It Seems All Is Not Lost, Despite What Some Say

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
they were wrong in the following years:

2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Source?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO

Source?

Apolyton. Threads too numerous to count.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Glenn Greenwald = Hack whose best and only (as far as I can ever tell) logical arguements are the fine art of strawman and ad-hominem.

Good use of inadvertent irony.

[Sandman]

Why would anyone expect us to be able to build a several hundred thousand man army from scratch, able to operate in one of the most dangerous places in the world, and armed to at least an Eastern Block satellite level in three years is beyond me. If you set impossible goals don't be surprised if they are not met. This goes for both sides over here in the US.

Perhaps I'm not up to speed, but do the Iraqis have a token airforce yet?

[GePap]

Why would anyone expect us to be able to build a several hundred thousand man army from scratch, able to operate in one of the most dangerous places in the world, and armed to at least an Eastern Block satellite level in three years is beyond me. If you set impossible goals don't be surprised if they are not met. This goes for both sides over here in the US.

Given that Iraq has no shortage of men with military training given its recent history, that it hasn't been done is ridiculous.

There is more than enough old Soviet surplus around that the US could have bought for cheap (or not) and given to the Iraqis. Plenty of Iraqis know how to use this stuff. If we haven't given the Iraqis these heavy weapons is because we feared they would use them on each other more than for our own benefit.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Given that Iraq has no shortage of men with military training given its recent history, that it hasn't been done is ridiculous.

GePap, The Iraq army system relied almost exclusively on direct officer control of the troops. The non-commissioned officer corp was practically non existent. It s the non-coms that are the true backbone of any effective modern army.

Coupled with the fact that the US regularly dismisses officers that show a sectarian agenda, these two facts are making it difficult to get a large standing army up and in place in just a few short years.

Fortuinately, our folks over there are doing an exceptional job with what they have and a stable, effective army is forming.

To not be aware of the true facts is what is ridiculous.

[Ben Kenobi]

Grunts: "The US needs to stay until we finish the job."

O'Hanlon and Pollack (and Mullen and Carter): "Finishing the job -- i.e., anything like a victory in Iraq -- would require maintaining current troop levels for years to come."

The Pentagon: "The military will be stretched to its breaking point sometime in the next year; we cannot maintain current troop levels in Iraq."

So: Victory (or at least not utter defeat) in Iraq is possible, but only under conditions which the Pentagon itself acknowledges are impossible.

So the solution then is to figure out a different way then the Pentagon. Surely you don't believe that the Pentagon is infalliable and the source of all wisdom.

[PLATO]

Stretched? One would think that if you get yourself in two wars that you might just expand your force, but nooooo.......

[Patroklos]

Apolyton. Threads too numerous to count.

Find one, 2003 you might have a chance. The others probably not.

Then again, there is still a chance that every thread you've participated in on the topic could turn out wrong.

Given that Iraq has no shortage of men with military training given its recent history, that it hasn't been done is ridiculous.

There is more than enough old Soviet surplus around that the US could have bought for cheap (or not) and given to the Iraqis. Plenty of Iraqis know how to use this stuff. If we haven't given the Iraqis these heavy weapons is because we feared they would use them on each other more than for our own benefit.

The video gamers understanding of the world

Perfect way to prove my point G

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


GePap, The Iraq army system relied almost exclusively on direct officer control of the troops. The non-commissioned officer corp was practically non existent. It s the non-coms that are the true backbone of any effective modern army.

Coupled with the fact that the US regularly dismisses officers that show a sectarian agenda, these two facts are making it difficult to get a large standing army up and in place in just a few short years.

And?

The problem is not an inability to create an army, but to create an Army the US trusts. That is a difference.

Fortuinately, our folks over there are doing an exceptional job with what they have and a stable, effective army is forming.

To not be aware of the true facts is what is ridiculous.

As Daniel Patrick Moynahan said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts

The US Military itself has not been touting the stength of the Iraqi Army itself lately. I doubt you know something they don't in this regard, and I doubt they would keep success a secret.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Find one, 2003 you might have a chance. The others probably not.

Hmm, so if I look for threads when Uday and Qusay were killed, which was the end of the insurgency.... or threads about how capturing Saddam was the turning point, or the time turning soverignty back to Iraqis was the turning point, or wait, no, it was the time Iraqis voted on the constitution, that was the turning point...Oh, no, it was when the elections for the new government took place, that was the turning point...

And lets not forget the stormings of Falluhjah, that was also going to show the bad guys whats what, right?

Then again, there is still a chance that every thread you've participated in on the topic could turn out wrong.

Maybe you should start by having a clue what "victory" means. Go ahead, define the victory in Iraq, cause as of now, none of you pro-war chanters has ever had a worthwhile answer to that question.

The video gamers understanding of the world

Perfect way to prove my point G

You actually think you have a point!?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
Excuse me, but why do we listen to guys like Ogie or Pat with regards to the war in Iraq anymore?

they were wrong in the following years:

2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Any evidence that they won't be wrong in 2007? I see none. So why even bother with them?

Your right you should have never listened to my opinion as far back as 2003 when I advocated against action in Iraq as it broke precendent of violating principles of sovereignty in favor preemptive war.

OTOH, I did argue that the US was legally entitled to do so but that they shouldn't due to the above.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Good use of inadvertent irony.

Not so much I know my own hackery and revel in using the tactics of others on this board.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So the solution then is to figure out a different way then the Pentagon. Surely you don't believe that the Pentagon is infalliable and the source of all wisdom.

You and Plato make the same point. It's a reasonable point: if we really mean to do this, we need a larger army.

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen; now that army service = definitely headed to the hot zone, and now that the economy is such that everyone can get a job (usually a crappy job, to be sure, but it's still better than being maimed), the volunteer forces just ain't cutting it. Even as the army lowers their standards -- less education, lower IQ's, looking the other way regarding psychological problems -- they still can't make quota.

Solution: a draft. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than seeing the Bush administration push for that.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


The problem is not an inability to create an army, but to create an Army the US trusts. That is a difference.

No GePap. The problem is exactly as I have stated it. The formation of a professional non-com core takes time...and no small amount of it. Combat experience is another critical ingredient, which, of course, there is no shortage of.

The US does not need to fear a professional army turning on it in the least. It simply needs one that will have the ability to secure and control the country.

As far for the US "touting" the strength of the Iraqi forces, they are certainly doing that with some units...and more of them all the time. The two factors of more time to train and qualified units are not mutually exclusive. The fact is that their are solid Iraqi units...the fact is also that many more of the solid type are needed than currently exist. The final fact, and the one the libs hate to acknowledge the most, is that progress toward the goal is most certainly being made.