Blame the Dems for Iraq

[Luke T.]

So, what do you propose we do? Tie every last citizen down to their chair so they are forced to talk rather than kill one another?

First, there are not enough troops to defeat the insurgents. Plain and simple.

Second, the infrastructure of Iraq needs to be greatly improved. This is going to take a long time. As long as the infrastructure is weak, the economy has no hope of getting on its feet. As the infrastructure is improved, it will need to be protected. This is probably the single biggest factor which will determine if Iraq is a "win" or a "failure". If we leave Iraq with a weak infrastructure, it is doomed.

Third, democracy is always vulnerable in its infancy stage. The temptation to revert back to an iron-fisted ruler is going to be a strong one for a long time until Iraq gets on its feet. Nostalgia for the old days always follows a power vacuum.

Increasing troop strength is just one of many, many things that need to be done for Iraq to be a "win". And it is the hard road.

Bailing out is easy, yeah. And a guarantee of failure.

 

[Mephisto]

To fight to win, we clearly need to increase troop strength and quit pussyfooting around.

Yeah. Where are the troops going to come from? Good question. Guess those big cuts in troop strength all through the 90s were a bad idea...

I'll tell you where the troops will come from, you remember that little old man who greets you when you walk into Wal-Mart?

Army relaxes its standards to fill ranks
Critics say push to meet quotas may let unstable recruits join up
Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

To allow more recruits to join, the Army last fall amended its rule that it can sign up no more than 2 percent of recruits who score between 15 and 30 out of 99 on the Army's aptitude test. Now, up to 4 percent of Army recruits can score under 30 on the aptitude test, which measures such things as the applicants' knowledge of mathematics and command of the English language, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman.

He said the Army will have "less than 4 percent" of recruits who scored under 30 by the end of the year, but did not elaborate. In 2005, 1.8 percent of the soldiers the Army signed up scored between 15 and 30 percent.

"We're being held up to an impossibly high standard," Hilferty said.

At the same time, in the first four months of this year, the percentage of recruits whom the Army otherwise considers fit for service but who required special waivers to join rose to 15.5 percent. The waivers were for misdemeanor offenses, drug- or alcohol-related violations or medical problems, Hilferty said. In 2004, 12 percent of recruits required such waivers; in 2005, 15 percent needed them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/11/MNG03JT3ER1.DTL
__________

Army: Recruiter forged signatures

Man forged parents' signatures making it possible for teen to enlist
By Russ Bynum

ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAVANNAH - When Pfc. Steven Price volunteered to join the Army in January, he couldn't do it alone. Because he's 17, recruiters needed his parents to give their written permission.

Now an Army spokesman says a Utah-based recruiter has admitted forging the signatures of Price's parents to enlist him.

Price of Ogden, Utah, reported for duty at Fort Stewart in southeast Georgia in June after he completed basic training. He credits the Army with restoring his pride after a troubled adolescence, but says that doesn't justify his recruiters' actions.

"There was harm and foul play on their part," Price said. "It was very deceiving what they did."

The Army recruited Price last winter at a juvenile prison in Ogden, where he was serving a yearlong sentence for stealing a gun from his father.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/15616118.htm
_______

U.S. ARMY TO HALT RECRUITING FOR ONE DAY TO TRAIN RECRUITERS ON ETHICS AND INTEGRITY

INSIDE EDITION INVESTIGATION LAST WEEK DOCUMENTED WIDESPREAD
RECRUITER IMPROPRIETIES ON HIDDEN CAMERAS

The U.S. Army will hold a nationwide stand-down May 20 in order for recruiting units to re-train its personnel on the Army’s core values, including ethics and integrity.

In a report that aired last Friday, a two-month Inside Edition hidden camera investigation repeatedly found Army recruiters advising an Inside Edition researcher posing as an enlistee how to cheat on drug tests and to lie about possibly disqualifying background information. After reviewing some of the newsmagazine’s footage, Army officials vowed to conduct its own investigation.

