You don’t always have to share much subtstance to share the truth.
Anyone who has ever served in a significant combat mission knows that there are essentially three rules of engagement/combat. Know your target; secure your perimeter, and have an exit strategy.
In Iraq we knew our target, based upon numerous (later known) false assumptions. We drove into Iraq, fought off enemy fire, and surrounded, then overthrew Baghdad and toppled Sadaam’s statue. We later found Saddaam in a hole in the ground.
Although I admire and respect Robert M. (Bill) Gates, President of my alma mater, I think he’s swimming in a cess pool full of water snakes. He surely has the toughest upcoming public administration job of anyone in Washington, and yes, he will be successfully approved by the Senate. And, for what I know about him and his past history of success, I’d have to think he, of all people, might just pull this off.
Fact is, we needed more troops. Sure, lets march to Baghdad and secure the capitol city, but where we failed is what we did/did not do thereafter.
If I had had the luxary of commanding ground troops, I would have indeed secured Baghdad first, toppled Saddaam, then I would have immediately taken another 100,000 forces and stationed them around the border, a border essentially the size of America’s California border.
This is where Rumsfeld’s policy initially failed. Instead, we bog our troops down in various cities and outposts and 55 U.S. military bases in the country, yes, 55!… all the while… the “TERRORISTS” find open borders and a reason to target(namely U.S. service men and women) as sitting ducks with a very real opportunity to not only hit our guys, but instigate, essentially, a riot, throughout the country, allying with the two major tribal factions, (God bless the Kurds, they are the forgotten peaceful citizens sitting on billions of dollars of crude) and further instigating what has now become a civil war, a civil war that our our Commander in Chief continues to downplay, yet a civil war that our Commander in Chief helped create with a failed war policy.
What? I mean, come on! I’m not a rocket scientist, but I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Albiet, I did fall out of a bole buggy one time when I was a kid (you cotton farmers should find humor in that!) Our administration proprogandizes the American people into believing that we are going to war based upon CIA intellegence proof of ‘this, that or the other’. Yet, ‘this, that and the other’ all proved to be false. You telling me the Central Intelligence Agency got it all wrong? I don’t think so. Something stinks here, like, well an overflowing cesspool.
We went to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons. We inititated and implemented the war wrongly. We never secured the perimeter (makes you wonder if this was a a calculated decision itself), and yes, we are still, 3.5 years later, not having an exit strategy. This war, like Vietnam, is a complete, ignoramace farce, a complete failure.
And yes, I’m a Christian, abeit I don’t consider myself a member of the “Evangelical NeoConservative Movement”. This movement is a farce in itself. Let us do what is freakin’ right. Our country moved to the “right” in the last 15 years. But what is “right”? Rush Limbaugh, can you answer that? No, you can’t. Right vs. Left, Democratic vs. Republican? Liberal vs. Conservative? What does that really mean? I truly think its all hogwash.
We are supposed to be a goverment of the people, by the people and for the people. Let us stand up and take our country and our government back!
But first, let us somehow fix this incredible screw-up in Iraq, somehow, God Help US! Then, let us take those billions of dollars and put them to better use, .. i.e…. Darfar, Africa, AIDs funding, etc.
I’m still glady stuck in the middle, and I’m still impatiently wanting fix our mounds of screw-ups! It’s gonna take a very long time, I’m afraid!
B. Jon Traylor….
Bravo…but we need solutions at this point.
The best place to start is with our divisive political system. It is time to leave the two party system behind and move into a public election system that takes the MONEY out of the process and gives all Americans a equal avenue to public service.
This is the first step to allowing true leadership and ideas to rise above the present partisanship. Imagine a system that eliminates the bombardment of political adds (90% of which are NEGATIVE) with a fair and equal system that give candidates a forum to express their individual platform of their personal ideas and beliefs.
As far as finding a solution to “this incredible screw up in Iraq”… well that is going to take some creative leadereship at this point.
I don’t believe the present leadership is up to it as they were the ones that created it. I may be wrong but…what I see is a bunch of “fortunate sons” of the Vietnam era that didn’t learn the lesson of that day and thought they could right the wriongs of their “fathers” and, well… here we are, right back in the days of Vietnam again.
One thing is for sure, we are stuck between Iraq and a hard place. And that is not a good place to be.
Let me lay one last bit of info on you here and now. All of this Iraqi invasion stuff pivots from one point…9/11!
