Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I agree - but I think it’s a pipe dream. This leader does not have the courage nor the following to enact large scale change at home. He’s become a lame duck by vacationing at one of the most crucial junctures in Iraq - and one of the most violent months on record. But at least he has gained ‘some balance in his life.’

I am getting old and senile maybe, but when was the last time we sent National Guard to a foreign country? Isn’t the National Guard supposed to protect THIS country? Is it because there are not enough regular troops? If so, why?

Does the new Iraqi constitution support democratic principles? Not from what I am reading and hearing, if it is based on religious law. We are apparently relenting on this issue so TPTB can have the constitution on time. Huh?

Are the reports I hear true that we haven’t enough trained soldiers to send in replacement of the ones there?

I find this all so mind boggling, since we went there and started the damn thing.

The US has/had no business attacking a sovereign country, whatever the reasons given now that it was best to get rid of Saddam. If that’s the case and our intent, there are many countries were we will be fighting next. Even the police can do nothing about a crime that MIGHT be committed.

In order to get the Iraqis trained to protect themselves we need to bring them here, at least for the initial training. Who cares if they don’t want that? Did we care about anything else we have done?

There’s a whole lot of arrogance in our current stance.

You cannot create a democracy in a country so steeped in religious culture. Each day we hear about another Iraqi religious group that must be represented in the government. There are 6 or 7 I think that have to be accommodated.

Imagine having a Senate in this country where it was mandated that there had to be a Catholic, Jew, Baptist, Evangelist, Muslim, etc.

Then, every committee and other body had to be set up the same way. Same for the Judicial system right up to the Supreme Court.

It is not possible regardless of how many soldiers you have or how well trained they are. The soldiers themselves have religious diversity.

Steve:

If this is in response to my post “You cannot create a democracy in a country so steeped in religious culture” I will ask why not? Our democracy supports various religions. Having them make a constitution NOT based on religion is what was supposed to happen as I understand it. That is what they are giving up. I am asking why, because much of that goes against what my understanding of democracy means. I could certainly be wrong, but I really don’t understand what you posted.

—-
There’s a whole lot of arrogance in our current stance.
—-
I’ve heard it said the we (Americans) are the teenagers of the world. Indestructible, always right - and anyone who disagrees with us just doesn’t understand. We also have really, really, really bad credit problems.

Steve -

Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel (of poop.) Sure, you might hit what ya aim at, but who cares… it all stinks.

womanmarine,

It is my understanding that what they are establishing is a way of government that will as necessary, include and/or exclude certain religious factions based on either their beliefs and/or their geographical locations within the country.

If this is generally factual, unilateral laws and/or rights cannot be guaranteed for all and are not possible.

Should my interpretation be wrong please clarify my mis-understanding.

Steve:

I really wasn’t trying to pick on you or your interpretation, I just didn’t understand it.

I still don’t see how they can’t all be represented and have it not be on a religious basis. Kinda like our states are represented.

My reading indicates that under the Islamic law there aren’t many, if any, rights for women and children. Shouldn’t we be against this? Aren’t some of thier laws and punishments somewhat barbaric? Isn’t human rights a goal here?

“Unilateral laws and/or rights cannot be guaranteed for all and are not possible.”

Again I ask, why on earth not?

Again, not picking on your interpretation, just trying to understand how it fits the overall scheme of the intent over there.

Stephen,
Good post.

“The time has come to ask Americans as a people to do their part as a people to win this war, to get people involved.”

That time has come and gone.

Today the Iraqis submitted constitution, although it’s more like a rough draft.

The Sunnis have been ignored in the drafting process and in this resulting constitution. They face a difficult choice, but their decision is predictable.

The Sunnis can vote for approval in the constitutional referendum on October 15. Voting in favor of this constitution permanently ratifies their position of political & economic weakness. Not likely.

More likely, the Sunnis will reject the constitution. If 3 provinces reject the constitution, the government will be dissolved. Unfortunately, the results will essentially be the same; the Kurds and Shias will establish independent states, leaving the Sunnis in a position of political & economic weakness. The Kurds & the Shias correctly perceive this, and I doubt they particularly care whether the constitution is ratified or not, since it will institute an exceedingly weak government.

As the Iraqis and their SCIRI party turn increasingly towards Iran, the Sunnis will depend increasingly upon the Saudis.

Our best chance will be to reach out to the Sunni Baathists, and recreate a Baathist state (sans Saddam) in central Iraq. And that’s if we’re lucky.

Ironic, eh? But better a secular, repressive regime in central Iraq , rather than a failed Islamic state serving as a breeding ground for jihad. Which is what we had before taking out Saddam in the first place…

From the beginning, those who studied the history of Iraq, have been saying the only thing preventing civil war in Iraq, was an authoritarian government and military state. Having removed that, the future of Iraq is as plain as the nose on Saddam’s face.

