The President's Speech Thread.

[ISiddiqui]

According to John Abizaid, there are more foreign fighters making up the insurgency.

And Abizaid isn't exactly an unbiased observer is he? I learn not to trust what the government says. Hell, the Mission was Accomplished according to the government over a year ago.

The same groups that agreed last week to join the creation process for the constitution.

And won't it be interesting to see how Islamic-based this Constitution comes out, or whether that'll be the next stumbling block before these groups seperate again and go after each other's throats.

If they participate in the next election, be prepared for more Islamists in the Parliament.

Look at the nature of these attacks. They are successful because they are quick hits and hide. Intelligence (from Iraqis) is what it needed to stop them, not more troops to act as additional standing targets.

Standing targets? How about taking the fight to the insurgents by doing more extensive searches in areas where they have continually targeted? More boots on the ground gives us a better chance of finding the hiding places.

It just means we need more people to replace what they were doing before the war.

If the big threat is in the ME, then why do we need to replace troops that were in Germany, for example? The problem is that we don't have enough troops for Iraq and Afghanistan by themselves. That is why we are continuing to lose big chunks of Afghanistan to warloads and fundamentalists. And bin Laden is around that area, FFS!!!!

They've only been in serious training for a little over a year. I think it's reasonable to expect this process to take a little longer.

"Little" pffft. It'll take a decade, if not more. We dismantled the Iraqi army and then tried to create our own and they can't do anything without US troops.

Why don't we agree to do it for another 2 years then re-evaluate our progress instead of panicking when we haven't seen what the Iraqis can handle.

And will you be saying the same thing 2 years from now? And 2 years after that? And 2 years after that?

But realizing we won't be there forever is not the same as knowing we will be out on March 10, 2006 or some such date. Numerous years is a long time to wait, 2006 isn't.

So your solution is the quickly leave during the night so they won't realize we are gone until there is no trace of us?

We have hit every major benchmark in the past year (including elections) and are on pace for the constitution and elections in December. All this stuff needs to happen (as well as the buildup of Iraqi forces) before we will know where we really are and how much Iraqis are willing to take over.

Please, we were supposed to know where we were after the 1st Elections. We were supposed to have the Iraqi forces already doing most of the stuff by this point. We MISS benchmark by benchmark. Didn't the initials elections have to be postponed a couple times before we could actually pull them off? And even then, you had massive groups not participating?

We'll see how that changes when Iraqis have their own laws, government and political system and we are the "France in the 1700s" just helping out.

LOL! Yes, how many years from now? The US basically adopted the laws it existed under (English common law), Iraq is going from having no history of democratic government to functioning democracy in how long now? I doubt we'll still be there by the time Iraq reaches that stage.

I wouldn't be surprised if a strongman took executive power in Iraq with an elected parliament underneath him, in order to get a functioning government.

[Honolulu_Blue]

While Isquiddi's taste in movie's is questionable at best. AT BEST. Wise is he here and right.

There is still some good in him... I can feel it.

[ISiddiqui]

Since I love "Field of Dreams", then since my taste in movies is questionable, I guess that must mean to like it indicates a deficient taste... do you like that movie, HB?

[Radii]

some of you guys early in this thread really come off as left wing nutjobs. Please can't we let the right wing guys come off as the crazys on this board??


I strongly dislike the 9/11 references and the thinly veiled statements that come across(to me at least) as intentionally trying to blur the line between Al Qaeda and Iraq, two very different things.

When Bush was talking about where the insurgents were coming into Iraq from the very first country he named was Saudi Arabia. Does that have any hidden meanings?

Aside from trying to make Iraq equivalent to the war on terror(which is a big idealogical difference between pro/anti war folks I know, so there is no need in my mind to get into that argument again), I had no problem with the address. I disagreed heavily with the invasion of Iraq and believe that every fact discovered in the last year has proven my fears about the war right. But at the same time I'm not about to toss out the words quagmire and vietnam. Since we went there and did what we did, we have to finish the job, and I have no problem with anything Bush said about how we're going about finishing the job.

I would also make a small side comment about the force with which Cheney's "Death Throes" comment is being cleaned up and corrected. Pretty impressive stuff, Cheney is going to be like Dan Qualye soon, they're going to have to keep him away from anything of any substance... the guy is just creepy.

Finally, that was a good presentation by Bush. In terms of public speaking, he did quite well, it was one of his better performances, he rarely(if at all?) mis-spoke, his nervous texas laugh didn't come out very often, and he spoke very clearly and naturally.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

One thing I noticed is that most in the crowd were 0-4 (Major) and above .

[Arles]

I think it's still too early in this process to be able to give a definitive date for a pull-out. It comes down to needing to give the leadership of the country over to the Iraqis and see what they are capable of handling when they run the show. Right now, we are running the show and I don't think the insurgency will slow down until we transition from "occupiers" to "reinforcements" in Iraq. There is still a lot of propoganda in Iraq that states we are trying to take over their country and torture/kill their citizens. Once we hand over power to Iraqis, that propoganda will start to be less effective.

So, the plan I would advocate (and think Bush is doing - to a point) is to continue to train Iraqis, make sure this transition of power happens and (secretly) plan on pulling troops back home at around mid 2006 - assuming all goes well with the elections in late 05. At that point, I would think the fact that the Iraqis have setup the beginnings of their own government will start people believing that US is not there to torture and rule them - but simply to provide extra security until they can handle it on their own. That will limit the effectiveness of the propoganda by the insurgents and should help the Iraqis turn the corner from a security standpoint.

But, if I am wrong, we will have to re-evaluate a year from now and see what other options we have. Still, I think this plan makes some sense and I haven't seen another that would do any better.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it's still too early in this process to be able to give a definitive date for a pull-out.

The problem isn't so much that we need a definitive date, it's that we need some concrete benchmarks and goals, a plan to reach those goals, and progress towards those goals. For an example, we've been hearing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops that are trained or will be trained soon for well over a year now, and there still are not trained Iraqis out there. As another example, the insurgency by all measures is getting worse, but the administration says we have been turning corners for over a year and that they are now in their 'last throes'.

[Izulde]

Now, I'm a political moderate but I have to say, W. has zero credibility with me. He's an inept chimpanzee (and looks the part) who can't even speak proper English, is killing the education system with his No Child Left Behind Act (anyone see a link here?), and has no concept of international or military strategy.

Now granted, I didn't care for Clinton's foreign policy because I thought he was too weak, but at least he had defensible reasons for his tactics.

The last president I respected at all was George H. Bush.

It's sad how tepid our pool of political talent has been in the last eight years. Maybe things will be better by 2008.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im a leaning lefty and even with me your credibility is shot....

