At first, one is inclined to read this paragraph of the letter from the Iraq Study Group co-chairs and nod enthusiastically with a few "amens" thrown in, for contained within it is a sermon that our nation badly needs to heed:
What we recommend in this report demands a tremendous amount of political will and cooperation by the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. It demands skillful implementation. It demands unity of effort by government agencies. And its success depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization. Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure — as is any course of action in Iraq — if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus.
But then my less-impressionable, more-critical side kicks in, and I have to say:
Hey, if we had:
- a tremendous amount of political will and cooperation by the executive
and legislative branches of the U.S. government; - skillful
implementation; - unity of effort by government agencies;
- unity among the American people instead of
political polarization; and - a broad, sustained consensus.
We wouldn’t need y’all to be making suggestions.
The reason everybody has overhyped the ISG report for the last couple of weeks, acting like its suggestions were going to be brought down from the mountain on stone tablets, is that we don’t HAVE any of those things.
If our country weren’t so polarized, and if our elected officials were working together — challenging each other at every step, but with the ultimate goal of the good of the nation ahead of all other considerations — the Iraq Study Group would never have been formed in the first place.
Related Posts
No, because the Iraq invasion would never have occurred.
By now, though, we have achieved unity among the American people – they want out. What’s left is for the government to catch up to the people. The legislative branch is starting to fall in line, but the Bush Administration might be a tougher nut to crack.
One principle that might prove useful in achieving the best possible outcome for America, is this:
Those whose predictions have been uniformly wrong, whose prescriptions have been followed, and have led to disaster, should be regarded as discredited, and their further prescriptions should be ignored. The suggestions of those whose predictions have been proven right should be given priority in considering what to do next.
Please just admit you were wrong. Enough of these endless blog topics on what was and is an American failure and “what we just need” to make it all right.
If I’m failing at something, have given it my best shot, should I continue down the same path? Why is your generation, in particular and with W and Clinton as its two most recent, notable heralds, so remiss in admitting its mistakes? Is it because you live so recently in the shadow of the (so-called) Greatest Generation? It seems you’re constantly in a race to make your fathers and mothers proud.
Here’s a newsflash: The TRULY greatest generations are yet to come because they will deal with and overcome troubles that are unimaginable at this current time.
To digress, if those of us who were right all along concerning our inept Iraqi foreign policy can accept the fact that we should have done more to convince you and your like of the errors of your ways, then you should at least be American enough to admit your failure.
If you need a refresher course on the dangers of pride, please re-read Death of a Salesman and then rejoin our family.
Sheesh.
Enough is enough. Spite, spite is the word of your undoing!
The haters of America as the sole superpower have wanted us out of Iraq since day one. Well, Saddam started this war with Clinton in 1998 by hiding WMD which the inspectors knew he had by the documents and machinery. Democrats authorized President Clinton, and overwhelmingly reauthorized President Bush, to “bring about regime change in Iraq by any means possible”.
The UN and others who were lining their pockets with black market oil from Iraq didn’t like Bush breaking up their game. Too bad. Iraq trained the 9/11 hijackers and financed them, so we had to shut them down. Now we are 95% finished. All we have to do is exterminate about 15,000 remaining guerillas.
If we are going to convene a commission, let’s have one of military minds and some counterterrorism experts, to come up with the best methods of clobbering the rest of these terrorists.
There’s only one little thing wrong with your plan, Mary. It isn’t constitutional. Unfortunately for you and people who believe the foolishness that you believe, the Executive Branch of our government is empowered to carry out foreign policy, which includes the prosecution of wars. So, President Bush is going to be a little more difficult to ignore than you’d like. And I like it like that. Ed
You’re absolutely correct Brad. We need to come together in a unified cause. The only cause worth coming together for is to bring our troops home from Iraq NOW. I only wish Mary was right. Sadly, the American people have not come around completely to the correct position on this issue just yet.
By the way Ed, the president IS empowered to prosecute war — declared wars. But the last time I checked we’re not involved in one of those. If congress had the will they could cut the funding to this mess any time.
Ed, I didn’t say anything about who is and isn’t empowered to set foreign policy, although I will note, in passing, that the president does not have unilateral authority to decide foreign policy without any say by the Congress.
What I am particularly concerned about is your reference to the “foolishness” that I and those like me believe. This “foolishness” is believed by 70% of the American people. 60% of the American people believe that we should be out of Iraq within 6 months and 70% believe that we should be out of Iraq within no more than 2 years. Why is a view held by 70% of the American people “foolish”? I understand that you don’t agree with it, but what makes you right and us wrong? Can you provide any reasoning tending to demonstrate that your opinion is right, and the opinion of 70% of the American public is wrong?
Or is your argument simply an argument from authority, with yourself as the authority? But if it is, what are your credentials? So far, all I know about you is that you are a resident of one of the most backward states in the United Staes, with a population of ignorant, uneducated, shiftless freeloaders. What renders your opinion valuable? What have you done or said that gives your viewpoint a weight greater that of the typical conservative freeloader? What special insight have you shown? What accurate predictions have you made?
