A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
I enjoyed the President’s speech as well. While I haven’t been very supportive of the President’s plan to send in more troops, there is a lot in his speech that made me at least soften my opinion, while still not fully getting onboard:
I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The prime minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”
I also think it was important for the President to mention that his plan will not end the insurgency. As a matter of fact, I think there will be a temporary spike as the terrorists test our resolve and that of the American people and dig our feet in.
I still think that more needs to be done. Sending in more troops without changing the ROE is a mistake in my opinion. He can send in 100,000 troops into Baghdad, but it won’t make a lick of difference if they can’t shoot until shot at. As it currently stands, the last time I was in Iraq I couldn’t shoot at a terrorist putting in an IED because he wasn’t physically threatening me. He never fired a shot. My friends that are over have told me that nothing has changed in that respect. We need to be able to shoot anyone seen putting in an IED on the spot. Perhaps that will send a message to others as they drive past his body slumped over an inert bomb (obviously, we’d disable the thing and remove the explosives so no one else is injured).
I also think the decision to share oil revenues, something done in Alaska, with the Iraqi people is an important step towards ending the poverty and joblessness in the country. Iraq is producing more oil than ever in its entire history. I’m sure you’ve only read that here. Most Americans don’t get to hear that kind of good news. With more money flowing through the economy, more Iraqis will seek out jobs leading them to more security. More security means we can redeploy and focus on other threats and the remnants of Al Qaeda elsewhere.
There is one thing that has been gnawing on my for weeks. When I first went into Iraq in late 2003, all I ever heard about from opponents of the President was how we didn’t put enough boots on the ground to stop the looting. Then we didn’t put enough boots on the ground to prevent Fallujah. Then we didn’t put enough boots on the ground to stop our Soldiers from getting killed. There were never enough boots on the ground. Finally, the president dedicates 21,500 troops to increase levels and Democrats want to complain that more boots are getting put on the ground. We’re in trouble when our elected politicians create lose/lose situations when our President and military is trying to win.
(30) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
555FAA71-9003-E525-37025352646A88C8
Hi Gaby, you can email me at tracylin.hogan@yahoo.com and i will ta
Army Review of PTSD Will Reinforce Combat Veterans Not to Seek Help
CJ, we thank you for your service and all you have been through and ho
Army Review of PTSD Will Reinforce Combat Veterans Not to Seek Help
Who would WANT a PTSD diagnosis? Only a fraud would. I would give an
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
HI EVERYONE, I KNOW THAT THIS JOHN BULLARD JR. IS A SCAMMER FROM E
sue
Patriot, I thought I heard them talking about the ROE were being changed now, and that the Soldiers and Marines WILL be able to engage. I could be wrong.
Cpl M
ROE was specificly mentioned in the conference call with Tony. I didn’t mention in my piece, which is a bit of a omission that I will correct later, but we are going on the offensive in Anbar. Baghdad will also get new ROE based on the new plan.
CriticalFacts
I agree generally with the top post, but I also must take note that it seems the President is agreeing with the MSM that things are not going terribly well in Iraq; notwithstanding, however, comments to the contrary that often appear on this blog (been reading from the shadows for quite some time). Indeed, if things were going so well, there would be no need to increase troop levels and change the ROE.
Could it be that the MSM is getting things fairly correct after all?
Hawk
That speech infuriated me. He either has a fundamental misunderstanding of the politics of the region or he thinks the American people are ignorant and stupid. Probably the second since we have proven to be so. His statement that Iran is funding and helping the insurgency is wrong. The insurgency is conducted by Sunnis, the sectarian militias are Shiite. I sincerely doubt that he has any intelligence of Iran helping Sunnis. They are helping and funding the Shiite militias, but he won’t say that because that is who we are supporting. Our Dear Leader was trying to build a case for an attack on Iran in the same manner he used to justify the attack on Iraq, using faulty or made up intelligence.
CriticalFacts
I have to agree with Hawk – America has become a nation full of ignorant and stupid fools; albeit well-intentioned ignorant and stupid fools.
White Rose
I have made a post about this on my blog at http://blog.cindyiniraq.com/2007/01/11/my-thoughts-and-reactions.aspx
You can go there and read what I had to say aobut it all
Gunther
I think we can be assured that the real God is now talking to our President, the man actually assumed responsibility for how things are to go under his new rules of surging.
