The President's Speech Thread.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

All I saw were numbers from a reporter who's not even there. How do you know they're true? He doesn't break it down to actual attacks and attempts. If soldiers find an IED and take care of it, that's an attempt. So, please provide those numbers. (I hope that wasn't snarky )

So, in the absence of "comprehensive" numbers (and bear in mind the standard for "comprehensive" can be changed at any time) we should just disregard any numbers whatsoever?

Who's got their head in the sand now?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Because this is not a traditional "enemy", it's a group of insurgents with no home country, no "occupied area" and no real organized front to which the US can attack consistently. To me, it's like we are dealing with an infestation of wasps. You can focus on the number of wasps people have counted and the number of times people have been stung, but that won't tell you the full picture on the progress on removing their hives. By focusing on the Iraqi training and progress for handing over power (ie, coverage of wasp killer chemicals), you can see how close you are to actually removing the nests and hives where the wasps live.

Tell me, when do we take action against Saudi Arabia, where, by all accounts, the vast majority of the money for these operations comes from?

I think the progress that we've made on setting up the Iraqi government, power handoff, training of troops and, most importantly, the groups of Iraqis taking over complete control of security sweeps and missions in many parts of the country all show a significant amount of overall progress that many people could miss if they looked only at the number of attacks against US forces or projected count of insurgents.

It's easy to show progress when you started from nothing. In any complex endeavor the first 90% of the work may go quickly & smoothly, but it's always the last 10% that gets you.

Also, "many" part of the country? How about "some"?

There's a good chance that we could completely pass over power to Iraq, have eliminated 70-80% of the spots the insurgents can hide and have a trained Iraqi security team of over 200,000 people - and you would overlook all of it if no concrete reduction in the number of insurgents or number of attacks occurred.

That's worthless hyperbole. Given that the insurgents can operate from anywhere in the country, if we eliminate 70-80% of the spots the insurgents can hide, then we will have provided complete security and coverage of 70% - 80% of the country. That's unrealistic, given current troop levels.

We can't even provide security for the road from Baghdad to the airport.

Also, "training" 200,000 people means nothing. How many people pass through Fort Benning every year for Basic? How many are really ready to be complete soldiers after Basic? Are the Iraqi security forces getting as good a training regimen as they would at Fort Benning?

Fact is, you can define "training" any way you want, just like the Administration can define "throes" any way you want. At the end of the day, however, it doesn't mean you have a force of soldiers ready to take control of sophisticated security operations.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No point, per se, just providing a viewpoint from a West Point grad & former officer on attrition rates seen amongst officers in the Army today.

You're providing a viewpoint that supports your "side" of the argument.

So this, presumably, makes his viewpoint less valid?

Yes, if you're inferring that this is the viewpoint of other West Point graduates.

The Army did a lousy job retaining your classmates, and, by objective accounts, they're doing a more lousy job now.

Where is your proof that they are doing a "more lousy job now"? What are the numbers on my classmates and the class of 2000? If you know, please post them. Thanks.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How does one determine this?

It is a judgement call, pure and simple. Considering the nature of the internal insurgency and the nature of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, the threat probably will not end in the foreseeable future. But it can be brought down to a level that will enable the US to begin withdrawing. My guess, btw, is that a slow withdrawal will begin before the end of this year.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JW

It is a judgement call, pure and simple. Considering the nature of the internal insurgency and the nature of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, the threat probably will not end in the foreseeable future. But it can be brought down to a level that will enable the US to begin withdrawing. My guess, btw, is that a slow withdrawal will begin before the end of this year.

My guess is that troops will NOT withdraw. There is only political pressure to withdraw the troops as long as there is violence; as long as there is violence, there is no way we will withdraw troops. When/if the violence abates, there will be no political pressure to withdraw troops, so the Pentagon will make the bases permanent, and our guns will be pointed at Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq will be our base of operations for altering the politics of the Mideast.