In all, Inside Edition visited 13 Army recruiting stations in four states. In nine of the 13 instances, recruiters told the newsmagazine’s “enlistee” how to lie or cheat to get into the Army – some even offered advice on how to cover up drug use.

http://www.insideedition.com/ourstories/print/story.aspx?storyid=17

Recruitment goals have risen all during this conflict. That's part of the dirty little secret behind "not meeting recruitment goals" glee that the anti-war crowd has not been telling you about.

The size of our force has been growing as a result of that increase in recruitment.

Or because of the things listed above.

If they go with the "timetable/benchmark/cut-and-run" policy, then Iraq will go in the books as a "failure".

Who will get the blame for that?

Bush. He has such a huge Suck Factor we are in danger of all life being wiped out by a passing asteroid. So he can't get away from full blame for Iraq.

It's so stupid to blame the person responsible for the whole mess, isn't it?

Here it is already mid-November and the Democrats STILL haven't done anything about the war.

The Dems have a blank check. A free ride. They call the tunes. They can do no wrong. In the catbird seat.

Well, the Repubes have had a blank check for the past six years and look what we've bought; a war costing $10,000 a minute and tax-breaks for the rich. As for doing no wrong, is it the Democrats fault that this administration is such an easy act to follow? All they have to do is quit making the middle class pay all the taxes that allow the government to send their sons and daughters off to die in a war we shouldn't be fighting.

 

[Luke T.]

I'll tell you where the troops will come from, you remember that little old man who greets you when you walk into Wal-Mart?

I see nothing about little old men from Wal-Mart in anything that followed.

The military has increased the maximum age for recruits from 38 to 42. I hope you don't consider a 42 year old a "litte old man".

As for recruiters lying and forging paperwork, you think this is new? My recruiter was court-martialed in 1981 for falsifying SSN's for recruits who had criminal records.

It's so stupid to blame the person responsible for the whole mess, isn't it?

Are you trying to construct a strawman with my name on it?

Here it is already mid-November and the Democrats STILL haven't done anything about the war.

I'm sorry you are so impatient.

Well, the Repubes have had a blank check for the past six years and look what we've bought; a war costing $10,000 a minute and tax-breaks for the rich. As for doing no wrong, is it the Democrats fault that this administration is such an easy act to follow? All they have to do is quit making the middle class pay all the taxes that allow the government to send their sons and daughters off to die in a war we shouldn't be fighting.

Wow. I just said the Dems have a free ride and you make it sound like a bad thing. I say they aren't to be blamed for Iraq being a "failure" and this seems to bother you.

I hope the Dems aren't as vindictive as you are.

 

[Mephisto]

I hope the Dems aren't as vindictive as you are.

Hey! Something we can agree on.

 

[Garrette]

It's so stupid to blame the person responsible for the whole mess, isn't it?

Here it is already mid-November and the Democrats STILL haven't done anything about the war.



Well, the Repubes have had a blank check for the past six years and look what we've bought; a war costing $10,000 a minute and tax-breaks for the rich. As for doing no wrong, is it the Democrats fault that this administration is such an easy act to follow? All they have to do is quit making the middle class pay all the taxes that allow the government to send their sons and daughters off to die in a war we shouldn't be fighting.

I may have been mis-reading, but I don't think Luke T. has been defending Bush. I think he holds a position close to mine which is that there are more than the two options of (1) Stay in Iraq with what we have and (2) Leave Iraq regardless.

[Note that the first one includes staying and tweaking what we do on the ground].

There have been many people in the military (and outside of it) who have been saying, even since before the Iraq war, that the Pentagon needs to revise its outlook.

My position:

Winning isn't out of reach (winning imprecisely and quickly defined here as withdrawal from an Iraq capable of sustaining its own basically democratic government, providing for the security of its people from internal threats, not seriously threatened by its neighbors, and not hostile to the US), but it is now certainly harder to achieve than it need have been.

Nothing can guarantee victory, but some things will guarantee the lack of it, including a failure to drastically increase troops strength.