Good point Hawk, the insurgency is Sunni, and now that we seem to be siding with our sworn mortal enemies, the iranian shia, it is pretty likely that the insurgency will now fight to the death, and will be taking some more of our boys with them. Bush made sure they’ll have plenty of targets.
The irony is all the effort will go to strengthen iran. Being stupid, “aint nothin for it.
When Israel bombs iran, our men and women are going to be in the middle.
When it is all over, Exxon and BP will be sucking the oil out of iraq, and if things go to plan, it will yield profits like in Nigeria, all for us, none for the locals. The way it was meant to be.
“Don’t invest in the truth, there is no money in it”. George Herbert Walker Bush, w’s daddy.
sue
Cindy, thank you for your insight over on your blog. You make a lot of excellent points. Our Soldiers and Marines have long been frustrated by the ROE and now, maybe they can DO their jobs.
Esoterik
“it seems the President is agreeing with the MSM that things are not going terribly well in Iraq”
As much as it would make a whole lot of the President’s detractors and those who are constantly seeking to obfuscate reality squeal like silly little high school girls in delight; no he isn’t.
“Indeed, if things were going so well, there would be no need to increase troop levels and change the ROE.”
Wrong again. If you paid any attention to what is often pointed out in the various Blogs such as this one that are available, you would be able to see past the blanket advocacy of the MSM that everything is bad, bad and more bad. You would be able to discern that the constant mantra of the “anti-war at any cost left” of “we have lost”, disingenuously repeated by every self serving career politician from either side of the isle who are more concerned with their personal political agenda then the security of our country; is inaccurate. You would note that of the 18 some provinces in Iraq, there remain essentially only three with major insurgency activity. You would note that even in the midst of what is admittedly substantial instability, Iraq has managed to consistently build oil production which exceeds anything it has produced in the last 30 years, as well as build and established other previously unknown indicators of a potentially healthy and dynamic economy. You would note that this has been accomplished in a remarkably short period of time with an “economy” of our forces in country and at risk, when compared to any other similar set of circumstances that has occurred in modern history. You would know that there is ample reason to perceive the situation as it exists in Iraq as successful in light of all historic comparisons and present circumstances.
Bush has certainly owned up to making mistakes in this war, of which the Iraqi theater is but a part, not the entirety. He understands his mistakes, but they are not the mistakes that his political detractors are so obsessed with. Bush’s major mistake was in having faith in the character of the everyday American. Having faith that we would understand the nature of the threat we face. Having faith that we would have the resolve to carry through the “long war” to an appropriate conclusion no matter how long it took. Having faith that our expectation of resolution to the conflict of dynamically opposed philosophies would be realistic. That such resolution cannot and will not be obtained in the relative time span of a CSI Miami episode.
Faced with realization that enough of the public (note I did not say majority) has been deluded into believing we are in the midst of a “failure,” Bush understands that he no longer has the luxury of allowing the war to progress at a reasonable pace. That because of the relentless hammering of a MSM decidedly hostile to the success of any conservative agenda, supported by a liberal political cabal who unabashedly, negatively politicize any circumstance no matter how vital to the interest of our country, for no other purpose but to exploit the uncertainty they create to gain the power they need to infest our society with socialistic ideals and standards; he now has to rush the job. He now has to attempt to achieve in a 24 month period what realistically would have taken the next 6 to 10 years. The sad part is; even if he manages to pull that off, it will never be enough for the liberal left, they will still find something wrong. The sadder part is, they will not allow him the room to even attempt it. They will continue to obfuscate and endeavor to derail. Why? Because they don’t care what harm our country endure, now or in the future, so long as their socialistic agenda is pressed forward. An agenda that has no hope of popularity without the defeat and/or failure of their philosophical antithesis.
“America has become a nation full of ignorant and stupid fools; albeit well-intentioned ignorant and stupid fools.”
You can think that way if you like, CriticalFacts. That just tells us what you are. As for me? Like Bush, I hold a greater hope and faith for the American public at large. And that may be a mistake. But that would not be because our country is full of “well-intentioned ignorant and stupid fools.” It would be because “enough” Americans have become conditioned to believe any problem, even complex international conflicts, should be resolved in a single TV season. They have a hard time taking life in anything more then a 30 second sound bite. That is not as much stupidity as it is habituated impatience.
CriticalFacts
I still have to agree with Hawk. Dick Cheney told the American public we would be greeted as liberators and with roses thrown at the soldiers’ feet. And a lot of Americans believed him – stupid and ignorant us.
