Jedi Council Forums - The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/11 9:26am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	I'm sorry, both of you, but if you want to play at being armchair generals, you can't just pull out the amateur card to get out of it. Both of you criticized the administration for not following the "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force. It's time for you to either back up your claims or retract them. How do you know that it wasn't overwhelming force? How are you defining that term? How does that compare to how it was defined within the context of the Powell Doctrine (as Mr44 pointed out before)? Where the two disagree, why is your criteria better? If you are simply going to parrot what other people say, then you need to give the basis for why their arguments are valid. What criteria are they using? Why is that criteria appropriate? If you don't give that information, there's really no basis to your argument that can be either supported or refuted. All you are doing is the equivalent of a "drive by" declaration of "I think it's a mess". You aren't really adding anything to the discussion. Just because someone says something doesn't make it right. That's simply an appeal to authority fallacy. You need to be able to support why they are right. Neither of you are doing that. You are simply taking their statements on faith because you agree with the results. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/11 10:47am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread - Date Edited: 1/11 10:50am (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	And that's why, for me, if someone is going to be referenced, I try and provide as much direct information from that person as I can. Take this interview with Colin Powell from 2003, shortly after the Iraqi operation started. HERE The article does criticize specific aspects of how Iraq was handled- The diplomatic consequence of the administration's "go it alone attitude," for one. There's certainly nothing wrong with criticism as long as it is focused and has a point. But let's look at some specific passages from Powell himself: 1)"They'd better not gloat too soon. There are a lot of good things going on that simply don't get reported. [The story is] not as good as a [bomb] going off under a Humvee. But up in the northern section, things are going swimmingly. In the south, the British have done a good job. The tough area is the so-called triangle, and there are Iraqis who are destroying their own country. They're neither Baathists, fedayeen, nor terrorists. They're people stealing copper. And as soon as we get the economy going...that will pass. ... Saddam Hussein's gone. The place is no longer a threat to its neighbors. We'll find whatever they were doing with weapons of mass destruction. And it would really be a landmark achievement to have some kind of representative government in Iraq. It doesn't look like Powell is overly concerned about a lack of troops. The distinction Powell makes "neither Baathists, fedayeen, nor terrorists..." is also important in relation to randomly increasing troop levels. Ironically, as late as Sept. 2003, Powell even mentioned Iraq's WMD's, and the reference doesn't involve any kind of deception from others in the administration or Powell being fed lies. Powell then continues (addressing a question about perception): "A lot of this is overwrought. The same opinion-makers in Europe don't ever want to use force hardly for anything if it can be avoided.... We haven't done a bad job in bringing Europe together [in support of U.S. policy on Iraq], but we still have a problem with the public because they have bought into this caricature [of the U.S.]. Look at what the President actually has done. He's improved relations with China and Russia. We got the Balkan states added to NATO without causing Russia to go nuts. We got Russia added to the NATO family. This isn't the action of a swaggering bully.... The President speaks in a direct manner with a very direct approach that is refreshing but sometimes does not meet European standards of intellectual mumbling." Powell himself seems more frustrated at the Europeans for a lack of action, but why is Powell focusing on the big picture? And finally, a quote from Powell that fits in to what we've been discussing here: "The caricature is that I'm in a constant battle with everybody. I'm either going to get fired next week or quit next week.... Sure, there's internal debate. And it's no secret that my views tend to be more moderate than some of my colleagues. But the President knew that when he hired me. Yeah, I think that's fair....I always measure not the daily line, but who crosses the finish line. The fact of the matter is that the only one whose foreign policy counts, decision counts, and whose philosophy counts at the end of the day is the President. I feel quite satisfied with the advice that I and this department have given him." Related to this, because you've mentioned the book so often now, one of the major criticisms of Woodward is that he takes it upon himself to attribute inner monologues to his subjects, when he has no way of knowing the information that he is attributing to them. Case in point, "State of Denial" is filled with pages upon pages of Woodward assigning personal thoughts to people, when in reality, Woodward simply makes up what he thinks their motives should be. It's why "State of Denial" is good at establishing a factual time line, but almost completely useless at illustrating rationale. A representative passage might be something like: On the 3rd of April, 2003, an unnamed official sat in on a highly classified Iraqi planning meeting. Rumsfeld was there, and he was thinking about how he needed to avenge all those times he was picked on when he was a schoolboy. He didn't care what anyone else thought, because Iraq was nothing more than revenge against Joey, that hated bully from Mrs. Smith's third grade class. Rumsfeld hated bullies, and it clouded his judgment when it came to foreign policy. Of course I made up the above, but if anyone has read a Woodward book, they know what I'm talking about. The thing is, Woodward makes this stuff up to represent the point he wants to make, not that it's necessarily based on what his subject was actually feeling. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Espaldapalabras Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 1/11 5:29pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Mr.44, I would agree that that is good point about the book, and I really wish I hadn't already taken it back to the library so I could find the quotes. But the whole point I was trying to make is that they pursued a new strategy of using more technology and not large amounts of boots on the ground, when before they had technology but sent far more troops than what they needed. Even in this Foreign Affairs article, his focus was on transforming the military by relying on the private sector, emphasize covert actions, sophisticated weapons systems, and greater use of Special Forces and contractors. Not all of this is bad. I will also look for the numbers the war planners had and gave. -----signature----- A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/11 7:30pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with the focus of what you just said. But first, I think it's a continuation of a previous policy, and why my second most quoted mantra behind my famous "everything has a context" is "no administration exists in a vacuum." Read over this opinion piece and let me know what you think: HERE However, what many fail to recall is that many of these needed troops 'disappeared' during the 90s, when these retired generals were in positions of leadership to actually affect the future capabilities of the Army. It's certainly legitimate to criticize Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and claim that he does not listen to the calls of what is best for the Nation and the Army. But if the critic has himself had a role in the degradation of the best military in the world, then gripes about inadequate force levels may raise a few eyebrows. Therefore, an examination of what actually happened on the watch of the retired General Officers is necessary. By 1994, strength had further decreased to about 541,000. By 1995, the year the first US combat formations entered Bosnia, it was down to 513,000. Even Stateside, battalion commanders realized that their individual units were ready to go, but their battalions had no depth due to an increased operations tempo, and also due to the practice of sending individual companies on temporary deployments overseas. This 'penny packet' deployment strategy wreaked havoc on unit cohesion and battalion—level training and readiness. The operation in Bosnia was also the first indication of where all this military talent was headed after it left the Army. In a national TV appearance, Vice—President Al Gore proudly announced that the fledgling Army of the Federation of Bosnia—Herzegovina was going to be trained by US contractors. The current situation in Iraq has made the world aware of contractors driving trucks, rebuilding infrastructure, and so forth. But as far back as 1995, a foreign army was being trained, not by uniformed US military assistance personnel, but rather by private citizens via a contract through the US State Department. Basically, the damage had already been done, and it fell to Rumsfeld to make the most of what the military had. An idea that was bluntly put by Rumsfeld himself in his often criticized "You fight with the army you have, not the one that you want" speech. However, it's no surprise that Rumsfeld's high tech transformation-based Stryker Brigades comprise the most successful units in Iraq. A record that is based on unit composition, not numbers. HERE and HERE So clearly, there's something right about the program as well. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Faces of Silas Registered: Jul '99	Date Posted: 1/11 7:53pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	One of the things I object to is the constant use of the phrases “Iraq War” or the “War in Afghanistan.” These expressions are used for the sake of expediency. Even sympathizers and supporters of the efforts choose to characterize events with these terms because their target audience is incapable of seeing it any other way. To me, there is only one war – the war on terror and against Islamic jihadists. It may manifest itself on multiple fronts, but it’s just one war. America’s involvement illegal? How? By what authority is this claim deemed to be accurate? I’ll admit that George Bush took liberties with the situation. Tough. In war, all idealistic bets are off. America was not the aggressor – it was the injured party. In the process, all the rational nations of the world became hostages to an ugly threat. A mere handful were willing to stand up and be answerable. Eventually, I believe responsible historical accounts will depict these actions favorably. The only good jihadist is one that is dead. I don’t need a second September 11th to occur for further convincing. As long as radicals insist on engaging the military and continue to get knocked off, this is a positive situation. Hell, we’ll even make it easy for the terrorists. They only need to trek a few hundred miles, not half a world away, to have their nose bloodied.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 1/11 8:02pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	America was not the aggressor – it was the injured party I'm sure you can do us the favor of explaining what, precisely, Iraq did to injure us prior to its invasion. -----signature----- "May you live all the days of your life" "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women."--Sarah Palin
