Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers ?

[JMS]

While it would be nice to have 500,000 troops in Iraq to occupy the country and put down the insurgents, where are we getting these 500,000? We can't afford to place all our eggs in one basket. The military has to be able to fight two wars on two different fronts. There are currently about 1,426,700 active duty members of the Armed Forces with about 1,259,000 in the reserves. If we were to commit 500,000 to Iraq, that would leave roughly 500,000 in the US (we have troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia; also overseas stationed troops). You have to keep X troops here to man the bases. That would leave only a small reactionary force to react to any other locale.

Bush has more than doubled the budget of the military in his five budgets he's responsible for. He's done this over and above the cost of the Iraqi and Afghan wars. He's done this with shrinking the number of personel in the military since taking office. It's only this year two months ago that he has actually called for a modest increase in the personel of the military.

If we changed how the money was spent, we certainly could afford the larger army required to win in Iraq.

[Chump Bailey]

We did send the right number of troops to overthrow the Baathists, but we were pathetically unprepared for the aftermath, something which underscores the ignorance and naivete of W's advisors vis a vis the Middle East.

I agree with your post in its entirety Riggo...

Colin Powell also wanted no part of it "you break it you fix it"

Bush's own father cited guerrilla warfare as his main reasoning for not invading the country and disposing of Saddam in the first go round - among others likely too...

It's terrible that we did not protect the Kurd's from Saddam's backlash, but we could have done so without a full scale invasion regardless...

[headexplode]

If our mission is to stabilize Iraq and get out, then sending 300 to 500.000 troops makes sense.

If our goal is to create a "democratic" government that steers the whole region into some sort of renaissance, I'm afraid no amount of troops will be able to pull that off. Unless the Iraqi people view their government as legitimate, they will never be willing to involve themselves with it. And as long as we're there on the ground, they will never view their government as legitimate.

[headexplode]

Bush has more than doubled the budget of the military in his five budgets he's responsible for. He's done this over and above the cost of the Iraqi and Afghan wars. He's done this with shrinking the number of personel in the military since taking office. It's only this year two months ago that he has actually called for a modest increase in the personel of the military.

If we changed how the money was spent, we certainly could afford the larger army required to win in Iraq.

I hate to bring up the elephant sitting in the room, but perhaps, if this war is indeed a fight for our very survival, we should consider reinstituting the draft.

[JMS]

That was Sec Def Aspin who rejected the idea Mike - according to http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/aspin.htm

I think the troops wanted Spectre gunships too which really could have made a difference in the battle I think - obviously. I'm not sure escalation was prudent either to side with JMS. But, you're correct that Black Hawk Down was used as THE manual on how to 'defeat' U.S. Forces / U.S. will & resolve and as propaganda in general for Al Qaeda.

"In September General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks and armored vehicles for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot. In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops. In an appearance before a congressional committee to answer questions about the Somalia disaster, Aspin made an unfavorable impression and appeared weak in response to the detailed probing and criticism of his performance. The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin's resignation."

To Mike... Dude I refferenced Aspin's mistake in my original post which I guess you didn't read completely.

To Chum:....Exactly. And that mistake cost Aspin his job as Sec Defense as Clinton asked him to resign after the Black hawk down fiasco.

Also it's not like there wasn't presidence for the how to defeat America before Somalia.

Vietnam comes to mind

As does Beruit. After Reagan committed our Marines there after we were attacked and took significant losses Reagan, "cut and ran" too. Richard Clark, Bush's former security Czar who was in the Reagan administration is critical of Reagan for this.

I personally think that's bunk. Sure we leave when the price get's too high, when no vital American interest is at stake. The withdrawls aren't the problem. It's the deployments when no vital American interests are at stake. Continuing with a mistaken policy can't be the solution to the original mistake.

I think in Iraq we've got a strategic interest. I think in Iraq we should dig deep. I just don't think Bush is shown any competence or realism about what it's going to take. Better to get out than continue with this failed doctrine.

[Rocky21]

Good News..