PJ
When the ROE is changed to a real war footing then we can accomplish more great things in Iraq. I personally don’t think that will ever happen, but that’s just me.
What’s terribly amusing about this uproar about the troop surge, is that the same people who couldn’t wait to jump on the John McCain bandwagon (Democrats and liberal Republicans) when he suggested more boots on the ground, are the ones squealing now like the pigs they are.
devildog6771
Finally! An intelligent. well thoughtout, and accurate depiction of what is happening here at home in America has been voiced by Esoterik:
Then, probably the most insightful of his remarks:
yankeemom
I live in an area where the majority of people spend most of their time focused on all that’s wrong in the area, country and world. We have more protest organizations and associations in this mostly Democratic area, than most places except San Francisco or Berkeley. These folks spend so much of their time talking about all that is wrong, will go wrong or could go wrong, that there are few solutions ever reached. I’m sitting here listening to the House Armed Services Committee hearings as I comment here and it’s the same thing. All the talk so far is on what has failed. Gates and Pace are trying their darndest to speak of solutions and positive points. Unfortunately, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. I don’t think anything would make them in any way satisfied, nevermind happy.
That is such a disrespectful attitude toward our troops and anyone else trying to make this a success, in my mind. But then, all they want to do is get Bush.
Donna
It seems that Iraq is such a complicated war. You have all the ethnic infighting and then the terrorists coupled with the outside forces that want power. It seems every group in Iraq is power hungry. It is not a war that will be solved overnight. Hopefully it will be solved before we are forced to leave.
Terri
You’re right yankeemom. I don’t think their agenda has anything to do with finding a rational solution in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. I think their agenda has been to refute anything and everything having to do with President Bush, our troops be damned. AS long as they have $$$$ lining their pockets and their agenda to get Bush is met, they could care less. Sad…….
sealpatriot
If people are still bickering over whether we are popular or not in Iraq over discussing how we can get out of there, then we are only getting more ignorant and stupid. So thanks Hawk and Gunther, for bringing up the roses on our feet. As if the Iraqis treat our troops so badly. I think if I had to pick between wearing a uniform in front of San Francisco or having a hot cup of chai and eating eggs and a peice of flat bread with an Iraqi man in the warzone 30 kilometers within Baghdad, I would definately pick the second one with the Iraqi man. For if you thought rockets, missiles and babies crying in Iraq was a terrible forecast for troops. Coming home where the country sets up fake thank you parades and a house speaker who relishes soldier deaths so she could politicize the war more is a whole lot worse.
sealpatriot
Hawk is wrong. How are we supporting the Shiite, and how we are supporting the militias Muqtada Al Sadr is leading when he is in fact one of our primary enemies in Shiite population? Also, how are Sadr’s militia any different than the Sunnis despite their take on religion? They both are fighting over the same crap and feel we are getting in the way of them succeeding in each of their own endeavors. Why don’t you tell me why you decided to call one a militia, and the other an insurgency when even the God Damn news doesn’t even specify whether the attacks are by insurgents or militias? They always call every attack we see on the news an insurgency attack. Why don’t you tell me why CNN called the attack surge I read about last week an insurgency attack when the attack took place in a heavily sunni city. I mean shouldn’t it be a militia attack, because the attackers were obviously shiite? Who else would attack Sunni city(this was Baghdad by the way which has Sunnis on one side and Shiite in the other). Afterall the witnesses told U.S. troops the gun fire came from the shiite side of the city!
sue
hmmmm Perhaps Hawk would like to enlighten us about the Iranians that were just caught in Iraq, and what was it they were doing there??? If they had no purpose other then a knitting circle, why then did their grab make the news?? We all know how the news is so exploitive.
Hawk
We support the Shia by not ensuring the Sunnis are represented in the government. We support the Shia by focusing most our military action on the Sunnis. We support the Shia by not accounting for the weapons we give to the Iraqi Army which are “lost” and go straight to the Shia militias.
The Iranians we captured in the Kurdish North were in at least a known diplomatic office and maybe even a sanctioned consulate. Possibly committing an act of war against Iran. What were they doing there, probably supporting the Shia militias against the Sunnis. There is no doubt Iran wants a Shiite run Iraq. Unfortunatley that appears to be what we are giving them.
sue
Hawk, perhaps you forget that the Political make up of the government in Iraq was ELECTED. The Sunni’s are represented. There was a shift to make sure that they had and even bigger say then their population allowed for in the elections. It is my belief that we are supporting the PEOPLE of IRAQ and THEIR wishes. The duly ELECTED government of Iraq is made up of ALL parties including the Kurds.