?? Both ABC & Fox News reported that the White House advance team instigated the one episode of in-speech applause.

Olie, I was for the war, still am

I would send MORE troops to IRAQ (keeping the fight there means the terrorists cant come here [in droves]).

1. The Army is having much trouble reaching its recruiting goals. Since you believe in this war, and are an unmarried young man, will you enlist?

2. Explain to me how us being in Iraq keeps terrorists from attacking the U.S., especially in light of the numerous Al-Qaida attacks worldwide, post-9/11.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

It's a little harder to find one guy in the mountains than a couple of million guys right in front of you.

Oh?

Asked whether that meant he knew where bin Laden is, Goss responded: "I have an excellent idea where he is. What's the next question?"

Link

Also, I think you underestimate the amount of effort that went into winning WWII.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

Excerpt:

The audience of 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform listened mostly quietly — as they were asked to do to reflect the somber nature of the speech — only breaking into applause when Bush vowed that the United States "will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

As for the report that Bush staffers instigated the only applause, I don't doubt that at all. In presidential politics, few things are spontaneous. After all, I am sure that there are those who were trying to find in the silence, disatisfaction with Bush's speech.

Thanks for the link & further explanation. Chalk one up for Dutch here: we've got the media (ABC in particular) spinning one way, and the White House staffers pushing the other.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Within the next year, I promise you that will be done.

I applaud you for standing up for your principles, then. You can have my respect for that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it's still too early in this process to be able to give a definitive date for a pull-out.

Why, then, would the Iraqi Prime Minister say the following:

Two years will be enough, and more than enough, to establish security in our country

Link

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Since I love "Field of Dreams", then since my taste in movies is questionable, I guess that must mean to like it indicates a deficient taste... do you like that movie, HB?

While I feel "Field of Dreams" is a bit overrated, it's still a good movie. The mere fact that you like some movies that are actually goes nowhere in proving that your tastes are anything but deficient. Like the old saying goes: "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut (or two)."

[Flasch186]

ridiculous to assume that there is ANY date in the future where we can assuredly say, "we'll be out by then." Who knows what might happen. Ridiculous to assume that and attack the admin. on that basis as opposed to the plethora of other opportunities, if you so seek them out.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

ridiculous to assume that there is ANY date in the future where we can assuredly say, "we'll be out by then." Who knows what might happen. Ridiculous to assume that and attack the admin. on that basis as opposed to the plethora of other opportunities, if you so seek them out.

It was also ridiculous for JFK to say we would put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. But it was a date that was thrown out as a goal, and it gave people something to strive for.

For any kind of endeavor, you have to have milestones and checkpoints, to measure your progress towards the final goal. For almost any project, the projected end date is almost always arbitrary, and that is why you have the milestones and checkpoints to see how you are progressing.

With the Iraq situation, it seems there are no ways of checking the progress at all. You have the VP saying, that the end of the resistance is near, the SoD saying it could be up to 20 years, you have the Iraqi PM saying 2 to 3 years, and you have the Pres saying "as long as it takes". I think that people would be feeling a lot better about the situation if there were concrete, defineable points laid out, that can be followed. Instead, what we are getting is "no troops were killed today" or "we graduated 15 Iraqi policeme n without their graduation ceremony being car bombed". I would like the question to be asked of the president why his views on setting timelines for troop use has changed so drastically between now, and when he was running for president.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

It was also ridiculous for JFK to say we would put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. But it was a date that was thrown out as a goal, and it gave people something to strive for.

But there were not terrorists sitting in outer space waiting for the Space Shuttle to show up either. Public goals are fine for scientific and economic issues, but they don't work all that well for troop deployments in wars.

For any kind of endeavor, you have to have milestones and checkpoints, to measure your progress towards the final goal. For almost any project, the projected end date is almost always arbitrary, and that is why you have the milestones and checkpoints to see how you are progressing.

I think there are milestones and checkpoints already in place. The US is about 60% through their stated goal in training Iraqis. There are also the consistution effort in the fall and elections in December. It seems to me that our goal is to have the basics of an Iraqi constitution, elections and the remaining 40% of Iraqi security forces trained by the end of the year. If that happens, I think we can start to talk about drawing down our forces and handing more ownership over the Iraq. The problem is people want milestones and benchmarks for pulling out - but there are plenty there for the transition of power (something that must occur successfully before we can start entertaining the idea of pulling out).

With the Iraq situation, it seems there are no ways of checking the progress at all.

I just gave you three ways above.

You have the VP saying, that the end of the resistance is near, the SoD saying it could be up to 20 years, you have the Iraqi PM saying 2 to 3 years, and you have the Pres saying "as long as it takes".

I think Cheney needs to shut his pie hole on all this. Let Bush, Rumsfeld and the generals handle the speaking on troops forces and resistence. They are much more involved in the process than he is.

I think that people would be feeling a lot better about the situation if there were concrete, defineable points laid out, that can be followed.

But there are. If we can meet the goals set out by Bush on training Iraqis, working on their constitution and holding elections in December, we will be in much better shape to hand over power and soverignty to Iraq. You can continue to monitor all three of these through the end of the year.

Instead, what we are getting is "no troops were killed today" or "we graduated 15 Iraqi policeme n without their graduation ceremony being car bombed". I would like the question to be asked of the president why his views on setting timelines for troop use has changed so drastically between now, and when he was running for president.

The president advocated having an exit strategy when he ran in 2000. And, we have an exit strategy for the war in Iraq. We can exit when the Iraqis are able to control the security issues on their own. Troop pullbacks could be as early as 2006 or 2-3 years down the line. The transfer of power and Iraqi training over the next 6-9 months will go a long way in determining when that date can happen.

But asking the president to tell us when troops will be pulled back right now is akin to asking an offensive coordinator what play he will run at the 5-minute mark in the 4th quarter when we are just finishing halftime. We need to see how some things play out before we can give some kind of pull out date with any degree of certainty.

[JW]

On the issue of a withdrawal date, and on that issue only, two thoughts.

First, from a military standpoint it is a terrible move, as has been discussed above. You don't tell the enemy when you are leaving. It gives the enemy something to hope for. It strengthens their resolve. Battles and wars are often determined based on will, the simple will to continue. The enemy believes we do not have the will to continue. That is their only hope.

Second, from a political standpoint it is a terrible move. First, it opens the President up for charges that he has given up on the war by setting a withdrawal date and that he has determined that the war was a mistake. And the very same people demanding a withdrawal date would make that accusation the second he set a date. That's how national politics work these days, and both sides do it, left and right. Second, if something happens that causes the President to slip the date, then he opens himself up for accusations that he lied and deliberately set the date too soon.

