Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Current Events


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007, 01:03 PM
raytri's Avatar
raytri raytri is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minnesota
Age: 41
Posts: 17,637
usa us minnesota
raytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 110,883
Default Training Iraqi troops no longer a top priority

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm

Quote:
Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.
Okay, on the one hand, there is less here than meets the eye. We're still training them; we've just shifted top priority to the "surge" and U.S. combat operations.

But consider this:

Quote:
In nearly every area where Iraqi forces were given control, the security situation rapidly deteriorated. The exceptions were areas dominated largely by one sect and policed by members of that sect....

Earlier this month, U.S. forces engaged in heavy fighting in the southern city of Diwaniyah after Iraqi forces, who'd been given control of the region in January 2006, lost control of the city.
Also consider the "our strategy sucked" revelation implicit in the following paragraphs:

Quote:
Casey's "mandate was transition. General Petraeus' mandate is security. It is a change based on conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for the transition to be successful. Security is part of that. And General Petraeus recognizes that," said Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group in charge of supporting trained Iraqi forces.
Um, didn't we have that exactly backwards? Shouldn't we have established security first, then begun the transition? Four years later, we're back to square one.

I suppose you can still blame Democrats:

Quote:
Military officials say there's no doubt that the November U.S. elections, which gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress, helped push training down the priority list. The elections, they said, made it clear that voters didn't have the patience to wait for Iraqis to take the lead.

"To the extent we are losing the American public, we were losing" in the transition approach, said a senior military commander in Washington.
But that doesn't address the fact that we tried to leap straight to transition without first securing the country, or that military and administration officials fed expectations with their relentless "happy talk" about the progress of the training program -- talk that turns out to have been more than a tad overoptimistic.

So our exit strategy is in disarray, and our response is to send 23,000 more troops and think that will make a difference.

Color me pessimistic.
__________________
Man up.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007, 01:22 PM
SpankyTheWhale's Avatar
SpankyTheWhale SpankyTheWhale is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: right behind you
Age: 2
Posts: 8,056
SpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 27,515
Default False perspective, maybe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot View Post
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm

Quote:
Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.
Okay, on the one hand, there is less here than meets the eye. We're still training them; we've just shifted top priority to the "surge" and U.S. combat operations.

But consider this:

Quote:
In nearly every area where Iraqi forces were given control, the security situation rapidly deteriorated. The exceptions were areas dominated largely by one sect and policed by members of that sect....

Earlier this month, U.S. forces engaged in heavy fighting in the southern city of Diwaniyah after Iraqi forces, who'd been given control of the region in January 2006, lost control of the city.
Also consider the "our strategy sucked" revelation implicit in the following paragraphs:

Quote:
Casey's "mandate was transition. General Petraeus' mandate is security. It is a change based on conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for the transition to be successful. Security is part of that. And General Petraeus recognizes that," said Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group in charge of supporting trained Iraqi forces.
Um, didn't we have that exactly backwards? Shouldn't we have established security first, then begun the transition? Four years later, we're back to square one.

I suppose you can still blame Democrats:

Quote:
Military officials say there's no doubt that the November U.S. elections, which gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress, helped push training down the priority list. The elections, they said, made it clear that voters didn't have the patience to wait for Iraqis to take the lead.

"To the extent we are losing the American public, we were losing" in the transition approach, said a senior military commander in Washington.
But that doesn't address the fact that we tried to leap straight to transition without first securing the country, or that military and administration officials fed expectations with their relentless "happy talk" about the progress of the training program -- talk that turns out to have been more than a tad overoptimistic.

So our exit strategy is in disarray, and our response is to send 23,000 more troops and think that will make a difference.