I think you need to be doin some more checking on Iranians who have been caught and what they have been doing there. Our Government was incensed when the ones that were caught were deported back to Iran. We don’t know yet the reasons for the raid on the Embassy this past week, but that is not what I was referring to.
devildog6771
HAWK, I believe you are mistaken about Iran preferring a Shia Iraq. Iran is Sunni. However, in Syria there is a sect of Shia that has its heritage to way back when. Iran is courting this group of Syrian Shi to get their help with getting the Shia in Iraq to drive the US out and ally themselves with the Sunni in this effort. Iraq has sent siucide brigades to Iraq and other supporters of the opposition there. Syria provides the main source of access for support material and weaponry. Saudi Arabia’s religious Imans [?] provide the religious training for the religious leaders in Iraq who are supporting the foreign fighters, the Iraqi former Ba’athist’s, and the formeer followers of Saddam and the old military. Sooner or later we will have to address Iran and Saudi Arabia. Of the the two Saudi Arabia may possibly take a more Democratic turn if Iraq succeeds. But they are “Wahabbi” I believe it’s called and they are the basis of the beliefs bin Laden preaches. Iran might not be so dangerous if it didn’t have that nut case president who thinks God is directing him. Syria is simply not strong enough to defend itself so it has little choice but to ally itself with Iran right now.
The main religious leader in Iran is rumored to have died. I find this to be very distrubing because of the four potential choices for a new one includes the president’s religious teacher [?]. He is not someone we want in there. To further complicate things, Israel is rumored to be in the planning stage of “nuking” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Supposedly the delivery system will burrow into the the site in such a manner before the nuke goes off that there will be no subsequent collateral damage damage like when we bombed Japan. If Israel does this as is reported, it will be the first such attack since our bombs dropped on Japan. I have always supported Israel; but, I think if they do this it may be the trigger to fully actiate the Muslim extremist and other Muslims worldwide. With much of the old Soviet Union’s nuclear material and weapons “missing” and “unaccounted” for, such an act by Israel maight just show us who has that stuff in their own retaliatory response.
sealpatriot
You must have no idea how a democratic society works, Hawk. The Iranians did not purchase the government majority in Iraq for the Shiite. Just like here in America, The democrats are the majority, thus they have control over Congress(maybe soon the white house in 2008). Since the other parties are the minority, does that mean they aren’t represented(even though they have representatives)? Just to let you know, there are Shiite who voted for some Sunni, and Sunni who voted for some Shiite. My friend Davoud Ali Kazai is a perfect example of that. When he was electing the council of his community in Iraq, he voted fo the people he thought would do something about his community’s problems. Some of the people he voted for were Sunni, and some were Shiite.
Gunther
Hi Devildog, you highlight one of our major problems, we don’t know who we are fighting. Iran is SHIA, the followers of Ali. The insurgency now is primarily SUNNI, really mostly Baathist. Saddams’ #2 guy runs the insurgency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izzat_Ibrahim_ad-Douri), we said we captured him and all, but he is alive and safe and has just been named head of the Baath party in Iraq, though it has been banned. Pretty reasonable assumption that he is not afraid, or knows what he is about.
Shiites as far as comparisons would go, as to religion, would resemble most the Roman Catholic church in our world, monolithic, doctrinaire. The Sunni, saddams origins, is more like the Lutheran church and possesses many sects, and is not as hard and fast with church doctrines and it is much more heterogenous. These people are the ones who follow Mohammed. To Sunnis he is the prophet and there are no others. The Shia believe because Ali was there at the founding of Islam and related to Mohammed, his lineage should rule all Muslims in a theocracy.
Clearly Saddam did not agree, he killed about 800,000 Shia in the Iran Iraq war with our help and weapons, and intelligence support.
It was the SHIITES that humiliated us the late 70′s with the hostage crisis, saddam was our answer ot this. It worked, really well.
The removal of Saddam and his hanging has opened a pandoras box, much like what occured in Yugoslavia after Tito died.
Why the war has gone off track for me is due to the fact that we have taken the side of our sworn mortal enemies the Shia, there is largely no difference in the Shia of Iraq, and the Shia of Iran. This benefits Iran, and if things go according to the Bush plan, Iran will puppet the government in Iraq. I doubt this is anything anybody signed up for. It was saddams job to keep the lid on that group, which is why he killed so many of them, for himself, and us.
