|
Post by juliastar on Jan 12, 2007 8:12:08 GMT -5
Amen, Trusty.
Another line from Olberman's justified rant:
"Our military, Mr. Bush, is already stretched so thin by this bogus adventure in Iraq that even a majority of serving personnel are willing to tell pollsters that they are dissatisfied with your prosecution of the war. "It is so weary that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq will be on their second tours or their third tours or their fourth tours–and now you’re going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well?"
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jan 12, 2007 10:26:57 GMT -5
//Another line from Olberman's justified rant:
"Our military, Mr. Bush, is already stretched so thin by this bogus adventure in Iraq that even a majority of serving personnel are willing to tell pollsters that they are dissatisfied with your prosecution of the war.
"It is so weary that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq will be on their second tours or their third tours or their fourth tours–and now you’re going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well?"//
While Olberman might have a point, I wouldn’t place much stock in his analysis of our soldiers’ morale. You pointed out the ridiculousness of listening to the viewpoints of Michael Savage when I referred to him many, many moons ago. Keep in mind that Savage and Olberman, interesting men both, are right and left wing radio and TV entertainers, respectively. No more, no less. They are entertainers.
If you are interested in a comparatively objective analysis of our military folks’ morale, I’d invite you to read Ralph Peters. Peters is quite aware that our president is a dolt. Nonetheless, Peters understands the ramifications stemming from continued US involvement in a limited warfare capacity.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Jan 12, 2007 11:15:17 GMT -5
Keep in mind that Savage and Olberman, interesting men both, are right and left wing radio and TV entertainers, respectively. No more, no less. They are entertainers. Keith Olbermann is a thinker with a heart and a soul. I'd have his baby if he was interested. Savage is, well, a savage chicken hawk. How about if you tell me how Peters answers Keith's the-writing-is-on-the-wall question -- what exactly is it these additional troops are going to do? "We are going to put 17,500 more troops into Baghdad and 4,000 more into Anbar Province to give the Iraqi government “breathing space.” "In and of itself that is an awful and insulting term. "The lives of 21,500 more Americans endangered, to give “breathing space” to a government that just turned the first and perhaps the most sober act of any democracy — the capital punishment of an ousted dictator — into a vengeance lynching so barbaric and so lacking in the solemnities necessary for credible authority, that it might have offended the Ku Klux Klan of the 19th century. "And what will our men and women in Iraq do? "The ones who will truly live — and die — during what Mr. Bush said last night will be a “year ahead” that “will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve”? "They will try to seal Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad where the civil war is worst. "Mr. Bush did not mention that while our people are trying to do that, the factions in the civil war will no longer have to focus on killing each other, but rather they can focus anew on killing our people. "Because last night the president foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls, but no more after that, and if the whole thing fizzles out, we’re going home." www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583889/I'll believe we need to escalate the Middle Eastern conflict militarily when Bush talks the twins into enlisting to fight their Daddy's war. The New York Times has a wonderful op ed, graphic sentence by sentence talk-back to the President's smoke.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Jan 12, 2007 11:40:55 GMT -5
And this astute analysis from the field, as reported by E.J. Dionne's column today: "Our real goal," he wrote, "was to persuade our Iraqi friends and allies to actively and publicly support us . . . to help us tip the balance of public opinion in our favor." That meant helping them with security and "civil works projects" and giving them "prestige by showing publicly that our commander listened to their advice." "We discovered that we were not fighting a military campaign, but a political campaign -- not too different from what a small town mayor might do to win reelection back in the U.S. . . . Fighting terrorists was only something we did when needed, because it interfered with our political objectives. If we could ignore the terrorists, we were winning. If we had to stop our economic and political activities in order to fight terrorists, they were winning." "The core problem, the officer said, lay in the unwillingness of Shiites in the Iraqi security forces to confront their own side. "Most officers did a great job when facing Sunni-based insurgents," he wrote. "In fact, we had to keep a close eye on most units to make sure they were not too heavy-handed against the Sunnis." "On the other hand: "When we dealt with the Shia, especially the Mahdi militia, things got a lot more complicated. Many officers were reluctant to fight the Shia militias because they had a well-justified fear for the security of their family. I have seen senior Iraqi officers flat refuse to follow American soldiers in pursuit of Shia insurgents -- even when those insurgents just killed their own soldiers." "The trouble goes all the way to the top. "We will never reach any kind of acceptable political settlement as long as the Coalition and the Iraqi government allow legitimate political parties to hold seats in the National Assembly while they finance and maintain military auxiliary wings that attack and kill Iraqi and American soldiers. These parties have enough clout in PM Maliki's administration to effectively block any major military operation against the militias. This is an impossible situation. "I don't have the expertise to comment on whether or not a temporary 'troop surge' is necessary," he said. "I can say, however, that a troop surge is pointless if we cannot set the political conditions beforehand that allow us to act freely against the militia." www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101576.html
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jan 12, 2007 12:31:15 GMT -5
//Keith Olbermann is a thinker with a heart and a soul. I'd have his baby if he was interested. Savage is, well, a savage chicken hawk.//
Olbermann is a sarcastic, flippant, glorified sports reporter who’s nearer to the pulse of the Atlanta Falcons and Buffalo Bills than to the hearts and minds of the American soldier. Have his child, if you insist, but keep the poor kid at arm’s distance from Keith. As for Savage, the man is equally relevant or irrelevant, depending on your point of view.
