[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

"We're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said in an AP interview, Oct. 23, 2006.

Now we know where Sen. Graham got the idea that Iraq was on the "verge of chaos." That seems to be the considered opinion of CENTCOM, too.


And that was as of two weeks ago.

[edmondspl]

I myself am a Marine. I spent 5 years in the corps because after my 4 year contract they wouldn't let me out it's called stop loss. The backdoor draft some people call it. Well I just want to put my two cents in and say that I am glad that there are still people concerned with the war. And I hope that everyone could just pray for all the servicemen fighting for our right to sleep safely in our beds without being afraid of anything. One thing that makes us mad is the fact that it realy seems like people don't realy appreciate what we have done or are doing by putting our lives in danger for our country. I have been out now almost 2 1/2 years and it tears me appart to see how carefree most people are about our servicemen. Well enough of my complaining and back to what I was going to write in the first place thank you all of you out there who show any kind of support to our troops

[Ninong]

Hi edmondspl,

Thank you for your service!!!

I think all Americans appreciate what our service men and women are doing. That's why we are so disturbed by the arrogance and incompetence of those whose misguided leadership has placed them in increased danger. And I'm NOT talking about military leadership, I'm talking about the civilian leadership in the Pentagon and the White House.

It was disgusting to see someone like former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who has never worn a uniform, ridicule Gen. Eric Shinseki for truthfully testifying before Congress that in his professional military opinion it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz both said that Gen. Shinseki was "wildly off the mark" and that an estimate of several hundred thousand troops was "ridiculous." It turned out that Gen. Shinseki was correct. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were wrong! In fact, they were wrong about everything.

[Ninong]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A senior U.S. general compared Iraq on Thursday to a "work of art" in progress, saying it was too soon to judge the outcome and playing down violence and friction with Iraqi leaders as "speed bumps" on the road.


Picasso's Guernica

[Ninong]

This editorial will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times on Monday under the headline “Time for Rumsfeld to go”:

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

[schrocat]

authored by?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

authored by?

The editorial board, I assume. They released it to the MSM yesterday. It will appear Monday, November 6, in all four publications simultaneously.

Obviously they don't take positions contrary to the consensus of their constituents or they would lose their subscribers in no time at all. The expectation in Washington, even among Republicans, has been that Rumsfeld would step down before January 2007. Now that Bush has publicly told them all to go jump in a lake, we will probably see renewed bi-partisan calls for Rumsfeld to leave, but not until after November 7th.

P.S. -- I believe this will be the second time that the Army Times has called on Rumsfeld to resign.

P.P.S. -- Those four publications are owned by Gannett since 1997. Stars and Stripes, which is published overseas, is owned by DoD but operates independently.

[Ninong]

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."

There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

-"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

-"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic - especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

-"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

-"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

-"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

-"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

[Ninong]

Check it out!

[SPasse]

Hi All,

Meanwhile…

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Scott,

Yeah, I saw that. That was some Minnesota National Guard troops.

Pretty funny!

[gunfish]

what will you say if the indian soldiers have been going through all this trauma for the last 18 years due to the terrorism spread by pakistan. no one said anything about it and US kept mum even after india showed them the evidences about whats happeneing. it always turned a blind eye. now how our government and people are feeling after getting treated the same way in iraq. now it will understand what those indian soldiers meant. now our government is asking indian government to send their troops to iraq to help them out because indians have become expert in counter insurgency and have experience of working in such fields. does our government think that after treating them that way they will send their troops to iraq to die for a cause not of theirs

[Ninong]

Gen. Mike Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, is retiring Monday and he's already speaking out. You can read his comments about the complete lack of planning for Phase IV here.

As Commandant of the Marine Corps, he was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When he says he asked his "superiors," he's talking about Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Richard B. Myers, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Gen. Hagee says he never received an answer to his questions about who would be in charge of the Iraqi cities they overran on their way to Baghdad. That's because there was no plan for the administration of Iraqi cities after they were captured, just as there was no plan to secure Iraqi military installations that had been abandoned as our troops advanced towards Baghdad. Looters, who would later become insurgents, raided the armories and got away with tons of munitions.

After we captured Baghdad, we allowed looters to ransack the city. Secretary Rumsfeld famously said they were "celebrating their freedom."

[Ninong]

The presidents of Syria and Iraq will meet in Tehran with the president of Iran next Saturday. The purpose of their talks is to hash out a deal to get us out of Iraq.

Here is the official response from our State Department:

The State Department reacted with skepticism about Iran’s intentions in Iraq, but said it was up to Iraq to decide. “It’s their call; it’s their decision,” deputy spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington.

“We have seen statements like this many times in the past,” and there have been several high-level contacts between Iran and Iraq, Casey said. But Iran’s statements of a desire to reduce violence in Iraq “have not been backed up by facts,” the U.S. spokesman said.

As for Syria, Casey said, “The problem is not what they say but what they do.”

What's wrong with this picture? Glad you asked!

On Nov. 19, the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem paid a surprise visit to Baghdad to talk to the Iraqi government. First of all, no foreign diplomats get into the Green Zone without prior approval and coordination of the U.S. Military. That means it was arranged in advance at the highest levels of our government.

Secondly, James Baker's Iraq Study Group, which includes the new Secretary of Defense-designate Robert Gates, has been engaged in secret negotiations with Syria to work out an American military withdrawal from Iraq. This is no secret. It's even being reported in the MSM. Moallem recently met with Baker in New York and Baker and other members of the Iraq Study Group then met with the Syrian Ambassador to the United States Imad Mustafa.

