our vehicles first.

Assuming that Bush and Rumsfeld had followed this line of thought, would they have been able to pass a bill through congress authorizing the 4 billion additional dollars necessary to do so? Given Kerry’s vote against even partial funding for armor, in order to protest tax cuts of all things, how do you think every democrat would have voted before a war? For or against?

david,

SS needs to be reformed primarily because it is a fundamentally flawed program.

They are transfer payments from one group to another. Why not support a mandatory minimum income from cradle to grave instead? Why should seniors benefit from such socialist income enhancement at the expense of the young?

Wouldn’t setting the national income at, say, $20,000 a year solve the problem for everyone young and old alike? Everyone could have a guaranteed base income of $20,0000. The argument that we must provide for those who failed to save for their retirement should not just be exclusive to one age group. After all that’s very discriminatory.

Damn this roboform thing. Sorry, the above post was meant for David Remer’s post next door.

“White House Gives New Vote Of Confidence To Rumsfeld
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House gave a new vote of confidence on Friday to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld amid growing criticism of him from members of President Bush’s own Republican Party.

“Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job leading our efforts at the Department of Defense to win the war on terrorism and to help bring about a free and peaceful Iraq, and the president is focused on working closely with him on those matters,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Rumsfeld has faced heavy criticism for not sending more troops to Iraq and failing to give them proper equipment. In recent days some prominent Republicans have questioned his performance.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said in his home state of Mississippi on Wednesday: “I am not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld. I don’t think he listens to his uniformed officers.”
Lott did not call for Rumsfeld’s resignation but said, “I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so.”

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a strong Bush supporter on the campaign trail this year despite past differences, got the latest round of criticism under way by saying he had no confidence in Rumsfeld.

Then a prominent moderate Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, was critical of the Pentagon for insufficient armor protection for troops in Iraq.

Rumsfeld got himself into trouble last week by appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protection.

“As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” Rumsfeld had told the soldier in Kuwait.

Little more than two weeks ago, Bush told Rumsfeld that he could stay on as defense secretary in the president’s second term.

The thinking behind the decision was not to change leaders while the United States is at war, even though many in Washington blame Rumsfeld for failing to recognize and prepare for a determined Iraqi insurgency. More than 1,000 Americans have died in combat in Iraq.

McClellan said Rumsfeld was responding to troop concerns.

“Secretary Rumsfeld cares deeply about our men and women in uniform, and I think that is reflected by the way he goes and visits directly with those who serve, particularly those in combat zones, and he listens to those concerns, and that’s what the president expects,” McClellan said.

The Bush administration is preparing an emergency supplemental budget request for early in the new year that could seek as much as $75 billion to $100 billion for funding the U.S. military in Iraq.”

I may not agree with the guy on alot of thing, but lets be fair and supply the truth.

“As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” Rumsfeld had told the soldier in Kuwait.

He didnt exactly “brush” the guys question off, in fact, he gave alot better and more detailed answer than what is being reported:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html

Whether he really cares about the troops or not is only based on party assumptions for political gain.

He visits with them, talks and listens to them and lets them know where he stands. Thats a fact and one most soldiers respect.

Excuse me AP,

But for seeing the conspiracy theory for the trees, as it looks to me, Kristol and the Republican Senators are trying to throw Bush a lifeline. They’re trying to move the line in the sand (again), or at least, put some more time on the clock for the Bush team. Hear me out.

A show of hands of those believing the Iraq January elections will proceed with no significant violence, or tainted, legitimacy-challenged result? (Will the Blue Column editors keep it down, I can’t hear myself count for all the hysterical laughter!)

Getting rid of Rummy, would give Bush cover to postpone elections for 6 months. Taking away the lightening rod for increasing (and unwanted) scrutiny of the Iraq War, it is an opportunity to instantly install credibility and competence (William Cohen? Sam Nunn?), and bring back the pliable and cooperative media coverage dictated by the White House and Pentagon.

The Sunnis’ are already hedging their bets on this election, yet given additional time, Al Sadr could be running TV ads on Al Jeezera. 6 months is a lifetime in turning Iraqi public opinion, scattering Insurgents and reinforcing polling places.

But then again, I’m just a tin foil wearing, conspiracy nut still trying to subvert the electoral process in Ohio.

Eric-

Let me tell you precisely what this whole Rumsfeld issue is about. The original target for this criticism of ‘failing to protect the troops’ (essentially meaning sending them to war in the first place) and job termination was Bush. Once that failed Rumsfeld became the next target.

You’re right. That’s exactly what we’re doing, and exactly what should be done. Of course, it’s a poor second to to winning the election, but at this time, it’s the best we can hope for.

The reason it’s a poor second is that Bush holds on to even the most incompetent of underlings if he likes them. Incompetence is the problem here. Nobody seriously thinks that Rumsfeld is intentionally trying to harm America, but he’s harming us anyways. To put it in your terms, nobody thinks Neville Chamberlain was intentionally trying to hurt England, but nonetheless, he did harm her interests by allowing Hitler’s territorial expansion.

As for Humvees being the best armored vehicles in American History…

YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

Sorry about that shouting, but damn, do you know anything about Humvees? If you were talking about the M1 Abrams, with it’s Steel Sandwiched Depleted Uranium Armor, I’d agree with you, but most Humvees are not armored at all. They are basically glorified jeeps, better suited to offroading. That’s it. These are supposed to be rear support vehicles, speedily operating behind our lines of battle. Unfortunately, with our insurgency here, which your people never drew up good contingency plans for, the whole country is a war zone, with our unarmored Humvees and trucks obvious targets.