I find you presumptuous in ladling out Olbermann’s rants line by line. You would do yourself well by reading his stuff, synthesizing it, formulating your own opinion, and stating it. J*’s opinion, not Olbermann’s. I’d disagree wholeheartedly, but at least you are worthy of respect.
//How about if you tell me how Peters answers Keith's the-writing-is-on-the-wall question -- what exactly is it these additional troops are going to do?//
I’ve spoken many times of the need to fight a war in Iraq. This means the troops get out of the vehicles and engage in foot patrols throughout all sectors of Baghdad. We have got to know that turf. We have got to occupy the neighborhoods. These additional troops can conceivably be of benefit if they are provided a clear and concise mission towards this end. To date, our men and woman have been IED targets, impeded at every juncture by American civilian “experts” or the Iraqi government. What do we need these additional troops to do? Secure Baghdad. How? Employ a sincere zero tolerance stance.
Employ zero tolerance towards possession of weaponry. No weapons in the streets, none in vehicles. Iraqi private security forces should be eliminated. The Iraqi Army and coalition forces get the weapons. That’s it.
Movement control considerations are huge. ID anyone leaving one neighborhood for another. We’ve got to know who belongs where.
We need to thoroughly search every building in Baghdad. After they are searched, we need to ensure they remain clean. This means the damned mosques, too.
Will 20 thousand additional troops suffice? No one knows at this point. Personally, I think 50,000 a more realistic number. In any event, we don’t have an option right now. We got ourselves in this mess and we need to fix it. There was a time when we could have departed without grave consequences. That time has passed.
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Jan 12, 2007 12:43:08 GMT -5
//Keith Olbermann is a thinker with a heart and a soul. I'd have his baby if he was interested. Savage is, well, a savage chicken hawk.// Olbermann is a sarcastic, flippant, glorified sports reporter who’s nearer to the pulse of the Atlanta Falcons and Buffalo Bills than to the hearts and minds of the American soldier. Have his child, if you insist, but keep the poor kid at arm’s distance from Keith. As for Savage, the man is equally relevant or irrelevant, depending on your point of view. I find you presumptuous in ladling out Olbermann’s rants line by line. You would do yourself well by reading his stuff, synthesizing it, formulating your own opinion, and stating it. J*’s opinion, not Olbermann’s. I’d disagree wholeheartedly, but at least you are worthy of respect. //How about if you tell me how Peters answers Keith's the-writing-is-on-the-wall question -- what exactly is it these additional troops are going to do?// I’ve spoken many times of the need to fight a war in Iraq. This means the troops get out of the vehicles and engage in foot patrols throughout all sectors of Baghdad. We have got to know that turf. We have got to occupy the neighborhoods. These additional troops can conceivably be of benefit if they are provided a clear and concise mission towards this end. To date, our men and woman have been IED targets, impeded at every juncture by American civilian “experts” or the Iraqi government. What do we need these additional troops to do? Secure Baghdad. How? Employ a sincere zero tolerance stance. Employ zero tolerance towards possession of weaponry. No weapons in the streets, none in vehicles. Iraqi private security forces should be eliminated. The Iraqi Army and coalition forces get the weapons. That’s it. Movement control considerations are huge. ID anyone leaving one neighborhood for another. We’ve got to know who belongs where. We need to thoroughly search every building in Baghdad. After they are searched, we need to ensure they remain clean. This means the damned mosques, too. Will 20 thousand additional troops suffice? No one knows at this point. Personally, I think 50,000 a more realistic number. In any event, we don’t have an option right now. We got ourselves in this mess and we need to fix it. There was a time when we could have departed without grave consequences. That time has passed. rmn, you may notice anothe point in your "exalt" column. I agree on most of your points, especially your last two sentences. We're in too deep. We need to hit and hit hard. Adopt a take no prisoners approach. People are bitching and griping about the three-thousand-and-some bodybags that have come back from over there. Many of those same are also crying out agains any shedding of innocent blood over there. The reality of it is, whenever wars are fought, innocent lives are taken. It's a hard and terrible reality that must be accepted. Even I, who stand six feet tall and weigh in the upper-two-hundreds could put on a large enough burka to hide myself. My own support of Bush has dwindled quite a bit of late, but this might be the best move he has left at this point. rmn figures fifty thousand?? Maybe. I bet if those soldiers knew that this thrid or fourth tour would be their last, they'd give 'er hell and get the job done so they could go home for good. Throw enough "giver 'er hell" boys in there and we'd be out in short order. Untie their hands and let 'em go to work!! ~B~