But increasing troop strength is not enough. We must change how they are employed and we must put much more effort into rebuilding the basic infrastructure AFTER security has been established.

 

[Garrette]

Just to add: If we decide that the cost of staying, with the intent of winning, is too high (and it will be high), then I hope we have the guts to just pull out.

I think doing so will be ugly and nasty and result in a hell of a lot more bloodshed, at least in the short term, as well as being a geo-political Bad Thing in the long term, but it's still better than doing the half-assed thing.

 

[Luke T.]

Garrette has said in his last two posts EXACTLY what I have been thinking and doing a poor job of saying. Especially the part "harder to achieve than it need have been".

 

[Upchurch]

First, there are not enough troops to defeat the insurgents. Plain and simple.

Second, the infrastructure of Iraq needs to be greatly improved. This is going to take a long time. As long as the infrastructure is weak, the economy has no hope of getting on its feet. As the infrastructure is improved, it will need to be protected. This is probably the single biggest factor which will determine if Iraq is a "win" or a "failure". If we leave Iraq with a weak infrastructure, it is doomed.

Do you see the paradox here? There are not enough troops to defeat the insurgents, but there are enough to protect an entire country's infrastructure? I'll grant you that such a thing would certainly take less troops than beating down the insurgency, but it is still a phenomenal task.

Why do you think this is possible when a couple of guys with a saw could kill the power to an entire villiage?

Third, democracy is always vulnerable in its infancy stage. The temptation to revert back to an iron-fisted ruler is going to be a strong one for a long time until Iraq gets on its feet. Nostalgia for the old days always follows a power vacuum.

Luke, you're talking about turning us into that iron-fisted ruler.

Do you honestly think a democracy can be set up at the end of a foreign government's gun barrel? Or, further, that any semblance of a democracy made under such forced conditions can be sustained once that gun barrel is removed?

Increasing troop strength is just one of many, many things that need to be done for Iraq to be a "win". And it is the hard road.

Bailing out is easy, yeah. And a guarantee of failure.

The hard road you are describing has less chance of success because ultimately, the US cannot keep military control of Iraq forever. Once we ultimately withdrawl, any government that we manage to set up will likely colapse and we will be right back where we are now.

 

[Garrette]

Do you see the paradox here? There are not enough troops to defeat the insurgents, but there are enough to protect an entire country's infrastructure? I'll grant you that such a thing would certainly take less troops than beating down the insurgency, but it is still a phenomenal task.[/quote=Upchurch]He wasn't saying there are enough to protect the infrastructure. There clearly are not. Nor will there ever be enough US troops to do so. What there can be is enough US troops to provide basic security, which is the basic block from which all other counterinsurgency steps are taken. Follow on steps include creation of a competent, indigenous security force. Despite appearances otherwise, large strides in this direction have been made, though much more needs to be done.

Why do you think this is possible when a couple of guys with a saw could kill the power to an entire villiage?

Which is where the populace comes in. When they begin to trust both their own government (the one elected) and the foreigners (us), then they begin to provide the daily bits of intelligence that allows the guys with saws to be caught, which eventually leads to guys with saws staying away.

Luke, you're talking about turning us into that iron-fisted ruler.

Quite the opposite, I think.

Do you honestly think a democracy can be set up at the end of a foreign government's gun barrel?

Not in the sense we have it here, no.

Or, further, that any semblance of a democracy made under such forced conditions can be sustained once that gun barrel is removed?

Yes.

The hard road you are describing has less chance of success

Less chance than what?

because ultimately, the US cannot keep military control of Iraq forever.

Nor do we want to. Nor is it necessary.

Long-term occupation is required. Eternal occupation is not.

Once we ultimately withdrawl, any government that we manage to set up will likely colapse and we will be right back where we are now.

I disagree that it is necessarily so.

 

[Luke T.]

Do you see the paradox here? There are not enough troops to defeat the insurgents, but there are enough to protect an entire country's infrastructure? I'll grant you that such a thing would certainly take less troops than beating down the insurgency, but it is still a phenomenal task.

