Some Thoughts On War From Ron Kovic

[jasendorf]

Screw agreement. As long as they do what we say...

No offense... but that's either very funny or the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No offense... but that's either very funny or the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

What are we convincing them of?

 

[CSM]

While hoping not to incur the wrath of dmp... I think the lack of kid gloves is what dramatically increased the ranks of the Viet Cong (not to mention the insurgents led by Aguinaldo in the Philippines). Image matters whether it is justly earned or not.

I think a lesson learned during Vietnam was that it is impossible to bomb a third-world country into agreement with us. The kid gloves approach makes the job of those serving over there incredibly, almost unbearably, difficult. I wish I could say that we could just drag them all home right now. In fact, you can't imagine how much I wish that was a realistic possibility. But, it isn't. The only possible action right now is to finish the job... unfortunately, I think history has proven that killing a foreign country into submission rarely works. The British weren't able to do it with us and we weren't able to do it with the NVA and the Viet Cong and I don't think we'd see it work in Iraq or Afghanistan (just ask the British).

I think the jury is still out on that one. The Japanese and Germans are cases for the opposite view. They were certainly not third world countries either. Obviously each situation is different but in Viet Nam, the military was not allowed to bomb the hell out of certain areas in NVN (and other nearby nations aiding them) so guess where the bad guys went? What dramatically increased the ranks of the Viet Minh etc, was the support from the Soviets and China...and our inability to intercept aforementioned aid.

As for history, again the jury is still out. Ask the Aztecs, Incas, Celts, Jews, India, (and any other country around during the European colonozitaion/expansion), Poland, France, the entire Eastern bloc (Soviet satellites) etc. if they can be made to submit by force.

 

[jasendorf]

As for history, again the jury is still out. Ask the Aztecs, Incas, Celts, Jews, India, (and any other country around during the European colonozitaion/expansion), Poland, France, the entire Eastern bloc (Soviet satellites) etc. if they can be made to submit by force.

Submission and democracy are their own antitheses. Submission is only possible with an outside force designed to impose it. Recruiting is already becoming almost impossible... imagine a few more years of this. I suppose if we wanted to do the job wrong we could certainly make the Iraqi people "submit." I think we're trying to do the job right and create a real, sustainable democracy which we can actually leave someday instead of a "Korea without a defined DMZ."

And, I think the Incas are making a resurgency in Bolivia and Venezuela right at this very moment aren't they?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Submission and democracy are their own antitheses. Submission is only possible with an outside force designed to impose it. Recruiting is already becoming almost impossible... imagine a few more years of this. I suppose if we wanted to do the job wrong we could certainly make the Iraqi people "submit." I think we're trying to do the job right and create a real, sustainable democracy which we can actually leave someday instead of a "Korea without a defined DMZ."

And, I think the Incas are making a resurgency in Bolivia and Venezuela right at this very moment aren't they?

Democracy only works when each party is willing to abide peacefully by the results. These people want to destroy each other.

 

[CSM]

Submission and democracy are their own antitheses. Submission is only possible with an outside force designed to impose it. Recruiting is already becoming almost impossible... imagine a few more years of this. I suppose if we wanted to do the job wrong we could certainly make the Iraqi people "submit." I think we're trying to do the job right and create a real, sustainable democracy which we can actually leave someday instead of a "Korea without a defined DMZ."

And, I think the Incas are making a resurgency in Bolivia and Venezuela right at this very moment aren't they?

Your post said "agreement" (my bad on calling it submission but I suspect there would have to be submission before agreement) not democracy. Very different things, each one.

As for recruiting...I do believe the actual numbers belie your statement. Your unit may be having a hard time (who the heck want s to be in the band???) , but overall the military is meeting its numbers (been discussed to death on this board too).

As for the submission of Iraq, the powers that were present at the beginning of operations is no longer existant, so technically you are correct, they did not submit. I think if we had left it at that and gotten the hell out after deposing Saddam we would not be having the issues we are having now. It also (again my opinion) would have left the job half finished.