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Jan 12, 2007 13:28:38 GMT -5
Keith Olbermann is witty and right about a lot of things, the unrighteousness of this war for starters. My unadulterated opinion, since you asked for it, is that it was trumped up and wrong from the beginning and is about the control of oil. You are letting yourself be duped if you think the mission is anything else. If it was truly the clash of the centuries, don't you think the republicans would have called for a little sacrifice, like maybe the repeal of their sacred tax cuts for the uber-rich or the reinstatement of the politically suicidal draft? No, they haven't and it is because the war is not what they say it is and the people who got us into this mess can't be counted on to be the ones to get us or Iraq out of it. I've watched enough people in denial to see how it works. Instead of suffering the consequences early on, they do nothing but the same old same old, compounding the damages. Maybe lady luck will smile and the next hand of poker will yield a return big enough to cancel out the losses that are piling up. Never mentioned in Bush's speech was the oil legislation currently being considered by his less than holy Iraqi government (we are talking death squads and thugs) and not mentioned is how unprecedently favorable to American oil corporations it is. Not a cause I would willingly die for, or one I want my tax money spent on. They already get enough of it at the pump. Let big oil send mercenaries to the Iraq if that is what this is all about. How much consumer relief could have been eased merely by a subsidy instead of pissing our tax money away in the desert? China must be sitting back in the wings laughing smugly while we implode. Will 20 thousand additional troops suffice? No one knows at this point. Personally, I think 50,000 a more realistic number. In any event, we don’t have an option right now. We got ourselves in this mess and we need to fix it. There was a time when we could have departed without grave consequences. That time has passed. Machiavelli would agree with you as to your ruthless fix, but will 20,000 additional troops fix anything? I haven't served in the army or the academy, but house-to-house searches and entry into the mosques with drawn weapons? I presume you mean disarming the Shites, taking out al-Sadr? I don't need Keith Olbermann to tell you hell,no and ask what it is that you are smoking. How would you feel about the violation of the National Cathedral? Your own home? Why would you expect a Muslim to feel differently? Any idea what the population of Baghdad is and what our boys would be up against? If it would have made any difference whatsoever, the time of throwing 20,000 more troops at the problem and occupying like we mean it has come and gone and anjahart is right, we could use some of that zero tolerance for violence and deplorable living conditions right here in our own cities. If guns are bad for Iraqis, you think we solve the problem by pointing our guns at them?
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 12, 2007 14:23:10 GMT -5
Trusty? "Thit" is The Babe's word.
I've started using it in real life as well.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jan 12, 2007 14:35:31 GMT -5
//My unadulterated opinion, since you asked for it, is that it was trumped up and wrong from the beginning and is about the control of oil. You are letting yourself be duped if you think the mission is anything else.//
I did ask for it. Thanks. Olbermann could learn to articulate a point if he read your stuff. As for allowing myself to be duped by the Bush administration, you couldn’t be more mistaken. Perhaps one of the archive-retrieving gurus associated with this forum can summon my past thoughts pertaining to the American entry into Iraq. The affair was folly from the outset. The enterprise was ill-conceived and destined to fail as it was presented by American policy makers. But we’re not talking about that anymore. We screwed the pooch in that region and we’re morally obligated to fix it before departure. I have offered a suggestion or two on what we can do. It’s great fun to throw stones at the dolts in Washington, J*, but the time has come to think about what we can do to fix what we broke. Paradoxically, that where your Machiavelli comes in.