Why do you think this is possible when a couple of guys with a saw could kill the power to an entire villiage?

You misunderstood what I was saying. The need to protect the infrastructure is another argument why we need increased troop strength.

Luke, you're talking about turning us into that iron-fisted ruler.

Do you honestly think a democracy can be set up at the end of a foreign government's gun barrel? Or, further, that any semblance of a democracy made under such forced conditions can be sustained once that gun barrel is removed?

A democracy can be protected from outsiders/insurgents by being on the right end of a gun barrel.

The hard road you are describing has less chance of success because ultimately, the US cannot keep military control of Iraq forever. Once we ultimately withdrawl, any government that we manage to set up will likely colapse and we will be right back where we are now.

Not if Iraq has its own armed forces, legal structure, and a period of sustained democratic rule.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in Iraq was disbanding their armed forces after we defeated Saddam.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette has said in his last two posts EXACTLY what I have been thinking and doing a poor job of saying. Especially the part "harder to achieve than it need have been".

Well, since I understood what you were saying, I thought you did fine.

But maybe we're the only two who understand each other...

 

[Upchurch]

You misunderstood what I was saying. The need to protect the infrastructure is another argument why we need increased troop strength.

No, I understood that. What I misunderstood was that I thought you were saying that we could never have enough troops to defeat the insurgents. On re-reading, I see that you're saying that we just don't have enough there now, but that, theoretically, it is possible to have enough troops to actually accomplish both tasks. My mistake and I appologize for my lack of simple reading skills.

What I don't understand is how you plan on defeating insurgence and bringing democracy to the people when alot of the former group are the same people in the latter group. I still have to ask if you plan to just tie every last person down so they talk instead of fight.

A democracy can be protected from outsiders/insurgents by being on the right end of a gun barrel.

Protected, yes. Started, no.

Democracy has to develop from the bottom up, not from the top down. And certainly not from the outside in.

Not if Iraq has its own armed forces, legal structure, and a period of sustained democratic rule.

A period that may require a generation or two in order to get an understanding of democracy ingrained in the social structure. We're talking 2 to 4 decades. This is a burden we would be putting on our grandchildren, with no guarentee of success. Indeed, I doubt that any form of government we put into place, no matter how long it is there, will last very long after we remove our military support of it.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made in Iraq was disbanding their armed forces after we defeated Saddam.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Agreed. Not only the armed forces but the existing local government structure.

Less chance than what?

It has less chance of succeeding then Cut-N-Run^TM. Both options, I think, will cause Iraq to fall apart into total chaos and anarchy, after which it will eventually reform into some form of order. Staying the course just delays the entire process.

 

[corplinx]

I am shocked that neither the GOP or Democrats can get the Sunni/Shiites to stop killing each other. I mean what the hell, do we have to install a murderous dictator who favors one side and represses the other militarily to bring "peace" to that place or what.

I for one blame the libertarian party.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Which is where the populace comes in. When they begin to trust both their own government (the one elected) and the foreigners (us), then they begin to provide the daily bits of intelligence that allows the guys with saws to be caught, which eventually leads to guys with saws staying away.

A curious idea, yours, when you consider how warily the US populace views its own government, which is reasonably stable. What has the current government done to shore up its image as being trustworthy among the Sunni tribes? Among the Shia?

This government, drawn from those very factions and tribes, is going to carry with it the same three way test for loyalty that US representatives and senators face: loyalty to country, loyalty to party, loyalty to constituency. It is a very hard balance to maintain. At the moment, the clearest loyalty is to faction/constituency and party. That leaves "country" (the toughest to sell back to one's constituency, particularly in a land with double digit unemployment -- 30-50 percent, depends on who is citing the figures.)

Consider Italy, the mid 1990's. In the Northern Half of the country, one of the small engines of the European economy was busy purring away, while in the southern half, (south of Rome) unemployment was between 15-20 percent.

Umberto Bossi garnered considerable support under a coalition based on Northern Italians (Lega Nord, Padania) and held quite a few seats in the parliament. I think they got near 10% of the seats, but memory is shaky.