The folks who now control congress know better than to attempt to force their will by cutting funding while troops are in the field Bud. Or at least I hope they do. As bad as politicians have been at times over the last 200 plus years, they haven’t stooped that low. Ed
Consensus is baloney.
This war is opposed by socialists, haters of America, and partisan Democrats, who have to be ignored and steamrolled. Compromise with our enemy is failure, and this fifth column in America is an enemy of America, an ally of our socialist and Islamofascist enemies abroad.
Lee, the war is opposed by the 70% of Americans who care about America and who personally bear the costs of the war and care about others who bear the costs of the war. It is supported by ignorant, lazy, shiftless, cowardly freeloaders who pretend that their willingness for others to die is a sign of their own personal courage.
It’s interesting that the Iraq government thinks the ISG report, if applied, will undermine their fragile government. But, Iran and Syria are very happy with the report. That sums it up. The Blame America first crowd along with our internal domestic America haters thought the report was just fine. Iran, the venue for the Holocaust Didnt Happen meeting, is aligned with the Democrat left in America. Fine company for them and the bloggers here who want to celebrate a fictional defeat of the US military. Disgrace is the word that comes to mind.
Most of the people, especially those on the far right, who are blogging here are incredibly naive. The ability of the U.S. to influence events in Iraq is pretty much gone. We don’t have the troops, nor is there any prospect of obtaining the troops to conduct any effective security work. Training Iraqi troops is impossible without some sort of viable central government supported by the vast majority. Since we obviously cannot impose this viable central government Iraqification is impossible. RTH has suggested a political solution. While I usually agree with him, on this issue I don’t. Reason? The U.S. simply has no credibility as an arbitor.
The Decider and his minions have pulled out all the stops to create one collosal mess. The Daves, Lees and Brads continue to provide just enough political cover by their undying support for this disaster so that we can’t find a real solution.
The election shows us 2 things. First, American support for the war is flagging. Second, as witnessed by Ned Lamont’s failed senate bid, public opinion still has a way to go. So we fight on and on in Iraq for no reason other than pride.
Sadly, the final outcome is the same whether we pull out now or later. The people of Iraq will ultimately decide their own fate through the shedding of much blood. Why should we shed blood as well? Let’s leave Iraq as soon as it’s logistically feasible. In the end, that’s the best of a lot of bad options.
Bud, I’m not certain, but you’d be surprised what mediation can do in the MIddle East, if one is willing to use it. Of course, if you come with the attitude, well I am 100% in the right, and I’m gonna prove it to you–well, then there’s not much hope. But find the right person, and things can be accomplished.
Middle Easterners have strict clan and family relationships. If a clan leader can be persuaded by an arbiter, it’s surprising what can happen.
Carter might have been able to do the same thing with Iran in 1979, had he looked hard enough. Only a few people would have had the stature, of say, a Maududi in Pakistan (but he died shortly before the hostage crisis), but that doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t have done it.
Of course, most people in power are too busy trying to make sure that everybody knows they are right, and the other person is evil, that they aren’t open to the idea. Of course, Carter knew that anything which smacked of weakness would have cost him the election, but it cost him the election in the end, anyway.
The same doesn’t apply to the Israel situation though, at least I don’t think. Sadat accomplished it, but his time is past, I believe.
Herb, you may have missed my point. I support mediation 110%. My problem is that currently the U.S., with the Decider as president, simply has zero political capital. Everyone in the region is completely distrustful of our intentions. Perhaps someone with mutual respect by all parties could pull it off. Jimmy Carter would be the best. But he is out of favor with ruling party. Perhaps in two years the U.S. can play a leading role with President Obama or Clinton, but right now Bush is so despised I don’t see it happening.
I fervently wish Jimmy Carter would just stay on the peanut farm, or otherwise occupy himself overseeing elections in Guatemala, collecting bogus Nobel Prizes and building “habitats.” This bufoons’ disastrous presidency has left a horrible legacy right down to this day, and we still pay a dear price for his utter incompetence in the 1970s. If you think Iraq is screwed up now, just wait til we send Jimmy there in an official diplomatic capacity. I believe he’d do for the Middle East what he did for our hostages in Iran in 1979: Wring his hands and dither. Right…this ridiculous old fart is just who we need to negotiate with people sworn to the beheading of all infidels (in other words…US!). Great plan Bud. By the way, exactly what qualifications does Barak Obama have for the presidency? What are his accomplishments, other than a ridiculouly left wing voting record on nearly everything, and a smooth oratory style? Again, just who we need as president: An empty suit who is beholden to the kook fringe of the democrat party, which is just about everyone in that party these days. Oh well, I guess if the citizens in this country can stand having Nancy Pelosi third in line to the presidency, they could stomach a shallow snake-oil salesman from Chicago as their leader too. Obama is truly all sizzle and no steak. Ed
Bud, you would have given up on the armed conflict during the inception of our own nation just as you are a quitter when it comes to Iraq. Avoidance of war is not the answer if you want to achieve strategic goals. Who would you give in to next, Hugo Chavez? Iraq will be just fine if we send more troops there and ratchet up the killing machine. It is long overdue.