//I presume you mean disarming the Shites, taking out al-Sadr? I don't need Keith Olbermann to tell you hell,no and ask what it is that you are smoking.//
I’d disarm any entity not directly affiliated with the Iraqi National Army, and particularly Muqtada al-Sadr. The fact that this little prick remains a viable entity in Iraq is beyond comprehension.
//How would you feel about the violation of the National Cathedral? Your own home?//
Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up one another’s mosques. Have been for a while now. Do you think these places of worship are sanctified? They should remain out of the grasp of the American military? That’s one of the problems that have been biting us in the ass for years.
//Why would you expect a Muslim to feel differently?//
Some of the Iraqis support us. Most don’t. Nonetheless, we are morally compelled to right the errors of our doing. You would like to spend time exploring the feelings of the Islamic fascists as they seek refuge in their respective mosques. That, in my judgment, is a ridiculous endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Jan 12, 2007 15:20:06 GMT -5
And so...
...back to the most irritating word:
HALIBURTON.
More troops to lengthen the conflict so Haliburton can finish their contracts and thus collect their bonuses?
Only asking.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Jan 12, 2007 15:48:05 GMT -5
The affair was folly from the outset. The escalation of folly is compound folly. The enterprise was ill-conceived and destined to fail as it was presented by American policy makers. As presented. But then consider the money that has been made, and is yet to be made, and maybe a war in Iraq doesn't seem so stupid or ill-conceived. The same policy makers who brought us Iraq are the ones bringing us the sequel. But we’re not talking about that anymore. We screwed the pooch in that region and we’re morally obligated to fix it before departure. Shooting up the street, bombing the bejeezus out of the place isn't going to fix anything. It will only lead to more brokenness. We need to leave, adopt a sensible Middle East policy and pray to God corporately to ask for his mercy and forgiveness. My Machiavelli comes in as a nod to your scorched earth bid -- that if you want to rule and amass power and other people's resources, ruthlessness and the infliction of terror are highly effective tools. It isn't the country I pledge allegience to. //I presume you mean disarming the Shites, taking out al-Sadr? I don't need Keith Olbermann to tell you hell,no and ask what it is that you are smoking.// I’d disarm any entity not directly affiliated with the Iraqi National Army, and particularly Muqtada al-Sadr. The fact that this little prick remains a viable entity in Iraq is beyond comprehension.. That we agree on unless our mission has less to do with peace in Iraq and everything to do with making money off a war, using it to grab and maintain domestic political power and seizing oil assets and then it is within comprehension. The messier it gets, the more money some people will make. Our disagreement, yours and mine, was whether the mission to topple al-Sadr could possibly be the mission if only a mere 20,000 additional troops are being sent. I have to agree with McCain on this on -- 20,000 more troops is the worst of both worlds, but even if I agreed to send the number it would take, it would be a huge number and where would these more troops come from? How many re-deployments into a war zone is a reasonable number to ask of any volunteer soldier and his family? //How would you feel about the violation of the National Cathedral? Your own home?// Shiites and Sunnis are blowing up one another’s mosques. Have been for a while now. Do you think these places of worship are sanctified? . Yes. Just because someone else does something barbaric, that these two groups don't respect each other's holy places doesn't excuse our own disrespect should we elect to join in the fun. Your line of reasoning echoes those ridiculous defenses of our torture camps by references to Saddam's atrocities. They should remain out of the grasp of the American military? That’s one of the problems that have been biting us in the ass for years. The notion of sanctuary and God's space is not new nor is it not western. Disrespect for other people's icons is not going to win over the people. I'm not talking about defending Islamofacists (what a ridiculous, talk show made up word) and I believe you know it. I am talking about the feelings of the average Joe. Tell me that foreign troops storming the Statute of Liberty under any pretext on an ordinary day when Americans are paying homage there with the family is something ordinary Joes are going to understand let alone welcome. Some of the Iraqis support us. Most don’t. Nonetheless, we are morally compelled to right the errors of our doing. Oil and moral compulsion are not synonyms. The majority of Iraqis, like the majority of Americans, would like for us to leave and leave them alone. In a true democracy, what the people want, the people get.
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 12, 2007 17:00:10 GMT -5
I don't know why we are talking politics on a "word" thread. But since we are here is one of my pet peeves: Relatively newcomers to the states who complain that the situation in their home countries is deplorable.
I bite my tongue but want to tell them that if they know that and if they have benefitted from their time in the states and if they care, why don't they go back to their native homes and use those tools to make things better?