In fact the very nasty nature of DC politics in some ways hems Bush in. He cannot admit he did anything wrong, he cannot do anything but stay the course, or he will open himself up to vicious new attacks. Just as he could not admit in the debate that he had made any mistake, because it would have been used in campaign ads against him (and the question was an obvious setup for that purpose), so he cannot admit mistakes here.

Better to bear the criticism for not setting a date than admit any mistakes or give in in any way.

[Arles]

BTW, for those of you interested, Arthur Chrenkoff does a real nice job of providing summaries on the progress in Iraq via the Wall Street Journal. In the spirit of full dislosure, he does lean to the right - but provides sources for each of his comments/reports. His article is released every couple weeks and that's where I have gotten much of my information on the progress of the Iraqi troops training and constitution. You can see his full report here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006875

Here are some notable excerpts:

The president of the Iraqi constitutional committee, Humam Hamudi, has in fact announced that the constitutional committee has completed 80% of its work already. In another good news, a compromise has been reached about the participation of members of the Sunni community in the constitutional process:

Under the deal, 15 Sunni Arabs would join two members of the minority already on the committee. Another 10 Sunni Arabs would join, but only in an advisory capacity. . .

Because the 15 Sunni Arabs to be added are not elected members of parliament, they would join the committee's 55 legislators in a parallel body. That 70-member body would make decisions by consensus and pass them back to the 55 lawmakers for ratification.

Brig. Gen. Najah Alshammri, commander of Iraqi special forces, is optimistic about the progress of his forces:

Alshammri . . . said he's finding it easier to recruit for the Iraqi Special Operations Forces, with the number of men signing up rising from an expected 400 to 1,000 this year. . . .

Alshammri also said "the noose is tightening" around insurgents.

"We are taking the lead in every fight, with Americans as advisers. Before, Americans were taking the lead and we were following," Alshammri said.

When U.S forces first went to Iraq, Alshammri fought them, but then switched to working with America.

"Both times I was protecting my country as a military man," Alshammri said.

Here's a section on the overall security effort:

As Iraqi security forces continue to play a bigger role, go on an action with the soldiers of the First Iraqi Army Brigade in Baghdad:

The three-day joint mission with the U.S. forces was a definite learning event for the Iraqi Soldiers, according to 2-156th Soldiers who assisted. The Iraqis began with the process of collecting information on their patrols and eventually a target list was developed. The intelligence came largely from the civilian population. . . .

Staff Sgt. Joshua Robert from Breaux Bridge, La., of A Company, 2nd Bn., 156th Inf., worked with the 1st Bn., 1st IA Bde. . . . Robert said the locals appeared more cooperative with the Iraqi Soldiers, as opposed to raids he and his fellow American Soldiers participated in.

"It seemed like they welcomed them into their houses a lot more than they do us. I guess it's kind of like the small towns back in Louisiana where you know everybody, they were more willing to talk to them," he said.

Sgt. 1st Class Chuck Spotten, a platoon sergeant for D Company, 101st Cav., agreed with Robert.

"Once the sun came up the civilians brought tea out for the Soldiers, they socialized with the Soldiers, and they gave them water," he said.

Spotten also described the scene as the convoy passed through the streets of Baghdad.

"As we drove around the streets it was like a Memorial Day parade," he said. "People were cheering and clapping for their Soldiers and for us, and we had a very good feeling driving through town," he said.

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.

Iraqi military also notes improvement in security situation in Salahadin province, now under Iraqi control:

An Iraqi brigade is exercising almost full control over several towns north of Baghdad, seen as among the most dangerous spots in the country. The brigade's commander Abduljabbar Saleh said his troops were in charge of security over an area extending from Dujail to Beiji, about 170 kilometers north of Baghdad.

"My brigade is capable of providing 80 per cent of security needs across this large area and in the light of the kind of weapons at its disposal," Saleh said.

Most of the area under Saleh's jurisdiction is situated in the Province of Salahideen of which Tikreet, the hometown of former leader Saddam Hussein, is the capital. . . .

Saleh said his brigade coordinated with U.S. troops in his area but it "carried out 90 per cent of tasks" involved in fighting the terrorists and insurgents in the province. . . .

Saleh claimed that there has been "noticeable improvement in the security situation in the province of Salahideen, particularly in the areas under our brigade's responsibility."

He said he had also noticed "a large degree of cooperation" on the part of residents in his area. "We get tips from citizens on individuals and cases threatening the security and life of the people of the province," he said.

And around Balad, the American troops have been increasingly moving into the background:

The role of the Coalition Forces in Iraq has evolved into maintaining security and building a new Iraqi army capable of standing on its own.

Since December, Task Force Liberty Soldiers of Company A, 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment, have been keeping Coalition Forces and the Iraqi population safe while developing the new Iraqi army into an autonomous unit by patrolling the area west of Highway 1 in the Task Force 1-128 area of operations. . . .

Company A, which also now works with Company B, 4th Battalion, Iraqi army, accomplishes its mission by combining all the taskings and incorporating Iraqi army soldiers on every patrol.

"We've been integrating the Iraqi army more and more with each mission we do," said Sgt. 1st Class Dean Kowalke, 3rd Platoon, Company A, 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment. "We work them through the planning phases of the mission, pre-combat inspections and pre-combat checks, then take them out on the mission, watch how they do their job and, when we finish the mission, we have an after action review going over the good stuff and the bad stuff, so they can improve."

The Iraqi soldiers are even beginning to lead missions on their own.

"Right now, they are to the point they are doing semi-independent patrols where our trucks stay in the background [for observation] and they run their own mission start to finish," said Sgt. 1st Class Brian Faltinson, 3rd Platoon Leader, Company A, 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment.

Finally, here's some info on the community support for both Iraqi and US forces:

Iraqi civilians are cooperating more with security forces:

More and more, Iraqi citizens are helping suppress the insurgency in that country, a senior U.S. officer in Baghdad said today.

"The Iraqi people increasingly are exposing the insurgency," Air Force Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, a spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq, said. "In some places there are (terrorist) cells that are concerned that they can't blend into that neighborhood."

Officials at Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq last week reported that Iraqi citizens helped uncover large weapons caches and assisted Iraqi military and police authorities in rescuing two hostages held in two separate kidnappings. One tip, officials said, came from an Iraqi child who led Iraqi Intervention Forces to a small cache in Mosul.

Since April, Alston said, tips from the Iraqi public are up threefold, due in part to an advertising campaign that was launched to make Iraqis aware of resources available to report terror activities.

