Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraq sliced and diced 11 different ways...

    In the immediate few weeks, the new Democratically-controlled Congress will be holding at least 11 different inquiries into different aspects of our occupation in Iraq. This should get really, really interesting...

    In this new era of divided government, the congressional hearing room is where the executive and legislative branches will clash.

    Over the next few weeks, Senate Democrats plan to hold at least 11 hearings just on Iraq. In the House, one of the Democrats' most dogged investigators is waiting to spring his committee on a different mission - suspected government fraud.

    From the war to environmental policy and secret surveillance, the Democrats who now control both the House and Senate are armed with subpoena power and ready to summon panels of witnesses.

    These newly empowered Democrats plan to put the Bush administration under scrutiny like never before.

    "One of the clearest messages of the last election was that the Republican leadership was just AWOL when it came to holding the Bush administration accountable," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
    Miulang
    "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

    Comment


    • Ramifications of the anticipated "bump"

      If Pres. Bush announces tomorrow night that he will ask for an additional 15-20,000 additional troops to be sent to Iraq, the effect on the National Guard and Reservists is expected to be far-reaching.

      Any boost in combat forces would require some increase in reserve support units, such as engineering or intelligence teams. Because of training requirements, National Guard infantry forces are unlikely to be part of the initial increase. However, they would be needed later in the year to sustain a higher level of forces.

      Defense officials say it would be difficult to build up an extra 20,000 soldiers and Marines quickly. Although there is a reserve brigade in Kuwait, building up to the full expansion might take until late March or April, an Army official said.

      The increase is likely to rely heavily on speeding up the deployments of units that had been scheduled to ship to Iraq in the summer, while extending the tours of Marine Corps and Army units already in Iraq that had been due to return home in the late spring and summer.

      ...Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, a member of the Joint Chiefs, has complained publicly that the policy against involuntary second tours has forced the National Guard to cobble together units from dozens of states, rather than sending whole battalions or brigades that have worked and trained together.

      ``Current policies restrict our ability to remobilize reserve component units and, in my view, the current policies are more restrictive than need be under the law and hamper our ability to remobilize the best-trained, best-led and best-equipped units,'' Schoomaker said in December.

      In the internal debates over whether the military should send extra troops into Iraq, the service chiefs have been convinced that sustaining an increase would require sending National Guard combat brigades for return tours as part of what the military is calling ``assured access'' to the reserves.

      ``If you increase'' the force in Iraq, ``part of that requirement will require assured access to the Guard,'' said a second Army official. ``If you look at the brigades that are available, you are going to have to require the assured access.''
      While it might make sense to redeploy active duty troops whose livelihood is the armed services, it makes much less sense to do this with the National Guardsmen, who have lives away from the military. They have jobs which they must leave (and have no assurances that they will have a job when they return), and their families. Since the States have partial responsibility for the National Guard, it's probable that they, too, will register complaints against additional deployments of National Guardsmen who have already gone to Iraq at least once before, because it might leave the states more vulnerable in times of natural disasters or domestic terrorist attacks.

      Miulang

      P.S. Skeptics in DC are saying the only reason the Pres. wants this increase in troops is so that he can prolong the occupation until he leaves office in 2009...so the next President can be the one who has to announce the name of the last soldier killed in Iraq and watch the last US citizen get on the last helicopter out of Dodge.
      Last edited by Miulang; January 9, 2007, 01:40 PM.
      "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

      Comment


      • What the President will say tonight...

        No need to watch the President's speech tonight. Here are the basic items he will impart:

        Americans should prepare for increased violence against our troops and more loss of life.

        An additional 21,500 troops will go to Iraq: 4,000 Marines to Anbar Province (the stronghold of the Sunni insurgency), and 17,500 troops to Baghdad. Total additional cost to the taxpayers: $5.6 BILLION (this is over and above the expected $100 billion the Pres. will request in emergency funding for Iraq next month).

        National Guardsmen will be redeployed (the policy of only being on active duty for 2 years will be eliminated),

        Troops currently scheduled to rotate out of Iraq will be forced to stay there longer.

        Troops that were scheduled to be deployed later this year will be moved up and deployed sooner (possibly without adequate training).

        Troops currently based in Kuwait will be moved into Iraq within the next 2-3 weeks.

        There will be stipulations placed on the Iraqi government for our continued assistance, but no timetable will be issued.

        There will be an additional $1 billion given for reconstruction (what happened to all the money we already sent???!!)

        The rest of his package is here.

        And here is the rationale upon which he is basing his speech. I think it was crafted by the neocon Kagan (of the AEI).

        Beginning tomorrow: expect nationwide protests over the escalation.