Do me a favor and google “9/11 Demolition films”. Even if you watch this film with a closed mind like I did (I pretty much believed the offical story line) because I had been paying close attention to the rebuilding effort since I had submitted a design for the 9/11 Memorial.
Bottom line is that this info fits in with some of what I have found on my own and it also shows me new info that really disturbs me. Especially when put in the context of the actions that have followed.
Of course I could go on and on but…start there and see what you think. Thank You!
Bravo…but we need solutions at this point.
The best place to start is with our divisive political system. It is time to leave the two party system behind and move into a public election system that takes the MONEY out of the process and gives all Americans a equal avenue to public service.
This is the first step to allowing true leadership and ideas to rise above the present partisanship. Imagine a system that eliminates the bombardment of political adds (90% of which are NEGATIVE) with a fair and equal system that give candidates a forum to express their individual platform of their personal ideas and beliefs.
As far as finding a solution to “this incredible screw up in Iraq”… well that is going to take some creative leadereship at this point.
I don’t believe the present leadership is up to it as they were the ones that created it. I may be wrong but…what I see is a bunch of “fortunate sons” of the Vietnam era that didn’t learn the lesson of that day and thought they could right the wriongs of their “fathers” and, well… here we are, right back in the days of Vietnam again.
One thing is for sure, we are stuck between Iraq and a hard place. And that is not a good place to be.
Let me lay one last bit of info on you here and now. All of this Iraqi invasion stuff pivots from one point…9/11!
Do me a favor and google “9/11 Demolition films”. Even if you watch this film with a closed mind like I did (I pretty much believed the offical story line) because I had been paying close attention to the rebuilding effort since I had submitted a design for the 9/11 Memorial.
Bottom line is that this info fits in with some of what I have found on my own and it also shows me new info that really disturbs me. Especially when put in the context of the actions that have followed.
Of course I could go on and on but…start there and see what you think. Thank You!
Star Eagle – are you refering to 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ – as is the bush administration blew it up? I havent googled the 9.11 demo films, but I’m assuming thats what you’re getting at.
The whole iraq war/war on terror reeks of corruption and deceipt, but I personally find those 9.11 was an inside job stickers a bit offensive and in bad taste. I vote democrat across the board btw.
I really think that if that was the case it woulda been uncovered by now.
Star Eagle – are you refering to 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ – as is the bush administration blew it up? I havent googled the 9.11 demo films, but I’m assuming thats what you’re getting at.
The whole iraq war/war on terror reeks of corruption and deceipt, but I personally find those 9.11 was an inside job stickers a bit offensive and in bad taste. I vote democrat across the board btw.
I really think that if that was the case it woulda been uncovered by now.
“Anyone who has ever served in a significant combat mission knows that there are essentially three rules of engagement/combat. Know your target; secure your perimeter, and have an exit strategy.”
I do have combat experience and your three rules are poppycock. There is only one rule of engagement and that is to close with and destroy your enemy.
You do not go into combat to secure a perimeter or to have an exit strategy…that is politics…not tactics.
I have refrained from addressing this topic in the past because I do not think that the American people know what is necessary to actually win, not only in Iraq, but in that whole region.
Second, for Star and all the others that think that the twin towers were an inside job….tell Charlie Sheen and all the other amateurs to stick to acting or whatever else they do and stop with the wild conspiracies.
Couple of things….first…does anyone know what happens to steel when you heat it? Yes, it becomes brittle.
Second, if you know anything about explosives, blow up things, etc. etc…. you know that things are not blown up from the top down, it’s from the bottom up. Otherwise you can not control the sequence.
Lastly, the wacko’s would have you believe that the “smoke” was an indication of a cool fire….two things with regards to that….jet fuel…is highly explosive and burns very hot. Second, if you burn insulation, drywall, and all the other elements of a chemical makeup in what is found in today’s office buildings, it will produce incredibly thick toxic smoke.
It is amazing that amateurs will believe anything that is thrown at them. Friggin morons…get a life or at least know what the heck you are talking about before you open your mouths.
Sorry….some things just set me off and stupidity is at the top of that list.
“Anyone who has ever served in a significant combat mission knows that there are essentially three rules of engagement/combat. Know your target; secure your perimeter, and have an exit strategy.”
I do have combat experience and your three rules are poppycock. There is only one rule of engagement and that is to close with and destroy your enemy.