Anyone going over now, give your families a longer tighter hug. This is the new order of the day,and I am sure nobody signed up for it.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_military
As for addressing the Saudi and Iranians, they will do as they please, as after all it is their backyard, and has been for thousands of years. No one from Europe or anyone else has subdued this mind set. They(enemies) have conquered it physically, but have never changed the culture.
We should concentrate on alternative energy, we have the brains for that. Nation building erquires understanding of the culture and players, and to date, even people soldiering don’t who is who, or what’s up.
Sun Tzu would say this guarantees failure. We do not know ourselves, look at how divided we are, and we do not know our enemies, and this Tzu said, will cause defeat every time.
sealpatriot
Maybe people should just put down the whole Sunni and Shiite discussion. I mean I know that there is a huge fight between the two, but trying to balance representation for both isn’t gonna solve Iraq’s problems. Since even if they decide to unclench their fists, there will still be the whole issue uniting them to fight terrorist, and rebuild their own national infrastucture both plitically, governmentally, and economically. Like I said before in some past posts, I don’t believe that neither the militias or the insurgents represent Iraq as a whole. Even if they aren’t a big part of Iraq, they can still make our stay there into a living Hell! However, just because a country made of peaceful people has bad people with bombs, missiles, grenades, guns, and knives, doesn’t meanwe should pull out just because those particular people decided to play nastier.
sue
well said. And there are many instances now where the tribal factions are actually helping the Iraqi army put down the insurgents. They themselves are getting sick and tired of the bloodshed and are trying to end it. I know it has been long in coming. But it is coming. My Soldiers tell me all the time that this is possible and that they are making it work. That the most important resource the American public can provide for them is patience. And unless we are willing to give them the tools they need, including patience, then the failure is not theirs, or that of the Iraqi people, who are now, understanding slowly but surely that they need to step up. But rather the failure lies with all the Politicians, and citizens who will not give them the time they need to accomplish their goals. Pulling out is simply not an option.
Hawk
Hi Gunther,
I would quibble with you on one issue, that the Shiites don’t follow Mohammed, Both Shia and Sunni follow Mohammed, the difference came about as who was the successor to Mohammed, the Shia believe it was the Caliph Ali. The Sunni believe they are heretics.
Iran has been a diplomatic disaster. In the late 90s it appeared as if the Iranian people were becomming more moderate and westernized. they had a fairly moderate leader. The long war with Iraq has skewed there population to be very young, these people are attracted to the western lifestyle. However instead of courting this westernization we called them evil. Believing that we were pursuing a policy that would lead to an eventual war with the US they elected a radical strongman in hopes it would protect them.
As for not understanding how a democracy works, I understand at least one thing. It is not always majority rule. The minority must have rights. The democratic party is not advocating a policy of “political cleansing” by running all the Republicans out of DC. The same cannot be said of the Shia policy towards the Sunnis in Baghdad.
The Wahabi sect of Sunni Islam that is espoused primarily in Saudi Arabia. It was not a major problem for the US until the break up of OPEC in the late 80s and early 90s. Saudi Arabia had very high unemployment and poverty (partly because the oil sheiks don’t want to help there people). To keep there population passified they put them in Wahabi schools and gave them an enemy, us. But always remember even though almost every 9/11 attacker was a Saudi, as well as Osama Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia is our friend.
Gunther
Hawk of course they all worship Mo, that I hope that was implied, I was focusing on the differences. Good though, let’s sort this out so we can decide for ourselves which Muslims you would rather support.
Ali was Mohammeds cousin. There were 3 caliphs before he became caliph, and Ali was ironically killled by a member of his own sect. Should tell all you need to know about which Muslims you really want to deal with.
The succession after Mo’s death goes, Abu Bakr, then Umar(Omar), then Uthman.
Uthman was extremely tolerant ( a sunni hallmark) yet he was killed and his supporters blamed the Ali faction. Uthman was the highpoint of Islamic civilization. They taught Europeans how to bathe, as they were pretty slimy back then. So begins the rift between the Sunni and Shia.
Ali assumed the Caliphate, and introduced the Shia concept of that the family of Mo, had some divine aspect to it, and should rule Muslims in a theocratic manner. Big trouble. Still is. He was killed by his own people that were dissatisfied with him. The two sects have been at odds ever since, until Europeans show up, then they call off the conflict and get busy fighting whoever has interloped.
They have never not driven the interlopers out. This is plain old history.