You go Dave! Peace…AFTER victory. Ed
It’s come down to this: To continue the killing, mahem, suffering, deterioration of our military and all the rest (in Iraq) is now part of the the far-right, wackoo, fringe, extremist element in America. Those who wish to bring the troops home within a year are now in the mainstream, sensible majority. No amount of name calling can change that. Here’s the latest from a new USA Today poll:
“More than half of the respondents, or 55 percent, want most U.S. troops withdrawn within a year, but only 18 percent believe that will happen, USA Today reported on Tuesday.”
“In a question asked of half the adults surveyed by USA Today/Gallup, a record high 62 percent said the war in Iraq wasn’t “worth it,” and a record low 16 percent said the United States was winning.”
To even pretend that stay-the-course is mainstream any more is laughable. The number of Americans who want to bring the troops home soon will only increase. So why wait. Let’s just do it now.
Ed writes (concerning Jimmy Carter):
” I believe he’d do for the Middle East what he did for our hostages in Iran in 1979: Wring his hands and dither. ”
And, I might add, bring 100% of those hostages home ALIVE. And hed did that without providing an enemy state with hostages as Reagan did.
I meant to say …. providing an enemy state with weapons as Reagan did.
Iraq will be just fine if we send more troops there and ratchet up the killing machine. It is long overdue.
Posted by: Dave | Dec 13, 2006 3:55:24 AM
With Christians like this, who needs sinners?
WWJD? He’d reload, of course.
When are you volunteering, Dave?
According to many knowledgeable sources we simply don’t have the thousands of combat troops that you and McCain fantasize about sacrificing in Iraq.
My answer is to re-commission McCain to lead Brad, Dave, Lee and the 101st Fightin’ Keyboarders into Iraq.
Let the mass murder crusade begin! Onward “Christian” soldiers.
I thought Brad, Dave and Lee were in the 82nd Chairborne. When did they get transfered?
This thread underscores with great clarity why we’re in such a mess. It’s crystal clear without the slightest bit of ambiguity that the only rational options are those that include a timetable for withdrawal. Yet the hardcore war bloggers continue to support the open-ended killing approach. The only real debate should be about what that timetable is.
On 12/11 Lee alleges: “Iraq trained the 9/11 hijackers and financed them, so we had to shut them down.”
Why did the 9/11 Commission not confirm this “fact,” Lee? Are they all America-hating Communists/Liberals?
Even the Decider has admitted publicly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Has he succumb to the New World Order Conspiracy or the Zionists or the Free Masons or the Bildburgers or the Templars?
I’m not sure why I expect someone who hasn’t given up on the hoariest of Cold War/John Birch Society shibboleths to suddenly accept reality. Maybe you could ask those nice orderlies in your ward for me.
from today’s State newspaper-
Likely too late to rescue Iraq
By TRUDY RUBIN
The Philadelphia Inquirer
In military parlance there is a concept known as “the golden hour.” This refers to the window of time within which badly wounded troops have a good chance of surviving if they can be evacuated to medical facilities. If this window closes, the chance of saving the wounded drops sharply.
“We have missed the golden hour,” I was told recently by a U.S. officer with extensive combat experience outside Baghdad. He referred, of course, to the chance of stabilizing Iraq.
That’s the feeling I got when I read the much-awaited report last week of the Iraq Study Group chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. The recommendations make great sense, but it may be too late to save the patient.
That said, I believe the report largely reflects the direction in which U.S. policy in Iraq is headed. Even though President Bush has already rejected key points, I think events are moving beyond his control.
The report revolves around two key ideas:
• First, the need for a new diplomatic initiative in the region, in which the United States presses Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to stop meddling and help stabilize the country;
• Second, a change in the main mission of U.S. forces. They would pull back from fighting insurgents but would insert thousands of trainers into Iraqi units, pushing Iraqis to assume the major combat role. The goal would be to withdraw most U.S. combat units by early 2008, while support troops, special forces, and rapid reaction teams would remain.
In the days since the report’s release, Bush has distanced himself from the 2008 date. Some critics of the report, like Sen. John McCain, called the withdrawal a prescription for defeat. It’s hard to believe that Iraqi troops, with their checkered record, will be ready in time.
But mistakes of the past limit the possibilities of the present. I believe McCain is right that more U.S. troops could have stabilized Iraq early on, but Donald Rumsfeld chose not to send them. Now there are no more U.S. troops to send for any extended period. A temporary “surge” of 20,000 cannot stabilize troubled areas; Sunni insurgents will return when the “surge” leaves.
So we have little choice but to turn more responsibility over to Iraqi forces, however unreliable. Iraqi leaders visiting Washington, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and top Shiite political leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, have requested heavier equipment for their military, and more control of its actions. A stepped-up program for inserting U.S. trainers into Iraqi units has already begun.
As for the 2008 date, indeed it is risky. But events in Iraq won’t wait on our timetable.
If Iraqis haven’t produced a coherent government by 2008, and if Iraqi troops haven’t improved by 2008, the game will already be up. The presence of U.S. troops will have become irrelevant, as sectarian conflict surges around them and they retreat to their bases.
