My view on Iraq War. Surge - Well, it is about time!

[M14 Shooter]

Very few, if any of them specifically say that we should declare war on Iraq. That is what I was looking for. Anyway, these Democrats were wrong too.

So:
Do you have the honesty to admit that it wasn't just "Bush lackeys" that:
-Argued that Iraq was a threat
-The threat needed to be dealth with sooner rather than later
-That they were advising and/or authorizing militay force to that end.

Okay. I’m sorry but you lost me there. Many soldiers complain about having insufficient armor and supplies.

Was this before the war, or after the war started and developed into a situation where conbat support and conbat service support troops were exposed to direct combat?

Before any vehicle goes into territory where there might be hostilities, it should be fully armored. It is as simple as that.

Thank you for illustrating exatly how incompetent you are to judge matters such as these.
No army has ever or will ever equip 100% of their men and vehicles for frontline combat when only 10-15% are ever expected to SEE combat.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt? What happened to that " Bush and his Lacky's" part?

I’m sorry that I didn’t clarify my reply. Okay. Bush’s lackey’s as well as several Democrats thought that Saddam had WMD. They were all practically wrong.

For you and M14:

I don’t know all that there is to know about the military. Yet, it seems clear to me that, for a time, the soldiers were not fully equipped. I would have made sure that they had everything that they thought that they needed well ahead of time – even if it meant postponing the Iraq War just a little bit longer. Then I would try to double the expected number of supplies so that there would be no need for concern. I would certainly have checked out the hospitals and medical staff so that they would be ready for the worst-case scenario. I still contend that Bush was too eager and too quick to go to war in Iraq.

I’m sorry that I can’t keep this up right now. My wife and I are going out. I might be back tonight or tomorrow. We may agree to disagree but I hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For you and M14:
I don’t know all that there is to know about the military. Yet, it seems clear to me that, for a time, the soldiers were not fully equipped.

You're still not getting it.
The situation in Iraq changed from one to where, almost exclusively, combat tropps saw combat to one where combat support and combat service support troops saw combat. Since those troops arent expected to see front-line combat, they werent equipped for front-line combat -- but the combat troops were.

Once it became clear that the non-combat troops were going to be exposed to combat on a more regular basis, they were then equipped for same.

YOU are arguing, on the basis of what happened well after the start of the war, that the combat suppoer/combat service support troops should have been equipped for direct combat at the beginning of the war.

Do you see the fallacy here?

I would have made sure that they had everything that they thought that they needed well ahead of time

They did. And when the situation changed and a different need was exposed, it was filled.

But please, continue to parrot the party line.

 

[Paulie]

Our enemies (Al Qaeda and the Taliban) came at us from Afghanistan – not Iraq. Iraqis were not our enemies. They were not attacking us.

Actually, didn't almost all of them supposedly come from Saudi Arabia?

 

[mattskramer]

You're still not getting it.
The situation in Iraq changed from one to where, almost exclusively, combat tropps saw combat to one where combat support and combat service support troops saw combat. Since those troops arent expected to see front-line combat, they werent equipped for front-line combat -- but the combat troops were.

Once it became clear that the non-combat troops were going to be exposed to combat on a more regular basis, they were then equipped for same.

YOU are arguing, on the basis of what happened well after the start of the war, that the combat suppoer/combat service support troops should have been equipped for direct combat at the beginning of the war.

Do you see the fallacy here?


They did. And when the situation changed and a different need was exposed, it was filled.

But please, continue to parrot the party line.

You prepare for change. You take time before the start of the war and brainstorm. You prepare for every imaginable scenario. You prepare for any way that the course of the war might change. You think about strategy and change of strategy that the enemy might bring. Then you bring extra armor. You bring extra vehicles. You bring extra soldiers. You bring extra anything and everything. Would you at least contend that Bush should have inspected the hospitals, before the start of the war, to be sure that they were ready? Have you ever criticized Bush's handling of any part of the war? – just curious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You prepare for change. You take time before the start of the war and brainstorm. You prepare for every imaginable scenario. You prepare for any way that the course of the war might change.

