Rumsfeld's Iraq Options in Leaked Memo

[RedFury]

@Richard Parker

Can you point me to where that link says the marines think there’s nothing else that we can do in Iraq?

Again?

:::shrug:::

mm’kay

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda’s rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military’s mission in Anbar province.

highlight/underlining/italics/coloring mine…for your benefit.

Better?

[Richard_Parker]

@RedFury

Better?

Funny, I thought from your arrogant tone that you had actually found a part of the article that said that the marines believe that there is no possible US policy that could affect the future of Iraq.

[duality72]

L.A Times on the readiness of the Iraqi army.

The offensive was initially billed by U.S. officials in Baghdad as an Iraqi-led success and a case study in support of the Pentagon's increasing reliance on using American troops as military advisors as a way to shift security responsibilities to Iraqi soldiers.

....But interviews at their joint Rustamiya base with U.S. advisors and Iraqi soldiers involved in Friday's battle revealed a different story. The operation was hastily prepared and badly executed, they said, and plans to let the Iraqis take the lead in the battle were quickly scrapped.

"It started out that way," [Staff Sgt. Michael] Baxter said. "But five minutes into it, we had to take over."

And that was one of the better units.

[RedFury]

@Richard Parker

Funny, I thought from your arrogant tone that you had actually found a part of the article that said that the marines believe that there is no possible US policy that could affect the future of Iraq.

Well, when all else fails you may console yourself with the fact that you’ve got tons of WMDs to play with.

Hmm…perhaps the world should invade the US.

[RedFury]

Sunday: 13 GIs, 108 Iraqis Killed

Monday: 80 Iraqis Killed, 10 Iraqis Wounded

Mideast allies near a state of panic

Kinda of late for that “new policy” of yours…

[elucidator]

Red, burro viejo*, I think your habit of speaking of the collective “you” (the USA, I’m assuming) is causing confusion with the personal “you”. Makes your points sound directly offensive, which I presumeis not your intent. If it is, of course, freak freely…

Su hermano guapo,
’luc

[RedFury]

@elucidator

Red, burro viejo*, I think your habit of speaking of the collective “you” (the USA, I’m assuming) is causing confusion with the personal “you”. Makes your points sound directly offensive, which I presumeis not your intent. If it is, of course, freak freely…

Su hermano guapo,
'luc

Joder, 'luc, compañero, after so many years in the trenches together and now this? Please note that the one time I made clear I was using the collective “you” was when Mr. Parker decided to use the collective US position in order to advance his own agenda rather faulty – perhaps desperate would be a better choice, War and the fantasies are all but gone – postion. “we.”." if he – or anyone else reserves thst tone as a speakers for America, you bet I’ll respond in kind. Even though, if you search a bit, you’ll find more then a bit of sarcasm in my responses. No Mark Twain, I know, but hey, I do what I can with the rather blunt weapons I have.

Truth of the matter is this topic both fascinates me, as much as it brings me to tears. Fascination in the sense of how any reasonable person would want to keep your kids (good or bad, kids do most all the real fighting) there in light such overwhelming evidence, that that is exactly what you shouldn’t be doing.

Anyway, one good turn deserves another one, but I trust you know I’m far and away from the hive mentality. In fact, rather freak freely most of the time. Just not this one.

So no, it certainly isn’t personal to you or anyone else that stood by me when I got in my trench many months before the invasion started.

Paz, 'luc. That’s all most of us worlwide – US included— really need and want anyway. Whether it comes secularly or theocratically is not for the collective you to say. Certainties, outside of death are few, yet I take as an article of faith, that Iraq should be left to its own devices.

Simply put: the civil war raging over there is not going to get any better or worse by the presence of your largely invisible "green Zone “Elite forces,” as far as they are praised for being same, are largely ineffective in dealing this type of guerilla warfare.

Later, compañero. All the best to you and yours.

~Red

PS-“El hombre como el oso, mientras mas feo mas hermoso.”

[tagos]

@Richard Parker

Funny, I thought from your arrogant tone that you had actually found a part of the article that said that the marines believe that there is no possible US policy that could affect the future of Iraq.

Translation:

‘NAH, NAH, NAH. I CAN’T HEAR YOU, I’M NOT LISTENING.’

[Richard_Parker]

@tagos

Translation:

‘NAH, NAH, NAH. I CAN’T HEAR YOU, I’M NOT LISTENING.’