Following those meetings with Baker and the Iraq Study Group, we arranged for Moallem to visit Baghdad where he is urging the Iraqis to agree to a fixed timetable for U.S. forces to cut and run withdraw. And while there, he invited Iraqi President Jalal Talibani to go to Tehran next Saturday to meet with the presidents of Syria and Iran.

Syria wants us to pressure Israel to give back the Golan Heights in return for them helping us to get the hell out of Iraq.

While all this behind the scenes "secret" stuff is going on, Condi Rice last week makes a statement calling Syria "a dangerous state that is behaving in a dangerous manner."

Doesn't anybody tell the State Department anything? I can see where Condi is not going to get along any better with Robert Gates than she did with Donald Rumsfailed.

If Condi is just putting on a show for domestic consumption (meaning to appeal to "the base"), then I don't think it's a very good performance. They still sound like the gang that can't shoot straight. It's about time they all got on the same page.

[SPasse]

George,

Maybe the subject of another thread…

We could discuss the post US withdrawal Iraq as in carved up between Syria and Iran.

Syria doesn’t “scare” me”

Iran of the other hand, we are going to have either to “actively engage” or fight.

Regards,

Scott

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by SPasse

Iran of the other hand, we are going to have either to “actively engage” or fight.

Regards,

Scott

Spit the hook out man.

Not according to the same CIA that was ignored before Iraq.

Like the wise man said,

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

George,

Maybe the subject of another thread…

No, I think we should keep all the Iraq War comments in this new thread instead of mixing them in with the other political threads.

We could discuss the post US withdrawal Iraq as in carved up between Syria and Iran.

We could discuss it right here in this thread. I really hate this topic because there are no good options at this point. We talked about this back in October 2002 in wgscott's "War" thread.

Syria doesn’t “scare” me”

Iran of the other hand, we are going to have either to “actively engage” or fight.

"Actively engage" is what we are doing right this minute! Now if someone would just tell Condi Rice to throw away the old playbook and keep her mouth shut, things might work out. We (meaning the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group) have been talking to both Iran and Syria for weeks now. That's why they're having that summit meeting this coming Saturday in Tehran.

Without writing a 25,000 word essay on the topic, am I the only one who has noticed that politics in the Middle East took a turn for the more radical AFTER we invaded Iraq? We talked about Iran in this forum four years ago, back when it looked like there was a pretty good chance that the secular moderates might be able to overthrow the clerics who control the government. After we invanded Iraq, the more extremist elements in all the surrounding countries used the new anti-American sentiment sweeping the street to their advantage. We haven't advanced the cause of Freedom and Democracy in the region; if anything, we have set it back by a couple of decades.

Militarily, Iran would be a more formidable foe than Iraq if we were to invade. Why we would even consider such an option at this point is beyond my comprehension. Cheney and Rumsfelled were determined to hit Iran with air strikes to take out their nuclear nukular facilities. They convinced Bush that God wanted him to do this because the next president might be too wimpy to do it. The very idea that this option was even being considered drove the Joint Chiefs crazy. No one in the military believes that it would be successful. There are at least three dozen known sites and almost all of them are deep underground. Even with our latest bunkerbusters, we couldn't completely destroy all of them.

Our most recent NIE on Iran concludes that they are five to ten years away from a nuclear weapons capability. I believe it stated that it would probably be closer to ten years rather than sooner. They do not yet have the capacity to enrich uranium (which is the way they're going) to weapons grade. They just barely got it enriched to 4%, which is all you need for power plants. It has to be 90-something percent for weapons.

In the meantime, if we're so concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation, why didn't we do something about Kim Jong-Il?

Any military attack on Iran would lead to enormous economic complications worldwide. Even if we assume that none of the other OPEC countries in the region got mad at us (which is a very big assumption), Iran alone could cause the price of oil to hit $120/barrel. What if they decide to block the Persian Gulf? Could we prevent that??? Probably not.

What makes the neo-cons think that a limited air strike against Iran would do any good? And we can't nuke the whole country, as Rush Limbaugh would no doubt recommend.

When will we learn that just because we have the military might to destroy a country at will doesn't mean that we will be successful in a limited military engagement. War, as the old adage goes, is just politics by other means.

[Ninong]

I hate to even put this up but here goes.



P.S. -- That is so sad for so many different reasons! That has to be one of the most disturbing videos I have ever seen come out of Iraq. What have we become???

[Ninong]

New Survey: Iraqis Want a Speedy U.S. Exit -- and Back Attacks on Our Forces

74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%) In contrast, earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an "open-ended" U.S. stay.

By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would improve if we left. Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis.

[Ninong]

Jalal Talabani, right, the Iraqi president, met Walid Moallem, left, the Syrian foreign minister.

Iraq and Syria restore ties

Iraq and Syria have confirmed they have fully restored diplomatic relations after they were severed 24 years ago.

The agreement was announced in Baghdad by Walid Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, who earlier called for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister.

Relations between the two countries were severed in 1982 when Damascus accused Baghdad of fuelling riots by the banned Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Moallem's visit to Iraq, which began on Sunday, has been the first official visit by a Syrian minister since Saddam Hussein's regime fell in 2003.

P.S. -- All part of the plan initiated by the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker. But don't tell Condi Rice because she's not going to like this.