Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[taks]

The situation has hardly been improved since before the war.

you mean in iraq? that's necessarily correct, many things have improved immensely, you just don't hear about it in the media very often. the fundamental difference now, however, is the presence of the terrorist activities, but that is on the decline as well.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

The fact is that those rules are not always adhered to. You can find examples in the open media. What I find extraordinary is that they are ever adhered to. But that's the difference between a bunch of wannabes and a proper army: discipline.

 

The reason the rules exist are twofold. Firstly, and fundamentally, and despite what your parents told you, the guys in green are not monsters. They're actually pretty stand up guys on the whole. Mad as fish, usually, but good guys. I like to think its because the army makes you stronger, and when you are properly strong you simply don't need to be a bad guy. But that's beside the point. The point of the first reason is that they don't want to shoot first in case they're wrong, and they end up shooting some poor bastard who's walking funny because he's got the runs, and not because he's got a suicide belt on.

 

The second reason is that if you do shoot the wrong guy, you've not just killed an innocent man, but you've probably set back the local mission by a year, if not indefinitely. That means you've either got to stay doing the job for a lot longer, or maybe the job just doesn't get done. And if the job doesn't get done then every man who has made sacrifices, got divorced, got injured, lost a limb, or died gets flushed down the lavatory of history. And that's the kind of thing which does not make a proper army happy.

[Guard Dog]

I realize this is totally OT... but this is the only political thread cooking right now and the story does not merit creating another. If you will all recall the ever popular US Presidential Elections threads we had, I stated several times that the very first thing the Democrats will do once they've won the congressional elections would be to vote themselves a pay raise. I was right: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-Raise-me_N.htm

 

They wreck the economy, I lose my job, they get a pay raise. Ain't life grand.

[Trenitay]

The republicans aren't exactly fighting it either.

[taks]

that's necessarily correct,

should read "that's not necessarily correct."

 

taks

[Volourn]

"The Bush government's plan for Iraq was absurd."

 

No argument from me about how the post war Iraq situation was mishandled.

[Walsingham]

"The Bush government's plan for Iraq was absurd."

 

No argument from me about how the post war Iraq situation was mishandled.

 

I'd agree also, at least initially. But after Rumsfeld left they suddenly started doing better. It's a MYSTARY.

[Aristes]

Rumsfeld is an imbecile who managed to alienate our allies before we even set foot in Iraq.

 

Your previous response struck me as touching in a way, Walsingham, you crazy bastard.

[taks]

I'd agree also, at least initially. But after Rumsfeld left they suddenly started doing better. It's a MYSTARY.

in theory rumsfeld had a good idea, one that was designed to save lives: use our tech advantage. in practice, however, our tech advantage is not an advantage when you have people running around with bombs strapped to their torso. stealth terrorism is one of the things they are working furiously to detect. i've looked at several SBIRs, several out of a hundred or more, that are focusing on such things, e.g., the ability to pick a vehicle or human out of city streets, separating humans from animals, etc. rumsfeld would have fared better had he just accepted early on that his policies weren't working, but he refused, and it made things worse.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Rumsfeld is an imbecile who managed to alienate our allies before we even set foot in Iraq.

 

Your previous response struck me as touching in a way, Walsingham, you crazy bastard.

 

I just re-read it. Touching how?

 

taks, I never liked the lightfighting idea. Typically high end management, adopting a tool which worked for someone else in a different era and with a different scenario.

[Aristes]

"The second reason is that if you do shoot the wrong guy, you've not just killed an innocent man, but you've probably set back the local mission by a year, if not indefinitely. That means you've either got to stay doing the job for a lot longer, or maybe the job just doesn't get done. And if the job doesn't get done then every man who has made sacrifices, got divorced, got injured, lost a limb, or died gets flushed down the lavatory of history. And that's the kind of thing which does not make a proper army happy. "

[Walsingham]

"The second reason is that if you do shoot the wrong guy, you've not just killed an innocent man, but you've probably set back the local mission by a year, if not indefinitely. That means you've either got to stay doing the job for a lot longer, or maybe the job just doesn't get done. And if the job doesn't get done then every man who has made sacrifices, got divorced, got injured, lost a limb, or died gets flushed down the lavatory of history. And that's the kind of thing which does not make a proper army happy. "

 

Huh!

