This would fit into any of several Iraq threads, so I guess I’ll just plop it down here:
Unfortunately I find Iraq scarier than Vietnam. It is not a matter of American troops getting bogged down there, which could be bad enough, but the possibilities of chain reactions throughout the Arab/Muslim world. Much of the world has satellite TV now, whatever happens in Iraq is seen everywhere. How many people in Africa were paying attention to Vietnam in the 1960’s?
Oddly enough I went for an ultrasound exam on 9/10/1. It was done by an Arab woman from North Africa. We got to talking and she was really intensely emotional about the Jews in Israel. So we have compounded problems in the Middle East.
We could wlak out of Vietnam with a loss of face. We can’t get out of the Middle East because of oil. So we are stuck in a tar baby and a really dumb president calling the shots.
Dal Timgar
Whew. Good thing that they planned for it so well!
Ah. Bremer planned the carpet bombing of Fall, too? The genius idea to surround the entire city and lay seige to it?
Yep, they’ve certainly done a wonderful job against an unorganized mob that kicked them out of three cities for (so far) 5 days.
Our armed forces are prepared for even worse.
No, I am following your logic. If the expert generals were unable to have any influence or say in the matter in the parts where they failed, why do they suddenly have all the control in the world about everything else?
No, the Republicans merely point out that the military “thought it would be a good idea to invade Afghanistan and arrest Osama in the '90s without enough evidence to convict him.”
Ah, but it was implied. Once again, if the military lacks voice in all of those areas, it logically lacks voice in other areas, correct?
I don’t get your insistence that the generals can not have anything whatsoever to do with all of the dozens of failed policies and blunders, but have complete control over their position in Iraq (except for the things that go wrong, that is Bremer’s fault).
You implied above that the entire Fall. incident was the idea and execution of Bremer, not the expert generals, which is just silly.
What, exactly, do the expert generals do, then, if they have nothing to do with strategic concerns, their tactical decisions are made by Bremer, and the fighting is done by the lower ranks?
And what happened to the discussion about why they need 400,000 more troops? Isn’t that a civilians-in-the-Pentagon concern that the military has (obviously) nothing to do with? I mean, the military had nothing to do with the original size, the number of troops there now, the expectation of being down to 30,000 troops by last winter, but all of the sudden, they have complete contorl over having that many more people there?
No.
Well, if you say so.
What other specialized areas do the expert generals have a say in the matter over, if not tactics, strategy, investment, research, policy, etc?
This is more argument against a case that you’ve invented on your own.
I didn’t say these things.
You’ve made unwarranted generalizations.
I discussed specific incidences.
The opinions of US generals, about US military matters, still seem have signifigantly more weight than can be displaced by your aspersions on select decisions of the civilian leadership.
You still think that we’ve already reached the point of diminishing returns re troop levels and US general’s have requested more troops.
You’ve yet to provide any reason why the military opinions of an anonymous internet poster should be considered more weighty than those of professional military personel.
During the worst “uprisings” in Iraq so far, you maintain that we “clearly have enough troops present to maintain control.” It seems that it is not clear to anyone but Zagadka.
When confronted with the opinions of experts, rather than argue against the merits of the cases made you chose to deride the wisdom of decisions made by third parties.
Part of your contorted arguments depend on the conflation of the terms civilian and military.
Like?
Our failure to quell those uprisings has more to do with our tactics (or lack thereof) and less to do with the number of troops we have.
Actually, I thought that this debate was about how Iraq was exactly the same as Vietnam because they both use AK-47s. As I said, I don’t even remember why this threadjack started - something about “generals saying we need more troops” or something. Well, I can go back to that point and argue that generals always say that we need more troops, and this “comparison” has little to nothing to do with Iraq and Vietnam.
You’re the one who brought up that the expert generals don’t have any control over those matters, not me.
Now Sam, your posts in the past have been phenominally stupid, but this one beats them all.
"Less than ten U.S. soldiers killed so far (I think the number is five or six), vs at least 450 dead insurgents. They don’t have a chance."
Right here we have a paralell with Viet Nam. Counting murdered women and children as enemy kills. Where have you been man? Most of those killed in Falluja by US forces are innocent civilinas. Have you not been reading the news, or is your only source of information Fox? I pity you man.
Wait a second, Sam Stone said that?
Holy. Crap. I didn’t agree with him before, but this makes me actually dislike him ,and I don’t dislike many people.
“You” in the next paragraphs will refer to Sam Stone.
How ignorant can you possibly be? 450-600 CIVLIANS die, and you dance in the streets and proclaim a victory? Did you know that 150-250 of those were CHILDREN? And you want to spit on their bones? What a brave and glorious army you have, slaughtering scores of civilians by laying seige to an entire city and strafing them with aircraft and helicopters. What talented and skilled soldiers!
You rack up the points on your chalkboard and cheer whenever more of them die than us?
You are no better than those who cheered in the streets on September 11. People like you make me ashamed to be an American. Take your glee in the slaughter of people different than you out of this nation. That is not what we stand for, and you sicken me.
They don’t have a chance? They don’t have a CHANCE? Is that what you said on September 11? They don’t have a CHANCE? The ability to kill people does not make you great.
I’m out of words for you. I need to go outside and spit to get the taste of even addressing you out of my mouth.
By the way, Sam Stone, if you’ll remember that fuzzy incident that you probably love called Vietnam, we killed a few dozen orders of magnitude more of them than they killed of us. Must be your proudest achievement, eh?
Go America, no one can slaughter millions of people and carpetbomb cities like us! Hitler was a street punk next to our glory! Stalin was a pussy, he only killed his own people! America, boy, no one is safe from us!
Excuse me, I need to go vomit.
The big deal-breaker in Vietnam was the draft. Once it was stopped, the antiwar movement could never get the same numbers out into the streets as they had before. Absent this factor, Iraq will be interesting in how the US army evolves to meet the situation: will the army take the bit in its teeth and try to win the war on its own, or let the politicians feed them into a slow meatgrinder? (whatever happened to the Powell Doctine, anyway?)
The Iraq war is less like the Vietnam War than it’s like the Spanish-American War, with 9/11 instead of the Maine explosion. Oh, and also as if we’d reacted to the Maine by declaring war on Portugal.
troop levels
Until Zagadka’s in charge of things, the military’ll just have to muddle through with the tactician’s that they have. These tacticians think that we need more troops. Maybe one day Zagadka can re-educate the US military from his armchair. Until such time, we’ll need more troops in Iraq because its the best way our tacticians’ve figured out.
Do you have any sort of a citation that would support the idea that “generals always say that we need more troops?” [no emphasis added]
Or is it another one of those Zagadka’s “common sense”/“logical” to Zagadka things?
AFAICT, I didn’t say much of what you say I’ve said.