The rational elements we would appeal to, have never ruled the Arab world in conjunction with western backing, those that would, are killed as collusionists, since forever. There will not be a lasting government that is involved with the west, it is just that SIMPLE!
We are backing the wrong horse in defiance of history. If we succeed it would be unprecedented. I don’t know long it is going to take America for this to sink in. In our current political form, it is seemingly a low prospect.
Gunther
Patriot as a point of history, when saddam controlled the mess that is Iraq, he did so with a combination of 500,000 soldiers and policemen. We are at 1/3 of this. Could it be that saddam knew what he was doing?
I would submit it is why we devoted so much money and energy in backing him. I figure by now, look how saddam dealt with his “terrorists” and you will understand why the ROE has been changed. I figure that we are going to saddamize the insurgency.
Ymarsakar
As it currently stands, the last time I was in Iraq I couldn’t shoot at a terrorist putting in an IED because he wasn’t physically threatening me. He never fired a shot.
Came here from b5.
Anyways, what I wanted to say was that if the media was doing their ponging job, then I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the ROE situation was so mind numbingly crazy in terms of what you have just described. Of course i knew there were problems with the ROE, beginning with the whole “don’t let the Iraqis see the US flag deal”, but I didn’t know the specifics.
If all of America knew the specifics to the problems in Iraq and if all of America knew why things happened the way they were, then I can say most definitely Bush would have had more help coming up with solutions. But since he had to deal with the b****ing, he had to use his own resources. And that, is well, what it is.
I also think the decision to share oil revenues, something done in Alaska, with the Iraqi people is an important step towards ending the poverty and joblessness in the country.
The problem with that as I see it, is that they were trying to do that but the Iraqi politicians were holding it up. So basically if the terrorists are not scared of the US, then the Iraqi politicians will not be scared of the US enough to push through necessary legislation for the Iraqi people. We well know what happens when politicians have a bill, and are in no danger. For Iraq, I am sure our enemies are bribing and intimidating politicians to form “deadlock” situations, deadlock situations that the Democrats automatically do against the Republicans without any need for coercion of course.
all I ever heard about from opponents of the President was how we didn’t put enough boots on the ground to stop the looting.
I noticed that as well, and I kept raising the question on blogs that I commented on when they posted things concerning Democrat resistance to more troops. As I understand it, from watching Jihadist and Democrat propaganda, it is simply their way. Their way of influencing public opinion, their way of obfuscating the True Path to victory. By making it seem as if the “Generals”, meaning Schoomaker in support of more troops and quoting Abizaid against more troops, are against Bush you are able to create this public perception through technological propaganda, of a President that is constantly going against the respected members of the United States of America leadership. And when you combine this with propagandized disasters and distortions from Iraq, well, you get a wave of demoralization. This helps the Democrats by making the President’s supporters get more tired fighting off the constant PR barrage and PR disasters. You really need a counter-propaganda organization to deal with both Jihadist and Democrat operations. Meaning, someone has to be up on the minute and the second, to counter whatever new stuff our enemies come up with. It just can’t be “stick with this strategy for the next six months”. Things move too fast for that. It has be constant updating, constant reformation. Basically you need to micromanage everything, everytime.
It is not so much a priority, though, if you were winning in Iraq. It is kind of hard to propagandize and demoralize the American people into believing that we lost, if boatloads of terrorist corpses are being stacked like cordwood on public television. But if you aren’t killing the enemies on the ground, then you are vulnerable to twists in perception.
The Democrats almost don’t know that their propaganda is transparent, really. Because they know that nobody with the President’s resources are out there countering them. It is sort of like terrorism. Terroists can go to folk’s homes and threaten to kill them, because they know that nobody with the resources of the American nation will be there to protect that home. The Democrat propaganda apparatus is far far weaker because they simply have to lie to get their message out, but they are still very effective because of a lack of any resistance. Propaganda is far better if you have the truth on your side. But regardless of what you have or do not have, not having an instant response to the “Abizaid said more troops would be bad” situation is Bad, Bad, and Bad. However you cut it.
The President needs to expose this kind of deception against the American people right here at home, just as he needs to protect and provide security to Iraqis through coming up with better Rules of Engagement.
Indeed, if things were going so well, there would be no need to increase troop levels and change the ROE.
The way I see it Critical, is that the intentions of the President is not the intentions of the media. Meaning the President is telling you to expect “badness tm” in order to sustain your morale. The media is telling you to expect “badness tm” because they either want to undermine your morale or they want to keep your morale from going up by making you apathetic. So regardless of what they are telling you, it is two separate things in the spheres of communication, propaganda, and psychology.