I would hardly call what is going in in South America a resurgency and it sure as heck doesn't signal the re-establishment of the Inca or Azted empire.

Just kidding about the band thing by the way.

 

[jillian]

Your post said "agreement" (my bad on calling it submission but I suspect there would have to be submission before agreement) not democracy. Very different things, each one.

As for recruiting...I do believe the actual numbers belie your statement. Your unit may be having a hard time (who the heck want s to be in the band???) , but overall the military is meeting its numbers (been discussed to death on this board too).

As for the submission of Iraq, the powers that were present at the beginning of operations is no longer existant, so technically you are correct, they did not submit. I think if we had left it at that and gotten the hell out after deposing Saddam we would not be having the issues we are having now. It also (again my opinion) would have left the job half finished.

I would hardly call what is going in in South America a resurgency and it sure as heck doesn't signal the re-establishment of the Inca or Azted empire.

Just kidding about the band thing by the way.

Just some observations on the recruitment/retention issue from Optruth. They have a slightly different perspective. Thought it might be helpful.

Troop Shortage
Everyone from Senator McCain to Ambassador Bremer have admitted that there is a troop shortage in Iraq. Troop retention and recruitment are down, and the proposals made by politicians in Washington do not adequately address these issues. The next logical contingency is the draft.
What is the Draft?

Since 1973, America has relied on an all-volunteer military. But in 1980, President Jimmy Carter reinstated "Selective Service registration," the list maintained by the government of men ages 18 to 25 who are eligible for a draft. Young men, citizens or otherwise, must register with the Selective Service before their 18th birthday. If a draft is ever reinstated, these men will be eligible for mandatory military service.

Is the Military Stretched Thin?

Absolutely. Here are only some of the top officials, military experts, and government leaderswho have referred to the strain placed on the military by current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan:

General Richard A. Cody: General Cody, a top Pentagon official, told the House Armed Services Committee: "Are we stretched thin with our active and reserve component forces right now? Absolutely." (ABC News)

Ambassador J. Paul Bremer: Ambassador Bremer, who governed Iraq after the U.S. invasion, has admitted: "We never had enough troops on the ground." (Washington Post)

Senator John McCain (R-AZ):"We invaded Iraq with enough troops to topple the regime, but not enough to prevent looting, stabilize the country, or maintain security." (www.mccain.senate.gov)

U.S. Troops Overextended in Iraq: A Look at the Numbers

There's a lot of evidence that the military is having a hard time meeting the troop levels they need.

The Military Seeks Troops from New Sources
The military is relying on troops from non-traditional sources: the National Guard, the Reserves, the Individual Ready Reserves, forces from the National Training Center, troops from the Army's Delayed Entry program, and troops currently deployed in other theatres.

Currently over 40% of the troops being rotated into Iraq are National Guard members and Reservists. This reliance on Reservists hasn't been seen since World War II; of the 2 million people who served in Vietnam, only 9,000 were National Guardsmen. (PBS)

In addition to calling on the National Guard and Reserves, the U.S. military is pulling thousands of U.S. troops out of Korea in order to supplement US troop strength in Iraq. (The Washington Post: "U.S. Troops Moving From S. Korea to Iraq" www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34653-2004May17.html)

Forces from the National Training Center are also being sent to Iraq. (Associated Press) The decision to send key trainers into combat debilitates the long-term strength of the army.

The activation of the Individual Ready Reserve is another Band-Aid solution that is already reaching its limit. (military.com) In September, 2004, the Army Times reported that only 1 in 3 of the civilians called back to service through the IRR have actually shown up. (link)

Issues with Recruitment and Retention
There are also significant problems with recruitment and retention.

As early as 2003, the long and risky deployments in Iraq had begun to have an effect on the National Guard and Reserves. (The Christian Science Monitor) By July 2005, the Army National Guard had missed its recruiting goal for nine straight months. (The Associated Press) The Army missed its recruitment goals in February, March, April, and May -- each month by at least 25%. (CBS News) In June, the Army finally made its goal -- but only after dramatically lowering their goals.