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jan 12, 2007 17:32:11 GMT -5
U.S. forces cannot "clear" Baghdad of insurgents because so many of its residents ARE insurgents. The U.S. "cleared" Fallujah by reducing it, largely, to rubble. But Fallujah had a population of 350,000. The population of Baghdad is six to seven million. Among the enemies of America are men, women and children--working as families--to resist the occupation. They've had ample opportunity to stock up and store arms and ammunition. Think of all the unemployed Suuni carpenters and craftsmen constructing hideaways for IEDs. They embed such bombs into curbs, and then neatly plaster over each waiting weapon with fresh cement. Snipers abound.
The coming American casaulties will be enormous. And to what end? Everybody knows that the current Iraqi government cannot deliver on any of its promises. It cannot confront and disarm the Shiite militias because such militias constitute its base of power. Certainly the government can "pretend" to war with its own militias, if only to draw the Americans into a fight to the finish with the Suunis. But then the worm will turn.
Increasingly, it seems evident that Bush knows Malaki will fail, and Bush is prepared to pin this inevitable failure on Iran and Syria. Iran, in Bushworld, is Germancy, circa 1938. The "new way forward" in Iraq is merely pre-text to a wider war, as, day by day, aircraft carrier groups stream into the Persian Gulf.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jan 12, 2007 17:51:52 GMT -5
//U.S. forces cannot "clear" Baghdad of insurgents because so many of its residents ARE insurgents. The U.S. "cleared" Fallujah by reducing it, largely, to rubble. But Fallujah had a population of 350,000. The population of Baghdad is six to seven million. Among the enemies of America are men, women and children--working as families--to resist the occupation. They've had ample opportunity to stock up and store arms and ammunition. Think of all the unemployed Suuni carpenters and craftsmen constructing hideaways for IEDs. They embed such bombs into curbs, and then neatly plaster over each waiting weapon with fresh cement. Snipers abound.//
We hear this daily. This is no news. You could just as easily be suggesting that Bush has asked for too small a number of troops.
//Everybody knows that the current Iraqi government cannot deliver on any of its promises.//
Do you know this for a certainty? No one here will challenge your intellect, PT, but I'll ask how you might know this. Granted, a betting man would have grave doubts, but what options do we have?
//The "new way forward" in Iraq is merely pre-text to a wider war, as, day by day, aircraft carrier groups stream into the Persian Gulf.//
Were Iraq intended as a pre-text to wider engagements, do you think we might have slipped toward Iran and Syria earlier, before the weight of the world rested on our collective shoulders?
Having said this, I think it interesting that the new Central Commander is a Navy man. That caught some by surprise, with all the ground engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. A conflict with Iran would entail a significant naval presence, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Jan 12, 2007 18:11:53 GMT -5
This is what I think Operation More Troops looks like. What the heck does anybody think it is accomplishing except enabling. What we've been hearing as to strategy is we'll stand down when they stand up. When exactly is that going to be?
U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy
By Sudarsan Raghavan Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, January 12, 2007; A01
BAGHDAD, Jan. 11 -- A few hours before another mission into the cauldron of Baghdad, Spec. Daniel Caldwell's wife instant-messaged him Thursday morning. President Bush, Kelly wrote, wanted to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops and extend deployments in Iraq. Eight weeks pregnant, she was worried.
Caldwell, a tall, lean 20-year-old from Montesano, Wash., wondered whether he would miss the birth of his child. He walked outside and joined his comrades of Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade. They, too, had heard the news.
Moments before he stepped into his squad's Stryker -- a large, bathtub-shaped vehicle encased in a cage -- Caldwell echoed a sentiment shared by many in his squad: "They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi army can't stand up on their own."
Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq rests on a key assumption: that the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can produce a well-disciplined, impartial army capable of taking the lead in securing Baghdad. U.S. troops, the president said, would now play more of a background role.
The day after his speech, the soldiers of Apache Company went on a mission to the volatile neighborhood of Hurriyah that underscored the challenges confronting U.S. troops as they attempt to clear neighborhoods of sectarian fighters and keep them that way under Iraqi control.
Across Baghdad, Iraq's mostly Shiite security forces have proved unable to keep neighborhoods secure on their own. Sunni Arabs deeply mistrust the army and police, viewing them as a sectarian weapon of the Shiite-led government. Iraqi army commanders say their soldiers lack training and equipment, while some U.S. officials worry that Iraq's troops are too dependent on their American counterparts and will become even more so with the expected surge.