        Miulang
        "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

        Comment


        • Re: What the President will say tonight...

          Originally posted by Miulang View Post
          No need to watch the President's speech tonight. Here are the basic items he will impart:
          Thanks Miulang, but I think I'd rather listen for myself without the 'M' filter!

          Comment


          • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

            I HATE this WAR with a PASSION!

            My son and daughter were there at the same time.

            My son-in-law is deployed now.

            My son will be deployed again this year his third deployment in the Middle East.

            They gotta do wat dey gotta do.

            No and's, if's or butts about it. They volunteered to serve our country.

            The nightmare continues....

            Auntie Lynn
            Proud MOM of Soldiers
            Be AKAMAI ~ KOKUA Hawai`i!
            Philippians 4:13 --- I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

            Comment


            • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

              God Bless them all and you Aunty.
              Listen to KEITH AND THE GIRLsigpic

              Stupid people come in all flavors-buzz1941
              Flickr

              Comment


              • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                It was even worse than expected (I watched his speech)...we should all be very very afraid. Now he's talking about starting something with Iran (the main reason why he selected Foxy Fallon, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, to lead the troops in the Middle East) by moving another carrier battle group into the Straits of Hormuz to "prevent the Iranians was sneaking weapons into Iraq".

                As for the President sorta admitting that "mistakes have been made" in the running of the Iraqi occupation, well DUH. And as for his saying the buck stops with him, then why should we let him send ANOTHER 21,500 of our young people into harm's way? Why should we want him to repeat his mistake?

                One of the MSNBC commentators made a very interesting assessment of what those 21,500 troops really mean to our efforts in Iraq: at any given time, only about 5,000 of those troops would be awake and patrolling (or whatever). That's hardly enough to do much of anything except to become more fodder for the war machine. If the President was going to escalate, he should have asked for 100,000 troops to get the job done once and for all. Unfortunately, we don't have 100,000 troops to send to Iraq, so it's another case of "we'll make do with what we have, not what we wish we had."

                Maliki will NOT follow up on his commitments. Hell, he's even indicated he wished he wasn't Prime Minister! At what point will we then say, enough? There was no timetable given; we don't know what the supposed "benchmarks" are supposed to be.

                I like what Sen. Durbin said in the Democratic response to the President's speech: We, the American citizens, have sacrificed our sons and daughters and billions of dollars. We have fulfilled our original commitments to the people of Iraq: we got rid of Saddam, we let them set up their own Constitution, we gave them free elections. Now it's up to them to figure out how to make their country work.

                The President will get his 21,500 additional troops. We will fund the $5.6 billion that will be required. But if this fails, will the President admit defeat? Will the Congress then be willing to put impeachment back on the table?

                We've also got our fingers in Somalia now. Besides killing a reputed al Qaeda leader who masterminded the bombings of the American Embassies in Mombasa and dar Esalaam, our gunships also apparently killed an additional 31 "collaterals". Military experts claim that this kind of precision attack can only be pulled off if there are spotters on the ground guiding the gunships, which means that our Special Forces must have been on the ground (a big no no).

                You know, if the President was the CEO of a company, he would have gotten his butt kicked out of office a long time ago for screwing up so badly.

                Miulang
                Last edited by Miulang; January 10, 2007, 04:53 PM.
                "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                Comment


                • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                  Originally posted by alohabear View Post
                  God Bless them all and you Aunty.
                  Mahalo plenty Alohabear!

                  Auntie Lynn
                  Be AKAMAI ~ KOKUA Hawai`i!
                  Philippians 4:13 --- I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                    Originally posted by Miulang View Post
                    We've also got our fingers in Somalia now. Besides killing a reputed al Qaeda leader who masterminded the bombings of the American Embassies in Mombasa and dar Esalaam, our gunships also apparently killed an additional 31 "collaterals". Military experts claim that this kind of precision attack can only be pulled off if there are spotters on the ground guiding the gunships, which means that our Special Forces must have been on the ground (a big no no).
                    Thought we've always had our fingers in Somalia in varying degrees? Remember Clinton and Black Hawk Down? In Somalia's case, we're on the right track, which is hunting down Al Qaeda. Besides, this time the Somali gov't actually gave their blessing on the op. Only those involved in the op will know this, but spotters on the ground may not be our special forces. Australia's SAS has more than one occasion served as forward recon and spotting for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
                      Thought we've always had our fingers in Somalia in varying degrees? Remember Clinton and Black Hawk Down? In Somalia's case, we're on the right track, which is hunting down Al Qaeda. Besides, this time the Somali gov't actually gave their blessing on the op. Only those involved in the op will know this, but spotters on the ground may not be our special forces. Australia's SAS has more than one occasion served as forward recon and spotting for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
                      Latest update on casualties from that airstrike indicate that none of the people killed turned out to be the al Qaeda operatives, as first expected. So much for accurate intel!