You do not go into combat to secure a perimeter or to have an exit strategy…that is politics…not tactics.
I have refrained from addressing this topic in the past because I do not think that the American people know what is necessary to actually win, not only in Iraq, but in that whole region.
Second, for Star and all the others that think that the twin towers were an inside job….tell Charlie Sheen and all the other amateurs to stick to acting or whatever else they do and stop with the wild conspiracies.
Couple of things….first…does anyone know what happens to steel when you heat it? Yes, it becomes brittle.
Second, if you know anything about explosives, blow up things, etc. etc…. you know that things are not blown up from the top down, it’s from the bottom up. Otherwise you can not control the sequence.
Lastly, the wacko’s would have you believe that the “smoke” was an indication of a cool fire….two things with regards to that….jet fuel…is highly explosive and burns very hot. Second, if you burn insulation, drywall, and all the other elements of a chemical makeup in what is found in today’s office buildings, it will produce incredibly thick toxic smoke.
It is amazing that amateurs will believe anything that is thrown at them. Friggin morons…get a life or at least know what the heck you are talking about before you open your mouths.
Sorry….some things just set me off and stupidity is at the top of that list.
Destroy your enemy? What it takes to win in Iraq and that region?
Riiiight. Let’s get right on that.
How about we stop pissing money that we could be using domestically to actually make things better and safer for us?
This just in – There is no soloution.
“You aint gonna learn what you don’t wanna know”
Destroy your enemy? What it takes to win in Iraq and that region?
Riiiight. Let’s get right on that.
How about we stop pissing money that we could be using domestically to actually make things better and safer for us?
This just in – There is no soloution.
“You aint gonna learn what you don’t wanna know”
Yes Sailor, despite your wish to bury your head in the sand, there are solutions that are viable and executable.
News flash for you….instead of whining about what is going on in the world, which like it or not affects this country and your way of life, you should seek solutions.
Is the Iraq war being fought correctly? I defer to Claus von Stauffenberg. “If our most highly qualified General Staff officers had been told to work out the most nonsensical high level organization for war which they could think of, they could not have produced anything more stupid that that which we have at present. “
Yes Sailor, despite your wish to bury your head in the sand, there are solutions that are viable and executable.
News flash for you….instead of whining about what is going on in the world, which like it or not affects this country and your way of life, you should seek solutions.
Is the Iraq war being fought correctly? I defer to Claus von Stauffenberg. “If our most highly qualified General Staff officers had been told to work out the most nonsensical high level organization for war which they could think of, they could not have produced anything more stupid that that which we have at present. “
Got it. The only way we’re going to settle this dispute is by a ski-off. Get your ski ballet outfit on and wait for me at the top of the ridge of bell under the gondola at noon.
Got it. The only way we’re going to settle this dispute is by a ski-off. Get your ski ballet outfit on and wait for me at the top of the ridge of bell under the gondola at noon.
Can’t make the noon time….how about mid-night…full moon and all…should be good.
Can’t make the noon time….how about mid-night…full moon and all…should be good.
Got yerself a deal there pardner! High night Noon full moon showdown on the ridge of bell! I’ll be wearing a neon one piece, and snow blades.
Got yerself a deal there pardner! High night Noon full moon showdown on the ridge of bell! I’ll be wearing a neon one piece, and snow blades.
Sailor, you dirty rat you…..
What happened…I waited till 12:30 then headed down the mountain…..other then it being colder then a witches t…um…nose, it was excellent.
Sailor, you dirty rat you…..
What happened…I waited till 12:30 then headed down the mountain…..other then it being colder then a witches t…um…nose, it was excellent.
I agree alpha6 that the first rule, and only rule, essentially, is to close with and destroy the enemy. However, the following two rules are not poppycock. They are part of any mission plan, and all officer training addresses them. You always know and secure your perimeter, and yes, you always have an exit strategy for your men. We take out the target, we get out, hence an exit strategy.
We go into combat to take out our target first and foremost. But planners always, I mean always have an exit strategy and always know whats on the perimeter.
This isn’t politics, poppycock, etc….. and yes, its part of tactics.
Truth is, though, the politics of this quagmired engagement were and are still wrong. We had 565,000 troops engaged in Desert Storm. We liberated Kuwait and had Iraqis on the run all the way back to Baghdad. We could have fixed this mess back then. Instead, we pulled back, let it brew for 12 years, then went back in without U.N. approval.. This time, we went in with approx. 160,000 troops.