The Stryker rolled through the mud of Camp Liberty and made its way to Hurriyah, a mostly Shiite area nestled west of the Tigris River. Apache Company's mission: to search a few houses for weapons caches based on intelligence reports. Caldwell and his soldiers worried about the intelligence they had been given. It had come from an Iraqi army -- or "IA," in U.S. soldier lingo -- officer a week ago. They wondered whether they were being set up for an ambush.
"It's a joke," said Pfc. Drew Merrell, 22, of Jefferson City, Mo., shaking his head and flashing a smile as the Stryker rolled through Baghdad.
"They feed us what they want," said Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., referring to the intelligence. "I guarantee that everyone in the city knows where we're going. Because the IA told them. The only thing they don't know is how big a force we're coming with."
On this morning, 22 U.S. soldiers were in the Stryker convoy along with one Iraqi interpreter, whom the soldiers called Joey. He didn't want his real name used for security reasons.
"Pretty soon the Shiites will be tired of our presence, just like the Sunnis," said Lake, noting that the squad now makes almost daily trips to Hurriyah.
"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here," Caldwell said. "We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's an ongoing battle. It never ends."
"We're constantly being told that it's not our fight. It is their fight," said Sgt. Jose Reynoso, 24, of Yuma, Ariz., speaking of the Iraqi army. "But that's not the case. Whenever we go and ask them for guys, they almost always say no, and we have to do the job ourselves."
"You do have corruption problems among the ranks," said Sgt. Justin Hill, 24, of Abilene Tex., the squad leader. "I don't know what they can do about that. They have militias inside them. They are pretty much everywhere."
"The intel they give us and the intel we get are two different things," Lake said.
Caldwell, as he listened to the conversation, leaned his head back and said:
"I want to go back and play my PlayStation." 'We Need the Americans'
In Hurriyah, the convoy pulled up outside the Muheaman Mosque, a tan Sunni house of worship overlooking a dirt field with junked cars. Last month, militiamen from the Mahdi Army, the force of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, killed several mosque workers. Now, an Iraqi army unit, with all Shiites, was stationed inside the mosque. The area, they said, was controlled by the Mahdi force.
Lt. Dan Futrell, 23, of Santa Clara, Calif., walked into the mosque, flanked by his comrades. Unarmed, bleary-eyed Iraqi soldiers greeted him and called for their commander, Maj. Saad Khalid Fetlawi, who wore a red beret.
Futrell asked him for 10 Iraqi soldiers to help search the targeted houses. Fetlawi immediately agreed and ordered his men to report for duty. As he waited, Fetlawi said he had heard that the United States was sending thousands of extra troops.
"This is good news. We have a weak government and a weak army. We need training, we need more equipment," Fetlawi said. "We need the Americans to help us go forward. Iraqi army soldiers are not ready to do all this themselves. At the moment, 20,000 is a good number to help us to bring security."
His soldiers came out with old, rusting AK-47 assault rifles and mismatched uniforms. One soldier wore baby blue running shoes with his beige camouflage gear. Some wore black masks so they wouldn't be recognized in the community. Another soldier tucked silver shears into his chest strap.
"This is one of the more squared-away units," Hill said.
"That's something," quipped Merrell, looking at the soldier with the shears. "The Iraqis are always ready to prune a good hedge."
"Okay," barked Hill, looking at the Iraqis. "You guys will lead out."
They walked around the corner, onto a narrow, unpaved street with two-story houses. Residents watched from their walled yards as the Iraqi soldiers politely knocked on the doors of the targeted houses. They went in, followed by the Apache Company troops.
Inside one house, an Iraqi soldier walked up to Reynoso. He had found two AK-47 magazine clips. By law, the family can own only one. The Iraqi soldier asked Reynoso what he should do.
"I am not going to tell you what to do," Reynoso said, clearly trying to wean the soldier from depending on him. "It is against the law, but it is up to you to decide."
The Iraqi soldier smiled. Then, he handed back the magazine clip to a member of the family.
In another house, an Iraqi soldier asked whom he should take orders from, the Americans or his Iraqi squad leader.
"I'll tell your squad leader what to do, and he will tell his squad what to do," replied Sgt. Justin Mongol, 25, of New Market, Va., as Joey translated.
After nearly a half-hour, the soldiers had not unearthed a single weapon. Futrell asked Joey to see whether they were near Mahanara School, as the informant had told them. They weren't. They were near Imam Ali School.
The houses they were meant to search were in another section of Hurriyah.