Pentagon is reporting that American Casualties in Baghdad have been drastically reduced due to President Bush's new "surge" policy.

I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe reports out of the Pentagon at this time.

[JMS]

I hate to bring up the elephant sitting in the room, but perhaps, if this war is indeed a fight for our very survival, we should consider reinstituting the draft.

I have long agreed with that. We're talking about 2-300k for Iraq.

Afghanistan is larger than Iraq. If we want to win in Afghanistan too and maybe actually capture and confront Al Quada we need more than 16 thousand soldiers there. We need an additional 400k soldiers for Afghansistan.

that's likely around 1.5-2 million additional soldiers if we're going to continue to rotate guys in and out every 18 months.

We will need the draft to raise those kinds of numbers.

[Mad Mike]

That was Sec Def Aspin who rejected the idea Mike - according to http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/aspin.htm

I think the troops wanted Spectre gunships too which really could have made a difference in the battle I think - obviously. I'm not sure escalation was prudent either to side with JMS. But, you're correct that Black Hawk Down was used as THE manual on how to 'defeat' U.S. Forces / U.S. will & resolve and as propaganda in general for Al Qaeda.

"In September General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks and armored vehicles for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot. In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops. In an appearance before a congressional committee to answer questions about the Somalia disaster, Aspin made an unfavorable impression and appeared weak in response to the detailed probing and criticism of his performance. The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin's resignation."

Yeah, I know the "official" record. But just as Rumsfield is Bush's boy, Aspin was Clinton's. It was his administration. So what was he doing that was so important that the Commander in Chief was not involved in the decision?

Oh, that's right....

:doh:

[Chump Bailey]

Also it's not like there wasn't presidence for the how to defeat America before Somalia.Vietnam comes to mind

Absolutely - Saddam cited Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh's prowess/knowledge of guerrilla warefare as the template for defeating U.S. Forces if they invaded.

Bin Laden's preference for such was Black Hawk Down if I recall correctly.

Whatever it takes to win JMS. I am in full agreement...

[JMS]

If our mission is to stabilize Iraq and get out, then sending 300 to 500.000 troops makes sense.

If our goal is to create a "democratic" government that steers the whole region into some sort of renaissance, I'm afraid no amount of troops will be able to pull that off. Unless the Iraqi people view their government as legitimate, they will never be willing to involve themselves with it. And as long as we're there on the ground, they will never view their government as legitimate.

Well I agree with you. But if we pay the price of conducting a legitamite occupation for the decade or so which will be required like in WWII. We don't really need to rely much on the Iraqi people.

We restructured Japan's population and government turning a fetalistic country into a Democracy. If you do the job right, then you have much more flexibility with regards to government.

I think your larger point is about the transforming the region. I think that was always a pipe dream. A Democracy in Iraq doesn't do anything to transform the region. Bush was never realistic with regard to that vision.

I think success in Iraq would be a good first step.

I think a realistic peace initiative with teeth in Israel, Palistine, Syria, and Lebonon would likewise be a good step down the transforming the region goal.

[Chump Bailey]

Yeah, I know the "official" record. But just as Rumsfield is Bush's boy, Aspin was Clinton's. It was his administration. So what was he doing that was so important that the Commander in Chief was not involved in the decision?

You have a point Mike - as Commander in Chief, Clinton obviously could have superceded any and all decisions that were made by Les, but it appears he chose no such action and trusted his Sec Def's view of the situtation and how best to proceed. A personal appeal from Powell likely could have set things into motion PERHAPS but such incidences are rare I think and likely career killers even for a guy like Powell I suppose.

[headexplode]

I think success in Iraq would be a good first step.

I think a realistic peace initiative with teeth in Israel, Palistine, Syria, and Lebonon would likewise be a good step down the transforming the region goal.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, since they all have god on their side, none of them feel the need to back down.

You could even add Iran, whose pro-democracy movement was gaining steam in that country until we declared them part of the "axis of evil," precipitating a harsh crackdown on all dissent. Now it seems unlikely they will make peace.