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Faces of Silas Registered: Jul '99	Date Posted: 1/11 8:23pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	No one has satisfactorily explained to me why American troops in Europe have not been repositioned to more favorable locations. They are not needed in Germany. A continued presence there is not justified, unless there are some previous unfulfilled and obsolete commitments of which I am not aware. Rumsfeld was supportive of strategic prepositioning of forces where appropriate. To that end, I agreed with his philosophy. Why hasn’t forward movement been witnessed along these lines?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/11 8:40pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Faces of Silas posted: No one has satisfactorily explained to me why American troops in Europe have not been repositioned to more favorable locations. They are not needed in Germany. A continued presence there is not justified, unless there are some previous unfulfilled and obsolete commitments of which I am not aware. Rumsfeld was supportive of strategic prepositioning of forces where appropriate. To that end, I agreed with his philosophy. Why hasn’t forward movement been witnessed along these lines? Last I had heard, Germany had asked us to keep troops there because of the support that they give to the local economies. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/11 9:50pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	No one has satisfactorily explained to me why American troops in Europe have not been repositioned to more favorable locations. As KK pointed out, US divisions were slated to be rotated out of Germany. (I suppose drastically reduced would be more accurate, as a rapid reaction force and training staff would remain) I believe the overall reduction was going to total approx. 30,000 troops. DOD But concerns over the impact on the German economy pushed back these troop reductions. Representative article As a result, the phase-out has simply been extended, with a final date of 2012. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Faces of Silas Registered: Jul '99	Date Posted: 1/11 10:11pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Is an explanation really required, KnightWriter? The invasion force is a liberator. It has taken an unexpectedly longer period, but Iraqi citizens are beginning to contribute to eradicating the disease that has been in their midst. Hussein, a sideline player, but nonetheless a painful sore on the skin of the free world, was directly responsible for the chaos and corruption within his sphere of influence. More to your question, there is no way it can be satisfactorily answered. Hussein was a perceived threat and that threat was sold to the world. On that note, when was the last time you heard any peoples mourn for his demise . . . aside, of course, from the muffled static emanating from America’s token allies who stood to gain from his continued existence? Oh, and screw Germany. That’s a large portion of my lineage, but I don’t owe any allegiance. Get your forces out ASAP and move them where needed. The DOD link is appreciated, Mr44.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/11 10:25pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	I personally don't have a problem with the delay, even as everyone recognizes that the US's cold war heavy divisions are being used as an economic tool in Germany more than anything. At its peak, the US military contributed some 7 billion dollars to the German economy. That's not a small amount that can be absorbed. Last year for the first time, the German economy actually grew by 2% on its own, after a decade of near zero growth and double digit unemployment. Germany's unemployment still hovers between 7 and 10% though, and an immediate pullout of US troops would not help that situation. Better to allow an easier transition, than throw a partner into financial turmoil. -----signature----- Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability. .............................................................. Peter Shoomaker
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Faces of Silas Registered: Jul '99	Date Posted: 1/11 11:16pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	One complaint about current engagements is that unsatisfactory troop rotation, relief and sheer numbers is occurring. From that perspective, one must measure what could be lost from what might be gained. Overall health of a significant contributor to the global economy takes a backseat. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers to prop up foreign entities for decades on end. These people are resourceful. If Germany needs stimulating, let them attract wealthy tourists. Show them the Alps. They’ll get a kick out of that.