If you thought things in Iraq were all peaches and ice cream, as I did, well I guess you and I are sorely mistaken. Apparently the suits in Washington aren't happy with those car bombs and political assassination thingies.
At a meeting Thursday with his top military and civilian aides, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instructed that General Luck look at all areas of the operation, identify any weaknesses and report back in a few weeks with a confidential assessment, senior defense officials said.
Hmmm, I'm not in the military but I'll take a shot and say that the situation in Iraq is totally wacked.
We don't have enough troops to do the job and those service persons over there now are already over worked and stretched way beyond what should be. I think it's also kitchen table knowledge that our troops don't have the equipment they need (and in some cases promised) to perform the tasks they are assigned. With all of that going on I'll assume that means morale is in the toilet and won't improve no matter how many USO shows you host on the sand.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
The Iraq situtation was whack from Day One. Only a select few saw it that way. I'm voted against Bush and I'm not for the war. Hopefully within his new term, America will see they voted for a bafoon, because that what he is.
Uh let's not pin the tail on just the donkey here.
You can thank just about every asshat on Capital Hill for authorizing the war in Iraq. If you don't like the war then take it up with your Representative and Senators because they are likely to be around longer than the President.
Sure, Greg, but in no way was authorizing the war the same thing as totally and systematically bungling the reconstruction. I think there are number of donkeys in DC, and it seems obvious to me that Rumsfeld is the ass most in need of a tail, preferably with a railroad spike-sized pin.
This makes the departure of Powell from the cabinet that much more tragic. Sure, he became a sacrificial goat for this administration, but he was often a valuable voice of dissent in a room full of people who sadly weren't listening. He knew a thing or two about the military too, unlike Rumsfeld, who probably gleaned all he could from Steve McQueen and Guns & Ammo.
Someone please convince me Bushco isn't so insistent that elections happen in January because they'd like to walk away from this disaster as quickly as possible.
But if anyone can fix it, surely it's gonna be a guy called "General Luck".
Rich, my thoughts exactly (while re-reading a Times of London article about how the Iraqi intelligence office now thinks the size of the insurgency outnumbers coalition forces). Wondering if Gen. Luck has his own logo or a super-special Desert Storm superhero outfit...
You can thank just about every asshat on Capital Hill
Yep. Including John Kerry, BTW.
And Narayan, try as I can, I imagine a single strong reason. But I'm sure they've got there scapegoat for its failure all figgered out.
"With all of that going on I'll assume that means morale is in the toilet and won't improve no matter how many USO shows you host on the sand."
I don't think you can jump to conclusions like that. Soldiers may not have all the equipment they need, but that doesn't necessarily equate to low morale. Sure, someone will refer to the few soldiers that have been interviewed telling how horrible it is. What about all the other soldiers that have not been interviewed? I'd attribute all the negative interviews about morale on media's bias. And besides, what kind of ratings do you get running positive stories? You don't, so you find a scoop. "Troop Morale is Low!" Sorry to go off...
I think it's also kitchen table knowledge that our troops don't have the equipment they need (and in some cases promised) to perform the tasks they are assigned. With all of that going on I'll assume that means morale is in the toilet and won't improve no matter how many USO shows you host on the sand.
With all due respect, and I mean that, some of these "supposed" equipment defancies have been proven false. For example going back to that National Guardsmen who confronted Rumsfield on the lack of armor for the Humvees, data was released the next day showing that only 20 Humvees out of some 500 I believe were left to up-armor, and they were planned to be up-armored the next day. Still I am not niave to think that there are shortages. We should do everything we can to get supplies to them, but the fact remains this is still war (in some parts) and so getting supplies isn't easy all the time.
Concerning the good news (or bad news) out of Iraq I think we need to try to vary our sources. My wife's cousin is currently serving in Iraq and reports in emails he sends when can are that overall things are quiet. Other reports I've heard from service men/women is that most in Iraq are very excited about the upcoming elections and have welcomed their presence. Most of the trouble has happened near or south of Baghdad I believe. So we most take everything with a grain of salt because frankly, we don't know everything that is going on. We can't focus so much on either the good or bad that we forget reality.
I totally agree that we need re-focus, identify the problems that remain, devise plans to address, and apprioprately do so. We need to continue training the Iraqi Guard and allow them to take ownership of their country (and they have been too). Has it gone off without a hitch? No, but what war does?
Has it gone off without a hitch? No, but what war does?
A: The wars that are not waged.