Some of the American soldiers were angry. They had wasted their time and put their lives at risk.
"Are we even in Hurriyah?" Mongol demanded.
"We're chasing a ghost," Hill said.
They returned to the mosque and asked Fetlawi for a map of Hurriyah.
"I have no map of the place. I came here two days ago," he said.
Still, Fetlawi made a call and was able to find the correct school. He dispatched a pickup truck with his men to guide the U.S. soldiers.
Inside the Stryker, Lake fumed: "A debacle," he declared.
"Same old bull. . . ," Caldwell said, using an expletive. No Help Without Orders
The Stryker stopped along a main street in Hurriyah.
The soldiers walked into a compound, the base of the Iraqi army unit in charge of a nearby checkpoint. The targeted house was across the street. And Futrell needed the help of Sgt. Ahmed Faisal. He needed some of his men to help raid the house.
Faisal refused.
"Our duty is only at this checkpoint, not inside the sector," Faisal said. "We can't send any men with you. I can't work without orders."
So the Americans crossed the street and searched the two-story house. They examined a red trunk on the roof and dug through a pile of sand. No weapons. "I think it's a dry hole," Mongol said, with disappointment.
Inside the Stryker, as it headed back to the base, the soldiers of Apache Company wondered whether they had been given false information by their Iraqi army contact. "They know things we don't," Lake said, repeating what he had said on the way to Hurriyah.
"That's why we're still here. That's why we will be here for years."
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jan 12, 2007 18:25:48 GMT -5
//HALIBURTON.
More troops to lengthen the conflict so Haliburton can finish their contracts and thus collect their bonuses?
Only asking.//
Agreed. The mercenary bastards need to be ousted. We need to lose all contractors except those directly involved with combat operations. Beans and bullets, Brit. I firmly agree with you, sir.
Remove the contractors and reduce the military’s overhead. We need to make it clear to the Iraqis that it’s ultimately going to be their collective show.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jan 12, 2007 18:42:00 GMT -5
//We hear this daily. This is no news...//
If it's "no news" that U.S. forces cannot clear Baghdad, then why is Bush sending reinforcements into Iraq to "clear Baghdad"? He's doing it to save face, or as a prelude to a wider war, but it's not to "clear Baghdad."
//Re: "Everybody knows that the current Iraqi government cannot deliver on any of its promises." Do you know this for a certainty? No one here will challenge your intellect, PT, but I'll ask how you might know this. Granted, a betting man would have grave doubts, but what options do we have?//
Okay, here are the promises:
"To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution."
Of these, sharing oil revenues, holding new elections, reforming de-Baathification laws, and amending the constitution all represent major concessions, on the part of the Shiite majority government, to the Suuni minority, whose fighters continue to bomb innocent Shiites to pieces in the streets. This is a civil war. The Shiites are in a position of strength. Why should they concede anything now? The people who executed Saddam Hussein are clearly in no mood to make concessions to their former oppressors. Thus, these "promises" to the Americans represent a fantasy. They're a way for the Shiites to get the Americans on their side, at least temporarily, in the coming battle for Baghdad.
These two sides won't seriously negotiate until they achieve relative parity; but as along as the United States weighs in on the side of the Shiites, against the Suuni insurgents, there can be no parity. Thus, the U.S. must either fight BOTH sides, the Suuni insurgents AND the Shia militias, or neither.
Bush has chosen to fight both. In doing so, he will bring American forces into contact with the 60,000 men in Al-Sadr's militia; in due course, Malaki will fall. Rumors of a coup, with a new American-supported "moderate" government in the wings, are circulating.
I think Iran has been the true target all along. Iraq was supposed to be the staging ground. Things did not go exactly as planned, but now the clock is running out on the Bush Administration; Cheney has one last shot to make his move.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 12, 2007 19:32:50 GMT -5
And here's what the Seattle Times has to say, straight from our soldiers here at home, soon to head for Iraq.
"Buildup affects 2 Fort Lewis brigades"
(Ft. Lewis is an Army base a few miles south of Seattle, home of the Stryker brigade, and next door to McChord Air Force Base, where BoatBabe's son is serving. Not too far from Whidbey Island NAS, a large nuclear sub base near Bremerton, and another large naval installation in Everett, WA - yes, all right here in "lefty" Seattle area).
