No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[Superlative]

On the other side of the Tigris river on Tuesday, 87 people were killed by a lorry bomb which also partly demolished a Shia mosque.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/98762AD4-37EC-4F4D-BE22-E283F5CE7026.htm

At least two things are the same in Iraq, people are dying at a steady rate, and RSR still thinks everything is hunkey dorey.

 

[Superlative]

and as Maineman pointed out elsewhere, he and Patreus both predicted an upsurge in the violence would accompany the surge. For some 'good news' check out this, oh, there is some 'bad news' too, which is not surprising:

from yesterday:
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49159

from today:
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49184

Good news and bad news.

We have to wait until september for the surge to show signs of progress.

What does that equal? at the current rate, about 300 more american deaths, and god knows how many more Iraqi deaths.

Where is the progress?

What are they "clearing" "holding" and "building"?

Thats the best plan Ive heard since 2003.

and to successfully accomplish that, there needs to be something like 150,000 more troops, not 25,000+.

 

[Annie]

Good news and bad news.

We have to wait until september for the surge to show signs of progress.

What does that equal? about 300 more american deaths, and god knows how many more Iraqi deaths.

Where is the progress?

What are they "clearing" "holding" and "building"?

Thats the best plan Ive heard since 2003.

and to successfully accomplish that, there needs to be something like 150,000 more troops, not 25,000+.

Do you really think September is going to bring all the answers?

 

[Superlative]

Do you really think September is going to bring all the answers?

Of course not.

But thats the time frame that was handed out.


War is messy, but there are two kinds of messy,

A messy War with a plan.

And a messy War without a plan.

There has been no clearly defined plan of action from the start, and there is no real guarantee that operation "Arrowhead Ripper" will be any different.

Everyone is expected to sit back and be patient while people die.

You cant fault someone for demanding progress, its been long enough.

 

[Annie]

Of course not.

But thats the time frame that was handed out.


War is messy, but there are two kinds of messy,

A messy War with a plan.

And a messy War without a plan.

There has been no clearly defined plan of action from the start, and there is no real guarantee that operation "Arrowhead Ripper" will be any different.

Everyone is expected to sit back and be patient while people die.

You cant fault someone for demanding progress, its been long enough.

Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?

 

[hjmick]

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. - Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke

 

[Superlative]

Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?

Yes, but in this case, the purpose, and ideal, should not be the US's

The US defence secretary met Iraqi leaders on Saturday to tell them that Washington was disappointed with their efforts to reconcile warring factions.

Robert Gates, who flew into Baghdad on Friday night, was briefed by US commanders on a US troop build-up intended to buy time for the mainly Shia Iraqi government to reach a political accommodation with Sunni Arabs.

Gates said he would deliver a simple message "that our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation, that frankly we are disappointed with the progress so far"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D4BC13FF-C18D-4836-82FC-E8871C6AC422.htm



Are the defenders of this occupation ready to be in Iraq for another 5 years?

 

[Annie]

Yes, but in this case, the purpose, and ideal, should not be the US's




http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D4BC13FF-C18D-4836-82FC-E8871C6AC422.htm



Are the defenders of this occupation ready to be in Iraq for another 5 years?

I'd like to know what ideals or purposes you feel would justify the US taking action. If it's 'an attack on the US', does the response mean only against a state? If it's something like al Qaida, should the attack be an 'all out response', using all technological capabilities, with no or minimum ground troops, but civilian casualties be damned?

 

[mattskramer]

Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?

Who, in government, said that September would be a good time in which to check on supposed progress from the surge? What if there has been no progress – Do we check back in January 1008? If there has been no improvement then, do we send in 20000 more soldiers and check on them in a few months? When does the gambler stop sending good money after bad? Some day he should get up from the table and cut his losses.

 

[Care4all]

Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?

according to Just War Theory, you don't start a war unless you know you can win, and know with certainty you can win very quickly, with overwhelming force if necessary, which would actually reduce casualties over the long term, and ''collateral'' damage too.

also, immediately following battle, borders are supposed to be secured for the safety of the citizens, and the occupiers are fully responsible for the safety and security of this nation's citizens and the occupiers are responsible for repairing their infrastructure...

so that THEIR lives after the war, are BETTER OFF than what they were before you went to war with them, to remove a despot.

otherwise, the war of choice that you started is considered an Unjust War.

There are a few other steps in Just War Theory that makes a war considered just, like....there can be NO MONETARY GAIN or any underlying gain for the aggressor...the occupier,

other than going to war with this despot, so that all the lives of the countrymen can be better than what they were with their despot/gvt...

and they must be better off, you must know that your plan for war will make these people immediately better off following the military action.

many of these steps seem rudimentary to me, simple steps to follow and contemplate before going in to a war of CHOICE.

so, although just a novice at best, when it comes to war, i don't understand what the heck this administration was thinking when it came to their decision to invade this sovereign country, and if they even once thought about just war theory?

the powell doctrine coincides with just war theory....they clearly did not follow his way of dealing with war.

care

 

[Superlative]

I'd like to know what ideals or purposes you feel would justify the US taking action.

Lets see, the US took action in Iraq, because of the future threat of WMD's.

But has yet to take action when a country exhibits REAL signs of a threat.

We have yet to invade Iran, and they have been persuing Nuclear capabilities for how long?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm

The North Korean Nuclear weapons issue? Diplomatic resolutions showing results?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2340405.stm

And now Russia is arming itself in response to US missile defence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm

Why havent we invaded these countries?