As for Kerry’s vote, I will gently remind you that he had an equivalent bill lined up to do the same thing, so your argument hold no more water than a sieve. He wanted to push a different plan, not leave our soldiers without supplies and armor.

You know, your people nattered on about mixed messages, and I think it’s time that you understand one important point: the most mixed message possible is a war fought half-assed, like your people are doing.

You tried to qualify things by saying armor wasn’t withheld. You know something? If what other people said in the wake of Rumsfeld’s remarks is true, those factories and contractors aren’t working at full speed, that means the truth is little better than the witholding of armor. That means that instead your people are simply slacking off, failing the army by apathy instead of malice. It amounts to the same thing, a war fought half-assed.

The problem is, neither you nor your administration want to admit defeat on any point and that means that because of your pride, you won’t do any of the things you need to do, because they would all be admissions of defeat, and a blow to the morale of all the red-state folks, decent people who took you at your word out of patriotism.

I have heard nothing but excuses from this administration, from our congress. Every failure is some scapegoats fault, or apart of the general indeterminancy of the world, or simply some human failing that’s inevitable and you’ll have to deal with it. Either way, your party is not winning the war for this country. It is, by degrees trying to get America to forget the last error before the new crisis pops its head up, government by quiet desperation, not strength of character.

When you guys start taking control of the Bureacracy and telling it what to do, come back and tell me things are going alright. As of now, bureacratic snafus are a big part of why our soldiers are not getting their armor.

When you start telling that Defense Department up there that our security interests and not it’s budget power comes first, then tell me things are going well. As of now, your armed forces chairmen and Rumsfeld have managed to keep their budget authority and power at the expense of that of our new Intelligence Director.

Speaking of that new intelligence director, you can tell me things are alright when you show me that the NID has budgetary and personell powers to go with their responsibility. Otherwise the only security he’s going to provide, is that to politicians looking not to get embarrassed by the next terrorist attack.

When you can tell me what exactly our homeland defense department is doing, othering than getting out the crayons to warn us of danger, when you can tell me that the Chemical industries and other corporate players are cooperating with our Homeland Security, not complaining to the president and getting a free ride, then you can tell me your people are succeeding.

You may think I’m simply playing the doubting Thomas, but the reality is, I do not expect anything less that the best from my government. Maybe your people have simmered so long in the anti-Big Government rhetoric that you just never thought to prepare yourself for that day when you would actually have to wield the powers of that government. Instead, you have learned to accept Bureacratic failure, corruption, and the dictate of special interests as business as usual, and not some abherration to be fought against. I guess you have to believe government can do something must do something for the people, before you can have leaders capable of doing something right with it.

ericsimonson:

If you believe in the Iraq War so much, why don’t you join the Army? They are offering $10,000 as a bonus now. The Army is now going into HIGHSCHOOLS for recruits. Heaven forbid the rich kids will go to Iraq.

Support Bush!!! Go to Iraq Yourself!!! Save the HighSchool Kids from going!!!

Eric,

The Army has always recruited out of high schools. I joined the Army in 1989 and met my recruiter at my high school. Where did you THINK they were recruiting from?

My parents were, if not rich, at least very well off. I still joined the Army. Bonuses have been offered since the advent of the volunteer army as well. Some have been far higher than $10,000. It’s the market-based solution to recruiting for an all-volunteer military.

Are you advocating a draft? That’s all I can really make out from your comment on rich kids going to Iraq.

AP,

I think you’re right on with your assessment of Rumsfeld. His bull-headed beliefs and take-no-prisoners attitude finally managed to begin the process of reorienting the military from its Cold War posture.

Additionally, his bull-headed beliefs and take-no-prisoners attitude has fostered intolerably high levels of inter-departmental feuding between State, the Agency, and DoD.

It also led him to push for far too large a portion of the reconstruction mission in Iraq, and it probably caused him to convince Bush that the military couldn’t wait for “endless” UN debate because of the changing seasons.

After all, putting up with hot weather for a few months is MUCH worse than putting up with a run-away insurgency and little international support almost two years after the invasion…

Ref Kerry’s plan to double special forces: it’s nonsense. Can’t be done with the manpower available in the military without changing standards to the point the forces no longer become ‘special.’

Ref Kerry’s plan to raise an additional combat division and civil affairs ‘division’ - if it comes at the expense of missile defense (or should I call it “pretend missile defense?”) yes. Not if it takes new funding. Our military budget is out of control as is.

There also needs to be a provision for reducing that manpower once the occupation winds down. We don’t need to permanently add that many troops to our force structure unless there are big plans for other ‘experiments in democracy.’

Tim, I would say you put the money in that you need to put in. If we need those new troops, we need them, and they’ll probably be cheaper than a bunch of new weapons systems that will barely do anything against the insurgents.

Bombing worked in Kosovo because the Serbian people expected a certain level of comfort and security, had a certain level of industrial development and it was too painful to deal with its destruction by our high tech smart bombs.

But how do you do that with the insurgents? These are people who want things to go to hell. We can’t punish them into giving up.

Attrition won’t work as long as they’ve got willing recruits in large enough numbers. Levelling the cities of Iraq, one by one, will not improve that situation, neither in Iraq, nor outside of it.

So what do we do? What we were supposed to do. Go in, occupy the country with massive amounts of troops, and sit on the trouble spots. As unpopular as the occupation has been, it’s the daily images of fighting and chaos that make it especially inflammatory for Muslims and Arabs. When Iraq stops being a countrywide war zone, we’ll less to worry about in th Arab Media and elsewhere.

And if we can’t do that? Well, beg plead and get the UN involved, because otherwise the situation is going to go to hell. Simple as that.