The study group recognized reality, whether or not the 2008 date becomes official policy. Time is running out.
As for an aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East, I think the United States will also have to pursue this idea, despite Bush’s reluctance. But the lateness of the hour undercuts its chances.
Talking directly to Iran in 2003 about stabilizing Iraq could have made a difference, when the United States was in a much stronger military and political position. Now the Iranians are too cocky, as is Syria, and want too much for any cooperation.
If the Iraq civil war worsens, however, and threatens to drag in the region, the White House has an important card to play. Iran doesn’t want a complete breakup of Iraq for fear that the blowback would affect Tehran. So the group report suggests that Washington try to negotiate a quid pro quo whereby Iran stops helping Shiite militias if Saudi Arabia refrains from aiding and arming Sunni fighters.
Such maneuvering would require a kind of skilled diplomacy in short supply in the Bush administration. I asked diplomatic virtuoso James Baker, in Washington, whether he would take on the job. He said flatly: “No way. I’m finished, after this report. I’m 77 years old.”
Perhaps Baker understands how hard it would be to engineer regional cooperation at this point in the Iraq story.
Perhaps he also noted the words of Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of U.S. ground troops in Iraq, who said last week: “If we had applied some of these principles (of the study group report) a little bit earlier… many of the issues we’re facing here today might not be (with us) and we might not have the level of violence here.”
The golden hour has passed.
By the “Anti-City” article you put in today’s editorial section it appears you want to bring the crime war spurned by a below average city council and police force to the rest of Columbia. Look at how poorly the City of Columbia ranks nationally on crime, couple that with a high tax rate, a pathetic city council.
Now, conversely compare that to the way Richland County is rated with the fine Sheriff’s department, and pretty prudent spending by the council.
I lived in the City of Columbia for 13 years, 3 times my house was broken into without any resolution by Columbia Police Department and their tree-hugging “community policing programs”, and ask yourseld why the resolve against the city of Columbia.
I made it oiut alive but many have not , and now you want that group of clowns running the countys affairs. I will gladly move to Lexington as you have Brad. And by the way, keep the war zone in the city of Columbia contained.
The best path would be to put the city of Columbia under Richland County Sheriff’s department and the elected administration. Then, I doubt you would have city council member’s wives getting armed robbed in their own yard.
Keep the city contained , just as the war is contained, in fact, do I get combat pay for engaging a knife wielding intruder,and a gun wielding one too?
The people around Columbia have seen the fat police without discipline that protect only a select few “Shandonistas” and said ; “No”, so stay on your side of the river buddy.
Cap A – Obviously you are too young to recall – “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”. Or at Pearl Harbor, if you were there, you may have been standing out in a pineapple field with a white flag, yes?
Bud, they should send me, Brad, and Lee over there, and I would add Ed in too. Now there’s four of a kind that would beat any other hand. Which Chairborne unit are you in, the Lazy Boy Chairborne. If so, start brushing up on your Arabic language skills. After you surrender, it will come in handy.
Only 10% of Americans supported the Revolution against England. They were right. They were the leaders. The majority, as always, are sheep. Sometimes they follow the right leader, other times they become bored and impatient with any program which does not produce instant success 100% of the time. They are the same ones who are unable to play the game, but sit in the stands and boo those who give 100%.
“Bud, they should send me, Brad, and Lee over there, and I would add Ed in too.”
They should. And they would, except that your laziness and cowardice keeps you from allowing yourselves to be sent.
Dave, what’s stopping you from volunteering? You’ve already had experience in the U.S. Army, right?
Pre-WW2, Winston Churchill was ridiculed and lampooned as a war monger by the British equivalent of leftist Dem politicians who poo-poohed Hitler’s expansion into surrounding countries. The British citizenry was just like the sheep like American citizens of today. They didnt want to pay the price of war and listened to the appeasers tell them, “It’s not our war, he only wants to protect his own borders, etc. etc.” Then when he went into Poland, the Brits threw the appeasers out of office and put a real man in charge. The same pattern has been in effect here. People like Hurl, Mary, Bud et. al. will squeal llike stuck pigs when the Muslim terrorists hit this nation again. They will cry that no one protected them. Why didnt THEY protect us. Well, idiots, you are they. Now get off your couch, potatoes, and go join the Marines. I served a stint already in the Army and would gladly go again. And Mary, stop stroking your Chia pet (your only worldly friend), stop turning the TV on and off with your clapper, and go do some service.
Dave falls back on the same worn-out, flawed WW-II analogies. Tom Delay was on Hannity and Combs yesterday blaming the media for our failures in Iraq. It really is comical to watch the war-mongering right, a group that has been wrong about virtually everything over the past 5 years, continue to lecture those of us who have been correct all along.
Cap A – Obviously you are too young to recall – “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”. Or at Pearl Harbor, if you were there, you may have been standing out in a pineapple field with a white flag, yes?
Posted by: Dave | Dec 13, 2006 5:52:41 PM
You’re so far out of touch with reality that I’m half-tempted to think you’re posting this from some poppy field in Afghanistan. And then, I remember that you’re too cowardly to walk your talk.