In stories of increasing public cooperation with security forces:

* "An Iraqi citizen walked up to the entrance of Iraqi Army base in central Baghdad just after 6 p.m. June 5 and turned in a machinegun and several hand grenades to Iraqi Soldiers guarding the gate. The man told the guards he'd seen someone drop two sacks in a field the previous night. When the Iraqi man returned to the site in the morning he found the sacks hidden beneath some grass. Inside the bags the Iraqi citizen said he'd found 37 hand grenades, 105 fuses and the machine gun. Iraqi Soldiers went to the site, collected all the weapons and gave them to an explosives team for disposal."

* A huge cache of explosives--including over 1,000 submunitions and 56,000 fuses--was removed from a factory in Northern Zafaraniya, after the factory's owner contacted coalition forces on June 5.

* "With the help of the Iraqi people, U.S. and Iraqi security forces found a bomb maker, a terrorist financier and weapons caches in Baghdad on June 11 and 12. . . . Acting on another tip earlier, Iraqi police officers arrested three terror suspects--including two foreigners residing in Iraq illegally--and seized weapons and bombs from a house in central Baghdad on June 12." Two roadside bombs were also located and defused.

* Acting on a tip, security forces in northern Baghdad arrested four suspects and seized a partially constructed car bomb on June 15.

* "A local farmer reported, and later delivered, a large weapons cache to Task Force Baghdad soldiers June 16. The Iraqi called officials from 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, and told them of the weapons cache. The farmer then transported the cache to an agreed-upon location and handed it over to the soldiers. The cache included 400 hand grenades, 45 rocket-propelled grenades, two RPG launchers, and a box of ammunition."

* On June 18 and 19, tips from local residents led Task Force Liberty soldiers to two weapons caches containing a variety of bomb-making equipment near Ad Dwar in Salah Ad Din Province.

* On June 19, "an Iraqi citizen offered to lead Task Force Baghdad Soldiers to the house of a man targeted for participating in a car bomb attack on Coalition Forces earlier in the week. The citizen took the Soldiers to a house in the Tamariyah district of south Baghdad. No one was home when the Soldiers checked the house; but as they were leaving, the citizen recognized the suspect's car driving down the street. The Soldiers stopped the vehicle and took the terror suspect into custody for questioning."

* Also on the same day, "a resident of central Baghdad told Task Force Baghdad soldiers about a group of terrorists [who] were planning an attack on a coalition check point in Abu Ghraib and offered to go with the soldiers to point out exactly where the suspects lived. The soldiers investigated the tip and took three suspects into custody for questioning. Later, acting on a tip from a second Baghdad resident, Iraqi army soldiers uncovered a cache of weapons containing three mortar rounds, 13 projectiles of various types, 20 pounds of solid rocket fuel, two rockets, an anti-tank mine, and an assortment of blasting caps, fuses and wire."

* Thanks to a tip from a local resident, a unit of the military police company of the Ukrainian contingent seized a weapons cache outside the town of Al-Kut.

* "An Iraqi citizen's tip helped Task Force Baghdad Soldiers capture eight terror suspects in the Risalah district of south Baghdad on June 20. Shortly after 6 p.m., the Iraqi told the Soldiers he had seen approximately 10 men running from the site of an attack on the Ministry of the Interior compound into nearby houses. The tipster also said the men running into the houses had AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. When a patrol searched the houses, they detained eight terror suspects, many of whom were found hiding in closets holding loaded weapons."

I would suggest that many of you check out this report a couple times a month. Much of this is not highlighted by the mainstream media and there are also numerous reports given on the progress of our security training and transition of power benchmarks.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

The president advocated having an exit strategy when he ran in 2000. And, we have an exit strategy for the war in Iraq. We can exit when the Iraqis are able to control the security issues on their own. Troop pullbacks could be as early as 2006 or 2-3 years down the line. The transfer of power and Iraqi training over the next 6-9 months will go a long way in determining when that date can happen.

But asking the president to tell us when troops will be pulled back right now is akin to asking an offensive coordinator what play he will run at the 5-minute mark in the 4th quarter when we are just finishing halftime. We need to see how some things play out before we can give some kind of pull out date with any degree of certainty.

He advocated both an exit strategy and a timetable. He said they were linked to the final goal of victory. At the time, he said you can have one or the other, you have to have both. But I am certain that no one in the press is going to remind him of his statements before, and hold his feet to the fire on them.

As for the goals you stated above, those are your interpretations. How come these weren't spelled out in his speech? If a president is going to make the important step of directly addressing the public, bypassing the media filters, then wouldn't you want to present the most direct information possible? Instead, the speech was a rehash of stuff we already knew, with no information of what is going to happen in the future, other than "difficult times still lie ahead".

I am not asking him to tell me an exact date of when the troops are going to be pulled back. What I am asking for, from the government, is a list of steps they feel are needed to be accomplished before that can happen. There are many goals floating around out there that you mentioned: the Iraqi Constitution, self-sustaining security forces, the vote, etc. But no coherent plan has been put forth by the government to justify the money and resources being expended.

It is obvious that the ideas of us being met with rose petals and having a major square in Baghdad named after Bush did not happen. To many people it appears that there is no plan B in place to deal with what is happening today, and the speech last night did nothing to shed any light on what the plans going forward are.

[Arles]

Again, I think it's pretty obvious that the transition of power from the US to Iraqis needs to happen before we can start talking about troop pullback. And, theisis scheduled to occur over the next 12 months and president has laid out that plan. From last night alone:

So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track. The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists, and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

We've made progress, but we have a lot of -- a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A large number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We're building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders, and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Today, dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies, and secure its freedom.

To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps: First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.

Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and non-commissioned officers who live, work, and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills, such as urban combat, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.

Third, we're working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We're helping them develop command and control structures. We're also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.

....

They're doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The Assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process, and that is essential to Iraq's future.

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.

Again, once we get the Iraqi troop level to a point of leading more and more security details and missions, as well as get the government, constitutions and elections completed at the end of the year, we will be able to start setting legitimate plans for pulling back US troops. That seems like a pretty comprehensive plan for Iraq over the next 9-12 months.

[st.cronin]

Troop pullback is a silly idea because it's not viable until the conditions are such that nobody will WANT to pull back troops. It just doesn't make logical sense, unless your position is that we should bury our heads in the sand and forget about the mideast.

[flere-imsaho]

The contention that President Bush has already provided a clear "exit strategy" is simply wrong. Nebulous comments about "we'll leave when they can defend themselves" or "we'll leave when the terrorists have been defeated" are not an exit strategy.

I think part of the problem is that the Administration keeps on moving the goalposts, in the eyes of the American people. We keep on seeing milestones go by with no end to American involvement in sight. "Major Combat Operations over", initial free elections, formation of a government, etc....