Retention has been high among troops who have served in Iraq, which may have a positive effect on the Army in the short-term -- providing commanders on the ground with an experienced, hardened force. (San Diego Tribune) But retention alone will not resolve the troop shortage.

The Army has had to increase their efforts in order to reach enlistment goals, including greatly increasing cash bonuses for enlistees and hiring hundreds more recruiters. (USA Today) The Army has recently gone so far as to lower the standards for enlistees (The New York Times) and is even considering shortening the long combat tours that many believe are lowering interest in enlistment. (Reuters)

What about the Iraqi army and police force?

The United States has been working hard to train Iraqi security forces, but with limited results. See the Army Times article. Training Iraqi police and military recruits may become increasingly difficult, as recruits have been targeted by the insurgents. (The Washington Post)

How does this affect the military?

While the draft has become an issue of importance for the general public, it has already become a reality for many off-duty servicemen. Programs like Stop Loss, known as "the back-door draft," have been put into effect in order to salvage athinly-stretched army.

http://optruth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=66

 

[jasendorf]

No worries CSM... you act as if I've never gotten a jibe for being in the band before...

But, truth be told, recruiting for the band has always been hard. The band is one of only three military specialities which one cannot enter into without a previously civilian acquired skill. The military cannot train someone to be a musician from scratch. They can make good musicians better, but to get in my unit oe must come with the goods already in place and pass a fairly rigorous audition.

But, the anecdotal evidence of recruting difficulty comes from conversations with 1SGs and MSGs at the brigade and battalion level and the words of the recruiters themselves. Add to that the ever increasing "incentives" ($20,000 signing bonuses, etc.) and I thnk that it's clear that recruiting is becoming more and more difficult as the wars wear on. I can get you plenty of numbers and make them look good, but the ear to the ground says otherwise. Anyone can say, "we're meeting our recruitment projections at 105%!" But that ignores the fact that the projection was purposely lowballed because recruiting is becoming more difficult. They can also ignore the incentives rising and the number of recruiters necessary to get the same amount of recruits increasing as well.

But, I think you evaded the meat of what avenger and I were discussing. Do you think we can bomb democracy into Iraq?

 

[CSM]

No worries CSM... you act as if I've never gotten a jibe for being in the band before...

But, truth be told, recruiting for the band has always been hard. The band is one of only three military specialities which one cannot enter into without a previously civilian acquired skill. The military cannot train someone to be a musician from scratch. They can make good musicians better, but to get in my unit oe must come with the goods already in place and pass a fairly rigorous audition.

But, the anecdotal evidence of recruting difficulty comes from conversations with 1SGs and MSGs at the brigade and battalion level and the words of the recruiters themselves. Add to that the ever increasing "incentives" ($20,000 signing bonuses, etc.) and I thnk that it's clear that recruiting is becoming more and more difficult as the wars wear on. I can get you plenty of numbers and make them look good, but the ear to the ground says otherwise. Anyone can say, "we're meeting our recruitment projections at 105%!" But that ignores the fact that the projection was purposely lowballed because recruiting is becoming more difficult. They can also ignore the incentives rising and the number of recruiters necessary to get the same amount of recruits increasing as well.

But, I think you evaded the meat of what avenger and I were discussing. Do you think we can bomb democracy into Iraq?

Incentives are nothing new. They have risen and fallen over the years. I don't know if you came in early enough to remember "proficiency pay" which was paid to soldiers for proficiency at certain skills. They had to take a test and if they got a high enough score, they were paid an extra $75 a month. Recruiting has always been tough, particularly when the economy is good. While the war certainly has an impact on the decision to join the military, I sincerely believe the economy and culture have even greater impact. Let's face it, not a lot of parental aspirations for their children include military service. Why should a kid join the military when his teachers, parents and friends have all been beating it into his head that the military is a bad thing all his life? Sure, the thin veneer we know have from the MSM lauding the men and women of our military just doesn't hold up when the same MSM publicly tries and convicts soldiers over every allegation brought up by our enemy's propaganda.