Could it be that the MSM is getting things fairly correct after all?
Propaganda is not so much about correctness, as it is about effectiveness. The media isn’t even talking about “ROE”. How could they be getting things correct by not reporting on them, eh?
I sincerely doubt that he has any intelligence of Iran helping Sunnis
I concluded the Sunnis were working with the Shia, before Bush ever had the military intel update him on the stuff State wasn’t telling him. It was basically an independent analysis of motives and capabilities. It made sense for Sadr to work with the Sunnis in order to foment chaos, from which both sides would benefit. Sadr may or may not have helped with the Golden Mosque bombing, but if I recall correctly recent intel captures indicate that Iran did help the Sunni insurgency, if not with the Golden Mosque, then with simple material aid. I bring this up because I heard a direct statement that Iranian agents helped the Sunnis. The reason why Iran needed the Sunnis to attack the Golden Mosque, on a separate issue, is because Sadr’s militias needed the pretext of protecting against Sunni aggression in order to seize power and build up. Since Iran is looking to forward Sadr’s power base inside Iraq, Iran is going to want to stir up trouble on the side of the Sunnis, in order to justify Sadr’s military expansionism. It is a simple pretext generation technique that the Palestinians use many times against the Israelis. It is not that new, really, nor surprising.
The reasoning I would give to Eso, since I think he would be able to understand it, is that when you are destabilizing a neigboring country, you don’t really care who you support so long as it destabilizes that country. Supporting the PKK so they blow things up in Iran, would also be one of the things the US should consider in return for Iranian interference inside Iraq. Syrian Baathists work with Iranian Shia extremists everytime, there is no ideological handicap. Not when the common goal is to destroy their common enemy, America. As you well know, Eso, certain things concentrate the mind wonderfully. And if Sadr really is Iran’s puppet, then he would go along with Iran’s objectives, while grabbing a little power for his own sake of course.
They are helping and funding the Shiite militias, but he won’t say that because that is who we are supporting.
You are reading Bush rather incorrectly if you think he cares for one political alliance over the other. A man who would work with Ted Kennedy on a bill, and give Kennedy the credit while taking all the blame for no Child Left Behind, is no believer in Shia supremacy.
Eso, your crack about Kennedy was pretty funny btw.
He understands his mistakes, but they are not the mistakes that his political detractors are so obsessed with. Bush’s major mistake was in having faith in the character of the everyday American.
Well, that and believing that he could allow people in government to leak secrets without getting the military to find them, put them up against the wall, and shoot them. Literally or figuratively, Bush believed in the system, but the system sucks in warfare. The system needs “pro-active” action to be good. The media system, the judicial system, the reconstruction system, the State Diplomat system, all the systems were the suck. Bush counted on them to function in this war like he counted on the Governor of Louisiana to call in the National Guard on time. That’s what you get for believing that incompetents will become competent in war. Bush has always trusted in too many people, for his own good let alone the good of America. (Tenet for example)
Unfortunately, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. I don’t think anything would make them in any way satisfied, nevermind happy.
That is because Gates and Rice are trying to be honest to dishonest people. You need counter-propaganda, to counter well, the propaganda that so many people in Congress have believed in. If only because they’ve heard it for the last 3 years. I mean, the system has people so conditioned to the Democrat lines that even when the Democrats do a 180 reverse on “troops”, nobody even notices. It is like a magician trick, nobody notices. Well, maybe they do notice, but they don’t talk about it, they don’t use it as a weapon in the information war. It is kind of hard for the President to win when all of his “mistakes” (so called) are scrutinized, but the Democrats make all kinds of blunders and few people even talk about them. Why? Because it isn’t something you need to solve the problem. BUT It is Something You Need to counter the Democrat obstruction, which while it doesn’t solve the problem in Iraq, it helps though.
Go on the attack. Don’t just sit there and take it. Applies both here at home and in Iraq as well.
Possibly committing an act of war against Iran.
Which sort of conflicts with the notion that Bush supports the Shias over the Sunnis if he just ordered an act of war against an Iranian consulate. The logic doesn’t work, but then again, why should it?
Unfortunatley that appears to be what we are giving them.
Take a look at both of the above quotes. Bush is committing acts of war against Iran and this means that “we” or “he” is giving them Iraq. Something doesn’t parse.