Your bravado impresses no one. I once thought Mary was being too harsh when “she” initially deemed you “yella.” Time here has proven her call on that score to be entirely correct.
How can you escape the fact that if you wanted to back up your beliefs, that the opportunity exists that you can re-up and “go shoot you some terrorists”? Quit talking about it and go. It’s so simple.
My suggestion would be to lay off the Walker, Texas Ranger reruns and don’t turn on your radio at least until the New Year, and then some semblance of your sanity may stumble back home to stay.
Dave: I served a stint already in the Army and would gladly go again.
Click on her to chat with an Army recruiter without even leaving your computer.
Be sure to tell us when you’re re-joining.
Cap A, I was serving time in the Army while you sit around reading comic books. What a laugh. If you ever fall under Islamic rule, the likes of you will see your head come off very quickly. For the time being, enjoy your temporary safe harbor.
Hurl – I know you dont like being an appeaser, quitter, or surrender monkey. I couldn’t take that handle either. But enlighten us as to when you served. I was from 1971 to 1977. Let’s all know about your exemplary record serving our country. Of course, you never served, and I dont fault you for that, but at least dont be a punk about it. If I had you, Cap A, Bud, and Bill and some others in a boot camp for 8 weeks I could make men out of you all.
Dave, so you’re NOT going to back up your talk with your walk?
Good luck on finding that combination Islam and Arabic made easy course. You’ll need it for when a group of third world countries take us over, right?
If I truly thought like you then I’d be first in line to enlist. Nobody would have to taunt me into it.
I guess talking about murdering innocent Muslim men, women and children fits your definition of “manhood” but actually doing it doesn’t.
You’re pretty sick, either way.
Dave, you exhibit the same laziness in your arguments that you exhibit in your personal life. You are unwilling or unable to support yourself through your own initiative and industry (such as it is), so you are forced to depend on handouts from liberals to keep from starving. Similarly, you are unable or unwilling to promote your viewpoint by presenting evidence and supporting your conclusions by reasoning from the evidence, so you are forced to simply presume that your viewpoint is correct and attack those who don’t agree with your viewpoint.
You have not demonstrated that your viewpoint is correct. It isn’t that Cap A is an appeaser, a quitter, or a “surrender monkey”. It’s that he doesn’t agree with your point of view, and the reason he doesn’t agree with your point of view is that you haven’t presented sufficient (or, indeed, any) reasoning to persuade him that your point of view is the correct one.
You can talk and talk and talk about how a horde of Muslims is ready to attack us, but you haven’t presented any evidence of a genuine danger of such an occurrence. You can talk and talk and talk about how our invasion of Iraq helps to protect us from danger, but you have not presented any evidence that the invasion of Iraq has in fact protected us from danger. You can talk and talk and talk about how Cap A’s unwillingness to sacrifice the lives of others makes him a coward, but you have not presented any support for the proposition that a reluctance to sacrifice the lives of others makes someone a coward. On the contrary, it tends to support the view that YOU are a coward, because you are unwilling to face the same danger you urge upon others, in order to give yourself a sense of total security.
You have simply not demonstrated that the reason the vast majority of the American people disagree with you is that they are weak and cowardly. On the contrary, all the evidence is that you yourself are a lazy, ignorant, shiftless, worthless coward, and that the reason the American people disagree with you is that they can look at the situation clearly, while you are blinded by cowardice.
If you want us to agree with your viewpoint on the Iraq war is correct, present us with some evidence and reason from that evidence. If you wish instead to rely on an argument from authority, with yourself as the authority, you will first, as a preliminary measure, need to present some evidence that you are not the stupidest person in the world.
Mary, there you go again, cutting and pasting your comical “stupid, lazy, yada,yada,yada nonsense”. As I said before, go enlist and actually serve your nation. If you wore the uniform you would have a new respect for the military and honor them for protecting us. Instead, you and the other pacifists would like to believe the military is something we can all do without.
I learned that Barak Hussein Obama is a chain smoker. Now how do all of the cigarette Nazis on this blog react to that? Imagine, Obama would likely sneak a smoke in the Oval Office. Horror of horrors. The tobacco lobby will be backing him to high heaven. Horror of horrors. Seriously, should our president as role model be allowed to smoke? This is serious stuff here.
Dave, Mary is all hat and no cattle. She never actually does anything you see, but she comes here and calls people cowards whom she doesn’t even know and thinks that by writing these long, mind numbing and agonizing screeds, that she’s actually saying something anyone cares about. This is typical for self-absorbed, supercilious, holier-than-thou liberals. Give her all the attention she deserves, which means, don’t pay any attention to her at all. She’s not worth the effort. Ed
Top General: Army Near Breaking Point
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2006(CBS/AP) As President Bush weighed new strategies for Iraq, the Army’s top general warned Thursday that his force “will break” without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.
Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years.
Though he didn’t give an exact number, he said it would take significant time and commitment by the nation, noting some 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year.