Its like comparing apples to oranges….
I’m glad you served. I respect and admire you. What branch? What service?
– Jon
I agree alpha6 that the first rule, and only rule, essentially, is to close with and destroy the enemy. However, the following two rules are not poppycock. They are part of any mission plan, and all officer training addresses them. You always know and secure your perimeter, and yes, you always have an exit strategy for your men. We take out the target, we get out, hence an exit strategy.
We go into combat to take out our target first and foremost. But planners always, I mean always have an exit strategy and always know whats on the perimeter.
This isn’t politics, poppycock, etc….. and yes, its part of tactics.
Truth is, though, the politics of this quagmired engagement were and are still wrong. We had 565,000 troops engaged in Desert Storm. We liberated Kuwait and had Iraqis on the run all the way back to Baghdad. We could have fixed this mess back then. Instead, we pulled back, let it brew for 12 years, then went back in without U.N. approval.. This time, we went in with approx. 160,000 troops.
Its like comparing apples to oranges….
I’m glad you served. I respect and admire you. What branch? What service?
– Jon
Sorry its taken me a while to get back to this but yes Lost Sailor, I am refering to 9/11. Alpha6, I have to tell you that I too believed the official story for quite some time and dissmissed what I now believe as unbelievable but…that was before I became aware of this 9/11 demolitions film. Being the kind of person who needs to see to believe, it took seeing this film to show me that yes alpha6, it really could have been a “inside job”. Do I believe planes where hijacked, yes! Do I believe they were flown into the Twin Towers, yes! Did I believe the conspiracy theorist and their far out claims of the government being behind 9/11, no, even though I did see undeniable incompetance and some definate inconsistancies brought to light in the years since 9/11. So all I really ask of anyone is for them to see this movie (google… 9/1`1 demolitions film) with an open mind and then we can intelligently carry on a conversation about what it was that changed my highly skeptical mindset about the downing of the Twin Towers. I will say that this movie will fascinate you with information (real vidio of real people) that I certainly had not seen before. Just one example, the developer Larry Silverstein is seen on film talking about giving the order to bring down WTC 7 and you see how it is a controled demo of WTC 7. Then the backpeddling after the fact… very interesting indeed to actually see it on film. But there really so much more that you see too, and some of it fits in with what I myself ran into when I was on the streets of Ground Zero exactly three years ago talking with one of the lucky survivors of 9/11. Thanks…Star Eagle
Sorry its taken me a while to get back to this but yes Lost Sailor, I am refering to 9/11. Alpha6, I have to tell you that I too believed the official story for quite some time and dissmissed what I now believe as unbelievable but…that was before I became aware of this 9/11 demolitions film. Being the kind of person who needs to see to believe, it took seeing this film to show me that yes alpha6, it really could have been a “inside job”. Do I believe planes where hijacked, yes! Do I believe they were flown into the Twin Towers, yes! Did I believe the conspiracy theorist and their far out claims of the government being behind 9/11, no, even though I did see undeniable incompetance and some definate inconsistancies brought to light in the years since 9/11. So all I really ask of anyone is for them to see this movie (google… 9/1`1 demolitions film) with an open mind and then we can intelligently carry on a conversation about what it was that changed my highly skeptical mindset about the downing of the Twin Towers. I will say that this movie will fascinate you with information (real vidio of real people) that I certainly had not seen before. Just one example, the developer Larry Silverstein is seen on film talking about giving the order to bring down WTC 7 and you see how it is a controled demo of WTC 7. Then the backpeddling after the fact… very interesting indeed to actually see it on film. But there really so much more that you see too, and some of it fits in with what I myself ran into when I was on the streets of Ground Zero exactly three years ago talking with one of the lucky survivors of 9/11. Thanks…Star Eagle
Jon,
To clear up, when you hit an objective, you do secure the perimeter, however, the objective is not to create a perimeter, it is part of the operation plan so that you can execute your mission. Your egress and regress plans are also a part of that, the term “exit strategy” is a political one and I have never heard nor used it in the Military.