I think Rumsfeld as one of the advocates of going to war with Iraq, and the proponent of smaller troop deployments has yet to acknowledge two problems.

He has not acknowledged what many military experts are saying that the invasion was adequately manned, what has not been manned is the stabilization force. There lies the other rub, that now we are not meeting recruitment quotas, the troops are spread too thinly.

Ultimately Bush is responsible, and has helped create this political difficulty for himself by denying and delaying responses to these problems.

Eric, your comparison of Social Security to Soviet style socialism belongs in the House UnAmerican Committee politics of the fifties.

[Comment deleted for critiquing the messenger]

Greg,

Your partisanship makes you say some of the dumbest things. Your apparent ignorance of the Depression and the reason for the establishment and purpose of Social Security makes clear the selfish and pedantic reasoning of your stance.

I don’t believe calling my beliefs and opinions ignorant, selfish, and pedantic is much of a rebuttal, Greg. Exactly how are they ignorant, selfish, and pedantic? Can you elaborate?

I am aware of the Great Depression and the climate of the philosophy of government at that time had swung far to the left. There are many schemes proposed during that time that were unconstitutional, extreme, and essentially communist/socialist, Social Security among them.

There is also a very good argument to be made that the New Deal actually prolonged the Depression.

Aldous,

If you believe in the Iraq War so much, why don’t you join the Army? They are offering $10,000 as a bonus now. The Army is now going into HIGHSCHOOLS for recruits. Heaven forbid the rich kids will go to Iraq.

Support Bush!!! Go to Iraq Yourself!!! Save the HighSchool Kids from going!!!

Are you wishing for my death in a round about way, Aldous? I can hardly believe it.

I was hoping to go with my wife’s uncle, who is Iraqi. But he is not going. He feels it’s too dangerous and I suspect he’s very busy with his business of late too. So I’ll have to wait. But that’s not the same thing is it?

For one thing I am too old to join. They won’t take me. For another, and you can choose not to believe me when I say this, but it’s true, if this had happened when I was a little younger I would have already joined. Practically my entire family has been in the military. I’ve lived on or near a half dozen bases over my childhood. My mother and step-father were in the Navy (retired). My biological father served in Korea. Putting up telephone lines in some of the pictures. My brother was a Marine and served in Bosnia. My grandfather was also in the Navy in WWII. My cousin was also in the Navy for 4 or 6 years I think. I feel a strong connection to the military. The only reason I didn’t join out of high school myself was that I am near sighted and was somewhat ‘athletically challenged’ in High School.

Besides, the Army has always gone into High Schools for recruits. Navy, Air Force, and Marines too for that matter. Well, maybe not so much the Air Force, they prefer college graduates perhaps.

I am a highly partisan person, I admit it. I am passionate about my beliefs. To feel passionate about what you believe is to make life richer (or more difficult depending on the degree of your passion.) When I see soldiers fighting in Iraq on TV I do wish I were there. You’re attempt to ‘question my patriotism’ has no bearing on whether the war was right or whether I am right to support it.

Eric,

My apologies for directing comments meant for Aldous toward you. I need to check the last line a bit more carefully, obviously.

Aldous:

Read my comments earlier addressed to Eric.

Steve,

The majority of the military experts I’ve seen questioning the choice of a smaller invasion force are the folks who refused to bend from the Cold war force structure we kept throughout the ’90s. Reform had to come some time. Rumsfeld forced it on his watch by turning to the younger, more reform-minded officers within the military and giving them the chance to implement their ideas. They aren’t necessarily ideas he generated himself.

The choice to invade with a smaller force wasn’t the problem. The choice to delay pushing the 4th ID into country, the choice to allow people to “express their freedom” through rampant looting, the choice to dismantle existing police and military units, and the choice to pick a fight with Sadr at the same time we picked a fight with the Sunni insurgency centered around Ramadi and Fallujah…THOSE are the choices that put us in our current predicament.

Add to that our inability to understand what was going on in Mosul before the insurgency ‘flared hot’ there.

And now we’ve got our current dilemma. I guess one could also talk of the embarrassing disconnect between CPA and military. While in Iraq, I ran into more soldiers (enlisted and officer alike) than I care to remember who had either never heard of the CPA or had no idea what its role was in the grand scheme of things. How can that HAPPEN? The whole point in putting the CPA under DoD was to ensure a unified effort. For that I blame Rumsfeld.

Oops. I messed up my Mosul link. Try this one:

Mosul

Tim-
To me, reform indicates improvement. But what improvement was there in going light in Iraq? Business principles mainly belong in business. They distort any other field. Yes, people talk about transformation, and have been for some time. And to a certain extent, it works, as long as the match up is technological. But if it’s a matter of attention, of human presence, then what transformation has you doing is chasing all over hell’s half acre, leaving open that location you just pacified for the enemy to come back.

In the end, what make the manpower element necessary in Iraq is that it is much easier to mind other people with other people, than it is to try and do so technologically. Yes, it will put more troops in harm’s way, but these guys aren’t wallflowers, they’re soldiers, and they respond to trouble, even as trouble makes them targets. If we make it clear we are in charge, then we’ll have fewer problems.

To this point, the only thing we’ve been making clear is that our army needs ritalin. It is both bad for morale and bad for strategic purposes to be constantly vacating trouble spots, but as our manpower is low, we have no choice but to do that.

The military doctrine of overwhelming force isn’t playing it safe, or being inefficient, it’s what you do to knock an opponent down, and keep them down regardless of their struggles. Any other way, you leave things to chance, and chance doesn’t always favor you.