A good example of this is Arles' "12 months" comment. I'll remind you that Iraq isn't supposed to complete drafting a constitution in the next 12 months, it is supposed to complete drafting a constitution in the current 12 month period that started with the results of the election in January. I believe the actual target date for a constitution (and thus the end of this "interim" government) is still November of this year. However, given that it took several months after the elections to actually form a government, and that key government positions still remain unfilled, and that Sunnis still feel that they don't have a sufficient say in the drafting of a constitution, I'd expect the goalposts to keep on shifting.

I also don't think it helps matters that the Vice President of the United States continues to give the impression that it will all be over soon.

[flere-imsaho]

You know, I find it amusing that we're being told we can't have a timetable because that will encourage the terrorists to simply hold out until we leave, while on the other hand we're being told that at some point the Iraqis are going to have to handle security by themselves.

Logically, unless we're planning on staying in Iraq until there is no terrorist and/or insurgent threat left (which is probably an impossibility), the Iraqis are going to have to combat terrorists and insurgents on their own anyway. So what's the point in not giving a timetable?

[ISiddiqui]

I'd expect the goalposts to keep on shifting.

I have to agree. They've been shifting since the war began. How many months after the first date for elections was set did elections actually go forward? And the American people don't see any end in sight because of this.

I don't see any exit strategy at all, but Bush will push on until the American people get too fed up or the Iraqi people do.

I think of the big reasons Colin Powell left is because all this flys in the face of his own Powell Doctrine, which the President said he believed in. There is no exit strategy here.

Bush should take a page from Clinton's playbook and hand off running the nation building to his father. I have far more faith in G.H.W. Bush.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You know, I find it amusing that we're being told we can't have a timetable because that will encourage the terrorists to simply hold out until we leave, while on the other hand we're being told that at some point the Iraqis are going to have to handle security by themselves.

Logically, unless we're planning on staying in Iraq until there is no terrorist and/or insurgent threat left (which is probably an impossibility), the Iraqis are going to have to combat terrorists and insurgents on their own anyway. So what's the point in not giving a timetable?

This makes perfect sense, and you've given a good explanation of it. We cannot set a definite timetable because it will give the terrorists hope. But we have a goal of remaining until the Iraqis can handle the terrorists without our help. We are simply not going to put a date on that.

If a timetable is announced, then the terrorists can formulate a strategy based on the timetable. By not announcing a timetable -- even if there is one -- they cannot formulate a timetable-based strategy. A timetable-based strategy might be to ramp down attacks for a time and build up resources and then launch an offensive timed to coincide with the departure of US troops. This might have a negative effect on Iraqi morale and give the appearance (as viewed by the media) that the terrorists are winning.

So even if a timetable is set, it should never be announced.

[flere-imsaho]

More breaking of the Army....

The Not-So-Long Gray Line

The Not-So-Long Gray Line
By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV
Los Angeles

JUNE is the month in which West Point celebrates the commissioning of its graduating class and prepares to accept a new group of candidates eager to embrace the arduous strictures of the world's most prestigious military academy. But it can also be a cruel month, because West Pointers five years removed from graduation have fulfilled their obligations and can resign.

My class, that of 1969, set a record with more than 50 percent resigning within a few years of completing the service commitment. (My father's class, 1945, the one that "missed" World War II, was considered to be the previous record-holder, with about 25 percent resigning before they reached the 20 years of service entitling them to full retirement benefits.)

And now, from what I've heard from friends still in the military and during the two years I spent reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems we may be on the verge of a similar exodus of officers. The annual resignation rate of Army lieutenants and captains rose to 9 percent last year, the highest since before the Sept. 11 attacks. And in May, The Los Angeles Times reported on "an undercurrent of discontent within the Army's young officer corps that the Pentagon's statistics do not yet capture."

I'm not surprised. In 1975, I received a foundation grant to write reports on why such a large percentage of my class had resigned. This money would have been better spent studying the emerging appeal of Scientology, because a single word answered the question: Vietnam.

Yet my classmates were disillusioned with more than being sent to fight an unpopular war. When we became cadets, we were taught that the academy's honor code was what separated West Point from a mere college. This was a little hard to believe at first, because the code seemed so simple; you pledged that you would not lie, cheat or steal, and that you would not tolerate those who did. We were taught that in combat, lies could kill.

But the honor code was not just a way to fight a better war. In the Army, soldiers are given few rights, grave responsibilities, and lots and lots of power. The honor code serves as the Bill of Rights of the Army, protecting soldiers from betraying one another and the rest of us from their terrifying power to destroy. It is all that stands between an army and tyranny.

However, the honor code broke down before our eyes as staff and faculty jobs at West Point began filling with officers returning from Vietnam. Some had covered their uniforms with bogus medals and made their careers with lies - inflating body counts, ignoring drug abuse, turning a blind eye to racial discrimination, and worst of all, telling everyone above them in the chain of command that we were winning a war they knew we were losing. The lies became embedded in the curriculum of the academy, and finally in its moral DNA.

By the time we were seniors, honor court verdicts could be fixed, and there was organized cheating in some units. A few years later, nearly an entire West Point class was implicated in cheating on an engineering exam; the breakdown was complete.

The mistake the Army made then is the same mistake it is making now: how can you educate a group of handpicked students at one of the best universities in the world and then treat them as if they are too stupid to know when they have been told a lie?

I've seen the results firsthand. I have met many lieutenants who have served in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, practically back to back. While everyone in a combat zone is risking his or her life, these junior officers are the ones leading foot patrols and convoys several times a day. Recruiting enough privates for the endless combat rotations is a problem the Army may gamble its way out of with enough money and a struggling economy. But nothing can compensate for losing the combat-hardened junior officers.

In the fall of 2003 I was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq, and its West Point lieutenants were among the most gung-ho soldiers I have ever encountered, yet most were already talking about getting out of the Army. I talked late into one night with a muscular first lieutenant with a shaved head and a no-nonsense manner who had stacks of Foreign Affairs, The New Yorker and The Atlantic under his bunk. He had served in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and he was disgusted with what he had seen in Iraq by December 2003.

"I feel like politicians have created a difficult situation for us," he told me. "I know I'm going to be coming back here about a year from now. I want to get married. I want to have a life. But I feel like if I get out when my commitment is up, who's going to be coming here in my place? I feel this obligation to see it through, but everybody over here knows we're just targets. Sooner or later, your luck's going to run out."

At the time, he was commanding three vehicle convoys a day down a treacherous road to pick up hot food for his troops from the civilian contractors who never left their company's "dining facility" about five miles away. He walked daily patrols through the old city of Mosul, a hotbed of insurgent activity that erupted in violence after the 101st left it last year. The Army will need this lieutenant 20 years from now when he could be a colonel, or 30 years from now when he could have four stars on his collar. But I doubt he will be in uniform long enough to make captain.

One cold night a week later, I sat on a stack of sandbags 50 feet from the Syrian border with another West Point lieutenant; he, too, was planning to leave the Army. "I love going out on the border and chasing down the bad guys," he told me as he dragged on a cigarette. "We've got a guy making runs across the border from Syria in a white Toyota pickup who we've been trying to catch for two months; we call him the jackrabbit.

"He gets away from us every time, and I really admire the guy. But when we catch him, there'll be somebody else right behind him. What's the use? Guys are dying, for what?"

A couple of weeks ago, I got an e-mail message from another West Point lieutenant; he was writing from a laptop in a bunker somewhere in Iraq. "I'm getting out as soon as I can," he wrote. "Everyone I know plans on getting out, with a few exceptions. What have you got to look forward to? If you come back from a tour of getting the job done in war, it's to a battalion commander who cares more about the shine on your boots and how your trucks are parked in the motor pool than about the fitness of your unit for war."

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

When members of the West Point class of 1969 and other young officers resigned nearly en masse in the mid-1970's because of Vietnam, Washington had a fix. Way too late, and with no enthusiasm, the politicians pulled out of Vietnam, ended the draft and instituted the "all volunteer" military, offering large increases in pay and benefits. Now, however, the Pentagon has run out of fixes; the only choices appear to be going back to the draft or scaling back our military ambitions.

The problem the Army created in Vietnam has never really been solved. If you keep faith with soldiers and tell them the truth even when it threatens their beliefs, you run the risk of losing them. But if you peddle cleverly manipulated talking points to people who trust you not to lie, you won't merely lose them, you'll break their hearts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

If a timetable is announced, then the terrorists can formulate a strategy based on the timetable. By not announcing a timetable -- even if there is one -- they cannot formulate a timetable-based strategy. A timetable-based strategy might be to ramp down attacks for a time and build up resources and then launch an offensive timed to coincide with the departure of US troops. This might have a negative effect on Iraqi morale and give the appearance (as viewed by the media) that the terrorists are winning.

Ah, but I thought that the creation of a democracy in Iraq and the training of their forces would defeat the terrorists. Arguably if the terrorists held off until a turnover that would help Iraq do these things, and then they'd be in a much better position to handle the terrorists, no?

Basically what you're saying is that we can't leave Iraq until Iraqis can handle the terrorist threat, and our measure for that is whether or not terrorists are making attacks in Iraq. Thus, we can't leave Iraq until the terrorist attacks stop.

No quagmire there.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ah, but I thought that the creation of a democracy in Iraq and the training of their forces would defeat the terrorists. Arguably if the terrorists held off until a turnover that would help Iraq do these things, and then they'd be in a much better position to handle the terrorists, no?

Basically what you're saying is that we can't leave Iraq until Iraqis can handle the terrorist threat, and our measure for that is whether or not terrorists are making attacks in Iraq. Thus, we can't leave Iraq until the terrorist attacks stop.

No quagmire there.

Quagmire quagmire quagmire. Grossly overused these days, so it has lost its cachet.

I said nothing like you claim.

We can leave Iraq when the Iraqi forces and government are strong enough to successfully combat the terrorists. The security forces have to be strong enough to defeat the terrorist/insurgent/whatever threat, to keep it at a low level. I never said all terrorist attacks must end before we can leave.

Of course after we leave, the media will gleefully report the first terrorist attack in Iraq and the left will claim that it shows that we failed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

We can leave Iraq when the Iraqi forces and government are strong enough to successfully combat the terrorists. The security forces have to be strong enough to defeat the terrorist/insurgent/whatever threat, to keep it at a low level.

How does one determine this?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How does one determine this?

When we say so, of course!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Our (blind) passion and faith in the red half of the government really pains you. That truly saddens me in a cheap political sort of way- you must hate puppies and children and freedom, too.

Corrected.

Arles and ISiddiqui- I'm quite enjoying this back and forth between you two. It's good stuff

SI

[Arles]

I think we've reached a point where I feel the progress we've made on Iraqi forces and working in the different groups is enough to keep this current course for another year or so before re-evaluating (which I hope/think won't be needed). Others do not sure my confidence level on this.

[ISiddiqui]

I think people are just interested in a political discussion where no one has called the other poster a 'moron' yet .

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think people are just interested in a political discussion where no one has called the other poster a 'moron' yet .

Yeah, that's probably what it really is- more about the issues involved and not just a "but any idiot can see this" "well, apparently you can't, idiot" exchange that passes for debate.

SI

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think people are just interested in a political discussion where no one has called the other poster a 'moron' yet .

Flame War anyone?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think we've reached a point where I feel the progress we've made on Iraqi forces and working in the different groups is enough to keep this current course for another year or so before re-evaluating.

Estimated insurgents, June 2003: 5,000
Estimated insurgents, March 2005: 18,000
Average Number of Insurgent Attacks per Day — May 2003: 10, June 2004: 52, May 2005: 70 (hxxps://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050603.htm)

Trained Iraqi Troops Needed by July 2006: 271,000
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per the Pentagon: 142,472
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per General Richard Meyers: 40,000
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per US Senator Joseph Biden: 4,000 to 18,000

Originally Posted by FactCheck.org, 10/1/04

Bush also said "100,000 troops" and other Iraqi security personnel have been trained to date. That's the official figure, but the President failed to mention that many trainees have received nothing more than a three-week course in police procedures -- what Armitage referred to as "shake-and-bake" forces.

Only 8,000 of the total are police who have received a full eight-week course of training, Armitage told the House:

Armitage: It's 100,000 total security forces, and I don't want anyone to make the mistake that security force equals soldier -- could be policemen, and it could be the eight-week trained policemen, of which there are a little over 8,000, or it could be what I refer to as the shake-and-bake three-week police force, which are previous policemen who are now given a three-weeks course. So it's a mixed bag , but there are about 100,000 total security forces.

Originally Posted by Washington Post, 5/14/05

U.S. military estimates cited by security analysts put the number of active jihadists at about 1,000, or less than 10 percent of the number of fighters in a mostly Iraqi-dominated insurgency.

I suppose that reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of the word 'progress'.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by WSJ

Alshammri . . . said he's finding it easier to recruit for the Iraqi Special Operations Forces, with the number of men signing up rising from an expected 400 to 1,000 this year. . . .

Originally Posted by WSJ

The president of the Iraqi constitutional committee, Humam Hamudi, has in fact announced that the constitutional committee has completed 80% of its work already.

Originally Posted by WSJ

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

Iraqi military also notes improvement in security situation in Salahadin province, now under Iraqi control...

And around Balad, the American troops have been increasingly moving into the background...