All of Bush’s rhetorical speeches to the American people since his realization of this truth, have been aimed at trying to keep the American people from learning this truth. For if and when, the American people accept the inevitability of civil war and disintegration of the state of Iraq, (something the CIA has known for decades), the Iraq failure becomes Bush’s failure, the Iraq war becomes Bush’s war, and the costs of fighting it become Bush’s blame.

This is politics at its simplest, folks. The exercise of power to fulfill the powerful’s preferences, and the rhetoric to make it appear noble and just after the fact. Politics, pure and simple. The Orwellian future is present tense. And the reason Bush’s poll numbers are tanking is because the American people, slow as they are, are finally beginning to realize they have been had by the rhetoric, as they become more educated about the predictability of Iraq’s history.

womanmarine,

“I still don’t see how they can’t all be represented and have it not be on a religious basis. Kinda like our states are represented.”

We in America, a country that has been a living experiment in democracy, still have infighting about religion.
My point is that we here have been doing democracy for nearly 230 years and we still have some problems with it.

We cannot expect, all good wishes aside, for the Iraqis to pick this up in a few months. This is an advanced civics class and we are trying to forcefeed these folks a government that they don’t have a clue about.

I just don’t see Bush adapting to the changed circumstances in Iraq. The time has come and gone, and that time was in June, when Bush gave a mediocre speech full of “stay the course” rhetoric, the usual baloney.

There will be another speech this week, but I don’t expect anything new; and even if Bush finally did demonstrate adaptability, it’s too late now. The bad decisions have already been made, the wrong path followed too far to turn back.

What I do expect is an aggressively Rovian approach. “Who lost Iraq?” Bush will ask. It won’t be a matter of bad policy, or lack of planning, or Iraqi corruption or insurrection, or anything of the sort.

It will be the fault of the critics themselves.

Count on it. The Bush administration contains some utterly despicable people. Count on it- no matter how unbelievable it seems today, it is only a matter of time before they revert to form, a very low common denominator indeed, and the Bush people will blame the war critics.

Rocky:

Good point. So how realistic is Bush’s supposed spreading of democracy? Was it ever? Or just another failed reason for the war? No WMD, now no democracy?

I’m having a hard time getting my mind around all this.

Just because we still have infighting about religion does not put the USA on that level, since freedom of religion is part and parcel of our democracy. There will always be some fighting about different beliefs. It’s just how violent and intolerant they get that cause problems.

JMHO of course :)

phx8-
I hope things don’t unfold in such a dire fashion. Even then, I think this is something we need to deal with, because even if this war gets lost, there will be others, and we will suffer the same kinds of problems if we try to have things both ways. We must count the cost of what we do.

There’s an element of selectivity involved when the commitment to war carries costs and involvements that run across society. That’s why I’m not opposed to the resumption of the draft. As bad as it is to get yanked into a war under obligation to fight and die, it makes the decision to fight or not fight a personal one, rather than an abstract one. If Bush or any future president wants to fight other big wars, he will have to be more careful, and more compelling in his case for war to avoid political backlash.

There are things we should avoid getting into half committed, and war is one of them.

womanmarine,

Trying to spread democracy isn’t nescessarily a bad thing.
That said, however, the people of the countries that democracy is being spread to have to have enough interest in it to actually fight for it themselves. Ours was started by a revolution, after all.
This whole “hearts and minds” thing has been a red herring from the begining, just as “shock and awe” was.
America went into this expecting to overwhelm Iraq in days, with the support of the Iraqi people. That support never materialized, and I don’t see an Independance Day celebration any time in the forseeable Iraqi future.

Stephen,
Rather than a draft, mandatory service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 22 might make sense. Mandatory means everyone. No exceptions. No deferments. Everyone.

Mandatory service would certainly undermine the Chickenhawks. I don’t believe for a second, not a second, that Bush thinks the Invasion of Iraq is worth endangering his daughters.

Perhaps if the stakes were higher, and the sacrifice for our country more fairly spread, decisions to go to war would be made only as a last resort, and not by choice.

phx8-
The draft is better for a country of our size. it’s equality is in its randomness. It also is a need-based system- you don’t draft unless you got a war on, and you’re serious about it.

Mandatory service would probably not appeal to most voters, especially those who are not particularly martial in spirit. The Draft at least gives them the chance to either call themselves conscientious objectors, or to simply be passed over by the system.

Draft, my rear!!! Considering how hard it is to get the Red Column in this Blog to just give their name and email, you think they would agree to a DRAFT???