But as CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports, increasing the size of the Army might not help any time soon. It would take a full year to recruit and train 6,000 new troops.
Officials also need greater authority to tap into the National Guard and Reserve, a force once set up as a strategic reserve but now needed as an integral part of the nation’s deployed forces, Schoomaker told a commission studying possible changes in those two forces.
“Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand … is placing a strain on the Army’s all-volunteer force,” Schoomaker told the commission in a Capitol Hill hearing.
“At his pace … we will break the active component” unless reserves can be called up more to help, Schoomaker said.
Speaking to reporters afterward, Schoomaker said Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, is looking at several options in Iraq, including shifting many troops from combat to training Iraqi units. Schoomaker said that while ground commanders assess their options, the military is more interested in getting the Iraqi security forces up to speed than sending more U.S. troops.
“Focus less on trainers,” he said, and more on “how we generate Iraqi output.”
The Army in recent days has been looking at how many additional troops could be sent to Iraq, if the president decides a surge in forces would be helpful. But, officials say, only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because it would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat.
Dave,
I appreciate your offer to make a “man” out of me,but unlike you,I already am one.Bullies like you always turn out to be wimps.How fast can YOU run a marathon? Sorry,I don’t need your boot camp,I’d just embarrass the hell out of you.
A multitude of Army Generals have testified as to why not very many more troops are needed in Iraq, and why a lot more troops are not necessary at all.
We only have a few pockets of terrorists, totalling 15,000 at the most. Many of them are concentrated and can be encircled and destroyed. All we need to do is move from our police action to a military mode.
Ah, don’t take it so hard, bill. Surely, you didn’t feel challenged by Dave.
I always pictured him as a hybrid of Ted Nugent (though lazier) and the homophobic father from American Beauty. Maybe there are even a few sprinkles of Hank Hill’s dad, Cotton, thrown in for good measure as well.
With that image, how could you not laugh?
References for those “multitude of Army Generals,” Lee?
Hurl, you liberals are the ones floating the Big Lie about the military wanting more troops, but you never can name ONE.
General Abizaid Smacks Down McCain’s Plan To Send More U.S. Troops To Iraq
Nov 15, 2006
Today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he “met with EVERY DIVISIONAL C
OMMANDER, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said ‘no.’”
McCain has repeatedly said that he would like to see another 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. As General Abizaid explained, McCain’s plan runs counter towards our goal in Iraq — specifically, the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Abizaid said, “It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”
Moreover, we do not have the troops to send. Any attempt to send more troops to Iraq would, “at the moment, threaten to break our nation’s all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security.”
Transcript:
MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.
ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
Lee, read the following paragraphs slowly. Don’t worry about moving your lips.
Top General: Army Near Breaking Point
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2006(CBS/AP) As President Bush weighed new strategies for Iraq, the Army’s top general warned Thursday that his force “will break” without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.
Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years.
Though he didn’t give an exact number, he said it would take significant time and commitment by the nation, noting some 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year.
==============================
Maybe there are even a few sprinkles of Hank Hill’s dad, Cotton, thrown in for good measure as well.”
Capital A, no, Cotton Hill was wounded serving his country in combat, so no, Dave isn’t like him.
Ed, the only way you would be able to tell whether someone’s writing is “mind-numbing” would be if there were ever a time when your mind wasn’t numb to begin with.
Hey, Lee, maybe Der Decider ought to listen to his generals like he’s claimed the entire war… of course, when you fire generals who don’t tell you what you want to hear (see, Shinseki, Eric) then the rest get the message.
THIS IS THE NEW WAY FORWARD? Is that “Stay the course in pig latin?
—————————-
Bush May Back Sending More Troops to Iraq
Pentagon Plan to Send Thousands Would Attempt to Control Baghdad and Anbar Province
Dec. 16, 2006 — President Bush is likely to support a “surge” of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, officials familiar with planning believe.
The surge could include more than 30,000 additional troops and last as long as two years, sources tell ABC News. That could bring the total number of troops in Iraq to at least 164,000 — the highest total yet.
The White House insists that no decisions have yet been made, and that the president continues to weigh his options.
Such a plan for more troops likely would be an attempt to stabilize Baghdad and Anbar province in western Iraq — a last-ditch attempt to stabilize the heart of Iraq.
According to sources, the surge likely would start in Baghdad and then move to Anbar, with troops remaining behind in Baghdad to keep control of the capital city — though the specific mission of any additional troops was still being worked out, as was how to measure their success.
But the top generals in the region warn that such a dramatic escalation would not only risk more American lives, it might discourage Iraqis from taking charge of their own security.
Late this week, the Army chief of staff told Congress his soldiers already are stretched too thin.
Bill, you can run fast if you are doing marathons but as one old military sage said, you can run as fast as you want, but you won’t outrun a bullet. That said, can you fight? I am sure you can.
Mary, I was wounded while doing hand to hand combat training. Please contact the office of John Kerry and find out if I can apply for a purple heart, at least maybe a pink one, for my injury.
And both you and CAP A need to spend more time watching Fox News and give up Hank Hill and the Simpsons for a while. Stick to fair and balanced hard news.
need to spend more time watching Fox News […] Stick to fair and balanced hard news.