I agree with you about our current engagement, and you are right, we did blow it in ’91by not cutting out the cancer then. There are two things going on in Iraq right now, a military one and a political one. The military one is not the problem, it the political one. The military has obtained its objectives, and while holding, the political arm can’t get its act together. I am talking about our and Iraq’s policy makers and specifically the State Department and those clowns not having a plan, and still don’t have a plan. In the meantime, the political decisions are effectively killing our troops. The troops now have an insane seven step process for rules of engagement, are confined to bases that are watched by the enemy 24/7, are forced to utilize certain patrol routes that allow the enemy to ambush them, etc, etc. The problem is not the number of troops, but the politics that are forcing them into situations that do not allow them to operate as an effective military entity. Maybe we should start another blog about the whole tactical and political realities that have made up what is going on in Iraq. FYI Jon, I was an Army Inf. Officer, served with 1/23 Inf, 2nd ID; B Co. 2/29th Inf. Div.; A Co, 3/75th Inf Div; and JSOC.
Lastly, Star Eagle. I am sorry, but there is no way that the twin towers were bought down in a “controlled” manner. Like I explained before, bringing down a building or anything for that matter starts at the bottom, not somewhere near the top or middle. Stop buying into the garbage of the conspiracy nuts. This is how it happened. The plane hits the building, the fuel from the plane burns, along with the alum frame and the building materials, causing a hot flame, along with lots of smoke. This in turn heats up the steel beams that support the building. When steal is heated, it becomes very brittle and loses its load bearing properties. Once this happens, the weight of the upper portion of the building comes down on the lower part. The intact steal beams at the lower part, were designed to hold up the structure, not hold up against that structure as it falls. Hence, the floors then start to collapse one onto the other and the building comes down. I have watched the videos you have spoken of and they are interesting from the Michael Moore standpoint, but are not factual in their analysis as any demo expert, structural engineer, or anyone else with a working knowledge of physics will tell you. People believe what they want to believe, no matter the facts. It was only a couple of hundred of years ago that people thought that the earth was flat and you could sail off the edge and that leaches could suck the disease out of you.
Jon,
To clear up, when you hit an objective, you do secure the perimeter, however, the objective is not to create a perimeter, it is part of the operation plan so that you can execute your mission. Your egress and regress plans are also a part of that, the term “exit strategy” is a political one and I have never heard nor used it in the Military.
I agree with you about our current engagement, and you are right, we did blow it in ’91by not cutting out the cancer then. There are two things going on in Iraq right now, a military one and a political one. The military one is not the problem, it the political one. The military has obtained its objectives, and while holding, the political arm can’t get its act together. I am talking about our and Iraq’s policy makers and specifically the State Department and those clowns not having a plan, and still don’t have a plan. In the meantime, the political decisions are effectively killing our troops. The troops now have an insane seven step process for rules of engagement, are confined to bases that are watched by the enemy 24/7, are forced to utilize certain patrol routes that allow the enemy to ambush them, etc, etc. The problem is not the number of troops, but the politics that are forcing them into situations that do not allow them to operate as an effective military entity. Maybe we should start another blog about the whole tactical and political realities that have made up what is going on in Iraq. FYI Jon, I was an Army Inf. Officer, served with 1/23 Inf, 2nd ID; B Co. 2/29th Inf. Div.; A Co, 3/75th Inf Div; and JSOC.
Lastly, Star Eagle. I am sorry, but there is no way that the twin towers were bought down in a “controlled” manner. Like I explained before, bringing down a building or anything for that matter starts at the bottom, not somewhere near the top or middle. Stop buying into the garbage of the conspiracy nuts. This is how it happened. The plane hits the building, the fuel from the plane burns, along with the alum frame and the building materials, causing a hot flame, along with lots of smoke. This in turn heats up the steel beams that support the building. When steal is heated, it becomes very brittle and loses its load bearing properties. Once this happens, the weight of the upper portion of the building comes down on the lower part. The intact steal beams at the lower part, were designed to hold up the structure, not hold up against that structure as it falls. Hence, the floors then start to collapse one onto the other and the building comes down. I have watched the videos you have spoken of and they are interesting from the Michael Moore standpoint, but are not factual in their analysis as any demo expert, structural engineer, or anyone else with a working knowledge of physics will tell you. People believe what they want to believe, no matter the facts. It was only a couple of hundred of years ago that people thought that the earth was flat and you could sail off the edge and that leaches could suck the disease out of you.
Alpha6,
I couldn’t have agreed with you more (and did) untill I watched the movie “9/11 demolitions” that I wrote about. You write you have seen vidios that I speak of but have you seen the one vidio “9/11 demolitions”? Its the only one I have seen but believe me when I say that I have been a serious student of 9/11 for five years now, being one of the 5,201 who submitted a design in the 9/11 Memorial Competition, and am very familar with this event and its rebuilding effort on many fronts. Also believe me Alpha6 when I say that I too saw the downing of the Towers just like you untill… I saw this movie “9/11 demolitions”. If you want to talk about any aspect of this process I would be happy to engage you, but untill you see this vidio “9/11 demolitions” you will not understand the complexity of the actual Towers (and WTC-7) demise. Anyway, I understand and respect your criticism but I also look forward to your critique of the movie “9/11 demolitions”. And yes, I caught some clever editing and vidio shots but, there is overpowering evidence above and beyond what clever editing can produce. I wouldn’t recomend watching it on your computer but I am able to get a copy of it and will make it available to you if you would like.
Alpha6,
I couldn’t have agreed with you more (and did) untill I watched the movie “9/11 demolitions” that I wrote about. You write you have seen vidios that I speak of but have you seen the one vidio “9/11 demolitions”? Its the only one I have seen but believe me when I say that I have been a serious student of 9/11 for five years now, being one of the 5,201 who submitted a design in the 9/11 Memorial Competition, and am very familar with this event and its rebuilding effort on many fronts. Also believe me Alpha6 when I say that I too saw the downing of the Towers just like you untill… I saw this movie “9/11 demolitions”. If you want to talk about any aspect of this process I would be happy to engage you, but untill you see this vidio “9/11 demolitions” you will not understand the complexity of the actual Towers (and WTC-7) demise. Anyway, I understand and respect your criticism but I also look forward to your critique of the movie “9/11 demolitions”. And yes, I caught some clever editing and vidio shots but, there is overpowering evidence above and beyond what clever editing can produce. I wouldn’t recomend watching it on your computer but I am able to get a copy of it and will make it available to you if you would like.
Tsk tsk! All this talk of the US not having a good strategy for Iraq! The Bush administration had an excellent strategy for Iraq, if you consider the true objective of the enterprise; creating a permanently chaotic environment in which multinational corporations can rake in the billions of dollars allocated for the war.
You want to know why we’re in this war and why the Bush crew doesn’t seem to want to end it any time soon? Just follow the money! Weapons manufacturers, reconstruction companies, military support industries (such as Haliburton), oil companies, the list goes on. This war is a very profitable venture for those invested in any one of the above. As we know, several of our top leaders and their families and friends have connections to these industries.
If you study war throughout history, nine times out of ten it will be about profits for the warmongers. Why should this one be any different? The telltale evidence of course is how many times the administration shifted its reason for going to war. In the past, populations might have gone along with their government waging war to enrich their own nation, but not now, here in America. We only go to war for altruistic reasons, because we like to think of ourselves as the good guys.
Tsk tsk! All this talk of the US not having a good strategy for Iraq! The Bush administration had an excellent strategy for Iraq, if you consider the true objective of the enterprise; creating a permanently chaotic environment in which multinational corporations can rake in the billions of dollars allocated for the war.
You want to know why we’re in this war and why the Bush crew doesn’t seem to want to end it any time soon? Just follow the money! Weapons manufacturers, reconstruction companies, military support industries (such as Haliburton), oil companies, the list goes on. This war is a very profitable venture for those invested in any one of the above. As we know, several of our top leaders and their families and friends have connections to these industries.
If you study war throughout history, nine times out of ten it will be about profits for the warmongers. Why should this one be any different? The telltale evidence of course is how many times the administration shifted its reason for going to war. In the past, populations might have gone along with their government waging war to enrich their own nation, but not now, here in America. We only go to war for altruistic reasons, because we like to think of ourselves as the good guys.
Hey Alpha6, thanks for your second reply regarding my reply to your reply… hah!… sheesh… who’s on first anyway? I completely, 100% agree with the entire second paragraph of your reply regarding our current engagement. I can’t even imagine how insanely crippling their present protocol for engagement is there now. You are right, its the politics, or lack thereof, that are killing us right now. And yes, we are being scoped by the enemy 24/7. The politics in Washington and the lack of in Iraq is severely limiting us, I completely agree.
We still went in with too few boots on the ground, and yes, perhaps a new, separate blog on Iraq or combat strategy would be interesting.