Color me pessimistic.
The whole problem lies in the fact that everyone, regardless of whether you agreed with the war or not at any point from the beginning until now, thought that the Iraq War (or Iraq Campaign, if you prefer) would be pretty easy to execute. We had imprecise knowledge and false perspective concerning the whole reason. We were lead to believe that, regardless of what civilization we are dealing with, freedom would awaken some love of peace and cooperation amongst the population and good will toward the United States. Using that misconception, we thought that securing the peace and stability of Iraq would be much easier before we would have to begin the transitioning phase of the operation. And security was easy to maintain...for two hours. To save face, I believe, the order was given to begin the transition and the difficulty of securing the territory, as well as the fact that stability wasn't achieved, was swept under the rug. And now we have a mess. Although I don't believe it is half as messy as the media and the Democrats would have us believe, it is still a mess, and we are walking a tightrope. However, the Democrats see our tightrope walk as a sign of failure and want us to jump off. I believe, as opposed to the Scaredycrats, that we must continue our tightrope act until we get to the platform on the other side and are able to climb down the ladder with dignity and pride and adulation from the crowd.
__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2007, 07:37 PM
f100supersabr's Avatar
f100supersabr f100supersabr is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Konnektikutska Narodna Respublika
Posts: 8,864
usa us connecticut
f100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant futuref100supersabr has a brilliant future
Credits: 42,993
Default Spanky, you and your Gang can live in your fantacy

Quote:
I don't believe it is half as messy as the media and the Democrats would have us believe, it is still a mess, and we are walking a tightrope. However, the Democrats see our tightrope walk as a sign of failure and want us to jump off. I believe, as opposed to the Scaredycrats, that we must continue our tightrope act until we get to the platform on the other side and are able to climb down the ladder with dignity and pride and adulation from the crowd.
Spanky, you and your Gang can live in your fantacy world but in the real world that "adulation from the crowd" are bullets.
__________________
"I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land" - Guess Who? You go it !
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007, 11:59 AM
Tedminator's Avatar
Tedminator Tedminator is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Florida
Posts: 8,706
usa us florida
Tedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond reputeTedminator has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 37,952
Default ~

STAYDUHCOURSE! -neocons
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007, 02:09 PM
SpankyTheWhale's Avatar
SpankyTheWhale SpankyTheWhale is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: right behind you
Age: 2
Posts: 8,056
SpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 27,515
Default Bratwurst

Quote:
Originally Posted by f100supersabr";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
I don't believe it is half as messy as the media and the Democrats would have us believe, it is still a mess, and we are walking a tightrope. However, the Democrats see our tightrope walk as a sign of failure and want us to jump off. I believe, as opposed to the Scaredycrats, that we must continue our tightrope act until we get to the platform on the other side and are able to climb down the ladder with dignity and pride and adulation from the crowd.
Spanky, you and your Gang can live in your fantacy world but in the real world that "adulation from the crowd" are bullets.
I don't quite think you understood my analogy. Once we have the region stable, settled, and running autonomously, which will take a long time, our withdrawal will be under honorable circumstances. However, you don't have patience for nation building, and unfortunately, now that we are nation building, we must not pull out until the job is done. You claim (or at least the claim of those with whom you agree) is that we have already lost and that the longer we remain in Iraq, the least useful and beneficent we will be. I believe that this believe derives from the notion you have of how long a war is supposed to last. You believe that after 4 years, we should be able to resolutely declare victory, and your mindset is framed around timetables. You make comparisons to Vietnam when there either are none or are only superficially, and you make these comparisons based on the fact that you didn't really want us to succeed anyway. You falsely believe that a victory in Iraq would be a Republican political victory instead of an American national victory.

George W. Bush has said from the very beginning that this is not a normal or classical war. It will have to be handled differently with different targets. Most of the country was in favor of this war at the time he made that speech, but now our nation's public opinion has reversed itself. Perhaps most of us weren't mature enough to understand the true ramifications of that policy. Perhaps the American population is full of fair weather friends who desert any cause that isn't running smoothly. To me, however, failure is not an option, and even if we are failing now, we haven't failed yet and can still greatly salvage the situation. A withdrawal of troops now is not as much an admittance of defeat as it is an indication of thin-skinnedness and lack of commitment and resolve. A withdrawal now would be like zipping up your pants when you are only halfway done, and now you've peed all over yourself.
__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007, 03:48 PM
jsh1120 jsh1120 is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 476
jsh1120 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 5,763
Default Faulty Reasoning

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale";p=&quot View Post

... Once we have the region stable, settled, and running autonomously, which will take a long time, our withdrawal will be under honorable circumstances.
...