[Flasch186]

you know what I noticed, is that Oliegirl asked for "what would you have done different". I answered as well as I could, and I got nothing in return. Its as if the question really was rhetorical and getting an answer actually goes against what that question is meant to do....which is actually to give the impression that the left doesnt and hasnt answered it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

you know what I noticed, is that Oliegirl asked for "what would you have done different". I answered as well as I could, and I got nothing in return. Its as if the question really was rhetorical and getting an answer actually goes against what that question is meant to do....which is actually to give the impression that the left doesnt and hasnt answered it.

Either that or the Right don't want to be reminded of the mistakes of their leaders.

[JW]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My guess is that troops will NOT withdraw. There is only political pressure to withdraw the troops as long as there is violence; as long as there is violence, there is no way we will withdraw troops. When/if the violence abates, there will be no political pressure to withdraw troops, so the Pentagon will make the bases permanent, and our guns will be pointed at Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq will be our base of operations for altering the politics of the Mideast.

The operational tempo caused by the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is putting a severe strain on both active and reserve units, i.e., frequent, repeated deployments. It is also hurting retention and recruitment. It also puts a strain on many other things, equipment, supplies, etc. etc. Senior officers would like to reduce the tempo as soon as possible. Some believe that an indefinite contiuation at the current tempo will 'break' the Army. So I do believe a SLOW drawdown will begin as soon as possible, imho by the end of the year.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Tell me, when do we take action against Saudi Arabia, where, by all accounts, the vast majority of the money for these operations comes from?

Ah, the pervebial - "You can't lock up every murderer, so why even try?" argument. I think we should be tougher on Saudi Arabia, but much of the funding isn't sanctioned by the government. This isn't a taliban-afghanistan type deal where we can go directly after the Saudi royal family on insurgent funding.

It's easy to show progress when you started from nothing. In any complex endeavor the first 90% of the work may go quickly & smoothly, but it's always the last 10% that gets you.

That may be, but there is still a great of progress occuring in Iraq that is getting overshawdowed by people focusing entirely on the number of attacks/insurgents.

Also, "many" part of the country? How about "some"?

Did you even read the article I posted? It cites no fewer than four specific instances of Iraqis taking over complete security detail on different areas.

That's worthless hyperbole. Given that the insurgents can operate from anywhere in the country, if we eliminate 70-80% of the spots the insurgents can hide, then we will have provided complete security and coverage of 70% - 80% of the country. That's unrealistic, given current troop levels.

The only way to completely defeat the insurgency (regardless of troops level) is to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis by transfering power and sovereignty back into their own hands. Until that happens, there always going to be group of insurgents running around trying to scare us out.

We can't even provide security for the road from Baghdad to the airport.

It's obvious you did not read any of the articles I posted earlier. Not only have we begun to secure that road, Iraqis are now in charge of that security (something you inferred was not happening with your above comments).

Originally Posted by WJS

Iraqi troops have also taken control over the most dangerous road in Baghdad:

Nearly two weeks ago, a special force of Iraqi soldiers took up their new post along one of the city's most infamous stretches, the link between Baghdad International Airport and the center of Iraq's newly forming government, the highway known as Airport Road.

The first few days proved a hard test for the new battalion of 261 soldiers, according to Capt. Richard Dunbar, one of eight Americans assigned to assist the Iraqis in coordinating their patrols and responses to attacks.

"It was a rough first night," Dunbar said.

The first attack on the troops came before midnight, and one was wounded, he said. During the next 48 hours, one soldier was killed and another six were hurt, Dunbar said.

Since then the gunfire has calmed down, Dunbar said, at least relative calm for the road that many westerners tend to call the most dangerous in the capital city. There have been fewer attacks, and the battalion has begun to gather helpful information from the neighbors, he said.

Also, "training" 200,000 people means nothing. How many people pass through Fort Benning every year for Basic? How many are really ready to be complete soldiers after Basic? Are the Iraqi security forces getting as good a training regimen as they would at Fort Benning?

I think the fact they are taking on more security responsibilities from US troops and helping to provide better intel (numerous instances cited in the above article) shows that they are becoming more effective.

Fact is, you can define "training" any way you want, just like the Administration can define "throes" any way you want. At the end of the day, however, it doesn't mean you have a force of soldiers ready to take control of sophisticated security operations.

Read the article I posted.