Not sure about you, but I’d be very limited in what I could share, but wish I could. I will say that Iraq is uniquely unlike any place to conduct operations in. — Jon
Hey Alpha6, thanks for your second reply regarding my reply to your reply… hah!… sheesh… who’s on first anyway? I completely, 100% agree with the entire second paragraph of your reply regarding our current engagement. I can’t even imagine how insanely crippling their present protocol for engagement is there now. You are right, its the politics, or lack thereof, that are killing us right now. And yes, we are being scoped by the enemy 24/7. The politics in Washington and the lack of in Iraq is severely limiting us, I completely agree.
We still went in with too few boots on the ground, and yes, perhaps a new, separate blog on Iraq or combat strategy would be interesting.
Not sure about you, but I’d be very limited in what I could share, but wish I could. I will say that Iraq is uniquely unlike any place to conduct operations in. — Jon
Plumes of Doom?
I don’t think so! I am of the mindset that its Plumes of Awakening.
The thing to look at is the BIG picture and yes you reckless G, are on to a part of that big picture. Also alpha6 and B. Jon, you too are both on to a part of that big picture.
Here is another piece of that big picture from a voice from long ago,or maybe not soooo long ago.
A Report on Mesopotamia
by T.E. Lawrence
August 2nd, 1920
Thomas Edward (T.E.) Lawrence, a.k.a. “Lawrence of Arabia” (1888-1935), British soldier and author, whose works include The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, achieved world renown for his exploits as Britain’s military liaison to the Arabs during the rebellion against the Ottomans. Sent to Mecca on a fact-finding mission when the Arabs rose in revolt, in 1916, he soon became a friend of the Arab people and their struggle for independence is chronicled in his book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, as well as Revolt in the Desert.
The sellout of the Arabs at Versailles, and the subsequent carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the victorious European powers, disgusted him, and he returned to England disheartened. In protest, Lawrence refused to accept medals from the King, and wrote numerous letters to the newspapers in favor of Arab independence. When British attempts to impose colonial rule on Iraq failed – in a way that, by the account below, seems awfully familiar – Winston Churchill asked Lawrence to help him draft a settlement.
In conjunction with this recent article by Niall Ferguson on the historical parallels between Britain’s futile crusade in Iraq and our own, Lawrence’s piece should be required reading for U.S. policymakers, whose sense of history seems to stretch only as far back as last week.
Sunday Times (London)
August 2nd, 1920
[Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our Mesopotamian commitments.]
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three ‘colonels’) who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from the India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self-government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, ‘Self-determination papers’ favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt’s six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia’s three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them.
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?
*Sir Percy Cox was to return as High Commissioner in October, 1920 to form a provisional Government.
End of Article.
Now certainly events have evolved over the past 86 years that complicate Iraq (and the Middle East) but it is amazing how similar the bottom line remains…OIL!
If you look deeper into the cause and effect of the actions taken during that time written about above, you will find…OIL!
If you truly look into the cause and effect of our actions taken at THIS TIME, you will find…OIL!
So what is the solution. I am not sure.
But I do know enough to say that the first step has to be an honest realization and acceptance of the historical facts of the situation.
One of those facts is that first it was the British (with our backing), and now we Americans (with Englands backing), that are playing Emporer in what is now called Iraq.
Some will argue “thats for the best”. I am not so sure.
Part of this historical evolution is that Saddam was indeed “our boy” at key times. Look into this and you will see the depth of our (Saddam-U.S.A.) entwined involvement over the years. From his personal rise to power (CIA) to his war with Iran (State and Defense Depts).
Anyway the history is all quite interesting and intriguing, but…what are the solutions.
Sorry…I don’t know.
But…I do know that there are things I (we) can do to help us get our act together here in this country. Actions we can take to help ourselves elect future representatives, of our country, that will allow knowledge and leadership to work together, therefore allowing us to find and implement the solutions we so badly need.
I guess what it boils down to for me is that we are trying to implement a Democracy in Iraq when I believe we also need to improve our own version of Democracy here at home.
Why? Because we need a better way to elect our leadership! The current two party system of divide and conquer needs to slip into our past so we as a nation can evolve to a better form of Democracy.
By showing the world that we too are changing for the better, I believe it will help them understand and accept us as a beacon of hope.
And what could be better than our current system?
Elect Joe Smith and Jane Jones for who they are and what their personal platform is. Not because they are Republican-Democrat, conservative-liberal, etc.
No more this side of the aisle, that side of the asile. No more divide and conquer partisan politics.
Make them work together to get things done. Allow true leadership to rise. Allow us to demand it from our elected officials.