Tim-
I must agree with your assessment on Tikrit. The press will always target problem areas, by it’s nature, seek out the problems and distress. This should not be a discouraging thing to policy makers, but instead an encouragement to get things right, to be true to principles and ethics. Why? Because in the end, if you produce good results, they’ll have less to report. Get the important things right, and you can always tell people the media’s sweating the small stuff.

This is why I think few people buy the administration line that the media’s just failing to give out the good news: because the problems people are seeing are looking pretty major. It’s much easier to get people to look on the bright side of things when there aren’t serious unresolved issues out in the open.

Assuming that Bush and Rumsfeld had followed this line of thought, would they have been able to pass a bill through congress authorizing the 4 billion additional dollars necessary to do so?

Eric, if an $87 billion funding bill passed, there’s no reason to believe an extra $4 billion would have made any difference.

Whether he really cares about the troops or not is only based on party assumptions for political gain.

kctim, the point of the article was that even Republicans have no confidence in Rumsfeld. It’s not always about politics. Sometimes political gain is just a bonus from doing the right thing.

You know, your people nattered on about mixed messages, and I think it’s time that you understand one important point: the most mixed message possible is a war fought half-assed, like your people are doing.

Damn, Stephen. I wish I had said that.

Tim, I’m totally with you on your last post. As for the previous one,

Ref Kerry’s plan to double special forces: it’s nonsense. Can’t be done with the manpower available in the military without changing standards to the point the forces no longer become ‘special.’

Obviously these guys are highly trained. No one thought they’d double overnight. The point of expanding the special forces is that they’ll be more useful in eliminating terrorists than an armored division.

Kerry’s plan was for the long haul. If you think we’re overextended now, just wait until we need to also secure Sudan, Yemen, North Korea, etc. over the coming decades. Even with a multinational force, the bulk of the troops will necessarily be US.

And Stephen’s reply to the rest of that post was right on the money.

Steve,

I like your analysis of the benefit press coverage can have when it encourages honest attempts to fix (or prevent) problems.

On the other hand, Mosul serves as an example of press coverage that really didn’t pay off. Because people (and many among the press) wanted to see the “softly, softly” approach, they played up the ‘successes’ of the 101st in and around Mosul. It created false expectations, it pushed the Army to pursue similar policies as a means of avoiding bad press, and not many folks within the press establishment care to go back in, look at what really happened there, and contradict initial assessments.

Worse, it has turned General “Betray us” (as he was known to most working for him) into a new Army visionary. He’s not. He’s a political hack who has mastered self promotion (much like Wesley “Can you hear me now?” Clark).

Ref force structure: the army most of the ‘experts’ bemoaning our experience in Iraq wanted would have been equally (or more) unprepared for the insurgency.

If I were going to list lessons learned from Soviet experiences in Afghanistan, compared to US experiences, I would judge the initial size of the invasion force as perfectly acceptable. As a matter of fact, I DID judge things that way prior to the invasion.

One of the masterful strokes of the US in Afghanistan was to land heavy punches on the opponent without leaving much to strike back at. More than that, a light footprint reduced the impression of occupation that helped ignite Afghan resistance to the Soviets. Soviet attempts to use armored forces in Afghanistan and Chechnya both influenced US operational decision-making (in my estimation) when the campaign for Iraq was put together.

Rumsfeld simply promoted the ‘next generation’ sooner than would otherwise have occured. They were coming…and so were the reforms they have pushed. I personally question whether more Americans would have done anything other than created more targets when the insurgency kicked off.

One of the other ‘culprits’ I see for this stage of the Sunni insurgency is the 82nd Airborne. The risk-averse culture among their officers led to a dangerously ‘hands-off’ approach in and around Ramadi and Fallujah - right when the heavy fist was required. I breathed a serious sigh of relief when I saw Marines replacing them. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the posting on my blog, it was the heavy fist coming too late after the open hand.

Bottom line: I believe the size of the invasion force was acceptable (if just barely). I believe the actions taken after initial consolidation following the invasion laid the roots for the insurgency. Risk averse senior and mid-grade officers didn’t move quickly enough in Mosul, Ramadi, and Fallujah - for fear of casualties and bad press.

My belief is that that risk aversion is just another form of problem aversion, of behavior that more or less treats symptoms rather than dealing with causes.

Dealing with the press, I think the best thing to do is your job. Just be willing and able to explain your actions afterwards. There will always be risk in dealing with the press. A risk-free press wouldn’t be doing it’s job: to endanger the careers and policies of those who don’t do their job.

While people in the press should be better informed, it is ludicrous to blame reporters for decisions that are in the military’s hands. Few people remember the hand-wringing that naturally comes with each successful war. We remember that we were successful. Military commands should recognize that press is of the moment, lost battles are forever. They should stick to what they do best and not try to work P.R. by military strategy that has life and death consequences.

As for Afghanistan, I figure not putting in troops is more indicative of risk aversion than anything else. The issue is not being seen as occupiers, it was about the pursuit and absolute destruction of al-Qaeda. Again, we should be less worried about what people think about our military if it does not improve our ability to take the necessary actions for our national security.

In a sense, Afghanistan is everything Iraq was supposed to be. It was an easy battle to win, it was a war fought unquestionably in our own defense, liberating a people from their despotic rulers, who they were glad to see go. There, we had international support, and still do. There, we had no resistance from the Arab world, because everybody knew the Taliban brought this on themselves. Afghan resistance wasn’t merely a product of occupation but also of religious repression that the British and Russians brought along. If we respected Afghan beliefs, increased their religious freedom, that would go a long way towards avoiding that problem. But by returning things to pre-Taliban chaos, we’re demonstrating a dangerous mixed message: the cure is worse than the disease.