No. You don't. There isnt a military in the world that does this, that has ever done this, or will ever do this -- because this is -impossible- to do.

You decide on the courses the war is likelt to take and then plan for them as well as you can. It is -impossible- to 'anticipate and plan for everything' and only someone wholly unfamiliar with how militaries work and how they do what they do wold suggest such a thing.

And, again -- this is why I say you arent a competent judge; that you continue to refuse to see the fallacy of your argument, and instead contunue to spot the party line, is why you're a parrot.

 

[mattskramer]

No. You don't. There isnt a military in the world that does this, that has ever done this, or will ever do this -- because this is -impossible- to do.

You decide on the courses the war is likelt to take and then plan for them as well as you can. It is -impossible- to 'anticipate and plan for everything' and only someone wholly unfamiliar with how militaries work and how they do what they do wold suggest such a thing.

And, again -- this is why I say you arent a competent judge; that you continue to refuse to see the fallacy of your argument, and instead contunue to spot the party line, is why you're a parrot.

We simply disagree. I contend that it is not impossible to be prepared for any eventuality. Compare the Iraq war with the war in Grenada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

It would seem like the war in Grenada was swift and thorough. We sent overwhelming forces and got the job done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We simply disagree. I contend that it is not impossible to be prepared for any eventuality.

You are wrong.

Compare the Iraq war with the war in Grenada.

You cannot. Completely different scenarios.

Your position is based in ignorance - you clearly don't know what you don't know.
But, keep parroting.

 

[mattskramer]

You are wrong.


You cannot. Completely different scenarios.

Your position is based in ignorance - you clearly don't know what you don't know.
But, keep parroting.

Then Rumsfeld and the soldiers were ignorant too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then Rumsfeld and the soldiers were ignorant too.

Your masters are proud -- you've completely ignored how flawerd your argument is, and have adhered to the party line.

Thsi is not something that someone that 'thinks for himself' would do.

Be sure to keep them happy, Polly, and they will continue to feed you your crackers.

 

[ReillyT]

Your masters are proud -- you've completely ignored how flawerd your argument is, and have adhered to the party line.

Thsi is not something that someone that 'thinks for himself' would do.

Be sure to keep them happy, Polly, and they will continue to feed you your crackers.

There is no reason to get snippy. He has put forth a very good argument. Is there any reason to suppose that the Bush administration couldn't have foreseen that the Iraq conflict would devolve into a civil conflict involving IED and street fighting? If this was far outside the realm of possibility, it could be excused that the administration wasn't immediately ready to deal with this eventuality. If however, it was clearly within the realm of possibility, then the administration failed to foresee a potentially dangerous scenario, and hence the troops were not adequately equipped and the manpower was insufficient.

Was the eventual result not only potentially foreseeable, but also probable?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no reason to get snippy. He has put forth a very good argument.

His argument is based on the idea that the administration failed plan for -every- possibility and -every- eventuality. His lack of familiarity with the subject precluded him from realizing that this is never done because it is impossible to do, and he refuses to accept that.

You can argue that it may have been in the 'realm of possibility', but then you have to show that the -probability- was high enough to warrant the extra time, effort and cost of equipping the troops, pre-war, as they are now.

If you want to do that, go ahead. Please make sure you provide examples of anyone arguing that we were not properly equipped before we invaded.

Also, consider for a moment the reaction from theese people (in this case, Matt) had all that money been spent and the threat not materialized.

And before you do -that- take note that the US military has thousands of up-armored Humvees and mine resistant vehicles, bought just for this war, that will be superflous in the next; once we are out of Iraq, these vehicles will sit unused -- certainly as an example of military waste, mismanagement, war profiteering, cronyism and poor planning by the Bush administration.

Matt's argument is nothing more than Monday Moring Quarterbacking, derived from partisan talking popints and media pundits -- no real thought on his part went into this.

 

[maineman]

There is no reason to get snippy. He has put forth a very good argument. Is there any reason to suppose that the Bush administration couldn't have foreseen that the Iraq conflict would devolve into a civil conflict involving IED and street fighting? If this was far outside the realm of possibility, it could be excused that the administration wasn't immediately ready to deal with this eventuality. If however, it was clearly within the realm of possibility, then the administration failed to foresee a potentially dangerous scenario, and hence the troops were not adequately equipped and the manpower was insufficient.