Stephen,
No exceptions can be allowed; otherwise, you have a situation like with past drafts, where the wealthy & powerful found ways around service.

Length of service could expand or contract to meet the needs of the military. In peacetime, a two-year stint might cover the country’s needs. In times of war, four years might be necessary. Consciencious objectors could serve communities non-violently, in roles now performed by the National Guard.

If everyone were equally committed, I’m sure a lot more thought would go into going to war.

I agree with phx8. I think that mandatory service can prevent unneccesary or stupid wars, and a draft could only bring in political pressure after the fact. If the children of the rich and powerful aren’t already committed, we will continue to try to wage wars cheaply enough that it’s not neccessary to call them up.

Rocky:

So, I’m to believe that our government didn’t know going in or anytime since that democracy wouldn’t or couldn’t exist there? I don’t buy that and that puts the kybosh to the “spread democracy” argument. What’s left?

You are absolutely right about the red herring. We’ve had an overdose of red herring.

Hey, if the princes of England can do it, why is it too good for America?

I think y’all are missing something right here- it won’t change what rich folks do to get out of service. Some will claim injuries, which under any common sense military policy, will get people excluded. Somebody will find a way to steer young men and women of the rich into units out of harm’s way.

The best disinfectant for this disease is sunlight. Name and shame.

Making service mandatory just makes for a military with too many people just passing through and counting days. With a draft, there are advantages: the call-up is temporary, saving taxpayers the expense of supporting and training millions of soldiers on a permanent basis who are only going to be in for few years at best, and who are only going to get used on occasion.

Plus, consider one important factor: If you’ve got a great big standing army convenient all the time like that, people are going to invent uses for them. Having mandatory service is essentially going to militarize American society, which is in excess of what I want. I like the idea of citizen soldiers better than Starship Troopers.

womanmarine-
Can I recommend a whine to go with the Red Herring? My personal favorite is the “it’s hard work”. ;-)

Stephen,
Great points. Despite the militarism of Starship Troopers, you have to admit there is something compelling about the idea of only allowing those who serve the right to vote. It’s fascistic, and places the state above the individual, but there is a rought justice behind the idea.

You’re right, a large standing army might be too tempting to an unscrupulous politician, one who, say, needs to distract the electorate from a poorly performing economy right before a midterm election with a splendid little war…

The fairness of service in time of need would be my greatest concern. If it’s a matter of national security, everyone serves in a draft. Everyone.

Stephen:

Sure, as long as it’s red! (To go with the red herring you know) :)

Can anyone explain to me why we can take a 17 year old american, right out of high school (sometimes before graduating), give them 20 weeks of training and send them to Iraq. But, we can’t train an iraqi in three years? Seems to me that the only Iraqi’s willing to fight and die for thier country are fighting on the other side.

phx8,

“Despite the militarism of Starship Troopers, you have to admit there is something compelling about the idea of only allowing those who serve the right to vote.”

Sorry pal, we don’t need a government run by the military. I mean we are close to that now.

womanmarine,

“So, I’m to believe that our government didn’t know going in or anytime since that democracy wouldn’t or couldn’t exist there?”

I am not sure that our dynamic trio, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, were able to see much past their rose (red), colored glasses.

Phx8-
There’s a certain logic to it, but it breaks down when you realize that:

1)It puts physical limits on those who vote (You have to pass the physical.

2)It encourages military-centered groupthink (groupthink is bad, regardless of its centered)

3)The politicians will shift their policy to suit a voting public that is all military.

4)A minority will be empowered over all.

This Iraq Bullhockey could be solved in one day.

Divide the country in three pieces - trying to be fair. People can stay where they like but the Kurds would control the North, Shiite’s South, and Sunni’s Central. Have all the religion and rules you want. All oil production and revenue would be nationalized and distributed fairly by a board with equal representation and the UN. Anyone who doesn’t want to play ball gets a visit from the air force.

Let the chips fall where they may. It would take a prez who can make a decision and stick to it - Hey, we have that.

“Wars are not perfect, and funds are not without limits. Most mistakes are correctable, though, and within our huge defense budget easily find the funds to do what’s necessary. What’s in the way, Ironically, is that our budget seems more tuned towards procurement of new weapons rather than fighting wars. When it comes to paying a contractor, funding maintenance, or up-armoring vehicles, the last two choices are often sacrificed on behalf of the first.”

Mr. Daugherty:
I would like to give everyone my firsthand observations on several topics about the supply situation in Iraq.