As for greater numbers of soldiers creating more targets… Well, no offense, but that is risk averse thinking at its worst. When it comes to military targets, it’s always preferable to have fewer targets rather than more targets, because in military matters, your targets fire back. Lowballing troop numbers means having less ability to fire back, to counter and defend. We are facing a fanatical enemy in a guerilla war- overwhelming presence is our only good choice of action. Otherwise, we exhaust our forces playing strategic whack-a-mole.

The insurgency was not inevitable, at least not in it’s current form. Worse than being soft in our treatment of the countryside we occupy is being neglectful, and light forces present no other options but neglect.

We should not take the Russians as our model for what we do, The Russians fight with imperial and territorial imperatives built in, we do not. What lessons the Russians learn are unwieldy for a nation like ours, which doesn’t intend permanent occupation.

I think we need to be realistic about war. The best technology in the world cannot replace strategy and boots on the ground. There is something about the infantry soldiers that has made them eternally indispensable for any army wishing for success. But there use will always entail risk and tragedy, as that is the nature of war. Let’s be realistic: casualties are a natural part of military action. If you don’t want them, don’t go to war. But in the wake of 9/11, I think people are willing to accept a level of sacrifice to see things done, to end an interminable threat to our security- an Iraq in chaos or in the hands of the radicals who are our real enemies.

Transformation works when we’re countering other technology, but infantry wars and occupations need boots on the ground, and I think that’s our situation here.

Yes, Eric I’ve heard the argument that the new deal prolonged the Depression. I’ve also heard the argument that Hilter did the Jews a favor, or better yet that the Holocaust was a hoax.

Rather than make an argument against your nonsensical argument ,Eric, I propose you explain what you intend to do about those that thru disease, happenstance, theft, or economic vagaries have no means of support or ability to work? Should we start the Eric express and ship them to an artic Ice Flow? or perhaps we could grind them into soylent green. You make ridiculous arguments and then expect someone to argue with you in a rational manner?

You rail against economic transfers of wealth, but see no problem whatsoever in opportunistic capitalism. That to you is totally moral and just. I know no serious economist or politician that believes raw, unrestrained capitalism is serious policy. Name one that doesn’t believe in some economic transfers.You simply rant against a name or idea that doesn’t suit your narrow point of view.

To the watch blog manager: I did not attack Eric personally. I actually like many of his posts. I recognize his contribution to Watchblog. He is clearly intelligent and well spoken. What I attacked is poor argument, poor logic and misstatement of fact.

Steve,

When I talk of risk aversion in the modern (U.S.) military sense, I am speaking of officers who would rather let a problem fester because engagement would create casualties that SEEM to reflect poorly on a commander’s abilities. It usually comes down more to careerism than anything else. Officers fear ruining their chances for promotion by undertaking difficult operations. It’s a trend far more visible in light forces within the Army than in either the Marines or our heavier forces.

That being said, I don’t think the issue is “we’re afraid because we’re under-equipped” - I think it’s a difference in mentality that was fostered over the years of ‘relative’ peace since the advent of our professional army. Light units were considered more choice assignments, leading to a more competitive breed of officer. Unfortunately, competitiveness in a peacetime army doesn’t always get you very far as a wartime commander. The name of the game was fewer casualties - that became the competitive milestone.

I don’t blame reporters for military decisions. As noted above, I DO blame commanders who choose to play more to the press than to fight the war. Your point - “military commands should recognize that press is of the moment” is well-stated.
Putting less troops into Afghanistan was smart campaigning. I’ve spent enough time there and humped/driven up and down enough forbidding terrain to understand the difficulties our troops - and helicopters - have working at altitude in such severe terrain. The U.S. military doesn’t have enough good, hard light infantry and didn’t have the capability of projecting a large enough force (and keeping it supplied) to fight any other way. There are/were plenty of hard Afghans willing to hump up mountains that US soldiers, quite simply, couldn’t climb.

The (somewhat unintended) benefit of this approach was leaving nothing for the enemy to strike back at. If you can do that and accomplish the majority of your campaign objectives, then that’s smart war-fighting. Additional troops in Afghanistan during the majority of the serious fighting campaign would have done little to aid in the destruction of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The numbers of both who were killed runs far higher than has been publicly discussed. The tactical and operational difficulties of operating in Afghanistan have been largely glossed over with time.

Things in Afghanistan have NOT returned to pre-Taliban chaos. Those areas of the country where the Taliban had the firm support of the population (southern and southeastern Afghanistan primarily - centered around Khost and Uruzgun, stretching northward through Waziristan) remain dicey because the people in those regions were the only folks within the country who have lost from the Taliban’s departure (much like they were the only ones to really gain from their assumption of power). I’ve spent a lot of time talking to Afghans from all over the country. From what I have seen and heard, occupation to them is�well, occupation. They want to feel that decisions and choices made are theirs, not those of an occupying power. Enough of them feel that way to leave the guns at home and ignore Mullah Omar’s cries for jihad.

If greater numbers of soldiers create more targets without aiding in mission accomplishment, then we aren’t doing ourselves any good. In Iraq, we are facing a small number of fanatical opponents who are surrounded and supported by a much larger number of ‘part-time’ fighters who do it for money, for a kick, or because they caught the latest rant in the mosque and decided to join in for a day. The larger our footprint, the more the population has turned against us - and the more part-time fighters are willing to go out and give some time to the fight.

I spent three months in the Sunni Triangle working for the CPA (luckily on the corner of the triangle where they don’t virulently hate everything Western). Each incremental step up in the US presence and posture there turned more of the population against the military and made it easier for the insurgency to move and operate amongst that population. At the same time, the CPA operated with relative impunity. Iraqi power brokers in the region (tribal leaders, etc.) understood the CPA was there to help and, through whatever contacts they had with insurgency leaders, they gave us largely a ‘free ride.’ Not so for the military. The city often led the nation in number of IED attacks against military convoys.