                      The US raid on the Iranian Embassy in Irbil, Iraq (in Kurdistan) would be laughable were it not for the fact that it has further agitated the Iranians and now also the Kurds. If al-Maliki expected to get peshmurga troops from Kurdistan to help in Baghdad, I think this little move will help insure that that that won't happen. Nothing like helping to set up al-Maliki to fail...or maybe that's our intent. Get rid of Maliki and install someone who isn't beholden to Moqtada al Sadr and not make it look like that is the intent of the White House? I wouldn't put it past our President and his neocon bunch of bandits.

                      P.S. the State Dept is claiming that the building holding the Iranians who are being detained is not an Embassy, but they won't say why they've detained the people or what was confiscated.

                      In case you get bored some evening, you might want to peek at this revised manual on counterinsurgency that was written by Gen. David Petraeus, who is now commanding the forces on the ground in Iraq. Know who the enemy is, and what we're doing to combat him.

                      Miulang

                      P.S. It might take a while to load (.pdf). It's about 228 pages long.
                      "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                        Originally posted by Miulang View Post
                        The US raid on the Iranian Embassy in Irbil, Iraq (in Kurdistan) would be laughable were it not for the fact that it has further agitated the Iranians and now also the Kurds.
                        Maybe we should just occupy the "Embassy" until April 1, 2008. The Iranians would certainly appreciate that strategy. Besides the Iranians are not violent and surely haven't been fomenting violence in Iraq, have they?

                        Nothing like helping to set up al-Maliki to fail...or maybe that's our intent. Get rid of Maliki and install someone who isn't beholden to Moqtada al Sadr and not make it look like that is the intent of the White House? I wouldn't put it past our President and his neocon bunch of bandits.
                        So getting rid of al Maliki, who is beholden to al Sadr would be a bad thing? Or is it only a bad thing if Bush and Co. create the strategy?

                        Comment


                        • war criminals of the first order, Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5
                          "... our President and his neocon bunch of bandits."

                          Upon invading Iraq and these years since the CheneyBush U.S. initiated aggression on Iraq, they ceased to be mere bandits. They graduated into the realm of being arrogant, unrepentent, vile and ruthlessly self-preserving monsters who have been permitted by the citizens of the United States whom they govern to initiate and commit crimes against humanity. They are not mere bandits, they are war criminals of the first order.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                            Originally posted by glossyp View Post
                            Maybe we should just occupy the "Embassy" until April 1, 2008. The Iranians would certainly appreciate that strategy. Besides the Iranians are not violent and surely haven't been fomenting violence in Iraq, have they?

                            So getting rid of al Maliki, who is beholden to al Sadr would be a bad thing? Or is it only a bad thing if Bush and Co. create the strategy?
                            If we "occupy" the consulate and continue to hold the credentialed diplomats, that will not only increase the ire of the Kurds, who will be an integral part of a unified Iraq, but the rest of the world community as well.

                            It's OK for al Maliki not to be the Prime Minister any more, but why do we have to resort to subterfuge and lies again? If the Iraqi people don't like al Maliki, why doesn't the Iraqi Parliament just have a vote of no confidence and get rid of him that way? Why do we have to be the instigators?

                            As to the issue of Iran, one thing many of the commentators (who also express lots of concern about Bush's veiled threats against Iran) note is that the majority of the population of Iran is under 30. That generation loves everything western. Why not try to get those people to undermine Ahmadinejad from the inside? You certainly have heard about what's going on in Israel now...the Likud Party (Bibi Netanyahu's hawk party) is gaining strength again, and there has been some indication (although denied) that Israel will bomb Iran if we don't do it.

                            Israel and the US are bound and determined to bomb Iran sooner rather than later...I think it's just a question of who can provoke Iran to react first. One thing we do know about Iran is that if we or Israel do attack it, the battle that will ensue will make what's happening in Iraq look like a picnic on a sunny Sunday.

                            Miulang

                            P.S. In order for us to attack Iran, it would require a reauthorization from Congress. Given the mood of today's Congress, I seriously doubt the President would get his way this time.
                            Last edited by Miulang; January 12, 2007, 10:32 AM.
                            "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                              Originally posted by Miulang View Post
                              If we "occupy" the consulate and continue to hold the credentialed diplomats, that will not only increase the ire of the Kurds, who will be an integral part of a unified Iraq, but the rest of the world community as well.
                              You obviously missed the joke, which may have been a bit obscure, but if you think about our history with Iran you'll understand. Rhetorical question; but is it even possible for the anti-American ire of the all-mighty "world community" to increase? Their ire never seems to arise when innocent Americans/Iraqis/Israelis/Sudanese are the victims of violence.