I am currently in Iraq, this is my second tour in country, and of the thousands of people I’ve worked with I have never met a single person who bought their own armor. Did everyone have an IBA (Interceptor Body Armor) or SAPI (Small Arms Protective Insert) plates when we first got here in ‘03? No, I didn’t and only about half my unit did, but the problem was fixed by the end of the summer. Not too bad in my opinion. Everyone now has IBAs and plates, I’ve yet to meet a single soldier this year who doesn’t.

The vehicle armor situation is also misunderstood. I can say this as I’ve been on hundreds of patrols, I was hit with an IED in ‘03 and memebers of my patrol were injured - but not seriously. The reason they were not seriously injured was because the IED used was relatively small. Small ones worked fine then because we had all stripped down our humvees to a bare minimum. No doors, roofs, anything that would get in the way and slow down movement in/out of the vehicle or reduce visibility. We preferred it that way. When 1st Cav division came in with vehicles so armored you could barely see out of them we wondered how they would be able to do anything with their trucks like that. The 04-05 rotation has answered that question for us. By armoring all the vehicles the enemy was forced to start using bigger IEDs. What used to be enough explosive for 2 or 3 or 4 bombs is now only enough for one because it has to be so much bigger to penetrate the armor. The result is more catastrophic bombs and more serious injuries and deaths to soldiers - particularly gunners. By now we all have armored vehicles and the IEDs have gotten big enough to destroy what used to be adequate armor. The few up-armor humvees in theater the first year were able to protect their occupants though the IEDs might wreck the humvees. Any vehicle that is not armored is not supposed to leave a secured FOB. By and large this is abided by, not perfectly, but I’d say at least 95% of the vehicles that go off post are armored now. And I don’t mean that thin ‘hillybilly’ junk, but the real factory produced steel.

This rotation I’m doing something different, I am directly involved in logistics: supplies, repair parts, vehicle maintenance. The equipment being used in country is wearing out faster than equipment back in the states used only for training. This is obvious because they are being used harder and longer than they would be in peacetime. That does not mean that all the vehicles in country are broken down and failing due to a lack of parts and repairs. On the contrary parts come in much quicker in Iraq than back in the United States because they are more essential here. We work hard to keep the vehicles and equipment in good working condition, and while I don’t have the numbers in front of me (nor could I give them out), by far the vast majority of the fleet is Fully Mission Capable. While we are keeping the vehicles running now we are reducing the amount of service life left in them. Under peacetime guidelines and usage rates much of the equipment used here should last for a long time at least another decade or so. With reduced service life they will need to be replaced sooner than expected.

So what shall we replace this used up equipment with? Should we buy more of the same equipment now in the inventory, designed years ago, but at least we know what we’re getting. Or should we invest in new designs to replace what is being used up? At some point in the future newer generations of military gear will become necessary lest we fall behind other nations and cheat the soldiers whose lives depend on it. Why not buy new designs now when we have to replace older equipment anyway, or so the argument goes, and retain our lead over other nations.

What really is the best answer? Probably a combination of the two. Within the next 10-20 years most of the Amry’s heavy equipment (most was designed in the late 70’s and built in the 80’s) will have to be replaced. That’s a simple fact. If we buy the same generation tanks, etc that we use now, they will be obselete before the end of their service life and we will still have to buy a new generation of combat vehicles. Why pay twice? At the same time we need to keep our forces in the field fully equipped so some of the current generation of equipment needs to be bought now. A balance and combination of both needs to be worked out, because like it or not we have to do both at the same time.

This went on much longer than I’d intended but hopefully it will bring some information to those of you still back in the states.

I forgot to mention that I agree with the basic conclusions of Mr. Daugherty’s article. This war has, on a personal level, been painless for most Americans. The more seperated that citizens are from it, the easier it is to make blithe decisions about ending it now and making it stop showing up on their TV screens. A little civic sacrifice would be a good thing I beleive.

Rome didn’t fall in one day after all.

Stalwart,
Good, informative post. Thanks!

Stalwart-
Thank you.

I think Americans have stronger stomachs for casualties than they are given credit for. What I and others don’t have the stomach for is the disrespect for people who dissent Bush’s policy, even as they advocate for the war’s successful completion. We’re not trying here to undermine your efforts, or your spirits. Quite the opposite.

Personally, I believe the real conditions in Iraq have a more profound, and deeper negative impact than doubts from home. For me, winning this war and lifting the troop’s spirits go hand in hand. If we aren’t getting the war right at a strategic level, all the news is doing is showing the consequences. If we do get it right, that will be the news. I don’t believe wars can be won in the media. They must be won in the real world first.

Unfortunately, it seems like Bush’s supporters have declared war on this loyal left, lumping them in with all those hocking loogies the soldier’s way and calling them baby-killers. I think this has just put the lid on the pressure cooker.