Bottom line? In those areas where hearts and minds COULD be won, large military forces that strip local leaders of their authority alienate the population. And the more the US becomes the ultimate source of authority, the more they (we) are to blame for anything bad that happens within our purview.

The insurgency was indeed not inevitable. However, the insurgency is not a result of too small a US presence. It is the result of the US alienating too large a portion of the population by allowing looting within the capital at the end of the invasion (when there WERE enough troops in Baghdad to put a stop to it). It is the result of alienating the Shiites at the same time we chose to pick another fight with the Sunni insurgency. It is the result of applying too strict a standard on those local authorities we were willing to work with (in stark contrast to Afghanistan). It is the result of dismissing the internal security infrastructure because we thought we could do a better job of rebuilding from the ground up.
The Russians provide a tactical and operational model (largely of what NOT to do). Nothing more. I certainly don�t think they can offer us tips on how to deal with insurgencies.

I agree that we need to be realistic about war. However, boots on the ground cannot replace a local security structure. Why do the Palestinians hate the Israelis with such passion? Too many “boots on the ground.” There are places within Iraq that require more troops - mostly within the western and northern portions of the Sunni Triangle.

More than that, though - Iraqis need to understand we DO plan on leaving. And they need to understand that they ARE still responsible for their own fate. The larger our occupation force and the less authority we leave for locals, the more resentment we create. We made the mistake of applying too high a standard for cooperation and now we have to go back and try to convince folks we dismissed as unimportant that we DO want and need their help.

Don’t mischaracterize an ‘occupation’ as an ‘infantry war’ - and don’t think in such easy generalizations. That’s the sort of thinking that got us in trouble in the first place�

Tim
I don’t think anybody likes being occupied. Once you start truly occupying a country, though, trying not to look like an occupying force is the last thing you want to do. Why? Because you can’t fool anybody, and going in too light will just make you easier targets.

The minute we took Baghdad, we were occupiers. When we let looters run amok, we were worse than occupiers, we were also barbarians. I think the issues you complain about, and those I do go hand in hand, but it seems odd to me that you don’t see the connections between some of what you believe, in terms of risk aversion and policy. I think there are uses for light and heavy forces, and occupations are not for light forces. I think the trouble with Israel is that the Palestians get the impression that they are there too stay, regardless of what it does to them.

Trouble is, we’ve given everybody the impression that we are simply invading, crusading barbarians, who have no regard for the lives of Arabs or Muslims, and who want to simply set up the country as a base for further crusades. We’re setting up permanent bases in the country for a purpose that to Arabs and Muslims will seem indistinguishable from that, despite the fact that our motives are more political than not. We’re not going to win by having a soft or a light presence. We need to restore law and order, and get the insurgency under control, and and trying not to look like an occupying power is simply denying what we’ve got ourselves into.

Steve,

I think the differences in our opinion may come down to a simple fact: I believe that Arabs and Iraqis already think we are in Iraq for the long haul and don’t believe we are interested in establishing an independent government there. Further, I believe expanding the occupation confirms that suspicion and expands the resistance.

You believe people there simply want law and order and will accept it even if it comes from a heavy-handed US force.

Does that sound about right?

Full disclosure: I voted for Kerry largely because I think the Bush administration flubbed the occupation. I DON’T believe that flub is based on a lack of troops or a lack of equipment. It’s based on poor planning, inaccurate assumptions regarding how we would be greeted, and the American soldier’s general disdain for peacekeeping as opposed to warfighting.

I’m not sure how the Brits manage to have better fighting infantry AND better peacekeepers than we do…but it ticks me off because I can’t stand their smarmy accents…

The question I would pose to you, is why we had to run take forces from Fallujah to deal with Mosul after our November offensive. That’s what you call a manpower problem.

You think it’ll aggravate things to have more soldiers there. I think the chaos and the moral failures on our part have contributed more to that than anything else. You may have a point in the short term, but in the long term, you’ve still got to win the war. The Arabs and Muslims of the world already think we’re acting like a bunch of barbarians. The chaos there just indicates how little strength and moral character we’ve got.

I think folks in that region respect strength. They respect those who can keep control of things, keep order and law. I don’t believe they will long complain of the increased presence if we manage to crowd out the insurgents and terrorists and reduce the bloody mayhem. Once that is done, it’ll be easier to reconstruct the country, and we’ll be closer to getting our collective ass out of the pre-emptive invasion business. The faster we can leave a legitimate free-standing Iraq behind us, the less we will inflame sentiments. Our objective must be to end the occupation as fast as we can. Better to the rip the band-aid off than to spend years pealing ourselves away. Remember how I said the press is of the moment? So’s public opinion. If we get our results, and don’t spill too much innocent blood to do it, then we can make obvious strides toward removing our presence.

I tell you what- what we need to do is generate a protective cocoon of manpower around the country. Keep the borders patrolled, the cities and roads secure, the pipelines intact, and do all this long enough to train the Iraqis to do it. When they are capable of handling it, we ease the load onto their shoulders and we drop our troop levels, leaving the obligatory base here and there.

Otherwise, the very state of war will interfere with our ability to reconstruct the nation, and get it on its feet. We’re juggling too much with too few soldiers, and unfortunately, we’ve been doing that from the start. That’s how we got this way.