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Espaldapalabras Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 1/11 11:44pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	There is nothing wrong with a smaller, more technologically advanced military if you are only going to be fighting the occasional Afgan war. But with that benefit we have to recognize the cost. And while prior to Rumsfield there had been troop reductions, Rumsfield came into his position gunning for change of the military apperatus. The problem with Rumsfield's statment that you go to war with the army you have, is that this was a war of choice and they should have chosen to go to war when they had an army that would have had a better chance of getting the job done. The other thing is that those articles were written in 2004. Even if you can forgive them for not realizing the need for large amounts of troops, if they had been more tuned in to the needs on the ground, they should have realized sooner that a surge was necessary. To me, there is only one war – the war on terror and against Islamic jihadists. It may manifest itself on multiple fronts, but it’s just one war. Saddam was not and never was an Islamic jihadists or even connected with them. He posed almost no terrorist threat to the United States and had absolutely nothing to do with the people who attacked us on 9/11. He was as much a Muslim as 9ui11iani is a Catholic. As long as radicals insist on engaging the military and continue to get knocked off, this is a positive situation. Hell, we’ll even make it easy for the terrorists. They only need to trek a few hundred miles, not half a world away, to have their nose bloodied. For every terrorist we kill we probably create 10 more. The entire Muslim world is watching all the innocent civilians who are dying in Iraq, and are becoming radicalized by our actions. You can't fight an insurgency or terrorist group by trying to kill them all, it just doesn't work that way. You have to convice the population that supports them to turn against them. Also we get a lot out of having military bases throughout the world, having troops stationed in Germany means we don't have to move them from the US to where they are used. -----signature----- A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jediflyer Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 1/11 11:59pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	America’s involvement illegal? How? By what authority is this claim deemed to be accurate? It was not a war of self defense nor was it sanctioned by the Security Council. Seeing as we signed a treaty (signed in San Francisco, btw) which states those are the only two legal uses of force, the Iraq War was illegal. America was not the aggressor – it was the injured party. Really? How had Iraq injured us? In the process, all the rational nations of the world became hostages to an ugly threat. Rational? What threat? And what made it ugly? As long as radicals insist on engaging the military and continue to get knocked off, this is a positive situation. Hell, we’ll even make it easy for the terrorists. They only need to trek a few hundred miles, not half a world away, to have their nose bloodied. What is this, the zero-sum terrorist theory? The invasion force is a liberator. How come the vast majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out? It has taken an unexpectedly longer period, but Iraqi citizens are beginning to contribute to eradicating the disease that has been in their midst. Unexpectedly long? Hussein, a sideline player, but nonetheless a painful sore on the skin of the free world, was directly responsible for the chaos and corruption within his sphere of influence. Painful sore on the skin of the free world? Where do you get this stuff? Hussein was a perceived threat and that threat was sold to the world. Just because an elephant percieves a mouse as a threat doesn't make it one. Besides, the threat was never sold to the world. Wasn't that your whole point when you chose the phrase: "A mere handful were willing to stand up and be answerable" -----signature----- Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/12 5:47am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Four Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Jediflyer posted: America’s involvement illegal? How? By what authority is this claim deemed to be accurate? It was not a war of self defense nor was it sanctioned by the Security Council. Seeing as we signed a treaty (signed in San Francisco, btw) which states those are the only two legal uses of force, the Iraq War was illegal. Except for the minor little detail that there was authorization from the UN. UNSCR 678 gave authorization to uphold UNSCR 660 "and all subsequent relevant resolutions" "to restore international peace and security in the area", and was the authorization used for the Gulf War in 1991. UNSCR 687 was the cease fire from the Gulf War, and as such was a "subsequent relevant resolution". Everyone agreed that 678 gave the authorization up to and including regime change in Iraq. Everyone also agreed that 678 gave the authorization to enforce later resolutions (such as 687, or even 1441). Enforcement of the no-fly zones was authorized through 678, as was Operation Desert Fox. Both of those were attacks on Iraq that would have been illegal without UN authorization, and yet most people accept that they were legal. Within that framework, how was the invasion of Iraq not authorized? The authority was granted in 1990 by UNSCR 678, and it was understood at that time that it included the authority for invasion and regime change. The authority applied to enforcing later resolutions (as shown by both Desert Fox and the no-fly zones), and the authority was never rescinded by the UN (and had no expiration date). Finally, after the invasion, UNSCR 1483 acknowledged the US and the UK as having legitimate authority in Iraq. Now, if the authority granted included th authority for invasion, and that authority was used legally for over a decade to conduct military operations in and against Iraq (even though it was only used on a smaller scale), then how was the full invasion not authorized? Where was any requirement for a separate authorization included in the first authorization or a later resolution? Don't just take my word for it. I've given you the numbers of the resolutions involved. If you insist, I can go back and cite the specific paragraphs of them. It's all right there in the resolutions. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »