Post #275,276
12/9/06 11:31:45 AM
|
Those who do not remember history, etc etc etc
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201244.html|http://www.washingto...006120201244.html]
'About Five Minutes Into It, We Had to Take Over'
U.S. Military Advisers Step In As Iraqi Army Mission Falters
[...]
" What they lack is not training, not motivation, not confidence, but equipment, they said. They need better tanks and spare parts, Iraqi officials said. And they really need aircraft.
"Give us the aviation and leave us alone," Brig. Gen. Kasim Maliki, a 25-year veteran of the army, said through an interpreter."
and from the not-so-recent-past:
"The debate over the success of Vietnamization still rages on. One side argues it was a failure; the other side argues it was a qualified success, and that ARVN ground forces were largely able to hold their own against the NVA, so long as they had American air support. The Vietnamization program never really attempted to build a viable air force for South Vietnam, and when U.S. air power was finally forced to withdraw by internal American political considerations, the ARVN was largely doomed. "
Is a citation really necessary? (Historynet.com)
We may be there for awhile.
|
Post #275,280
12/9/06 12:28:19 PM
|
It's hard to "win" without air power.
But, with millions of guns and bombs in the country, it's hard to "win" with air power, too. Unless you're willing to flatten towns in the process.
A few thousand helicopter gunships and a few score C-130s would certainly turn the tide, but at what cost to the civilian population?
There isn't a technological solution to the Iraq conflict. The good guys need to take the towns in a systematic way, confiscate the guns, bombs and weapons, put in place trusted police, prosecutors and judges, and do the usual pacification stuff. And hold them. And start reconstruction, etc. And gain the trust of the population. And slowly, slowly, expand out from there in a sustainable way. Unfortunately, it may take a generation or two to get the job done. That's (almost certainly) too much time for us to be there in a major way.
My 29 IQD.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #275,282
12/9/06 1:01:25 PM
|
Who are the 'good guys'?
It can't be us:
[link|http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06193252.htm|http://www.alertnet....esk/N06193252.htm]
"Among the 1,000 people who work in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, only 33 are Arabic speakers and only six speak the language fluently, according to the Iraq Study Group report released on Wednesday.
"All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by Americans' lack of knowledge of language and cultural understanding,"
Good guys don't do this: (from Wikipedia)
"Fallujah's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines".
You mention reconstruction: What happened?
[link|http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb06/2831/3|http://www.spectrum.....org/feb06/2831/3]
[...]
" In 2004, $50 million of Iraqi money was set aside to refurbish the gas equipment at East Baghdad. Another $250 million was earmarked to reconstruct gas pipelines and compressors to move gas from the huge southern oil fields as far north as Quds. But the Ministry of Oil didn't commit to using the funds during that calendar year, so the money was transferred to the Ministry of Finance, as specified in the legal code then in effect in Iraq.
What happened to the $300 million then? "We have no clue," says the U.S. power-generation engineer, who was working in Iraq at the time and following the situation.
In the meantime, the insurgency has staged devastating attacks on pipelines, timed perfectly for maximum disruption. The attacks have made it impossible to undertake a large pipeline project today. "
[link|http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm|http://www.iags.org/...pipelinewatch.htm]
No running water...
[link|http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061209/OPINION04/612090307/1105/OPINION|http://www.delawareo...0307/1105/OPINION]
And no end in sight. Bush leaves office in about 25 months. As a people we need to get ready to spend 8 billion per month (the current rate) until he leaves.
I know all of this is probably old news, and tiresome, but I thought I would also post my 2 cents. Carry on.
|
Post #275,284
12/9/06 1:44:48 PM
|
I'm not necessarily disagreeing.
:-) There's been a huge amount of waste and bungling. But worse than that, we're not doing what it takes to achieve our stated goals. There was a tremendous amount of waste and bungling in WWII, but we changed tactics and replaced commanders when they weren't doing the job. We spent what it took. We raised the Army, Navy and Air Force that it took. The Pentagon and the Bush Administration doesn't seem willing to do that in Iraq. Iraq's a mess and it became a mess as a result of our actions or inaction. We have the means to fix it (for some values of "fix it") if we're willing to pay the price (e.g. possibly occupying the place for decades). Whether we should pay the price can be debated, but if we could defeat Italy, Japan and Germany in less than 4 years, we could "win" in Iraq in that time, too. Personally, I'm torn by what's going on there. As each day passes, it reminds me more of Vietnam. In both cases, apparently, gurilla attacks changed into a civil war. While it's true that democracy cannot be forced on people, it's hard to say that Iraq had a fighting chance to develop a democratic state on its own with the way we handled the occupation. We have an obligation, I think, to try our best to make it right and not just say - "We're starting to leave in 6 months, you better get your act together." It seems to me, we need more police-type forces there, to stop things like the attacks on infrastructure. But we also need much more rapid progess on things like jobs to get the gangs of hoodlums off the streets and working instead of kidnapping and murdering others. That will help improve the lots of the masses of people and make them less willing to support the violent elements. If, at that point, they freely choose a repressive government, well, them's the breaks. And no end in sight. Bush leaves office in about 25 months. As a people we need to get ready to spend 8 billion per month (the current rate) until he leaves. Yup. :-( McCain seems to see the need to try harder, he and Biden being some of the few that have argued for [link|http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/30/94916.shtml|increasing troop levels in Iraq] (a topic that's been [link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/iraq_11-20.html|debated] quite a bit). It seems as though nobody with the power to make a significant change is willing to do so. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #275,318
12/9/06 10:59:10 PM
|
About those translators -
I recall an article (but not where) describing a massacree of US translators, early-on -- ones deemed to possess homosexual tendencies / and or / reluctant to answer questions like, "whom did you vote for?" Natch they were on the streets before you could say, Air Traffic Controllers Fired en masse.