                              It's OK for al Maliki not to be the Prime Minister any more, but why do we have to resort to subterfuge and lies again? If the Iraqi people don't like al Maliki, why doesn't the Iraqi Parliament just have a vote of no confidence and get rid of him that way? Why do we have to be the instigators?
                              Not exactly an answer to the question I asked. Every good strategist understands the importance of subterfuge and lies in the waging of war - if you want to win.

                              As to the issue of Iran, one thing many of the commentators (who also express lots of concern about Bush's veiled threats against Iran) note is that the majority of the population of Iran is under 30. That generation loves everything western. Why not try to get those people to undermine Ahmadinejad from the inside?
                              This would be an excellent strategy. I doubt we have the necessary assets in place to do it though as the long-range planning of the CIA across the Middle East was sadly underfunded and neglected for many years.
                              You certainly have heard about what's going on in Israel now...the Likud Party (Bibi Netanyahu's hawk party) is gaining strength again, and there has been some indication (although denied) that Israel will bomb Iran if we don't do it.
                              Ahmadinejad has made it abundantly clear that he fully intends to wipe Israel off the map. You think maybe they should wait until it happens?
                              I think it's just a question of who can provoke Iran to react first.
                              I seriously doubt that Iran needs any provocation to do exactly what they have said they are going to do time after time. It's conveniently naive to think that we or the Israelis will have to "provoke" them to do what they repeatedly promise to do. If it makes you feel better to blame the U.S. or Israel, go right ahead, but it doesn't change the facts.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                                Originally posted by glossyp View Post
                                You obviously missed the joke, which may have been a bit obscure, but if you think about our history with Iran you'll understand. Rhetorical question; but is it even possible for the anti-American ire of the all-mighty "world community" to increase? Their ire never seems to arise when innocent Americans/Iraqis/Israelis/Sudanese are the victims of violence.
                                Yes I know the history of Iran and it is ironic that we are now trying to get back into that country since we were the ones who first de-stablized it when we installed the puppet Shah who was then overthrown by the Ayatollah. The main issue with this particular incident is how this is affecting the relationship between the Kurds and the Iraqi government. I'm positive al Maliki and the US generals were counting on getting some battalions of peshmurga fighters (who are ferocious fighters) down into Baghdad. If not handled with some sensitivity, the Kurds could very well end up refusing to help al Maliki which definitely would hasten his downfall.


                                Not exactly an answer to the question I asked. Every good strategist understands the importance of subterfuge and lies in the waging of war - if you want to win.
                                No, this is not the point. The point is, WE were the ones who insisted that Iraq had to have a democracy. So if they are to have a democracy, then it is up to their Constitutional Parliament to determine whether or not al Maliki is fit to be Prime Minister, not us, who installed him in the first place.


                                This would be an excellent strategy. I doubt we have the necessary assets in place to do it though as the long-range planning of the CIA across the Middle East was sadly underfunded and neglected for many years.

                                Ahmadinejad has made it abundantly clear that he fully intends to wipe Israel off the map. You think maybe they should wait until it happens?
                                Look, the State Dept. has at its disposal millions of dollars to use to "spread democracy". If they really wanted to, they could be sending financial assistance to the Iranian underground. Ahmedinejad lost some of his power base after the last elections that were held in that country. The populace is suffering from economic and environmental problems. He is playing a very dangerous game of chicken with the US and Israel, and I think he is counting on trigger happy George Bush to be the first one who flinches. And if Bibi had his way, the Israeli missiles would already be raining down on Iran.

                                Israel has nuclear weapons (thanks to us) and the Likud Party (Bibi's party) seems to be gaining momentum after the debacle in Lebanon and the Palestine. But something else is happening in the Knesset too. Last week, an Arab was nominated to a cabinet post in the Knesset, much to the chagrin and anger of the Zionists. Most of the leaders in charge of the Israeli military have been replaced as have some of the government leaders. So even for Israel, it's a new day.

                                I seriously doubt that Iran needs any provocation to do exactly what they have said they are going to do time after time. It's conveniently naive to think that we or the Israelis will have to "provoke" them to do what they repeatedly promise to do. If it makes you feel better to blame the U.S. or Israel, go right ahead, but it doesn't change the facts.
                                We and Israel need Iran for its oil and its strategic location; Iran doesn't need us for anything but to be the butt of its jokes.

                                Miulang
                                "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X