Was the eventual result not only potentially foreseeable, but also probable?

It would only require a cursory review of the history of that geographic region now known as Iraq to determine that strife between sunnis and shiites was bound to break out once the strong grip of Saddam's autocracy was loosened.

The fact that the Bush administration was totally unprepared for such an eventuality is evidence of profound incompetence at best.

 

[ReillyT]

His argument is based on the idea that the administration failed plan for -every- possibility and -every- eventuality. His lack of familiarity with the subject precluded him from realizing that this is never done because it is impossible to do, and he refuses to accept that.

You can argue that it may have been in the 'realm of possibility', but then you have to show that the -probability- was high enough to warrant the extra time, effort and cost of equipping the troops, pre-war, as they are now.

If you want to do that, go ahead. Please make sure you provide examples of anyone arguing that we were not properly equipped before we invaded.

Also, consider for a moment the reaction from theese people (in this case, Matt) had all that money been spent and the threat not materialized.

And before you do -that- take note that the US military has thousands of up-armored Humvees and mine resistant vehicles, bought just for this war, that will be superflous in the next; once we are out of Iraq, these vehicles will sit unused -- certainly as an example of military waste, mismanagement and poor planning by the Bush administration.

Matt's argument is nothing more than Monday Moring Quarterbacking, derived from partisan talking popints and media pundits -- no real thought on his part went into this.

No, his argument is that they didn't plan for this eventuality, and that it was a very possible (if not probable) eventuality. There doesn't need to be a showing that everyone was clamoring for this before the invasion. The President has at his disposal the greatest collection of military advisors and intelligence on the planet. They are expected to foresee things that we cannot. They are expected to be prepared for things that we cannot foresee. That is part of the reason why we keep such a large defense budget.

Maybe you are right that had they planned for this and the eventuality had not arisen, the administration would have been accused of waste. However, that doesn't change the fact that they didn't appear to have accounted for this possibility adequately. Nobody said being the President was easy. Especially in wartime, you are expected to make the right call, and I think it is fair game to criticize the leader when he does not.

** All of this is neglecting the fact that within the intelligence community, people were warning that this could be a long drawn out affair of civil conflict (type "President ignore warnings Iraq" into google and see what you get). We only found out about this after the fact, but it is the President's job to make sure that he is listening to the right people. It might be an unfair standard, but there it is.

 

[maineman]

No, his argument is that they didn't plan for this eventuality, and that it was a very possible (if not probable) eventuality. There doesn't need to be a showing that everyone was clamoring for this before the invasion. The President has at his disposal the greatest collection of military advisors and intelligence on the planet. They are expected to foresee things that we cannot. They are expected to be prepared for things that we cannot foresee. That is part of the reason why we keep such a large defense budget.

Maybe you are right that had they planned for this and the eventuality had not arisen, the administration would have been accused of waste. However, that doesn't change the fact that they didn't appear to have accounted for this possibility adequately. Nobody said being the President was easy. Especially in wartime, you are expected to make the right call, and I think it is fair game to criticize the leader when he does not.

** All of this is neglecting the fact that within the intelligence community, people were warning that this could be a long drawn out affair of civil conflict (type "President ignore warnings Iraq" into google and see what you get). We only found out about this after the fact, but it is the President's job to make sure that he is listening to the right people. It might be an unfair standard, but there it is.

If the administration had planned for this eventuality and it had not arisen, the only thing they could have been "accused" of was thorough planning.

Dwight D. Eisenhower said it best: "Plans are Nothing. Planning is Everything."

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, his argument is that they didn't plan for this eventuality, and that it was a very possible (if not probable) eventuality.

No, he argued that the military should plan (and equip) for ANY eventuality and EVERY possibility. He refuses to see the impossibility of this.

But, as far as what YOU said:
That's why I asked:
How probable was the eventuality we have, and was that eventuality probable enough to warrant the extra cost?