As the war apparently degrades, and the antagonism grows from the right, a loss of hope conspires with anger at those who mishandled policy to create an opposition who no longer sees the war as winnable, and therefore no longer see it as anything but a waste of lives.

I don’t see that way because I see the current war as the only thing between Iraq becoming a terrorist haven and us at least breaking even. As a person who’s strong interest in politics and current blogging career owes itself to the strong wish to see 9/11 avenged and the War against Terrorism won, to see us lose this war would be doubly cruel. First, because I honestly believe Iraq was the wrong place to look for the next battle against the terrorists, and second because we’d end up freeing Afghanistan from Bin Laden, only to give him another failed state to work from.

I don’t think the help we’re giving the Iraqis is pointless because of that. We’ve crossed the border, so helping the Iraqis is not only the nice thing to do, but the only honorable thing to do, not to mention the best way to redeem the situation. Again, though, I think we’re falling short there, and our efforts suffer, and have suffered because of that. We should do better, and the sooner the better.

On the brighter note of technology, I would say that while it is good to get technology that is new when it’s obvious it’s going to be obsolete in a short time, it’s also good to take note of how things wear and break in the real world, and design for that.

I think a great deal of modern military equipment isn’t put together with that in mind, and it makes it more difficult and expensive to maintain. In WWII, despite obvious problems with armor, the Sherman tanks won over the superior Panzer tanks by simply being easier to fix and produce in mass numbers. Though I think we should field the best equipment, there should also be an elegance to the way it’s put together, and a suitable economy to its production.

I’m happy to hear that you folks are better equipped now, and concerned to hear about the escalating power of the IEDs. If I’m wrong about any details in particular, please tell me. I appreciate being able to respond to a person with knowledge of the real battlefield.

Again, thanks.

Stephen
You seem like a bright guy…now I gotta set you straight.
Want to do something for you country?
How about spreading the word that what the Military needs is technology that can detonate blasting caps before they are detonated.
That is the Sherman tank issue of this war.
If the technology can be developed and implimented,IED’s become instantly useless and lives are saved.
It’s that simple.
On the draft:It won’t happen unless a nationial catrastophe occurs.
Comparing Vietnam to this war,in the former,we had some kids drafted who never had one iota of desire to serve this country.Morale was doomed from the inception,fueled by the Jane Fonda’s,John Kerries,Tom Hayden’s of that era.
Today’s military being all voluntary (don’t give me that crap about a back door draft either…the Reserves have served this counrty every bit as brilliantly as the active duty regulars plus wheh they signed on they knew that war was a possibility)is a horse of a differnt color.
Those men and women there are patriots.Peroid.As opposed to some of the so -called leaders of your(Democratic)party who have shown time and again these past two decades that they lack the stomach to stand for what is right and just.
Clinton had Bin Laden by the balls…the Sudanese wanted to hand him over but he flinched…Kennedy has been chirping Vietnam on Iraq so much that many of his friends are now embarrased for him.
Testicular fortitude is exactly what it takes to win a war.Testiculiar fortitude,weapons,and an unflinching desire to obliterate the enemy.
Try talking to a Wahabbi cleric about anything except what he knows to be true and he will give you,free of charge,a hair cut that starts at the shoulder.
They are the enemy,not Bush

Clinton had Bin Laden by the balls…the Sudanese wanted to hand him over but he flinched…

Sic Eagle, that myth has been debunked over and over, most recently in the 9/11 Commission report. Here’s a free copy online. You probably want to read it, so you can seem like a bright guy, too.

Sicilian Eagle-
The problem with your wonder device for detonating blasting caps at range is not detonating your own ordinance in the process. The better design that I’ve heard about, and which Stalwart might be able to help me on, is a jammer which blocks the signal that many of the IEDs are detonated by.

Even there, though, there is the issue that Stalwart brought up about our enemy- that is, if they see that’s not working, they’ll find another way to detonate these IEDs. We’re not dealing with enemies who will just sit on their asses twiddling their thumbs when one plan ceases to work.

Morale was not doomed by Kerry or Fonda, in Vietnam. Morale was doomed by the lack of progress we were buying for all the lives and all the materials and equipment we were losing.

Fonda? Well Fonda, as much as her trip was a slap in the face to our soldiers, (and a stupid stunt in my opinion) came way too late into the war to really change its course.

Kerry? Kerry’s testimony came fairly late in the war as we fought it. By the time he came on television, Nixon had already been in office two years, having campaigned on peace with honor- a withdrawal from Vietnam. Kerry’s main point was that Nixon merely prolonging a war everybody wanted out of, and which folks already understood to be lost. Kerry’s point is evident in his famous line about how one asks a person to be the last fellow to die for a mistake. It was 1970 by the time Kerry made that speech. His swiftboat days began and ended within the administration that had campaigned under a policy of withdrawal from Vietnam.

Which goes back to the point I started with- you have to fight fully or not at all. What Nixon and others were engaged in was a prolonged war they had no intention or ability to win. That was one of Kerry’s main sticking points- the immorality of killing more soldiers for war you can’t and won’t go far enough to win.

As for Tom Hayden? I don’t know him from Adam. I’m sure you’ll perseverate on more people who are big punching bags for y’all folks, but more or less forgotten for most Democrats.

Clinton did not have the Sudanese by the Balls- They didn’t trust the fellow who was making the offer. If the guy wasn’t being honest with them, the offer could have be either nothing more than a distraction, or some guy bargaining without standing, in which case, there’s even less chance of getting him. I don’t know if you’ve seen the news lately, but it’s come out that Clinton was actually trying to bargain the Taliban into giving Bin Laden up. Nothing came of it, but I can at least say that Clinton was trying.

Testicular fortitude means nothing if you let somebody kick you in those balls you got over and over again. Bush may puff himself up as tough, but he seems to be more ineffectual than Clinton at just getting things done.

As for Bush being the enemy? No. We’re not thinking that way. He’s on our side, but even folks who are on your side can do you harm. The problem is, he intends to do good, but he fails and won’t admit his mistakes. Maybe if he was less stubbornly proud, he could learn from experience, but as it is, he just sticks with his old theories and tries to force the world and our side to work around his fixations.

We need better leaders than that, more aware, more integrated into the real world.

The better design that I’ve heard about, and which Stalwart might be able to help me on, is a jammer which blocks the signal that many of the IEDs are detonated by.

Those are the devices Senator Boxer fought so hard to get into the appropriation bill.

Segwaying from Vietnam comparisons and politico bashing:

There are such devices in use right now, they operate on a range of frequencies to prevent the firing signal from triggering an IED. I don’t think there’s a whole lot more I can say about them without my head ending up on a platter, suffice to say they are pretty effective.

The problem is that the preferred method is command controlled via a wire connected to the blasting cap in the bomb itself. This wire is lead far back from the IED to a spot where the triggerman can be hidden and watch the kill zone. Once it is detonated he merely needs to hide well or depart the area in a way not to be spotted by the military. He is very hard to catch, though we do get luck sometimes.

We are now also beginning to see some that involve infrared signaling. We are already feilding home-grown counters but are not sure how effective they are yet.

Mr. Daugherty I appreciate your calm and well thought out additions. It’s nice to see from a party/side that has been all too focused on screaming for too long. More like you are needed to convince the public that just because we disagree does not mean we can’t be civil.

Excellent post by Stalwart…thank you.I am glad to hear that real progress is being made in that area.
Next issue:Troop levels.
With the 82nd being deployed in a few weeks raising the boots there to over 136,000,what proposals have been put forth on the Dem side as to a proposed increase,and why doesn’t that square with the present position of ground commanders ?At the Senate hearing three weeks ago,just about every one testfying said that troop levels were fine and that the Iqaui security forces were getting up to speed.
My view from what I read and hear is that probably 4 divisions are combat ready with the balance on track for June of ‘06.
Since the floor was zero 21 months ago,that seems like quite an achievement…..not complete yet…but pretty remarkable.
Finally the issue of interpretertors and translators:
During WWII,the 442nd took the nost casulties in the European theater and I believe was the most decorated.Japanese Neisi Americans.The Italian- Americans overall took the most casulaties and contributed greatly in both theaters.
I don’t see that with the Arab or Persian population here in the states.I don’t believe that they have stepped to the plate.We have,what,3,000,000 Arab-Americans here?I think this is the second most important issue..lack of capable translators .

Stalwart-
You know, the wire thing was precisely what I was thinking would defeat the radio jammer. No over-the-air signal, nothing to jam.

On the subject of calmness, this is one of my calmer posts. Others have been sharper in their criticism. I figured, though that the lack of calm was getting in the way, and maybe that’s true. But it’s difficult to stay calm when the issue is so important, and stonewall in your face is so thick.

But my stand on the issues, despite my calm, is little different from what others and I believed beforehand. You’re not getting a message here that’s really radical here. We’ve essentially said all this from the start.

So many defend this War’s execution simply from reflex. Negative coverage of the war is an imbalance, they say, a result of the media’s liberal bias, or it’s addiction to gritty, ratings spiking blood and gore. Meanwhile, Democrats like me wonder when we really will turn a corner, and don’t find the repeated remarks that it’s being turned all that convincing. After all, the same things were said about the end of major combat operations, the capture of Saddam, the handover of sovereignty, and of course, the elections.