The husband of one of my co-workers is currently serving in Iraq, and he's had to purchase much of his equipment with his own money.
Some of it isn't necessary, such as networking equipment so his unit can have reliable internet access. However, he's also had to purchase some things, such as a rifle scope, that you'd think would be supplied by the military simply because of their very nature.
Whenever he's come home on leave, he's had to hoof it on down to the local Radio Shack or whatever to pick up more equipment for the men in his unit. And adding insult to injury, he won't be reimbursed. Sounds a little wacked to me.
Has it gone off without a hitch? No, but what war does?
HYNES, are you a speechwriter for Rummy?
There are a few issues that go beyond the playschool-Rummy level speak of 'what war goes off without a hitch'—for instance: Our troops don't have the gear they need because they're fighting a type of battle that we didn't expect we'd have to fight. The battle plan was designed to avoid the very type of house-to-house, street-to-street fighting that we're not bogged down in, and the lion's share of military equipment is designed for other types of battle. Bottom line, there just aren't very many types of gear that are silver bullets (pardon the pun) for the centuries old nastiness of urban warfare, where combatants blend in with civilians, know the landscape better than you do, and have almost unlimited supply of munitions and manpower. That makes for an ugly fight, whether you're in Hue, Mogadishu, or Sadr City. The fact is we don't have a properly designed armored highly mobile vehicle that's suited to the task and would slot in between an armored Humvee (which is only better than a non-armored one) and the Striker (which is a mini-tank, designed for battlefield use). This is because no Pentagon brass in their right mind had the political sack to say, "We should build a new type of urban assault vehicle geared for fighting the worst type of guerrilla insurgency in a high population zone." The unspoken rule of thought was we're not going to fight that type of war anymore. This is a failure of strategic planning of a significant magnitude—not a "hitch"—and it's getting American kids killed everyday.
I think it's great that a Four Star General and all of the Pentagon doesn't know what is wrong, but you think you do. Why don't you volunteer your services to help the situation - or do you prefer to just sit back and scorn? Come on man, use your amazing talents of being all knowing and help your fellowman.
Instead of critizing that which you do not comprehend, why not be honest? Just say you dislike the President and that you believe anything he does is wrong. Now that would make sense.
Or Will, since you so enthusiastically support the President's approach to the war, perhaps you could sign up for some time in Iraq to help him.
And, by the way, why is it that any criticism of the President or his policies means that you hate him or the U.S.? I know that's the approach Mr. Bush takes in running his administration (agree with me or you are out), but it really all that simple? And is it Democracy?
Remember what happened to the army general that suggested this exact scenario (no-exit strategy, urban combat, occupation) would occur? They fired him, because that's not what they wanted to hear.
All this amounts to is another fundamentally backwards PR move by BushCo. Thanks for the laugh, Will.
I think the Pentagon and the various four-star generals all know very well what's wrong, but they know they're not a situation that allows them to talk about it. Will, 'scorning' is a good ole American tradition, it's called dissent, and it's something that our founding fathers were particularly good at. One could go so far as to say voicing dissent is helping your fellow man, but I guess in your book only if I'm in some country other than America. I'm as honest as can be about my opinion of the Shrub, and it really has little to do with the realities of the conflict on the ground. It's lousy and the troops there, now outnumbered by the insurgency, don't have the equipment or planning to do their job. You don't have to look very hard to find people in uniform who agree with me.
Well Will, now that you have had your ass handed to you by Tom, Berzie and Peter, perhaps it's time that you took a good long look in the mirror.
Tom was simply (and very convincingly) pointing out that this particular "war" is not the walk in the park that we promised it would be. It's been over a year since Bush made his famous "mission accomplished" speech, and now look what is happening. It's worse than anybody imagined it would be, and it's time for someone to own up and take some blame for misleading the public. Since it seems that that is entirely unlikely, I for one think that "dissent" should be a welcome change. Kudos to Tom for making such a poignant argument. And shame on you Will for being such an asshat.
note to Greg: still waiting for that hip new insult.. :)
Will,
Instead of lambasting Freedom Hating Liburals™ and Pinko Commie Traitors®, why don't you set an example and join the war you so support:
http://www.goarmy.com
You go to war with the incompetent leadership you have, not with the leaders you want.
- Rumsfeld Tzu
I'd like to just re-focus, in the spirit of Greg's initial post, and restate that proper planning is not a liberal or conservative issue. This isn't about supporting the President or not-supporting the troops (BTW, everyone supports the troops, those with the ugly yellow magnetic ribbons on their SUV's and those without).