There doesn't need to be a showing that everyone was clamoring for this before the invasion.

No, but it would go a long way to dispel the 'Monday morning quarterback' characterization. Anyone can criticize anything after the fact.

The President has at his disposal the greatest collection of military advisors and intelligence on the planet. They are expected to foresee things that we cannot. They are expected to be prepared for things that we cannot foresee. That is part of the reason why we keep such a large defense budget.

Yes.
And THEY concluded that it was not necessary/cost effective to equip the troops as Matt suggests, because the probability of neededing to to do was low enough. Before the war, who disagreed, and on what grounds?

Maybe you are right that had they planned for this and the eventuality had not arisen, the administration would have been accused of waste.

There's no maybe here -- and, guaranteed, sometime after we pull out, that very criticism will be made regarding all that equipment gathering dust.

However, that doesn't change the fact that they didn't appear to have accounted for this possibility adequately.

Of coure not -- because they assessed the possibility of the particular situation as low enough to not warrant the preparations noted here. Given the low probability, there was no reason to armor every vehicle and soldier as you would if they were expected to see frontline combat.

Nobody said being the President was easy. Especially in wartime, you are expected to make the right call, and I think it is fair game to criticize the leader when he does not.

And this is only the case if you can present an argument as to why the military planners, before the war, should have placed a higher probability the scenario that actually played out. Else, its just arguing from hindsight.

** All of this is neglecting the fact that within the intelligence community, people were warning that this could be a long drawn out affair of civil conflict

Which was one of just many such 'warnings' provided to the military - not the least of which was that our invasion would result in the gassing of our troops, of the Sauds, of Israel...
The question is: Why, without the benefit if hindsight, should the planners have heeded this warning and not the ones that were actually planned for?

 

[ReillyT]

No, but it would go a long way to dispel the 'Monday morning quarterback' characterization. Anyone can criticize anything after the fact.

And they should criticize after the fact. This is in large part how assessments are conducted. When judging performance, one never asks "how would you have done if things had gone exactly as you expected?"

And THEY concluded that it was not necessary/cost effective to equip the troops as Matt suggests, because the probability of neededing to to do was low enough. Before the war, who disagreed, and on what grounds?

Apparently, the National Intelligence Council felt prior to the war that a civil conflict was likely.

“Iraq would be unlikely to split apart, but a post-Saddam authority would face a deeply divided society with a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so,” one assessment said. It warned of “score-settling” and “heightened competition for power among the different groups.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washington/26intel.html

Now, I give you that other agencies probably were advocating different things. However, the job of the administration is to make the right call, and in this case, it did not.

Which was one of just many such 'warnings' provided to the military - not the least of which was that our invasion would result in the gassing of our troops, of the Sauds, of Israel...
The question is: Why, without the benefit if hindsight, should the planners have heeded this warning and not the ones that were actually planned for?

Yes, because it turned out that this warning was the right one. It is not enough to say that the administration was competent because it heeded a warning/scenario - even if that scenario didn't turn out. The President and his adminstration are always presented with different points of view. Their job is to pick the right one. When they fail in this, they are judged accordingly. It is how we are all judged in the things that we do.

The point of view that you are advocating would have given Kennedy a pass on the Bay of Pigs. As long as he believed it was the best approach, and some of his advisors thought it was a good idea, you would suggest he shouldn't be judged on its failure. However, it was a colossal failure, and it is right to say (after the fact) that Kennedy fucked up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And they should criticize after the fact. This is in large part how assessments are conducted. When judging performance, one never asks "how would you have done if things had gone exactly as you expected?"

And, again, this is only valid if there is any legitimate reason that the eventuality that came to be should have been expected to a degree that warranted the expenditure of reseources. Its -possible- that Klingons will land tomrrow and take over the planet -- but should we plan for it and allocate resrouces for an effective defense?

And if they do, and we're not prepared, does Bush get the blame?

In a system with limited resources, its -all- about probability vs cost vs benefit. The probability of being in the situation we found ourselves in did not warrant the (rather high) cost of issuing combat armor and viehicles to non-combat personnel.