[Chump Bailey]

I agree with this. Unfortunately, since they all have god on their side, none of them feel the need to back down.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinian's is remote - at best. Arafat walked away from a golden opportunity with the Oslo Accords which was negotiated between then PM Rabin and President Clinton. He's gone but hamas wants control now which nixes any possibility for peace. I see nothing short of more war and bloodshed in the region for a long time unfortunately.

[Larry]

Would I be in favor of sending 200k or so more troops there now if he asked? Maybe, but that political ship has sailed. It's a moot point. The people are weary of war. They are not confident in the leadership of those running it. Hundreds of thousands of troops on top of the ones that have already served multiple tours in Iraq is a HUGE request, one that only a very popular President can consider making. Bush had unprecedented political capital five years ago. He has spent it all, and this is what we've got, for better or for worse.

I may just be projecting my own feelings, but I'm not certain that The People wouldn't get behind a BIG expansion of the troops.

I don't think The People are tired of war as much as they're tired of losing the war.

I think that a real leader (granted, it's debatable whether we have one right now) could get the people to really back more involvement, if they thought there was a good chance of winning.

Yeah, it would take a sales job.

[headexplode]

Peace between Israel and the Palestinian's is remote - at best. Arafat walked away from a golden opportunity with the Oslo Accords which was negotiated between then PM Rabin and President Clinton. He's gone but hamas wants control now which nixes any possibility for peace. I see nothing short of more war and bloodshed in the region for a long time unfortunately.

Most definitely.

[twa]

Everyone seems to overlook the Iraqi forces in the equation,despite the calls for the Iraqi's to take the lead.

There are about 130,000 ,plus police forces ect.

Would a substantially larger US force be a hindrance to their development?

And would a larger US presence provoke more attacks?(seems I heard that )

[Henry]

I may just be projecting my own feelings, but I'm not certain that The People wouldn't get behind a BIG expansion of the troops.

I don't think The People are tired of war as much as they're tired of losing the war.

I think that a real leader (granted, it's debatable whether we have one right now) could get the people to really back more involvement, if they thought there was a good chance of winning.

Yeah, it would take a sales job.

The only way I see that realistically happening is that Bush manages to keep the troops in Iraq until he leaves office and the new guy (or gal) makes a case for dramatically increasing troop levels. I don't think Bush a capable of selling it at this point.

[JMS]

You have a point Mike - as Commander in Chief, Clinton obviously could have superceded any and all decisions that were made by Les, but it appears he chose no such action and trusted his Sec Def's view of the situtation and how best to proceed. A personal appeal from Powell likely could have set things into motion PERHAPS but such incidences are rare I think and likely career killers even for a guy like Powell I suppose.

No doubt Clintoin should be held responsible for Les Aspins failures as Sec Defense. As I said. But Clinton removed Les Aspin from office what, within a week of the Black hawk down affair when his failure to provide the armer came to the attention of the public.

Contrast that with Bush and Rummie. Bush carried Rummie for years. Bush have Tenate ( Mr. Slam Dunk ) the metel of freedom. Bush gave Wolfowitz a raise and a life long job at the world bank.

I'm not a Clinton fan. God knows this. I didn't vote for him even once. Still, Bush's handing of Iraq and his personel makes Clinton look pretty good by comparison.

[JMS]

I agree with this. Unfortunately, since they all have god on their side, none of them feel the need to back down.

Don't even get me going on that thread. Neither side is exactly rational. Both sides including the US thinks God smiles on their cause. A little more realism and sacrafice is required on our end to make peace a reality in that conflict. A little arm twisting too.

You could even add Iran, whose pro-democracy movement was gaining steam in that country until we declared them part of the "axis of evil," precipitating a harsh crackdown on all dissent. Now it seems unlikely they will make peace.

Yeah the axis of evil speach was a mistake too. We need to stop allowing the Mullah's to apeal to Iranian nationalism to bolster their failing popularity at home. Guess they learned that from Bush too.

[JMS]

Peace between Israel and the Palestinian's is remote

Only because we allow it to be remote. We hold the majority of the cards in this conflict. We just have to be willing to play them.