What will get us into trouble is more Abu-Ghraib behavior. There is tough behavior, and then there is sociopathic, sadistic, sexually degenerate behavior. God what that lost us. It may even be what ultimately loses us the war. We cannot claim to be evangelists of the human rights gospel in the face of this kind of conduct.

We need to learn from the brits their style of dealing with counter-insurgents and terrorism, because they’ve had personal experience of that stuff. Go compare their casualties and ours.

Steve,

I think I’ve stumbled upon another key difference in our outlook. If elections in January elect anything even remotely representing a representative group of Iraqis, I expect that new government to tell us, “Thanks…but no thanks. Get out.” At which point, we have to decide if it’s worth undermining our efforts to build a sovereign Iraq by declining.

The Brits are taking fewer casualties because they have minimized their footprint, relied on LIGHT INFANTRY foot patrols in conjunction with Iraqis who have been granted real enforcement authority, and because the attitudes in and around the Shiite areas they occupy were much less hostile to begin with. In other words, they’re doing what we SHOULD have done. Presenting a less aggressive signature with fewer troops, making Iraqi authorities feel more responsible for keeping the peace, and accepting that relying on Iraqi authority will involve certain trade offs.

There are areas that require a high concentration of troops and others that do not. The US has done a poor job of balancing between the two. Placing too many aggressive troops into the wrong section of the country expands the insurgency rather than quelling it.

The notion that strength is all that Arabs respect is badly overplayed. The United States can’t commit the forces and can’t act tough enough to stop the insurgency through strength - at least not everywhere. We don’t have the troops, we don’t have the brutal mindset, and public opinion (here and elsewhere) wouldn’t support it. And we can’t GET the troops. It’s pie-in-the-sky reasoning to talk about forming a protective coccoon around the country because it ain’t gonna happen. By the time such a force could be raised, we’ll have been outta the country for years. We have to look at the resources available, re-determine our desired end state, and get the best we can out of the current situation.

My opinion? The best we can expect now is to stabilize until the elections and then do everything we can to demonstrate that government is the legitimate ruling authority. That will likely include a withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2005. With that in mind, every effort needs to be made to prepare government troops for independent operations.

If we play smash-mouth in Mosul like we did in Fallujah - which seems to be in line with what you are recommending - we’re done. We MIGHT be able to let the Kurds go in tough and get away with it but hitting Mosul as hard as we hit Fallujah will stir up so much chaos in places like Samarra, Baqubah, Ramadi, and Baghdad that the country will be pushed closer to civil war than it already is.

Take a closer look at how and why the Brits have taken so many fewer casualties and I think you’ll see it doesn’t involve massive use of troops and it doesn’t involve an “occupation mindset.”

The larger our occupation force, the less Iraqis feel responsible for events. The less they feel responsible, the more we get blamed for everything that happens. The more we get blamed, the more the insurgency grows. The more we react to this by killing insurgents, the more we turn people against us as an occupier. There are certain times and places in which we have no choice but to knock heads together…but it can’t be the countrywide policy.

Tim, I think you make some really good points, and it just underscores how woefully unprepared the Bush administration and the Pentagon were for administering post-war Iraq.

And beyond that, it highlights the arrogance of the administration in turning down additional international troops who, like the Brits, are better trained in policing and civil affairs.

AP,

It worries me to see the US get carried away with unilateral action. It creates an environment where we seem to be ASKING for others to join up and work against us.

As the most powerful kid in the school, we have the ability to dictate which playground game we want to play. We’ve picked “King of the Hill” - problem is, there can only be one king and everyone ELSE has the goal of pulling that one down.

Tim-
I think we are far past the point where people have taken up an occupational mindset. People blame us already, and I doubt our sporadic presence is helping things. We do need to keep our footprint small where it’s not necessary to stomp anybody, but we need to have the option to put in more forces and keep them there, because otherwise we will end up playing strategic whack-a-mole. We need to create law and order before we try to pass it on to native forces. We are seeing the insurgents taking apart the cities and the civil forces, because we haven’t done this ground work first.

We do not need to raise theory to a pedestal over practice, neglecting problems because we believe that solving them might cause problems. No solution is perfect, but not having a solution is much worst. We can always learn from our experience, learn from those with authority on the subject, and adjust our approach to what we learn.

I guess I don’t see the point in trying to mollify people already mad at us for invading, making their country a warzone and occupying them. The anger of the people is an inevitable result of war, especially when one segment of that society loses it’s historic hold on power. At that point, force is the only option in gaining control, and law and order, coupled with peace and a cooled down situation are the only ways to bring a lasting peace to the country. We’re not there to make friends. We’re there to make Iraq a stable country that’s at least neutral in respect to us. The last thing we need to worry about is whether they like us.

That said, people do not need to see what our forces do as being targeted at the average Iraqi. We need to isolate the troublemakers, and get the Iraqis to resent them. We need security, but not oppressive control. We need them motivated to maintain the order.

The Brits are succeeding, I think, because they were handed the easiest, most docile part of the country, and the British are historically respected in Iraq. They are also very well trained by their own encounters with paramilitary and guerrilla forces in places like Northern Ireland to deal with exactly our kind of problem. They know how to spot bombs, how to run down troublemakers, and how to use knowledge of language and native custom to smooth things over.

Greg,

Rather than make an argument against your nonsensical argument …Should we start the Eric express and ship them to an artic Ice Flow? or perhaps we could grind them into soylent green. You make ridiculous arguments and then expect someone to argue with you in a rational manner?

I’m sorry Greg, but that’s the point of my argument. I think I have a valid point. You however just want to express your belief that I want to ship people off to Siberia. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You rail against economic transfers of wealth, but see no problem whatsoever in opportunistic capitalism. That to you is totally moral and just. I know no serious economist or politician that believes raw, unrestrained capitalism is serious policy. Name one that doesn’t believe in some economic transfers.You simply rant against a name or idea that doesn’t suit your narrow point of view.