Now, I give you that other agencies probably were advocating different things. However, the job of the administration is to make the right call, and in this case, it did not.

That's why its called 'probability' -- as with every other military plan ever put into place, you play the odds and plan accordingly. There's always a chance that you're wrong - just like there's always a chance that the Klingons will land tomorrow.

Yes, because it turned out that this warning was the right one.

Which we found out after the fact. Romo should have never thrown that interception either -- and, had he known before he threw it that it would have been intercepted, I'm sure he would never have thrown it.

It would be nice if we could all predict the future to the level you'd have the military do when planning a war - but, even if for no other reason that the necessary informaton just isnt available, no one can do that; to hold them to your expectation that they could is irrational.

We went to war with the forces necessary to fight and win the war we planned for -- which we did remarkably well. After we fought that war, we found ourselves in a situation that was not planned for because the probability of being in that position was deemed too low. Once we realized that we needed to change plans and allocate resources differently, we did so -- and the problem was fixed.

That's how war is fought -- and, all things considered, the speed and manner in which we reacted to the new situation is rather remarkable.

 

[ReillyT]

And, again, this is only valid if there is any legitimate reason that the eventuality that came to be should have been expected to a degree that warranted the expenditure of reseources. Its -possible- that Klingons will land tomrrow and take over the planet -- but should we plan for it and allocate resrouces for an effective defense?

And if they do, and we're not prepared, does Bush get the blame?

In a system with limited resources, its -all- about probability vs cost vs benefit. The probability of being in the situation we found ourselves in did not warrant the (rather high) cost of issuing combat armor and viehicles to non-combat personnel.


That's why its called 'probability' -- as with every other military plan ever put into place, you play the odds and plan accordingly. There's always a chance that you're wrong - just like there's always a chance that the Klingons will land tomorrow.


Which we found out after the fact. Romo should have never thrown that interception either -- and, had he known before he threw it that it would have been intercepted, I'm sure he would never have thrown it.

It would be nice if we could all predict the future to the level you'd have the military do when planning a war - but, even if for no other reason that the necessary informaton just isnt available, no one can do that; to hold them to your expectation that they could is irrational.

We went to war with the forces necessary to fight and win the war we planned for -- which we did remarkably well. After we fought that war, we found ourselves in a situation that was not planned for because the probability of being in that position was deemed too low. Once we realized that we needed to change plans and allocate resources differently, we did so -- and the problem was fixed.

That's how war is fought -- and, all things considered, the speed and manner in which we reacted to the new situation is rather remarkable.

You just keep saying the same thing. Because the administration didn't foresee it, it didn't plan for it, and we shouldn't judge them on things they didn't foresee or plan for. That is just silly. This isn't Klingons from outer space. This is an eventuality that was foreseen by members of the intelligence community. That Bush did not accept this as a likely scenario is a reflection of the adminstration, not the necessarily unlikely nature of the scenario itself. The facts were there to make the right call. The adminstration did not, and should be judged accordingly.

You failed to respond to my statement about the Bay of Pigs invasion. Should Kennedy not be held accountable (blamed) for that fiasco because his advisors believed it would work?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You just keep saying the same thing. Because the administration didn't foresee it, it didn't plan for it, and we shouldn't judge them on things they didn't foresee or plan for. That is just silly.

It WOULD be silly IF, before the war, there was a reason to believe that the situation we found ourselves in after the war was of high enough probablity to warrant the cost necessary to be ready for it. You can only plan for so many things, and you plan them according to priority of their likelyhood.

This is an eventuality that was foreseen by members of the intelligence community.

Just like many other eventualitities - such as an invasion by aliens.
The questions remains: WHY, before the war, should this eventuaility have been chosen over the ones that were?

That Bush did not accept this as a likely scenario is a reflection of the adminstration, not the necessarily unlikely nature of the scenario itself.

Aha -- I was waiting for this:
The Bush administration didnt plan for it because of something other than the porobability of it happening.
You say that, based on... what?

You failed to respond to my statement about the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Of course I did. The sutiations aren't comparable, just like Greneda isnt comparable.