I also understand about the required skills to join the band. The same is true for doctors chaplains and JAG lawyers.

Obviously, you cannot "bomb democracy into Iraq". You can however, bomb the terrorism OUT of it. If the Iraqiis never get democracy it wont bother me one bit (in truth, I am almost convinced they dont DESERVE democracy along with any other MUSLIM state you care to name). I am also convinced that if the MSM, US citizenry, and powers that be would let the military do what needs to be done without being second guessed at every turn then this thing would be over in pretty short order.

 

[jasendorf]

Incentives are nothing new. They have risen and fallen over the years. I don't know if you came in early enough to remember "proficiency pay" which was paid to soldiers for proficiency at certain skills. They had to take a test and if they got a high enough score, they were paid an extra $75 a month. Recruiting has always been tough, particularly when the economy is good. While the war certainly has an impact on the decision to join the military, I sincerely believe the economy and culture have even greater impact. Let's face it, not a lot of parental aspirations for their children include military service. Why should a kid join the military when his teachers, parents and friends have all been beating it into his head that the military is a bad thing all his life? Sure, the thin veneer we know have from the MSM lauding the men and women of our military just doesn't hold up when the same MSM publicly tries and convicts soldiers over every allegation brought up by our enemy's propaganda.

Can you blame parents for not wanting their children in a military which is indefinitely deployed? I can't. Hell, look at a number of the parents with children of enlistment age these days, they had friends, brothers, or they themselves were drafted for Vietnam who, if they were lucky, came home to nightmares and who continue to get dragged around by the fiscal shell game of their government. I think back to Desert Storm... the only uncle I have who served in Vietnam (and he volunteered even though his draft number was in the 200s) called me and told me "your aunt and I have enough money stashed to send you to Canada." I had no desire to take him up on his offer and was fairly sure I wasn't going to be called up, but I found it interesting that the guy who inspired me to join the military believed that it would be best for me to desert. I think we're seeing even more of that same mindset today. And, I still stand by the assertion that recruiting is getting harder. The incentives have never been higher and the number of recruiters has never been higher.

I also understand about the required skills to join the band. The same is true for doctors chaplains and JAG lawyers.

Yeah, but they get shiny little thingies to put on their collars!

Obviously, you cannot "bomb democracy into Iraq". You can however, bomb the terrorism OUT of it. If the Iraqiis never get democracy it wont bother me one bit (in truth, I am almost convinced they dont DESERVE democracy along with any other MUSLIM state you care to name). I am also convinced that if the MSM, US citizenry, and powers that be would let the military do what needs to be done without being second guessed at every turn then this thing would be over in pretty short order.

By "deserve" I do hope that you mean that only those who earn their freedom deserve it and that you don't believe the Iraqis have yet earned it. I think every person on the planet deserves to be free... but sometimes you gotta be willing to fight for it. Let's not forget that there is currently some 290,000 Iraqis serving as military and police in Iraq fighting the terrorist insurgency. While their effectiveness may be in question, their willingness to take on the task isn't.

Why are kid gloves important in national building (which is precisely what we're doing in Iraq, make no mistake)? Because when you accidently kill some democracy-loving person's wife, daughter, brother, son, best friend... you raise doubt in their mind which fuels the insurgency. We saw it with the Viet Cong and the insurgents in the Philippines... we're seeing it now in Iraq. Despite the MSM's repeated parroting of the lie that the insurgency is coming from outside of Iraq (most studies have put the amount of foreign fighters at or below 10% of the insurgency), one must wonder why the same people we were told would greet us with more flowers than a Hawaiian honeymoon are suddenly the perpetrators for daily violence against our servicemen and women.

 

[CSM]

I just have to ask when recruiting for the military was easy? It is never easy and extended deployments, armed conflicts, etc. make it even tougher. That was my point; it is not just THIS conflict that makes recruiting tough.

As for the kid gloves stuff, sure, it does not help when some soldier or Marine does something stupid or criminal. It also does not help when the MSM and general populace have public discussions criticizing every little action the military executes. It is very easy for us (and yes I include myself in this) to second guess the commanders and soldiers on the ground over there.