Our Government was incensed when the ones that were caught were deported back to Iran.
There’s some fog of war over that, Sue. I heard that only one of them was sent back, the others detained by the US military. Which, presumably, were the ones who did the snatch.
Link
The WaPo reports that the State Depos wanted to send 2 back to Iran and the Pentagon guys disagreed. State won. Well, that is not surprising. State knows what Iran is doing, and if they can send more people back to Iran that could tell Bush what was “really going on”, then this would hurt the policies of State. Holding 2 Iranians for 444 days, would I think, be very nice pressure on Iran even if there is no worthwhile intel to be acquired from the two. So it seems even as Bush pushes and attempts to give orders to fight, that there are still internal problems in his Administration. I mean, look, if State was doing their job, why would they wait until last month to do something about Iran? Obviously they were telling Bush that there was no “hard” data so to speak. But Americans that read miltech blogs already knew as far back as 6 months ago, that Iran was destabilizing Iraq. I mean it was one of those things you just had to look for as part of the guerrila warfare landscape. Figure out the guerrila’s logistics and cut it, and in this case, they kept regenerating because their ties to Syria and Iran were not being cut.
It was the SHIITES that humiliated us the late 70′s with the hostage crisis, saddam was our answer ot this. It worked, really well.
There are Persians, and then there are Iraqi Arabs. There are Shiites and there are Sunnis. But Shiite Persians are different from the more sane branch of Shiite factions in the Arab land. Sort of like how Southern Democrats like Zell Miller are different from Northern Democrats.
Sun Tzu would say this guarantees failure.
Sun Tzu would be the first to tell you that there is no guarantee of anything in war. As with a river, it moves to the dictates of circumstance and happenstance.
We do not know ourselves, look at how divided we are, and we do not know our enemies, and this Tzu said, will cause defeat every time.
Believing that there is no difference between Iranian shiites of the Mullahs and Ali Sistani in Iraq (Shiites) is I believe ,a very good example of not knowing your enemies. Because it obviously confuses allies with enemies, so therefore you would get the knowing of your enemies wrong.
Haven’t you guys been reading Grim over at blackfive?
Saddam controlled things through the tribal system. Sort of like how the mafia does things. His tribe was the Sunni triangle, namely hometown of Tikrit. Saddam even operated his government based upon mob family dealings. Only family members could be trusted for the really high level stuff.
If the US wants to control violence in Iraq, the US must first force all of the tribes in Iraq to ally with the US, and in so doing allying with the US backed Iraqi government. Much progress has been made with Sunni tribes. However, because of political pressure against the invasion and occupation of Shia areas, this has allowed Shia tribes to be co-opted by folks like Sadr and Iran.
There is a way for the US to gain direct control of Iraq, but it requires Imperial infrastructure bureaus which the US does not have. So since the US can’t transplant a power base to Iraq, the US has to use local resources, and local connections. Uncle Jimbo’s Hold and Hangout strategy is a good description of the connections the US needs to build in Iraq in order to succede.
Look, I know some people prefer the realpolitek of supporting Saddam against the whatevers, because you believe Saddam is ruthless enough to do what the US won’t get her hands doing. But this is the 21st century here, the US can no longer do proxy warfare (meaning rely upon Arab dictators to protect us from terrorists). The US will have to do everything herself now, if she wants it done right. Competent help is very hard to find after all. And good subordinates are worth their weight in gold. However, if the US won’t fight in Iraq using US resources and manpower, then why should our Iraqi subordinates be loyal to us if we just cower in the back letting the Saddam lites do our dirty work for us? Will that inspire loyalty to the US and respect of the US? I think not.
Even if they aren’t a big part of Iraq, they can still make our stay there into a living Hell!
if Bush does what he implied that he would, by releasing the ROE limitations on US troops, then the US Marines will show our enemies what “Hell” really is.
Hawk
When I said that we were helping the Shia in Iraq, I meant that was the effect of the policy, not the intention. we appear to be on the verge of attacking Iraq, or why else send Patriots to a region where as of yet, there is not missle threat.
This game was botched when we didn’t plan for an occupation early on and tried to do it on the fly. We allowed large militias to form that have become a formidable power base. We have been playing catch up ever since. Neither the administration, the democrts or the American people consider this project important enough to commit the amount of resources it would take to succeed, a troop level on the order of 500,000 people, a much greater financial contribution and the willingness to negotiate with regional powers to give them stake in this game other than the destabilization of Iraq.