In 1996 the movement announced that its aim was the independence of Northern Italy under the name Padania, a name previously referring to the Po River valley, but which the Northern League gave a geographically broader usage that has been steadily gaining currency, at least among its followers. The capital of Padania would be Mantua, and elections were organized by the party for a "northern parliament" (with no international recognition).

This was around the time the centrist Romano Prodi became Prime Minister. They seem to hold around 6% of the seats in the Senate and Chamber of Deputies now, and are realigned with Berlusconi, who they helped boot out in the early 1990's. (Italian politics is most entertaining. )

The core difference is that in Italy, folks are secure enough nowadays not to back up their passionately held political positions with arms.

Too many folks in Iraq are not. The factions badly mistrust one another . . . perhaps for good reason. Take a look at the Rwandan civil war, and how a majority went after a minority: Hutus going after Tutsis. I don't doubt that many Sunni Iraqis, even those who are sick and tired of the foreign Al Qaeda groups, worry that a similar Shia led blood bath is inevitable, along similar lines, if the US departs and "let 'em play!"

You break it, you buy it. America bought it.

DR

 

[hgc]

I am shocked that neither the GOP or Democrats can get the Sunni/Shiites to stop killing each other. I mean what the hell, do we have to install a murderous dictator who favors one side and represses the other militarily to bring "peace" to that place or what.

I for one blame the libertarian party.

I know you're being facetious. But seriously, aren't you actually shocked that Bush Admin acted like they didn't know in advance that Sunnis and Shiites would be killing each other, and secure the country after the invasion and dismantling of the prevous government?

 

[senorpogo]

I came across this in a blog. From this article.

The war there has now lasted 44 months, the amount of time that elapsed between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day.

Granted, I realize that Iraq isn't World War II isn't Vietnam isn't any other war. I also realize that World War II was going on long before the US got involved and the Allies probably occupied Japan and Germany for long after the war as well.

But it still amazes me that, in the same amount of time it took to stop Hitler and Hirohito, we've made very little headway with the issues facing Iraq. I wonder what things would be like if we were really committed to winning there?

 

[Upchurch]

I wonder what things would be like if we were really committed to winning there?

Define what constitutes a "win".

 

[hgc]

I came across this in a blog. From this article.



Granted, I realize that Iraq isn't World War II isn't Vietnam isn't any other war. I also realize that World War II was going on long before the US got involved and the Allies probably occupied Japan and Germany for long after the war as well.

But it still amazes me that, in the same amount of time it took to stop Hitler and Hirohito, we've made very little headway with the issues facing Iraq. I wonder what things would be like if we were really committed to winning there?

Thank you. This is very frustrating. Whether or not this was ever winnable, I think we'll never know. But despite all the rhetoric about "hard work" from Bush, they did not fight to win. They did not really commit the country's resources to making it happen, either by cultivating allies for the fight or by increasing the size of the military or by making budget and taxation adjustments in order to pay for victory.

 

[Garrette]

Ref Darth Rotor's post (#34 in this thread):

I want to respond, but the system is being persnickety (I'm not sure if this post will work) and my references are not here.

The idea is not so curious, nor the thought unprecedented. As I've said, though, there is no guarantee of success. If things had been done differently in 2003, I'd have bet on success, but I might bet the under now.

Just trying to point out it's not impossible.

More when I have access to my references and the system isn't fighting me.

 

[senorpogo]

Define what constitutes a "win".

I'll go with what someone else said in this thread.

winning imprecisely and quickly defined here as withdrawal from an Iraq capable of sustaining its own basically democratic government, providing for the security of its people from internal threats, not seriously threatened by its neighbors, and not hostile to the US

edit: And as others have pointed out, I'm not sure "winning" was ever a real possibility, but I personally feel like the administration didn't execute this war in a way that gave us the best chance for success. More troops and creating infrastructure were, in my mind, the keys. We needed to create a realitively safe environment were Iraqis saw significant improvements in their quality of life.