What this is about is honoring our moral duty to those who we ask to fight for us. It's a volunteer force, and God knows it's one hell of a hard job, even when you're not deployed. It's a contract, the troops agree to obey orders and put the whole rest of their lives on the back burner to their sworn duty. I'd love to be able to say that we're at a point in civilization where armed forces are no longer needed, but sadly, it seems we're a long way from that. Each citizen owes the men and women in their country's armed forces a debt of gratitude—both for current service and the service of previous generations. In turn, citizens have the right to expect that soldier's honor their duty and maintain the highest standards of conduct, even under the most difficult circumstances. Every military man will tell you that the battle of the hearts and minds eventually has to be won in any success, and this happens on the ground, in interactions with a war-torn populace.
What the troops have a right to expect (ethically, if not legally) is that those putting them in harms way have done everything they could to not risk lives needlessly, and that their leadership shape tactics and equipment towards the doing the job at hand. This means winning the war and winning the peace as quickly, effectively, and painlessly as possible.
When Rumsfeld says, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had," what he's really saying is that despite launching a war of his administration's design, fought at a time of their choosing, they didn't do the pre-planning necessary to adequately keep pace with the [predictable] shifting landscape of the conflict. He also is saying it's all pretty much okay because we haven't [yet] approached a level of American casualties that the public finds unacceptable.
You can be fine with that point of view if you wish, but it sounds pretty damn cold to me. Call me whatever Limbaughism you want, but I bet the thousands of American servicemen walking around on aluminum ankles right now agree with me. If you've got the guts, take a look at this gallery of Purple Heart medalists before coming back to call me out.
Arg, since you mentioned it Tom I have just got to say something about those stupid little yellow ‘support the troop’ magnetic ribbons. Don’t get me wrong I think we should honor those who are risking there lives regardless of what are feelings about the war are but it’s just that those ribbons people put on the back of there SUVs are meaningless- almost even just trendy. Few people who put those on there car have any since of the real sacrifices involved in war- in WW2 there was a true national effort with rations and the like; all of which had the effect of making the war more real to those staying at home… and now we give ourselves a tax break and put ribbons up. It is easy for our nation to commit to one war or another because it never seems real to the nation who’s lives go on as normal
Few people who put those on there car have any since of the real sacrifices involved in war
That's quite a statement. Do you have any data that back that up?
On the news shows this Sunday morning the reports were that Gen. Luck's mission is to focus on the 'readiness of Iraqi forces' issue—which is reportedly quite a bit grimmer than we've been led to believe from public proclamations to date. Seems that there needs to be an assessment on whether the administration needs to adjust its "We're turning things over to newly trained Iraqi personnel and everything is going on-schedule" mantra before they get on record too many times appearing like clueless optomists—or depending on your P.O.V., lying rat-bastards.
We're turning things over to newly trained Iraqi personnel and everything is going on-schedule.
Translation: We'll hold the elections as proposed, so the President gets to say he was right (similar to Rush's tired 'I told you so' line), pull out, and when things really fall apart we'' blame it on the Iraqis for being unfit for the task.
When Rumsfeld says, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had," what he's really saying is that despite launching a war of his administration's design, fought at a time of their choosing, they didn't do the pre-planning necessary to adequately keep pace with the [predictable] shifting landscape of the conflict. He also is saying it's all pretty much okay because we haven't [yet] approached a level of American casualties that the public finds unacceptable.
Do you speak from exhaustive research here?
If we're throwing out opinions, then the other possible side to this proverbial coin then is that the previous administration did little to advance the growth of our military and its re-shaping to tackle more guerilla type warfare. Stuff doesn't turn on a dime in the Pentagon. You talk like the thing is some well-oiled machine. The Defense Department has so many levels of bureacracy it's amazing anything productive gets done.
And Tom, I've never stated my opinion on ole Rummy - so what makes you think I'm supporting them man? I just find it grossly ignorant to throw out statements that have little to do with reality. Opinion tinged a little reality doesn't make one smarter, nor a "speech-writer" for whatever party you hail from.
I say throw Runsfeld in the kitchen and make him peel potatoes. No?
This is a blog, not the Rand Corporation. Get a grip, dude. I don't have to do exhaustive research to state plain facts. This administration is the architect of this conflict. If it falls over on it's side, it's their fault. What's so complex about that reality? I agree that poor, agenda-polluted military planning likely spans every administration that has ever been elected, but most haven't launched pre-emptive conflicts at the time of their choosing.