I don’t know how you expect me to prove a negative on this. The article simply does not say that the Marines believe all options have been exhausted. It does clearly say that the Marines believe they can no longer defeat the insurgency in Al-Anbar province using military force. That you can’t see the distinction speaks more to your blinders than my own.

[elucidator]

It would hardly matter anyway, since we don’t “mission” any branch of the services to perform geo-political analysis. We don’t train these people to examine and judge the motivations underlying their tasks, we train them to perform those tasks. If they tell us that pacification of Anbar Province is a futile goal in terms of nation-building, we are justified to give nothing more than a polite attention and consideration. But when they tell us they can’t perform that task, it is a sobering and sombre assessment.

Given the macho, “gung ho” culture that is imbued alongside Marine training…when they say they “can do!”, that may be somewhat exaggerated, perhaps they cannot. But if they tell you they can’t do something, you can pretty much take it to the bank.

So while such an admission may not be precisely the same thing as “we are soooo boned!”, it ain’t that far from “terminal” to “dead”.

[elucidator]

I call your attention to the analysis of Mr. Dana Milbank of the WaPo, available on video from Think Progress (tighty rightys are advised to proceed with “shields up!”)
http://thinkprogress.org/

Excerpted:

Last night on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank discussed the recently leaked Donald Rumsfeld memo that called for a “major adjustment” to our Iraq policy.

Milbank called the memo a “classic” example of “cover-your-ass memo writing in Washington.” Rumsfeld “listed every conceivable option” in his memo, Milbank says, to allow himself to claim, “Well, I recommended we go in that direction.” “This was something of an authorized leak by Rumsfeld’s people in order to protect his legacy here,” Milbank added…

This would explain a lot.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

It would hardly matter anyway, since we don’t “mission” any branch of the services to perform geo-political analysis. We don’t train these people to examine and judge the motivations underlying their tasks, we train them to perform those tasks. If they tell us that pacification of Anbar Province is a futile goal in terms of nation-building, we are justified to give nothing more than a polite attention and consideration. But when they tell us they can’t perform that task, it is a sobering and sombre assessment.

Given the macho, “gung ho” culture that is imbued alongside Marine training…when they say they “can do!”, that may be somewhat exaggerated, perhaps they cannot. But if they tell you they can’t do something, you can pretty much take it to the bank.

So while such an admission may not be precisely the same thing as “we are soooo boned!”, it ain’t that far from “terminal” to “dead”.

Except that’s not what it says. You really have to read the whole article and not just the first paragraph. But also, it should be noted that al Anbar province is home to only about 5% of the Iraqi population, so there’s a major disconnect here in assuming that al Anbar = Iraq.

Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division – 15,000 to 20,000 troops – plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, “there is nothing” U.S. troops “can do to influence” the insurgency.

So, if anything, he’s arguing for more troops, not a withdrawl. Furthermore, this report contradicts the claim made by many in this thread that the military isn’t doing anything to stop the violence:

In a final section of the report, titled “Way Ahead,” Devlin outlined several possibilities for bringing stability to the area, including establishing a Sunni state in Anbar, creating a local paramilitary force to protect Sunnis and to offset Iranian influence, shifting local budget controls, and strengthening a committed Iraqi police force that has “proven remarkably resilient in most areas.”

Devlin ended the assessment by saying that while violence has surged, the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had “a real suppressive effect on the insurgency.” He said the suffering of “Anbar’s citizens undoubtedly would be far worse now if it was not for the very effective efforts” of U.S. forces.

[slaphead]

@tagos

So remind me again - what does staying achieve compared to admitting we’ve screwed up and begging the world to help us out with the aid of a blank cheque.

I don’t know the answer but a start would be admitting we’ve screwed up, publically eat humble pie and work with whoever we have to on whatever terms we can get to put things right.

This seems to get brought up as an ‘option’ all the time. As I said in another thread, the rest of the world is not going to help the US out, for the very simple reason that if the 150,000 well-trained troops the US/UK have on the ground have gotten their ass handed to them, there is no military force available that can be added which will make a difference. Even if you are pinning your hopes on the Russians or Chinese donating a couple of corps, I doubt they have the ability to do more than just cause more destruction.

So the choice comes down to grinding it out and hoping things will eventually improve, or just running away. There is no feasible deus ex machina that will sort this out if the US can’t fix it.

And what is this ‘blank check’ supposed to be for? Landscaping the mass graves once the ethnic conflict has burned itself out?