[Aristes]

Good Lord, Walsingham. I mean that your post was poignant commentary on how soldiers view a mission and the sacrifices they make, not just in giving up their lives, but in all the ways that the war effects them. Soldiers aren't flawless angels, but by the mass they desire success. They want the mission to succeed.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Good Lord, Walsingham. I mean that your post was poignant commentary on how soldiers view a mission and the sacrifices they make, not just in giving up their lives, but in all the ways that the war effects them. Soldiers aren't flawless angels, but by the mass they desire success. They want the mission to succeed.

 

Really? When I was in the military I just wanted my paycheck and not get killed. There is a little saying that applies to a soldier and sacrifice. The point of war is not to die for your country, but make the other guy die for his.

[Aristes]

No, Killian, most military personnel want to complete the mission and complete it well. Of course, that doesn't mean that they don't want to receive their paycheck, or that they don't want to have funds for college or to see new places or any other number of incentives for joining. I myself used the GI bill to pay for some of my schooling. I also liked receiving a paycheck, even though the lion's share of it went home to my family. We humans are pretty complex and our motives are complex as well. Still, the vast majority of the servicemen I've known have wanted to do a good job.

 

Furthermore, the servicemen in Iraq right now didn't get into this without knowing what they were doing. Morale and a desire to see the mission succeed is always higher in front line troops like the Marines and Airborn. Add that to the fact that it's been long enough, many of them knew they might end up in Iraq when they enlisted and you've got a highly motivated force.

 

I think it's perfectly legitimate to cite your personal experiences, but mine lead me to believe that most of the soldiers over in Iraq want desperately to succeed and, while they would much rather kill the enemy than be killed, they sure as hell don't want their brothers in arms who have already died to be pointless sacrifices.

 

And I think you misunderstood. I never said that American servicemen wanted to go over and die for their country. They want to accomplish a mission. Rather than believe you wanted to put words in my mouth in order to have an easier argument, I'll just assume you didn't exactly understand what I was saying.

[Guard Dog]

Aristes, just to give you a little character insight, Killian did not have a good experience in the Navy. I think that colors his view on this subject as much as his natural knee-jerk cynicisim.

[Walsingham]

Yup. It doesn't mean he's wrong. A whole bunch of guys just want to serve their time and get out. But equally without wanting to be harsh I'd also point out that this could be why he didn't get a great deal of his time in the service. It's like becoming a beet farmer when you're allergic to beets.

 

I should give most of the credit for that insight to my company sergeant major, when he was explaining why we should care about the Rules of Engagement. I just remembered and rephrased it slightly.

[Rostere]

Unless I've misunderstood your point (something I do occasionally), you're contradicting yourself. You're suggesting we should have supported an internal civil war. I would suggest:

 

1. Saddam was bloody good at fighting internal threats

2. Saddam had committed genocide in an attempt to avoid a civil war

3. In what way is a civil war 'better'? Civil wars are long, bloody, and utterly without any restraint or conventions. They are fought by amateurs with all the horrors that that entails.

4. By contrast the US coalition did a magnificent job of fighting Saddam conventionally in a very short time, with what one can only conclude was as small a cost in lives as possible.

5. This conventional fighting was soured by post-war errors, which resulted in a level of violence which is less than a civil war, but by its own lights betrays just how bloody a real civil war could be.

 

No, I think you've only understood parts of what I wrote. I'm suggesting that you should somehow unite the various factions who fought against Saddam before overthrowing him, and in the latter process I'm not averse to foreign military aid. When you suddenly remove a authoritarian, repressive government in a country which does not have a significant enough partisan movement to even begin the fight themselves, you can only expect anarchy. It's either utterly na

[Killian Kalthorne]

Aristes, all the deaths in Iraq was pointless. Iraq was no threat to the US. Saddam had no ability to harm a US citizen on US soil. Saddam and the IRaqi war machine was contained and had no teeth. Each and every death, US solider or otherwise, was a pointless and useless sacrifice. Every single one of them.

[Dark Helmet]

Aristes, all the deaths in Iraq was pointless. Iraq was no threat to the US. Saddam had no ability to harm a US citizen on US soil. Saddam and the IRaqi war machine was contained and had no teeth. Each and every death, US solider or otherwise, was a pointless and useless sacrifice. Every single one of them.

Perhaps pointless in that the perceived threat was untrue, but not pointless in the mission to rebuild Iraq. Of course the rationale to go to war in the first place was wrong, but we owe it to the Iraqi people to see this misadventure through to the end, in my opinion.