One thing that I can say probably has made me sharper in my criticism was seeing the elections go against my party and reading The Best and The Brightest at the same time.

I know this isn’t Vietnam. I’ve never been one of those who thought Iraq by necessity had to unfold like Vietnam. But the basic mistakes are very similar in my opinion: secrecy, scapegoating the press and the dissenters, and arrogance in the making of policy that values ideological, academic theory over real-life experience.

What I’d press for is a return to realistic expectations with armies and wars. We should acknowledge that wars are expensive, problematic, and that people get killed in them. It bugged me to no end that during the Clinton administration that there was such a casualty-phobic approach to war, that there were people constantly saying that the situation might turn into another Vietnam, without even discussing things in terms of the real mistakes of that conflict.

I’ve got a thread of hope left for this war, but even if I don’t have hope left I think we have to push forward and make the best of it we can. I just wish we weren’t put in this position to begin with.

Sicilian Eagle-
Progress? Progress and problems. What he sets out isn’t simple- it’s real life. We get armor, they get bigger bombs that defeat that. We get jammers, they get wires. We’re not dealing with people who give up easily.

If they don’t give up easily, I hardly think they will stop at some nominal point of policy transition. I think these are the kinds of folks who will stop shooting at you at about the point you pull the gun out of their clenched hands, and we need to fight back against them with the intensity and commitment that this would require. The real shame of this is that politics has gotten in the way of this, and it’s all been made about sticking to one fallible plan, instead of getting the job done right. I’m glad that Stalwart has good news to report on the armor and jammer front. I just wish we could have gotten those soldiers that a year and a half ago.

The experience of past wars has told us that politics can intervene in military matters, and surpress from public knowledge inconvenient facts that commanders on the ground do not want known. This occurs especially when the leaders of the country are micromanagers, activists for their own theories of how to fight the war.

McNamara’s Rolling Thunder is a great example. So is Nixon’s Vietnamization. Neither was a realistic or effective policy, but that was what the leaders wanted, and those in charge weren’t about to be insubordinant to their superiors by complaining in public.

You overestimate the Iraqi forces. If you’re talking about nominal training, we got tens of thousands at work. If you’re talking about the kind of training we put our troups through, we only got several thousand from what I hear. 21 months is a year and three quarters. How many soldiers could we have trained in that time? It’s unacceptable.

If we drop this burden on the Iraqis, and theyr’e not ready, the thud you will hear is American credibility dropping through the floor.

As for interpreters and translators:
You might not see that, but I’m not sure either of us know the statistics on that. It’s easy to make a visible claim about who is and isn’t supporting us in this war, but not everybody goes in for that hand-waving approach to things.

Another issue is that many of the people that could help us with translation are disqualified because of their very association with the countries of the Middle East. Former Sen Bob Graham, in his recent book Intelligence Matters spoke of the tendency to recruit people of WASPish look and background to the intelligence community, something that wasn’t much of a problem when Europe was the main theatre of espionage. It wasn’t a problem when that was a case, but now that we need people to blend into these countries, this absence of such personnel is a real problem.

Of course, if you want to continue being suspicious of Arab Americans who stand to fill this need…

Stephen
Suspicious?No.Actually in my neck of the woods(New England) there are plenty of Lebanese,Syrian and Iranian folks who have adopted America as their home.
Watching a program a couple weeks ago about the NYPD terror unit,they have a couple terrific there who monitor chat rooms,know the local slang,and have penetrated different cells here and there.The program went on to say how the Feds have to keep borrowing these guys for their work becaue they just don’t that caliber of talent.
Just a big concern of mine.
I don’t overestimate the Iraqui forces one bit.They three divisions fit for service,that’s it.The rest are miles away.
I often wondered why we didn’t just train the first 25,000 or so here the right way,but hey,what do I know.
Here’s how I feel the war will turn:I think that we will be for a real rough ride the next 18 months or so.I think the constitution will pass muster too,but after that Sadr and the rest will be dealt with.I just finished reading a draft of the constitution(14 pages) and ine of the provisions calls for a disarming of the militias.Since he has one,no wonder he is calling for its demise.
Don’t for ..it took us,what 11 years to get ours done…plus the first set of law in place(the Articles of Confereration) set the tone for our own Civil War 70 years later(Slavery notwithstanding).During that time we had Shay’s Rebellion too,so the making of a constitution is in fact a little like making sausage(it might taste good but don’t ask how it’s made).
Bush has 3 more years left then I think either McCain or Guilliani will beat Clinton,and if that is the case,expect a lot more boots on the ground.McCain will set the tone and distance himself further from Bush if things do go wrong,but he is also positioned himself well with the President because of his unyielding support thus far.
I don’t see Clinton or Edwards(who looks like he is re-inventing himself into the anti-war candidate)or Joe Biden(my theory about him is is now free to run becasue all those hair plugs finally grew in) playing well at all,except ,of course to the liberal Democrat element.
By the way,yesterday in the Boston Globe(I think) or Boston Magazine was a terrific article about the growth in the GOP on people of color.