[elucidator]

Seems a bit of a contradiction there, John. He claims, in your first quote, that absent a major influx of troops and money (he might as well be calling for Divine Intervention, and I suspect he’s smart enough to know that…), he says:

…“there is nothing” U.S. troops “can do to influence” the insurgency…

And then goes on to claim that precisely the opposite is happening!

…the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had “a real suppressive effect on the insurgency.”…

One is moved to skepticism, were one not already there. Has he some special information source, such that he knows that the Sunni insurgency planned X number of attacks, but only Y occured, therefore he prevented (X-Y) attacks? Is there some subtle definition of “influence” that does not include “having a real suppressive effect”?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Seems a bit of a contradiction there, John. He claims, in your first quote, that absent a major influx of troops and money (he might as well be calling for Divine Intervention, and I suspect he’s smart enough to know that…), he says:

And then goes on to claim that precisely the opposite is happening!

One is moved to skepticism, were one not already there. Has he some special information source, such that he knows that the Sunni insurgency planned X number of attacks, but only Y occured, therefore he prevented (X-Y) attacks? Is there some subtle definition of “influence” that does not include “having a real suppressive effect”?

“Influence” is a odd word to use. It does not mean “effect”, so I don’t see that there is necessarily a contradition. We only have the WaPo story and not the whole report, so we can only go by what they say. Seems to me that he is saying, as in the first paragraph, that we cannot defeat the insurgency militarily with the troops we have on the ground now, but we are still reducing the level of violence beyond what it would be if we were to leave.

But if you’d rather just toss the entire report as unreliable because of contradictions you see, then we can do that. At which point we need a new cite to back up the claims being made by other posters here.

[RedFury]

Devlin ended the assessment by saying that while violence has surged, the presence of U.S. troops in Anbar has had “a real suppressive effect on the insurgency.” He said the suffering of “Anbar’s citizens undoubtedly would be far worse now if it was not for the very effective efforts” of U.S. forces.

What the fuck else do you expect him to say, John? That the presence of US troops is not doing shit in terms of security? I’m sure that would go real well with his bosses.

Point being, it’s rather naive to first declare, and I paraphrase, “that the US military is no longer able to defeat their enemies in Western Iraq” and then go on to say that 'Anbar’s citizen’s would far worse without them."

WTF?

As for the security situation in Iraq as a whole and Baghdad in particular, does anything other than a “civil war” come to mind as descriptive? I mean really, just read the links I posted upthread about a “regular two days in Iraq.” And that’s exactly what those are…hundreds of violent deaths on a daily basis.

That the US troops are there providing “security” it’s almost laughable if the situation wasn’t so tragic. Not to mention the fact that the US hasover 100,000 “contractors” running around doing who knows what and under who’s orders…

Conditions couldn’t be worse if someone wrote the script.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

What the fuck else do you expect him to say, John? That the presence of US troops is not doing shit in terms of security? I’m sure that would go real well with his bosses.

He needn’t say anything.

Point being, it’s rather naive to first declare, and I paraphrase, “that the US military is no longer able to defeat their enemies in Western Iraq” and then go on to say that 'Anbar’s citizen’s would far worse without them."

WTF?

I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand the difference between defeating the insurgency and keeping it from being worse than it might be w/o the presence of US troops.

Consider: The FBI has never been able to defeat organized crime in teh US. Should they stop trying?

[RedFury]

Iraq more dangerous than civil war, Annan says

LONDON – The current situation in Iraq is “much worse” than civil war, the outgoing United Nations secretary general said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. yesterday.

<snip>

“Given the level of violence, the level of killing and bitterness and the way that forces are arranged against each other, a few years ago, when we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war; this is much worse,” Annan said.

<snip>

During the interview with the BBC, Annan agreed when it was suggested that some Iraqis believe life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

“I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life,” Annan said. "If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, ‘Am I going to see my child again?’

“And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control. The society needs security and a secure environment for it to get on – without security not much can be done – not recovery or reconstruction.”

• bolding mine

No additional comments needed.

[Richard_Parker]

@RedFury

Iraq more dangerous than civil war, Annan says

• bolding mine

No additional comments needed.

It’s illustrative of your understanding of this debate that you think your article has any relevance to it.

[elucidator]

@John Mace

“Influence” is a odd word to use. It does not mean “effect”, so I don’t see that there is necessarily a contradition…

You have no equal when it comes to exquisite parsing of semantics, John, and so I hesitate. But kindly advise under what precise conditions “influence” does not mean “effect” (or, more precisely, “affect”). Do that, and you can pat me on the head and call me “Grasshopper”.