Back to the news story - the Stryker brigade mentioned in J*'s post - 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division - are from Ft. Lewis, due home in May or June, but no doubt they will be "extended" well beyond the 12 months they and their families were promised. Meanwhile the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division has had their departure for Iraq moved up from May/June to April, because of Bush's anouncement. No big deal to most of the soldiers, who by the way will have to skip a final training exercise in California, which they will "try to replicate" at Ft. Lewis. Could it be they were doing crucial desert training? I can say with assurance, nothing in our vicinity remotely resembles the desert, so I think replication at Ft. Lewis is unlikely. I hope none of them dies because of that.
Pfc Brian Kast, a 21-year-old from Moses Lake (small town in central Washington State) does find the early departure to be a blow. "My wife is expecting our first child on April 30, and it looks like I'm going to miss it." If I were the obstetrician, I'd consider inducing labor a few days early, or maybe a C-section (normally anathema to a "let nature take its course" type like me), so the soldier could see his child. It might be his only chance.
Two of my UW classmates are soldiers at Ft. Lewis (albeit not with the Stryker brigade). The Seattle papers have daily interviews with the brave stiff-upper-lip spouses who stay behind, and near-daily reports of memorial services for those who perished in Iraq.
Last year my daughter did a newspaper series for her university daily on the "College student - veteran," which tore her up, but for which she won a Hearst award. She was writing about her classmates and fellow students, who included Jessica Lynch. It all feels pretty close to home for me. Too bad that is not the case for many of our elected representatives, least of all the current occupant.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jan 12, 2007 20:45:53 GMT -5
Sorry folks, but as a moderator I'm going to have to arrest a bunch of you guys for posting Iraq stuff in the Irritating Word thread.
This will be placed in your permanent record!
Regards, Mike
Btw, I don't think Barney Fife couldn't have handled that any better.
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 12, 2007 21:30:50 GMT -5
Thanks, Mike. Let's just shoo all of these politicos outta here and talk "words."
Certainly you guys can make a thread to accommodate your interests. Shame, shame. Grinnin' still 'cuz you are my compulsively political friends and you put up with my compulsive derailing as well.
That dang political stuff can creep into the most innocent of threads.
I s'pose you used up your one allotted bullet now, Sweetie. Will Trusty give you another one?
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 12, 2007 21:34:07 GMT -5
Oh-oh. Bet I just killed this one.
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Jan 12, 2007 21:41:53 GMT -5
Naa, just slightly wounded it. ;D ~B~
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jan 12, 2007 22:08:47 GMT -5
Here's an irritating word (actually two words):
Go figure!
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Jan 12, 2007 22:34:49 GMT -5
Sorry folks, but as a moderator I'm going to have to arrest a bunch of you guys for posting Iraq stuff in the Irritating Word thread. This will be placed in your permanent record! Regards, Mike Btw, I don't think Barney Fife couldn't have handled that any better. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Trusty started it with the word redeploy. So Barnie will have to arrest Andy. This ought to be a good episode.
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 13, 2007 0:01:06 GMT -5
Heh. I was just thinking the same thing, Star. If he just hadn't posted "redeploy" all would be copacetic still.
Trusty lit the fuse. Dang, Dude. You rascal.
Is "copacetic" irritating? I got it from Kurt Vonnegut. Does that make it more copacetic?
I'm lookin' back a ways now but how about: Far out Psychedelic
And the forever with us, "you know what I mean?" Or"What I'm tryin' to say" Well, SAY IT!
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Jan 14, 2007 1:18:14 GMT -5
Heh. I was just thinking the same thing, Star. If he just hadn't posted "redeploy" all would be copacetic still. Trusty lit the fuse. Dang, Dude. You rascal. ;D I formally redeploy the undeserved "blame" (one word - jeessh!) to jane who started a "word" thread in the "Current and Political Events" topic. She may want to come on and explain herself! Jane, WHY did ya have to do it? WHY did ya have to treat us this way? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Note to rmn, j*, PT and others: You may redeploy mature discussions about the current conflict without any outside "controls" as long as you keep it on a high level and not get personal - even though you are all ignorant sluts. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 14, 2007 4:07:09 GMT -5
Oh, mercy, Master of us All. You haven't figured out yet that most of us are incapable of a "mature discussion."
Your expectations are so unreasonably high.
|
|
|
Post by hartlikeawheel on Jan 14, 2007 4:08:24 GMT -5
And in spite of our differences it it is good to see PT back with us.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jan 14, 2007 5:03:45 GMT -5
Thank you. That's nice.
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Jan 14, 2007 7:42:19 GMT -5
Most irritating word of the year?
Nice.
|
|