When we look at the causes of the Great Depression we see two things that stand out, the Smoot Hawley Tariff and responing similiar resolutions enacted in other countries that greatly affected world trade and the mismanagement of the money supply. Hoover did in fact contribute as well, not through following laissez-faire policies but by diverging from them. Protectionist policies and government intervention created a longer recession than had happened anytime before in our history- when we did nothing. If you look at what Hoover actually tried to do you will be surprised to find a prescription much like your own and much like the New Deal. Hoover acted against the advise of his laissez-faire supporters. Hoover was the RINO of his time. A ‘moderate’.

I’d like a further definition of exactly what ‘opportunistic capitalism’ is. What is ‘raw unrestrained capitalism’? You are talking about something entirely different from what I believe.

My original comment (accidentally posted here) was about Social Security. It’s a ponzi scheme. It’s not a ‘retirement system’ and was never passed as such. There are no ‘accounts’. There is no ‘trust fund’. It is a direct transfer from workers to non workers. Those are just the facts.

Steve,

As much as I WANT to battle until I can get in the last word, I feel as if I’ve typed until my fingers are blue (no…they don’t really turn blue. That was a figure of speech).

Suffice it to say we have agreed that “mistakes were made” during the planning and implementation of the invasion and occupation - from the intelligence used to justify the invasion to the wildly inaccurate assumptions regarding what a post-invasion Iraq would look like.

As for specifics regarding the actual plan (troop levels, troop placement, rules of engagement, etc.) - there we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Or agree that I’m right. I find either of those two options acceptable…

Eric-
If only we had just let capitalism go without regulation- Trouble is, that’s exactly what was happening. What do you think the stock crash was about?

You see, the trouble is, the market depends on knowledge, and often people seeking to take profit are willing to withold knowledge in order to reap greater profits. They often do this at the expense of those who have invested their money with the aim to keep it in places where it will make money for them. In short, people lie to maintain illusions that prevent the market from correcting itself. You rely on a kind of perfection that exist neither in humanity nor in human systems.

Now, we can identify certain hazards ahead of time, because the pattern repeats itself. So we regulate, where greedy folk don’t tend to learn their lessons. Insider trading, monopolistic practices, conflicts of interests- in general places where money and power create opportunities for the dishonest and the powerful to harm the economy, the average man or woman, and our interests as a nation.

To you, the only possible evil, it seems, is that people aren’t able to take whatever license with whatever practice they want to. I however don’t trust the rich and the powerful to be perfect saints and find it highly dubious that we would put such unrestrained power in their hands. People should be able to make money, but to let them have the power to ruin people’s lives and undermine the rest of the economy to achieve this- I don’t think that’s worth the price, and time and again, the liberal’s more skeptical view of business and the economy has come true far more often.

I’m in the middle of a really interesting book, “The War of the Running Dogs”, by Noel Barber about how the British defeated the communist insurgency in Malaya. It seems pretty relevent.

While there are clear differences with Iraq, there are some really good ideas for separating insurgents from their popular support: National ID cards seem like a no brainer.

The really interesting thing about the campaign is that it was under civilian control from the start. The Brits on the scene saw the conflict as a war of ideologies, and knew that a squad of troops blundering around jungle shooting anything that moved could undo months of counterinsurgency work.

Of course the fundamental cornerstone of the victory was security, “…you can’t expect any support from people you can’t protect.”

I suppose that will be the most obvious lesson “learned” in Iraq.

It’s hard to blame the military leadership, since they were the ones raising all the red flags before the invasion. The full blame for lack of security - and ultimately the failure to achieve an optimum result in Iraq - rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration.

Greg & Stephen, keep Eric talking. I can’t think of anything more effective in getting moderate Republicans to vote Democrat than Eric explaining Republican ideology.

I can’t believe anyone is stupid enough to believe the current Republican leadership doesn’t want to completely dismantle our national safety net.

Eric, you atated that Social Security was tantamount to Socialism which is what I objected to.

Stephen has stated fairly clearly what I had to say about unrestrained capitalism.

I will add our current system of “privatization” is in reality a transfer of wealth from the taxpayer (largely middleclass workers) to wealthy corporate owners.

I will further add that any economic transaction invovles wealth transfer. The issue is weather it is regressive or progressive. (Another inderlying issue in the Depression)

Hoover’s “Laissez Faire” did contribute to the Depression. The Stock Market crash was in effect the exposing of a Ponzi scheme at the time.

While some argue that the “New Deal” did contribute to continuing the Depression, I will only ask you, why did WWII end it? Did government spending on the arms build up have anything to do with it? Did liquidity created by federal spending have anything to do with it? I will agree that the New Deal did have problems largely due to the Commerce Secretary at the time. Unlike many modern economic magicians today, I do not believe Keynsian Economics is dead, nor is the business cycle. I frankly worry a lot about these new “economists” who think we are way too smart to have a another depression.

Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme ” only if you do not control the Federal fiscal policy and the Federal Reserve. You are 100% correct that it is not a retiremnent account. Which is why oppose Bush’s approach as stated so far. It is called socially responsible goverment, which needs to backed by socially responsible fiscal policy. Something this administration seems to be poorly aquainted with.

by the way what is RINO?

Republican In Name Only. A good example would be Schwarzenegger. “Zig Zag” Zell Miller would be an example of a DINO, Democrat In Name Only.

Thanks, AP

My question is: Why do they keep saying they are Democrats, when their words ring of everything against what this country stands for?????????