- at best. Arafat walked away from a golden opportunity with the Oslo Accords which was negotiated between then PM Rabin and President Clinton. He's gone but hamas wants control now which nixes any possibility for peace. I see nothing short of more war and bloodshed in the region for a long time unfortunately.

That's a myth. Arafat was never offered an acceptable deal. Arafat was never offered a viable state. Even the United States and Bush recognized this are have been since calling for a "viable" palistinian state next to Israel.

1999 was the last year when nobody died in Israel due to terrorism. That was the year when the peace talks were in full swing. A strongly motivated and involved America is required to give peace a chance there.

[Popeman38]

So we hold Clinton responsible for Les Aspins decision to deny armor to the Somoli operation, but not for reducing the military by 40%? And we hold Bush responsible for not increasing the size of the military? IF Bush had authorized the expansion of the military to pre-Clinton cuts when he first took office (before 9/11), we would still not be close to reaching those levels. It takes years to get the support and logistics in place just to accomodate the training of the new soldiers. You would have to re-restructure the entire force. It took Reagan years to re shape the military. We are talking a 5-10 year plan, not a 6 month operation. So this would have had zero impact on the initiation of OIF.

[JMS]

Everyone seems to overlook the Iraqi forces in the equation,despite the calls for the Iraqi's to take the lead.

There are about 130,000 ,plus police forces ect.

Would a substantially larger US force be a hindrance to their development?

And would a larger US presence provoke more attacks?(seems I heard that )

Problem with the Iraqi forces are that every time you deploy them you loose 20% due to desertion. Sure they'll train and take a paycheck, but they don't want to fight for an American occupation when America itself won't commit to the success of the plan.

Training up the Iraqi's has always been a pipe dream.

[JMS]

I may just be projecting my own feelings, but I'm not certain that The People wouldn't get behind a BIG expansion of the troops.

I don't think The People are tired of war as much as they're tired of losing the war.

I think that a real leader (granted, it's debatable whether we have one right now) could get the people to really back more involvement, if they thought there was a good chance of winning.

Yeah, it would take a sales job.

That might be unrealistic. But I would like to believe you're right. Figure in two more years when another President, hopefully a better one takes office, we'll be further from the current levels of dissatisfaction than today....

[JMS]

So we hold Clinton responsible for Les Aspins decision to deny armor to the Somoli operation, but not for reducing the military by 40%?

Actually Clinton heald military spending relatively constant over his 8 year tenure. It was Bush Senior who had three consecutive 10% military budget reductions.

And we hold Bush responsible for not increasing the size of the military? IF Bush had authorized the expansion of the military to pre-Clinton cuts when he first took office (before 9/11), we would still not be close to reaching those levels. It takes years to get the support and logistics in place just to accomodate the training of the new soldiers. You would have to re-restructure the entire force. It took Reagan years to re shape the military.

Clinton's largest cut in military spending was in his first budget. It was a 10% cut which was more than made up for over the next seven budgets where military spending was slightly raised.

Bush Jr. subsequently has increased military spending by more than 20% every year in office while still having the net effect of lowing the number of personel. Bush's first call for increasing the size of the military came two months ago when he called for a modest troop increase.

We are talking a 5-10 year plan, not a 6 month operation. So this would have had zero impact on the initiation of OIF.

Why is it 5-10 years out? It didn't take us 5-10 years to transform the pre WWII American army roughly the size of Belgium into a 8-9 million force. Why couldn't we train up a 500,000 a year for the next couple of years?

[Ignatius J.]

I may just be projecting my own feelings, but I'm not certain that The People wouldn't get behind a BIG expansion of the troops.

I don't think The People are tired of war as much as they're tired of losing the war.

I think that a real leader (granted, it's debatable whether we have one right now) could get the people to really back more involvement, if they thought there was a good chance of winning.

Yeah, it would take a sales job.

A salesman like Barack Obama perhaps? Yeah that's two years down the road and against his stated position, but stranger things have happened.