I don’t overestimate the Iraqui forces one bit.They three divisions fit for service,that’s it.The rest are miles away.

Eagle, Stephen just said they DON’T have three divisions fit for service. By all accounts, the number of Iraqi troops able to operate without US assistance is about 5,000 (and I’m being generous). That’s less than half a division’s worth of infantry.

I blogged on the training here previously.

You talked about troop levels being fine, but consider this: we have a few thousand effective troops that can fight on there own, in a nation and a conflict that’s frustrating the aims of over a hundred thousand of them.

Trouble is, we’re starting from a rotten foundation here. We’re starting with police forces and armies that are undertrained and undermanned, both of which have been infiltrated by the enemy, and by the endemic corruption of the region. It’s not the end of the world, but if this is what we pin our policy hopes on, things will fall through the floor.

I worked with Iraqi troops on operations the first year here and a little bit this year as well. More importantly I have friends involved with training the Iraqis both this year and the first year. Some units are worthwhile, some are crap. The US military is something like that too, some are good, while others are not so good. The first year here we had a company of Iraqi troops attached to our battalion that we were responsible for their training and operations, we also had a unit of Iraqi special forces being trained by some of our own special boys. I worked with both, and yes their special forces guys were of course the better of the two. Their regular company had a lot of problems, not nearly as bad as some, but was still useful and was getting better slowly but surely when we left.

Anyway, the good units are truly a benefit expanding what your options are at any given time. But even the bad units are still helpful in combined operations. They can talk to the locals and get information much better than we can hope for. Iraqis are much more willing to talk to fellow Iraqis about insurgents in the area. And they are amazing during search operations because they know where to look find hidden equipment. No matter how thorough Americans search and find weapons, etc - the Iraqi troops almost always find more than we do.

Now on to the really bad units. Several trainers I know recently finished working with what is probably the single worst unit in the Iraqi Army. This is one of the units that disintegrated at Fallujah last fall. As far as I can tell their main problem is cultural. Not ethnic though that causes problems as well.

Examples:

#1 - An Iraqi squad is found shot to death at a checkpoint. All had fallen asleep and were surprised by insurgents. Not more than two weeks later my buddy goes out to the same checkpoint to look in on his squad assigned out there. He finds them all undressed and racked out in their sleeping bags, weapons piled ten feet away. After stealing their weapons without any waking up, he wakes them rather loudly. During his one-way conversation with them he finds out that they all decided that they were tired so they were going to go to sleep and not even pull security to keep themselves from being killed like the other sqaud. Huh? Where is your self-preservation instinct here? They have a very hard time thinking of consequences to their actins.

#2 - The base is being mortared near where this same unit is staying. As a few Iraqi casualties come in to the aid station, medics realize they do not have shrapnel wounds, but bullet holes. It turns out that the Iraqi Shiites thought when the mortars started coming in that the Kurds in their unit were attacking them. This would be impossible because none of them have anything bigger than an AK47. But anyway this starts a firefight WITHIN the Iraqi base. Fortunately not too many were injured - most still shoot awfully bad, they just don’t believe in that aiming stuff that we teach them.

#3 - One of the trainers was telling me that one of the best days he had was when he got them to walk the perimeter of their compound in a wedge formation (sort of like the V that birds fly in) without him having to walk behind them to keep them from screwing it up. Simple tasks like this are excruciatingly hard for the Iraqis to grasp - 10 and 12 year olds in the US would pick it up quicker.

This is the absolute worst unit I have heard of in the Iraqi military, most are not nearly this bad. The best Iraqi unit that I’ve worked with (not counting special forces) is their 1st Mechanized Brigade. They conduct their own patrols and operations with only American advisors tagging along in case they get into trouble. The advisor program actually seems to be working pretty well as a way for Iraqis to gradually step up to being fully operational. The advisor program also brings up parallels to Vietnam that are eerie but not really accurate given the present situation on the ground. The majority of civilians here (or at least where I’ve been which is within a 40 mile radius all around Baghdad) are tired of the violence and just want it to end. They are not a people trying to fight for their independence like the Vietnamese. So long as we don’t become the oppressors I think that eventually it will work out all right for the Iraqis.

This is a great article about the cultural issues that are work in the region:

Why Arabs Lose Wars