As there is nothing new under old sol - let us recall Stalin's purges of the general staff in late '30s. Still, it's difficult to assess which handful of the 100 major tactical and strategic errors since Shock n'Awe - were the deciding ones. Could it be that only 6 or 10 errors on the scale we committed them - would have sufficed to doom the whole fantasy-enterprise?
(It's so much easier to mull over a half dozen; a lot cheaper than by the gross, too.)
I can't IMAGINE the details of what -??- it will take to get the Decider out of office within << a year. Easier to imagine certain trends if we don't. Vividly.
|
Post #275,328
12/10/06 5:35:48 AM
|
Yup.
A couple people I know who have military connections are still cursing about the number of Arabic speakers who were discharged for having teh ghey. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
|
Post #275,375
12/10/06 7:54:48 PM
|
Local language training for the troops should be mandatory.
Wherever they are put.
Base in Germany? Crash course in German. Carrier off Ethiopa? Crash course in Ethiopian. Guard duty in Cuba? Crash course in Cuban Spanish. Duty in the Philippines? Crash course in Filipino.
Peacekeeping in Iraq? Crash course in Iraqi Arabic.
Teaching language always teaches some culture. Both would help stop the insularity of US troops. It's ironic that most foriegners appreciate when tourists try to learn some local language and customs *because* of US tourists who fail to do both. Imagine the response if US troops were to do this.
Wade.
"Don't give up!"
|
Post #275,399
12/10/06 11:10:58 PM
|
cuban spanish? inhale helium, take amphetamines
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #275,417
12/11/06 1:38:51 AM
|
Huh?
Cuban Spanish is pretty slow - and easy to pick up.
Spain Spanish requires extensive time dilation techniques.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #275,442
12/11/06 9:20:18 AM
|
why does the rest of latin america deem them motor mouths?
I can follow mexican, columbian, porto rican, domenican okay but cubans seem like thewy are talking like the legaleze at the end of a car commercial.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #275,473
12/11/06 1:32:45 PM
|
Biggest complaint I heard from Chilean companion
was they talk too slowly - like a new yorker in florida, she grew impatient with the low baud rate.
And I found I could understand them - which must make them on the slower end.
OTOH, they do talk circuitously - beat around the bush a lot. Perhaps this is a byproduct of having to watch what you say for a generation.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #275,309
12/9/06 9:05:12 PM
|
Re: It's hard to "win" without air power.
But, with millions of guns and bombs in the country, it's hard to "win" with air power, too. Unless you're willing to flatten towns in the process.
A few thousand helicopter gunships and a few score C-130s would certainly turn the tide, but at what cost to the civilian population?
There isn't a technological solution to the Iraq conflict. The good guys need to take the towns in a systematic way, confiscate the guns, bombs and weapons, put in place trusted police, prosecutors and judges, and do the usual pacification stuff. And hold them. And start reconstruction, etc. And gain the trust of the population. And slowly, slowly, expand out from there in a sustainable way. Unfortunately, it may take a generation or two to get the job done. That's (almost certainly) too much time for us to be there in a major way. I think you have the right basic idea. But your still underestimating the cost. The problem has passed the point where we can occupy a small area, put trusted people in power and move on. The insurgents have gotten to used to this method and simply move or hide when the US occupies an area and slip back in when we leave. To take control in Iraq we would need to commit enough troops to occupy a significant portion of the country at once, plus have a reserve left over to hit enemy forces when they surface. If we had done this before the insurgency had gotten to strength then 200,000 to 250,000 troops may have been enough. At this point I would estimate 500,000 soldiers in Iraq to stabilize the country. And probably a decade long commitment before we could begin bringing them back. The only way we can reach that level of forces would be a draft, and I don't see that happening. So instead I see two sane alternatives. Pull out fast and let Iraq have it's civil war and cope on it's own. Not pretty but it would minimize US casualties and might in the long run minimize Iraqi ones also. Or prop up the Iraqi government as best we can, pull out in phases soon along with a healthy dose of propaganda to make it look good and hope somebody we can deal with seizes power in Iraq. What will probably happen at this points is that we will sorta prop up the government, but without giving them enough real power. Then we will pull out according to some fixed political schedule, without planning it well. And then the religious radicals will seize power. Jay
|
Post #275,325
12/10/06 2:53:14 AM
|
His what's still underestimating the cost?
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #275,379
12/10/06 8:34:21 PM
|
It's hard to "win" even **with** air power.
When no one's bothered to define "win".
It's just like software engineering...you have to know when you're done, or you'll "engineer" forever. Which, when you think about it, was the plan all along, I wot.
jb4
"When the final history is written in Iraq, [link|http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmate/2006/tmate060926.gif|it'll look just like a comma.]"
— George W. Bush, 24 Sep 06
|
Post #275,809
12/14/06 6:27:46 PM
12/14/06 6:28:11 PM
|
Winning means never having to say you're sorry
We'd been doing GREAT until just recently
Edited by GBert
Dec. 14, 2006, 06:28:11 PM EST
|
Post #277,232
1/2/07 9:52:39 PM
|
Brig. Gen. Kasim Maliki, a 25-year veteran of the army
Was he one of those who used the air power so successfully on Kurds? Yeah, let's give him some.
------
179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]
|