Can’t. Stop. Laughing.
Dave, no, getting yourself injured in training due to your own clumsiness does not qualify you for a Purple Heart. Obviously, your cowardice has caused you to manage your life so as to make sure that the criteria for a Purple Heart would not be relevant to anything that happened to you, so you never bothered to find out what they are. But I call your especial attention to the regulations that distinguish your “service” and Kerry’s, followed by a more complete listing of the criteria for awarding a Purple Heart.
“(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.”
That defines Kerry’s wounds, suffered in service to his country.
Now, as for your injuries, suffered in “service” to your country, here is the relevant standard:
“(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
*
*
*
(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.”
I hope that explanation of the relevant regulations is sufficient. In short, Kerry’s wounds were suffered as a result of enemy action while engaged in combat during service to his country. Therefore, they qualify him for a Purple Heart. Your injuries were received due to your own negligence, as you were taking up space in the military. Therefore, they do not qualify you for a Purple Heart.
For your convenience, a fuller listing of the regulations appears below:
Paragraph 2-8, Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 25 February 1995
The Purple Heart was established by General George Washington at Newburgh, New York, on 7 August 1782, during the Revolutionary War. It was reestablished by the President of the United States per War Department General Orders 3, 1932 and is currently awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016, 25 April 1962, Executive Order 12464, 23 February 1984 and Public Law 98-525, 19 October 1984.
a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded-
(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.
(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.
(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.
(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force
(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.
(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.
b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not “recommended” for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.
(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent.
(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.
(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.
(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.
(c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent.
(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.
(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.
(b) Heat stroke.
(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.
(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.
(e) Battle fatigue.
(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.
(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.
(i) Post traumatic stressdisorders.
(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.
(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. Note the following examples:
(a) In a case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down by enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.
(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of “friendly fire” in the “heat of battle” will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the “friendly” projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.
c. A Purple Heart will be issued to the next of kin of each person entitled to a posthumous award. Issue will be made automatically by the Commanding General, PERSCOM, upon receiving a report of death indicating entitlement.
d. Upon written application to Commander, ARPERCEN, ATTN: DARP-VSE-A, 9700 Page Boulevard. St. Louis, MO 63132-5200, award may be made to any member of the Army, who during World War I, was awarded a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate signed by the Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces, or who was authorized to wear wound chevrons. Posthumous awards to personnel who were killed or died of wounds after 5 April 1917 will be made to the appropriate next of kin upon application to the Commanding General, PERSCOM.
e. Any member of the Army who was awarded the Purple Heart for meritorious achievement or service, as opposed to wounds received in action, between 7 December 1941 and 22 September 1943, may apply for award of an appropriate decoration instead of the Purple Heart.
f. For those who became Prisoners of War after 25 April 1962, the Purple Heart will be awarded to individuals wounded while prisoners of foreign forces, upon submission by the individual to the Department of the U.S. Army of an affidavit that is supported by a statement from a witness, if this is possible. Documentation and inquiries should be directed to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.
g. Any member of the U.S. Army who believes that he or she is eligible for the Purple Heart, but through unusual circumstances no award was made, may submit an application through military channels, to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. Application will include complete documentation, to include evidence of medical treatment, pertaining to the wound.
h. As noted in a above, the Purple Heart may be awarded to civilian nationals of the United States. These individuals must be serving under competent authority with the Army when wounded. Serving under competent authority with the Army will include those eligible persons who are employees of the U.S. Government in a duty (pay or official travel) status when wounds are sustained. Examples of eligible individuals are as follows:
(1) Any Army employee who is traveling outside of the continental limits of the United States on PCS or temporary duty (TDY) aboard a commercial aircraft and wounded by international terrorists in an attempted or actual hijacking incident.
(2) An Army employee in an Army office building performing his or her job who is wounded by an explosive device detonated by international terrorists.
(3) A civil or foreign service employee from a U.S. Government Agency or Department attached to an Army element performing intelligence, counter-terrorist, or other duties with the Army wounded by international terrorists.
(4) An Army employee wounded in an international terrorist incident in which a soldier or soldiers are also wounded.
Max Cleland and John Murtha should have been excluded under this rule:
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.
And Mary, since paper cuts dont count, you wont have to worry about ever getting one. You could qualify for a mental damage purple heart if you ever served.
It takes some kind of massive hypocrisy for a warmonger who won’t fight in Iraq to criticize the service of three men who volunteered to fight in Vietnam.
Dave, as someone who professes to be a Christian, I cannot see how you can recommend anyone to look at Fox News. I don’t watch much TV, and don’t have cable, but went over with my son-in-law Friday night to Carolina Wings to watch the I-AA championship final with ASU. Talk about a moral cesspool–if I didn’t want to see Miss USA in her underwear all the time for over 2 hours, I had to wear blinders on one side (ESPN 2 was right next to Fox). And this is prime-time news? This is prime-time stupidity, as far as I can see.
If I have to watch network TV news, I’ll take Brian Williams any day over that. Fox has no moral scruples at all.