I dont know where the idea came from that we would be greeted by cheering throngs of Iraqis or which public official stated that. Do you perhaps have a link where that was stated?

As for the Iraqis or any other Muslim nation deserving democracy I mean this: the nature of Islam being what it is and the Arab psyche being what it is, it is my opinion that they will NEVER embrace democracy. You have to WANT democracy and then cherish it, defend it and share it. I do not believe Muslim countries meet any of that criteria.

Freedom is a different issue and, again, largely a matter of perspective. There are many in this world who have never experienced the type of freedom we have here in the US yet think they are free. There are others who have experienced a personal freedom far beyond what we have here and yet we think we are free.

 

[Said1]

As for the Iraqis or any other Muslim nation deserving democracy I mean this: the nature of Islam being what it is and the Arab psyche being what it is, it is my opinion that they will NEVER embrace democracy. You have to WANT democracy and then cherish it, defend it and share it. I do not believe Muslim countries meet any of that criteria.

Not in the way we in the West know it, it will more than likely always have a theocratic/authoritarian flavor. I guess that might be stating the obvious, but whatever. :huh:

 

[jasendorf]

I just have to ask when recruiting for the military was easy? It is never easy and extended deployments, armed conflicts, etc. make it even tougher. That was my point; it is not just THIS conflict that makes recruiting tough.

I've already agreed that recruiting has always been tough... my point is that it has never been as tough as it is now and is only going to get tougher the longer we stay deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the kid gloves stuff, sure, it does not help when some soldier or Marine does something stupid or criminal. It also does not help when the MSM and general populace have public discussions criticizing every little action the military executes. It is very easy for us (and yes I include myself in this) to second guess the commanders and soldiers on the ground over there.

But the MSM has been a reality for 40 years. That being said, there are two choices... attempt to change the reality of a free press or adapt to that reality in your tactics and diplomacy. So, which is it? Throw out the First Amendment or alter our tactics? Just because we WANT to let our boys and girls spread bullets willy nilly so they can be safer doesn't make it a viable option.

I dont know where the idea came from that we would be greeted by cheering throngs of Iraqis or which public official stated that. Do you perhaps have a link where that was stated?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030403-3.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030506-19.html

As for the Iraqis or any other Muslim nation deserving democracy I mean this: the nature of Islam being what it is and the Arab psyche being what it is, it is my opinion that they will NEVER embrace democracy. You have to WANT democracy and then cherish it, defend it and share it. I do not believe Muslim countries meet any of that criteria.

290,000 volunteer Iraqi soldiers and police forces say otherwise.

Freedom is a different issue and, again, largely a matter of perspective. There are many in this world who have never experienced the type of freedom we have here in the US yet think they are free. There are others who have experienced a personal freedom far beyond what we have here and yet we think we are free.

A very astute observation. I agree entirely.

 

[CSM]

I've already agreed that recruiting has always been tough... my point is that it has never been as tough as it is now and is only going to get tougher the longer we stay deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ok, but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was Iraq/Afghanistan or Lower Slobovia and East Buttburn. I think we are saying the same thing but our reason for saying it is diametrically opposed.

But the MSM has been a reality for 40 years. That being said, there are two choices... attempt to change the reality of a free press or adapt to that reality in your tactics and diplomacy. So, which is it? Throw out the First Amendment or alter our tactics? Just because we WANT to let our boys and girls spread bullets willy nilly so they can be safer doesn't make it a viable option.


I dont see it that way at all. There is no way in hell I want tactics for operational forces to be based on what the MSM thinks. There are more than the two options you state as well. The US military does not have to allow embedded reporters though the press is free to go where ever they want. The US military does not have to provide transport, housing or anything else for the MSM; if the press wants to go there and do their reporting...fine, but the risk is theirs. That is one option.