 

I think it's a complex scenario that's not appreciated by a lot of people... there's a lot of mistrust of the "American empire" in that part of the world (rightly so). I remember the New York Times posting an article on how a shark was discovered in the Tigris (think it was the Tigris, might've been the Euphrates), and the local populace was convinced it was the American occupation that put it there. There's also a lot of mistrust of our motives in our own country, and in others, but I honestly think that the war was not politically strategic, or for oil, as evidenced by the first oil contract being won by... China!

 

My best guess is that Bush genuinely believed he was doing something right... some journalists have observed Mr. Bush being more reflective, with some possible regret, whereas Cheney (who profited quite a bit from this mess) has been more defiant. I would think he was misled by folks like Cheney into thinking Iraq was a big threat... I'm sure Cheney didn't really believe that, but saw the potential for fame, money and maybe oil.

 

As for us soldiers, I would say there's a lot of different viewpoints... some people (like one of my buddies) think all Iraqis live in mud huts and are terrorists, some can see Iraq for what it actually is (or was): a fairly advanced, secular country, albeit one ruled by a dictator.

 

Anyway, my take on it is that there's more to the story then either the "big bad American empire kills civilians and steals oil" or "the great American democracy kills terrorists and rebuilds nations", which I think is what usually is presented by both sides. America is quite capable of being a generous and benevolent country, and I hope the next administration can combine that with common sense and fiscal responsibility.

 

(Sorry if that was a bit rambly... gotta say, I like this place a lot more than some sanitized sections of the internet - Bethesda land -, but it's also a tad more sophisticated than some other places. Nice to be back ).

[Volourn]

"Aristes, all the deaths in Iraq was pointless. Iraq was no threat to the US. Saddam had no ability to harm a US citizen on US soil. Saddam and the IRaqi war machine was contained and had no teeth. Each and every death, US solider or otherwise, was a pointless and useless sacrifice. Every single one of them."

 

Not pointless for m oral human beings who wnat EVERYONE to be free from tyranny not just those who happen to be born in a particular border. Why, in your mind, are only Amerikans worthy of freedom?

 

I know, btw, if I'm walking down the street and see someone being assaulkt, I'm gonna do soemthing about it. Whether it's jumping in, or calling for backup (ie. police); I'm gonna do it. I'm not gonna ignore those who need help. I find it bigoted to state that Iraqis (or anyone) shouoldn't get help they so obviously needed just because they happen to live in another country.

 

One could make an argument that the US handled things wrong; but a moral idea of 'non interverence' because it happens to be an Iraqi killing Iraqis is silly.

 

But, hey, I live in North Bay. Why should I care if a some poor women in Sudbury is being raped? Doesn't effect me any. Right? *shrug*

Edited December 28, 2008 by Volourn

[Trenitay]

A lot of people wouldnt help though. My friend got beat down one day in his yard and, like, ten people walked by in the process and didnt do a damn thing.

[Volourn]

That's because they're tools, punks, selfish, pieces of poo, and cowards. And, those are the polite words I am stuck using on this board...

[Walsingham]

Aristes, all the deaths in Iraq was pointless. Iraq was no threat to the US. Saddam had no ability to harm a US citizen on US soil. Saddam and the Iraqi war machine was contained and had no teeth. Each and every death, US solider or otherwise, was a pointless and useless sacrifice. Every single one of them.

 

But you're a freaking hyper-individualist. You'd let your neighbour's house burn even if you knew that if you didn't your own might go next, just to prove the point that he should've put in better fireproofing.

 

Thanks for clarifying, Aristes. Your argument hangs together internally much better now. However, I would suggest that Iraq is in fact evidence of what happens when ther IS a well established underground. You had resistance movements, who, while supine were experienced and determined. You had all the paramilitary Baath organisations who'd been trained for covert resistance. Saddam had aimed to fight a guerrilla war until the Coalition pulled out, and he could rise again. Then Al Qaeda and Iran shouldered into the mix, and fun has been had by all. Which is another point you don't seem to address. You seem to imply that everything is down to use great white fathers and the 'natives' have no say in anything. They do, and the current improvments prove how great a say they have. They're sick of the violence, and have been acting to assist efforts against it.

 

 

Good to have you back Dark Helmet.

[Walsingham]

I still say he's a corrupt hole, but he's also the only presidentto do anything concrete about the Taliban.

 

The Taliban, in case you've somehow forgotten, are the same guys who just issued a 'warning' that they will kill any girl who goes to school. But that's fine. I'm sure it's just me and Volo who feel it's immoral to stand by idle.