The Iraqi soldiers are even beginning to lead missions on their own.
"Right now, they are to the point they are doing semi-independent patrols where our trucks stay in the background [for observation] and they run their own mission start to finish," said Sgt. 1st Class Brian Faltinson, 3rd Platoon Leader, Company A, 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment.

I think it all depends on what people use as metrics. If you focus solely on attacks and estimated number of insurgents, I could see how someone wouldn't think the US is making much progress. But, if you instead focus on progress on the constitution, training of Iraqi forces, percentage of the country handed over to Iraqi control and intelligence gained from iraqi forces, I think you can see a great deal of progress in the past 6-9 months.

[JPhillips]

Will Saletan makes a good case for a timetable.

Stand Aside
It's time for welfare reform in Iraq.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10:39 PM PT


Tonight President Bush explained how he plans to get our troops out of Iraq. "Our strategy can be summed up this way," he said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

I've heard politicians say this sort of thing before. But the politicians were liberals, and the downtrodden people they talked about were needy Americans. As these folks learned to support themselves, government would no longer need to support them, the liberals promised. As the poor stood up, we would stand down.

For 40 years, the central argument of the Republican Party—George W. Bush's party—was that liberals had it backward: If you prop people up, they'll never stand up, and you'll never stand down. You have to let go. As you stand down, they'll stand up.

Which brings us to the occupation of Iraq. In blood and money, it's fast becoming the most expensive welfare program in the history of the world. Like other welfare programs, it was a good idea when it started. Like other welfare programs, it has begun to overtax the treasury and the public. Like other welfare programs, it warps the behavior of its beneficiaries. But in one respect, it's unique. It's the one welfare program conservatives can't criticize or even recognize, because they're the ones running it.

We're "helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy," Bush said tonight. "Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder. ... We're improving roads and schools and health clinics. We're working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we'll help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens."

Deliver a better life for its citizens. Is it any mystery why polls have turned against the occupation? The people being polled are Americans. The people deriving a "better life" are Iraqis. Bush spent half the speech obscuring this gap. He equated Iraqi terrorists with the 9/11 hijackers and kept insisting that we're fighting for "our" freedom and security. But that spin lost its force long ago, when Saddam's weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize, forcing Bush to reframe the war as a democracy-spreading project. It's a noble war, but it's noble because it's altruistic. And people get tired of altruism.

Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard. That's the way liberals talked about the ghetto after decades of slavery and discrimination. Remember when Bush assured us Iraqis were strong, sophisticated, and ready to govern themselves once Saddam was gone? Now he's making excuses for them—and for his nation-building program.

Bush talked a lot tonight about the thousands of ordinary Iraqis who have signed up to serve as police or soldiers. He's right about those people: They're standing up. The people who aren't standing up are Iraq's politicians. "The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly," Bush said. "The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The Assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs."

Plans to expand its drafting committee? The deadline for drafting the constitution is Aug. 15. The elections were five months ago. What have the assembly's Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders done for the past five months? Bickered over every petty dispute. How much of the constitution have they drafted? Zip. Why are they bickering instead of buckling down? Because they can. Because they don't have to cut fast deals, meet the deadline, and give every faction a stake in the government to hold off the insurgency. They don't have to do these things, because 140,000 American troops are propping them up.

Setting a deadline for withdrawal of those troops "would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done," Bush said tonight. But 45 seconds later, responding to calls for a troop increase, he cautioned, "Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight." Which is it, Mr. President? Does our military presence encourage Iraqi self-sufficiency or weaken it?

I understand why Bush doesn't want to talk about withdrawal. He knows terrorists feed on fear and weakness. He knows the surest way to lose this war is to think we've lost it. He sees it not as a story that's been written but as a story we're still writing. That's why he appealed tonight to our virtues: courage, steadfastness, perseverance, resolve. He doesn't believe in objective impossibility. He believes in free will. And he's right.

But ultimately, this isn't our story. It's the Iraqis' story. They have to write it, and they have to start by drafting a constitution in six weeks. If they think Uncle Sam will prop them up till the job is done, the job will never get done. That's what conservatives used to understand about big government, before they started running it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it all depends on what people use as metrics. If you focus solely on attacks and estimated number of insurgents, I could see how someone wouldn't think the US is making much progress.

Why would anyone base the progress of a war on the number of times you are attacked and the number and strength of the enemies you are fighting? That's crazy talk!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I applaud you for standing up for your principles, then. You can have my respect for that.

Just to clarify, I'm a currently on active duty in the US Air Force. A 15-year grizzled vet.

[JW]

Here is one snapshot of the situation in one part of Iraq from someone who should know. I don't think the brigade commander pulls any punches, describing both the good and the bad.

https://www.stewart.army.mil/RMT/Def...my.mil/rmt/_4b

Newsletter #15
Families and Friends of the Vanguard Brigade


It is plain hot -- the 110 degree barrier was broken June 15, and once broken, we had several days of similar temperatures. The upward trend continues, and we have started taking bets for projections on the first day over 120 degrees.


These hot temperatures are made even more difficult for the average Iraqi citizen's quality of life. Electrical power is still very problematic with supply, distribution, and quality problems. Most citizens receive less than 12 hours of power throughout per day with rolling blackouts. While there are water problems, water is normally not a serious problem even with issues of both quality and pressure. However, some terrorists blew up the main water for the western side of Baghdad which could have a significant impact on water supply if the lines cannot be repaired in the next few days. We are working on contingency plans if repairs cannot be completed in time. Despite these problems, there seems to be building boom starting in Baghdad with evidence of new construction wherever we go...we see this as a very positive sign and shows both hope and optimism for the future inside the overall Iraqi population.


Attacks were on the rise in our area this week but we want to put this in perspective. Over the past week, the number of attacks stayed quite low with continued days of relative calm. However, we know that days of calm are normally broken by one day of increased attacks, and we had a sense that an attempt to conduct a big attack may be forthcoming. This was especially true after our successful operations in Baghdad over the past month that reduced the number of car bomb attacks by over fifty percent.


The first significant attack was a suicide vest bomber who went to restaurant and blew himself up, killing five Iraqi police officers and wounding dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians who were just enjoying their Sunday afternoon. The next morning, there was a large attack on Iraqi security forces with five car bombs, some roadside bombs, mortars, and small arms fire. We suspect this attack was disrupted by one of our patrols, but more importantly, the Iraqi security forces fought back hard out of their compounds and did not break. We think the attackers were further disrupted by the speed and intensity of our reinforcement. A police station and a police commando unit faced the brunt of the attack -- five were killed and 17 were wounded. While tragic that these men died while fighting and defending their friends and their posts, the relatively low number of casualties also reflects the growing competence of Iraqi forces. We have all read about similar attacks with much more tragic results. After the attack, we continued to assist Iraqi forces as they worked carefully developed intelligence to capture the attackers. By the end of the day, four attackers were killed (nine if we count the suicide bombers) and over 80 suspects were in custody. Many of these suspects were captured with tips from the local population. In addition, one Iraqi man told us that when the attackers were on the street, they opened fire on the local population to ensure they stayed indoors. This incident may reflect both the insurgents and terrorists growing concern that they are being blamed for the large number of civilian casualties - they have been losing support, but we think they may fear that the little support they still have is rapidly slipping away. Our analysis shows that most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives and look to the future.