I oughta smack you for the last little piece of rhetoric; I never said anything about soldiers sprayig bullets willy nilly and you know it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030403-3.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030506-19.html


Umm...ok...read both and didn't see anything where any of our country's leaders said the military would be welcomed with flowers. I saw praise for marines doing a tough job, I saw quoted statements from Iraqiis ... but nope...nothing about flowers and such. In fact, I firmly believe that statement you used (which had become a talking point for some) was a sarcastic remark that over time has come to be perceived as truth.

290,000 volunteer Iraqi soldiers and police forces say otherwise.

How many of them are just looking for a job? While I agree that there are some who want democracy and they all probably want their vision of freedom realized, I dont think they are really opting to embrace an American version of democracy and freedom. Said1 is thinking more along the same lines I am in that I suspect some form of theocracy will evolve which the West will spin as a democracy.

A very astute observation. I agree entirely.

You have potential! This would be so much easier if you would just agree with everything I say in the first place!

As you can see from this discussion (lengthy and ambling as it is) the situation is complex, has many many facets and is not easy to understand in its entirety. I am of the opinion that the solution will not be easily determined (though the solution may be easy in implementation).

 

[jasendorf]

290,000 volunteer Iraqi soldiers and police forces say otherwise.

How many of them are just looking for a job? While I agree that there are some who want democracy and they all probably want their vision of freedom realized, I dont think they are really opting to embrace an American version of democracy and freedom. Said1 is thinking more along the same lines I am in that I suspect some form of theocracy will evolve which the West will spin as a democracy.

To quote President Bush I... there you go again... why is it that whenever someone makes a buck from doing something you question their motives? Should our soldiers and police be suspect for their service because we pay them? If not, why would you do the same to Iraqi forces?

Of course we're going to see a theocracy in Iraq. But, then again, from where I'm standing, theocracy is the desire of conservatives in the United States... why would I think they'd want anything else in Iraq?

You have potential! This would be so much easier if you would just agree with everything I say in the first place!

Hold your breath until the next time it happens and see yourself turn blue!

 

[CSM]

To quote President Bush I... there you go again... why is it that whenever someone makes a buck from doing something you question their motives? Should our soldiers and police be suspect for their service because we pay them? If not, why would you do the same to Iraqi forces?

I am merely pointing out that not ALL of the 290,00 are motiviated by the desire for democracy. Quit leaping to contusions.

Of course we're going to see a theocracy in Iraq. But, then again, from where I'm standing, theocracy is the desire of conservatives in the United States... why would I think they'd want anything else in Iraq?

Pretty big imagination you have there. I suspect there may be a fringe or extreme element that could be called conservative that wants to see a theocracy and I am sure that many Muslims here in the US want a theocracy (not sure I would call those conservative though). I dont think that most conservatives want a theocracy.

Hold your breath until the next time it happens and see yourself turn blue!

You want to be a reasonable, logically thinking human being...I can tell. It is only a matter of time before you are assimilated!

Cmon ,Jas, quit being a dirtbag and debate with some facts instead of trying to twist my words or using exageration to make your point. I already get that you are a lib; that of course implies that you think with your heart and not your brain so the glaring overextension/exageration is unnecessary.

 

[jasendorf]

1) It's John.

2) Interesting that you and the President keep using the term "assimiliation." Just reinforces my belief that "your team" is the Borg.

3) I provided facts... 290,000 volunteer Iraqi soldiers and policemen... YOU then discounted them as nothing but a bunch of folk looking for a job without any basis. If you want to talk facts... talk facts. Ignoring the facts I present and then pretending that you're bringing something other than conjecture and innuendo doesn't really befit your stature.

4) Want a fact? The 700 Club is still getting donations. Case closed.

 

[Said1]

4) Want a fact? The 700 Club is still getting donations. Case closed.

So does Hammas and the Catholic church, wtf does that prove?

 

[jasendorf]

So does Hammas and the Catholic church, wtf does that prove?

That theocracy is around the corner?

Jeez... :chillpill

 

[Said1]

That theocracy is around the corner?

Jeez... :chillpill

Where, what corner? Jeez, can you be a little less general.