We the people finance the elections and we the people run for office and we the people vote for who we chose.
But, our choices are no longer based upon any party affiliaton. And our candidates are no longer tied to any party. And our candidates are no longer tied to their corporate lobbyist monies.
Think about it! Its the best place I know to start. Dialoge anyone….. Star Eagle
Plumes of Doom?
I don’t think so! I am of the mindset that its Plumes of Awakening.
The thing to look at is the BIG picture and yes you reckless G, are on to a part of that big picture. Also alpha6 and B. Jon, you too are both on to a part of that big picture.
Here is another piece of that big picture from a voice from long ago,or maybe not soooo long ago.
A Report on Mesopotamia
by T.E. Lawrence
August 2nd, 1920
Thomas Edward (T.E.) Lawrence, a.k.a. “Lawrence of Arabia” (1888-1935), British soldier and author, whose works include The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, achieved world renown for his exploits as Britain’s military liaison to the Arabs during the rebellion against the Ottomans. Sent to Mecca on a fact-finding mission when the Arabs rose in revolt, in 1916, he soon became a friend of the Arab people and their struggle for independence is chronicled in his book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, as well as Revolt in the Desert.
The sellout of the Arabs at Versailles, and the subsequent carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the victorious European powers, disgusted him, and he returned to England disheartened. In protest, Lawrence refused to accept medals from the King, and wrote numerous letters to the newspapers in favor of Arab independence. When British attempts to impose colonial rule on Iraq failed – in a way that, by the account below, seems awfully familiar – Winston Churchill asked Lawrence to help him draft a settlement.
In conjunction with this recent article by Niall Ferguson on the historical parallels between Britain’s futile crusade in Iraq and our own, Lawrence’s piece should be required reading for U.S. policymakers, whose sense of history seems to stretch only as far back as last week.
Sunday Times (London)
August 2nd, 1920
[Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our Mesopotamian commitments.]
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three ‘colonels’) who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from the India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self-government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, ‘Self-determination papers’ favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt’s six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia’s three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them.
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?
*Sir Percy Cox was to return as High Commissioner in October, 1920 to form a provisional Government.
End of Article.
Now certainly events have evolved over the past 86 years that complicate Iraq (and the Middle East) but it is amazing how similar the bottom line remains…OIL!
If you look deeper into the cause and effect of the actions taken during that time written about above, you will find…OIL!
If you truly look into the cause and effect of our actions taken at THIS TIME, you will find…OIL!
So what is the solution. I am not sure.
But I do know enough to say that the first step has to be an honest realization and acceptance of the historical facts of the situation.
One of those facts is that first it was the British (with our backing), and now we Americans (with Englands backing), that are playing Emporer in what is now called Iraq.
Some will argue “thats for the best”. I am not so sure.
Part of this historical evolution is that Saddam was indeed “our boy” at key times. Look into this and you will see the depth of our (Saddam-U.S.A.) entwined involvement over the years. From his personal rise to power (CIA) to his war with Iran (State and Defense Depts).
Anyway the history is all quite interesting and intriguing, but…what are the solutions.
Sorry…I don’t know.
But…I do know that there are things I (we) can do to help us get our act together here in this country. Actions we can take to help ourselves elect future representatives, of our country, that will allow knowledge and leadership to work together, therefore allowing us to find and implement the solutions we so badly need.
I guess what it boils down to for me is that we are trying to implement a Democracy in Iraq when I believe we also need to improve our own version of Democracy here at home.
Why? Because we need a better way to elect our leadership! The current two party system of divide and conquer needs to slip into our past so we as a nation can evolve to a better form of Democracy.
By showing the world that we too are changing for the better, I believe it will help them understand and accept us as a beacon of hope.
And what could be better than our current system?
Elect Joe Smith and Jane Jones for who they are and what their personal platform is. Not because they are Republican-Democrat, conservative-liberal, etc.
No more this side of the aisle, that side of the asile. No more divide and conquer partisan politics.
Make them work together to get things done. Allow true leadership to rise. Allow us to demand it from our elected officials.
We the people finance the elections and we the people run for office and we the people vote for who we chose.
But, our choices are no longer based upon any party affiliaton. And our candidates are no longer tied to any party. And our candidates are no longer tied to their corporate lobbyist monies.
Think about it! Its the best place I know to start. Dialoge anyone….. Star Eagle