If it's 'an attack on the US', does the response mean only against a state?

The perpetrators of the crime should be pursued, captured, and held to account.
Invading an entire country in response to a terrorist attack is over reaching.
Especially when the original mission in Afghanistan "Operation Enduring Freedom" to locate and eliminate al Qaeda was executed with positive results.

If it's something like al Qaida, should the attack be an 'all out response',

See "Operation Enduring Freedom"

Using all technological capabilities, with no or minimum ground troops, but civilian casualties be damned?

All casualties will be significantly reduced when diplomatic means are pursued; As opposed to invasion and occupation with a large scale military force.(eg Iraq, North Korea, Russia)
Civilian casualties will be reduced, When strategic targets are attacked, AFTER intensive intelligence operations are executed. (Operation Enduring Freedom)

When a proper plan of action is created and enacted, the need for invasion, is minimal, ultimately reducing all casualties. (Not what has happened in Iraq)

 

[Superlative]

Who, in government, said that September would be a good time in which to check on supposed progress from the surge? What if there has been no progress – Do we check back in January 1008? If there has been no improvement then, do we send in 20000 more soldiers and check on them in a few months? When does the gambler stop sending good money after bad? Some day he should get up from the table and cut his losses.

"I think we have to wait and see where we are in September to see what follows the report that the ambassador and the General turn in."

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and US ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to report to a sceptical Congress in September on whether the surge is working or whether an alternative strategy is needed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1953354.htm

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-17-voa16.cfm

The US military is due to report on the success of the build-up in September, against a backdrop of pressure from the Democrat-led Congress to end the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6757329.stm

 

[hjmick]

When a proper plan of action is created and enacted, the need for invasion, is minimal, ultimately reducing all casualties. (Not what has happened in Iraq)

There was a proper plan of action created and enacted on June 6, 1944. Over 5,000 men died on one day. Or are you of the opinion it was not a proper plan?

 

[Superlative]

There was a proper plan of action created and enacted on June 6, 1944. Over 5,000 men died on one day. Or are you of the opinion it was not a proper plan?

I think our level of technology gives us a little more of an advantage in reducing casualties now, than it did 70 years ago.

 

[maineman]

There was a proper plan of action created and enacted on June 6, 1944. Over 5,000 men died on one day. Or are you of the opinion it was not a proper plan?

I must admit that the argument "Hey, it's not as bloody as World War II" as some sort of a valid justification for the unnecessary, unwarranted, counter-productive carnage in Iraq does not impress me all that much.

 

[hjmick]

I must admit that the argument "Hey, it's not as bloody as World War II" as some sort of a valid justification for the unnecessary, unwarranted, counter-productive carnage in Iraq does not impress me all that much.

And I agree with you. The discussion had turned to the plan or lack there of and my point is simply this: In war, no plan goes as well as you would hope.

When the plan to go into Iraq was first announced, I thought it was a bad idea, I still do. We hadn't finished our work in Afghanistan, and still haven't. Opening another front struck me as a bad idea. Unfortunately, I was unable to convince the powers that be to cancel their plans.

Our initial entry into Iraq went well, it's not the war we're losing, it's the peace. The war plan was executed damn near flawlessly, it's the aftermath that the U.S. has failed to adequately plan for.

I think Sadam needed to go, but not for the reasons spoonfed to the American public. I think we should have waited. I know we could have waited.

 

[hjmick]

I think our level of technology gives us a little more of an advantage in reducing casualties now, than it did 70 years ago.

You have a good point there.

As I stated in my previous post, the only point I was trying to convey is the same in the quote I posted earlier, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." The best laid plans more often than not go awry in war, and the more we learn, the more many of us are starting to think that the plans they've had for managing the aftermath weren't too good to begin with.

 

[Superlative]

You have a good point there.

As I stated in my previous post, the only point I was trying to convey is the same in the quote I posted earlier, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." The best laid plans more often than not go awry in war, and the more we learn, the more many of us are starting to think that the plans they've had for managing the aftermath weren't too good to begin with.

Understandable.

But what happens when the best laid plans aren't the best, in fact they arent really a plan at all?


Have you heard of Clear, Hold, Build?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/55303.htm


Condoleezza Rice

"In short, with the Iraqi Government, our political-military strategy has to be to clear, hold, and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions."

 

[hjmick]

Understandable.

But what happens when the best laid plans aren't the best, in fact they arent really a plan at all?


Have you heard of Clear, Hold, Build?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/55303.htm


Condoleezza Rice

CHB isn't going well. That much is obvious. I don't pretend to know what the answers are. At this point I think it might be best to pull our troops back to one easily defensible location, help rebuild the infrastructure, help train Iraqi forces, and let them handle security. Not enough Iraqis are ready to step up for their country, that has got to change.

 

[Superlative]

CHB isn't going well. That much is obvious. I don't pretend to know what the answers are. At this point I think it might be best to pull our troops back to one easily defensible location, help rebuild the infrastructure, help train Iraqi forces, and let them handle security. Not enough Iraqis are ready to step up for their country, that has got to change.

We tried that, it elicites more insurgent aggression.

We become what ive heard called "War Tourists"

Condoleezza had a plan based on the success of Tal Afar.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060320-6.html

But in order to accomplish Clear Hold Build, the US would need a troop surge of 150,000.

Its the best plan the US has seen so far, (sans 150,000) and Rumsfeld shot it down. Citing it as the responsibility of the Iraqis.