Finally, we are extremely proud of every Soldier and their efforts. We had a good week. They are working in some tough conditions, and their performance makes us all very proud.


Vanguard! Rock of the Marne!

Very Respectfully, Colonel Ed Cardon and Command Sergeant Major Gary Coker

[JW]

And here is one more.

Families and Friends of the Vanguard Brigade


It has hovered close to 110 degrees every day this week with some dust storms. These dust storms generally come from the Iraq’s western deserts. The best comparison -- we do not have foggy days – we have dusty days. Some days you can see for miles and on some days visibility is less than a mile.


The major water line for western Baghdad has been repaired. The Iraqi government did a good job in rapidly repairing the lines to avert a water crisis. Some water pressure issues will exist until all of the repairs are completed. We are looking at some projects to further improve the water system. The trouble with the infrastructure is that it is just worn out. We constantly struggle with the balance between immediate repairs and long term solutions.


We wrote last week about the 20 June attack against Iraqi security forces and how the Iraqi security forces showed that they can defend themselves against a large complex attack. This is a great story that is not being told well on the news. Iraqi Security Forces use to take terrible casualties trying to fight off these attacks and in some cases, their buildings were blown up and the security forces were executed. This time, the Iraqi security forces fought back hard and foiled the attack, and they even captured several of the attackers. What a great story, but most of the news effort was on the exploding car bombs, not on the successful actions of these brave Iraqi security forces.


On 23 June, there was another large car bomb attack in Karada. Two car bombs exploded in front of two separate Shia hacinias (mosque). Two other car bombs exploded as first responders arrived on the scene. Iraqi Explosive Ordnance experts defused the last car bomb before it could explode. As we traveled to each site that day talking to the local citizens, there was a sense of resignation to this violence. What was even more amazing was the complete lack of Shia reaction to this obvious attempt to start sectarian violence. Even after a Sunni terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack, there were no mass demonstrations or retaliatory attacks. This small example of Shia restraint is a positive sign for the future of Iraq. This attack may have completely backfired on its intended purpose -- we think it strengthened the resolve of the Iraqis to move forward, not apart.


This week the news was full of stories about violence in Iraq – it must seem to those back in the United States that we are under constant attack. This is simply not true. Hundreds of our patrols went out in the streets for hours at a time with no contact. We had another day with no attacks at all. However, despite our continued optimism, Iraq remains a dangerous place. It has been a tough week for the brigade combat team – it is with great regret that we announce the deaths of Sergeant Duplantier II and Sergeant Joseph Tackett. Our prayers go out to them and their families. They are missed by us all.


Finally, we are very thankful for your support. We assure you our Soldiers believe in their mission and are making a difference. They continue to work hard in tough, dangerous conditions, and they make us all extremely proud.


Vanguard! Rock of the Marne!

Very Respectfully, Colonel Ed Cardon and Command Sergeant Major Gary Coker

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

More breaking of the Army....

The Not-So-Long Gray Line

Your point is what?

You also forgot to add this part:

Lucian K. Truscott IV is a novelist and screenwriter.

Try reading some of his novels and you'll see how he views West Point and the Army. FWIW, most of my classmates (Class of 1996) are out of the Army. There are less than half of us on Active Duty. Our five years of Active Duty service were up in June 2001....before 9/11.

And your point is...?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why would anyone base the progress of a war on the number of times you are attacked and the number and strength of the enemies you are fighting? That's crazy talk!

Hmmm....so I assume you can give metrics on the number of times military (and civilian forces) were attacked...not just attacked, but attempts as well. And while you're at it, please provide the real numbers of the enemy we're fighting. Thanks.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Hmmm....so I assume you can give metrics on the number of times military (and civilian forces) were attacked...not just attacked, but attempts as well. And while you're at it, please provide the real numbers of the enemy we're fighting. Thanks.

Sure, I can help you out there. Go up to post #87 and read it in its entirety. If more information is desired, please direct yourself to www.google.com, and in the search bar type out, "daily insurgent attacks in Iraq," "number of insurgents in Iraq," etc. In fact, www.google.com can be used to search for information on almost anything! Try it out, I'm actually amazed that you haven't heard of it yet. Happy hunting, and if there is any more easily accessible and already-provided-on-this-very-page-information that you need me to provide (again), please don't be hesitant to ask, although I would appreciate it if your next inquiry were not as snarky as the original.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Sure, I can help you out there. Go up to post #87 and read it in its entirety. If more information is desired, please direct yourself to www.google.com, and in the search bar type out, "daily insurgent attacks in Iraq," "number of insurgents in Iraq," etc. In fact, www.google.com can be used to search for information on almost anything! Try it out, I'm actually amazed that you haven't heard of it yet. Happy hunting, and if there is any more easily accessible and already-provided-on-this-very-page-information that you need me to provide (again), please don't be hesitant to ask, although I would appreciate it if your next inquiry were not as snarky as the original.

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 )

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why would anyone base the progress of a war on the number of times you are attacked and the number and strength of the enemies you are fighting? That's crazy talk!

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.

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.

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. I think that's a very short-sighted way to look at the siutation in Iraq. As the Iraqis get closer and closer to taking over complete control, there is going to be more pressure than ever on the insurgents to try to stop it - which means more desperate attacks and more foreign fighters (hoping Iraq fails) coming over to help.

Plus, we are talking about a total of about 15-18K insurgents making somewhere between 60 and 75 attack attempts a month. In a country of millions, there's a very good chance the insurgency will stay at that 15K level for a while. But that does not mean we are not making progess on our goals in Iraq.

[flere-imsaho]

Love the obfuscation of the points here guys. We've now settled into a nice repetition of:

"Facts"

"Those facts don't mean anything!"

"More Facts"

"That author's a jerk!"

etc....

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Your point is what?

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 also forgot to add this part:

Try reading some of his novels and you'll see how he views West Point and the Army.

So this, presumably, makes his viewpoint less valid?

FWIW, most of my classmates (Class of 1996) are out of the Army. There are less than half of us on Active Duty. Our five years of Active Duty service were up in June 2001....before 9/11.

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