Oh, Dave, I got some great reading from my wife for Christmas. One is The Myth of a Christian Nation, by Gregory Boyd. Another is by Jim Wallis, God’s Politics. And on Iraq, a fascinating volume by Rory Stewart, The Prince of the Marshes, a journalist who learned on the ground in Iraq (he also has a volume on Afghanistan) why we have failed to do our homework in our foreign policy.
This is a plea for balanced reading on issues.
Herb, Thanks for the advice on the books. I may have some reading time post-Xmas. Also, here is how Brian Williams thinks if you want to see or hear obscenity:
? from Chris Matthews to Williams:”Here we have maybe 24 people who have lived in London and England and the free world for all these years that become citizens, subjects of the Crown, and, yet, after having gotten to know us, they want to kill themselves to hurt us. Isn’t that an even deeper conundrum here than the chemicals being used in these attacks?”
Williams answer: “And that, Chris, that last aspect, the willingness to take one’s own life — I always tell people there are guys on our team like that, too. They’re called Army Rangers and Navy Seals and the Special Forces folks and the first responders on 9/11 who went into those buildings knowing, by the way, they weren’t going to come out. So we have players like that on our team.”
This is BW equating our Navy Seals and NYC firemen to suicide bombers in the UK. This is what I call obscene.
Further, Fox News for the most part finds that the wild partying, drug use, and alleged whoring around by Miss America is a bad thing. You can bet the the execs at CNN, ABC, NBC, et. al. in the liberal media still think she is a role model. These other networks would cover up her behavior because they condone it.
I’m fairly certain that Fox was covering Miss USA because they knew that showing her naked will sell a lot of advertising and promote their program. They don’t care tiddly about family values.
WHOA! Hold up on that carwash! (Jackie Gleason voice)
Is this Herb guessing about the motives of someone he doesn’t KNOW personally? So, you can do it, but the rest of us poor saps can’t?
Smells like Herb-pocrisy to me. Whatever would motivate you to act in such a way?
I’m sure I couldn’t hazard a guess.
Since I purposefully don’t watch FNC I don’t know about Miss America or any of her alleged activities.
This is hole in my knowledge that I’m willing to tolerate– much like my ignorance of Elvis being kidnapped by aliens and whatever other of the latest creations of the tabloid press.
FNC is just a video tabloid with a heavy dose of rightwing propaganda. Legitimate news organizations don’t direct their news coverage to slant and spin stories as FNC does.
Here are some excerpts from daily memos sent by FOX News Senior Vice President, News Editorial John Moody:
***The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don’t want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).
***If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let’s not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance (4/22/04).
***The continuing carnage in Iraq — mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City — is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Iraqi officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved (4/4/04).
***[L]et’s refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as “sharpshooters” not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04).
—
Obviously FNC’s coverage is deliberately slanted to fit a rightwing agenda. FNC is little more than a propaganda arm for the administration and GOP talking points.
Here’s another example of FNC’s preoccupation with sex (vs. hard news):
Fox ‘Business’ News: Strippers, Not Enron— March 3, 2006
You could never tell it from watching Fox News’ business show, but there is a big financial story unfolding about the fate of millions of American investors. So why has “Your World with Neil Cavuto” been ignoring it?
The major story that is getting nearly no coverage from Cavuto is the five-week-old trial of former Enron bosses Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, […]
Instead of taking a peek at the trial, Cavuto offered more than five minutes of discussion with two comely blondes who have formed a group to bring strippers to Jesus. The lengthy interview was paired with split-screen images of strippers in action. Its relevance to a business show was never explained, although the word “financial” did come up once. One of the blondes said that the industry often is a “financial trap” for “the girls” and so many cannot just quit their jobs on the spot.
—
It’s no wonder that Dave’s world view is so skewed.
Hurl, I’m sure Herb would agree that its a good thing to bring strippers to Jesus. Amazing that you call that rightwing. As for Enron, can you imagine anything more boring than covering deliberations in a trial of accounting entries, offshore debits and credits. FNC is out to get high ratings and any fool knows that the best way to get low ratings is to cover accounting nonsense. And we dont need to read anyone’s mind to know that.
Strippers for Jesus on a BUSINESS show, Dave. I guess that you think that Strippers for Jesus should have headlined on CNBC if they weren’t so darned secular humanist. LOL
The story was a pretty blatant excuse to run titillating video for the FNC ditto-head rubes.
I didn’t say that the strippers were part of the wingnut agenda. Re-read my post.
Legit news organizations don’t have their stories pre-spun by top executives.
Hurl, your problem with the size of the military is that you don’t understand enough to understand what you read.
“…Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years…”
GEN Shoomaker did not disagree with all the other generals and say he wanted more soldiers in Iraq, but that he needs them for other areas which have sent soldiers to Iraq.
Hurl, CNBC carried a long segment today on the latest BasketBrawl. How weird of them hoping to get their ratings up. But since they mentioned the cost of the financial fines to the teams, I guess it was business. Pls take off rose colored glasses and spend more time watching FNC and C-Span. You may learn a few things.