Sorry, friend, your entire argument fails on the first assumption. "We" are not in a position to make the region "stable, settled, and running autonomously."

Never were. Aren't now.

All the rest is simply commentary based on a false assumption.
__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007, 04:00 PM
SpankyTheWhale's Avatar
SpankyTheWhale SpankyTheWhale is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: right behind you
Age: 2
Posts: 8,056
SpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond reputeSpankyTheWhale has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 27,515
Default After Saddam

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsh1120";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale";p=&quot View Post

... Once we have the region stable, settled, and running autonomously, which will take a long time, our withdrawal will be under honorable circumstances.
...

Sorry, friend, your entire argument fails on the first assumption. "We" are not in a position to make the region "stable, settled, and running autonomously."

Never were. Aren't now.

All the rest is simply commentary based on a false assumption.
We are in a position to make the region stable because we are responsible for making the region unstable after we apprehended Saddam Hussein. We need to clean up the mess. It will eventually be handed to the Iraqis to do themselves, and it already has been, but we need to take our share of the responsibility for the situation and act accordingly.
__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007, 04:22 PM
jsh1120 jsh1120 is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 476
jsh1120 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 5,763
Default Another Lesson in Logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale";p=&quot View Post

We are in a position to make the region stable because we are responsible for making the region unstable after we apprehended Saddam Hussein. We need to clean up the mess. It will eventually be handed to the Iraqis to do themselves, and it already has been, but we need to take our share of the responsibility for the situation and act accordingly.
Sorry. Another logical error. "Responsibility" is not equivalent to "capability." Just because the US is "responsible" for instability doesn't mean it is capable of creating stability.

There is no question that the US bears significant responsibility for creating the mess. It would have been good to have recognized that before we did so. But as conservatives are so fond of pointing out, that's water under the bridge.

The question now is what to do with the mess we created. Hint: The answer is not to continue doing what we've been doing. It hasn't worked.
__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2007, 10:30 PM
ashleykennedy's Avatar
ashleykennedy ashleykennedy is offline
Banned
Analyst
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke-on-Trent
Posts: 2,287
uk european union
ashleykennedy is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 23,908
Default US myths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot View Post
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm

Quote:
Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.
Okay, on the one hand, there is less here than meets the eye. We're still training them; we've just shifted top priority to the "surge" and U.S. combat operations.

But consider this:

Quote:
In nearly every area where Iraqi forces were given control, the security situation rapidly deteriorated. The exceptions were areas dominated largely by one sect and policed by members of that sect....

Earlier this month, U.S. forces engaged in heavy fighting in the southern city of Diwaniyah after Iraqi forces, who'd been given control of the region in January 2006, lost control of the city.
Also consider the "our strategy sucked" revelation implicit in the following paragraphs:

Quote:
Casey's "mandate was transition. General Petraeus' mandate is security. It is a change based on conditions. Certain conditions have to be met for the transition to be successful. Security is part of that. And General Petraeus recognizes that," said Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group in charge of supporting trained Iraqi forces.
Um, didn't we have that exactly backwards? Shouldn't we have established security first, then begun the transition? Four years later, we're back to square one.

I suppose you can still blame Democrats:

Quote:
Military officials say there's no doubt that the November U.S. elections, which gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress, helped push training down the priority list. The elections, they said, made it clear that voters didn't have the patience to wait for Iraqis to take the lead.

"To the extent we are losing the American public, we were losing" in the transition approach, said a senior military commander in Washington.
But that doesn't address the fact that we tried to leap straight to transition without first securing the country, or that military and administration officials fed expectations with their relentless "happy talk" about the progress of the training program -- talk that turns out to have been more than a tad overoptimistic.

So our exit strategy is in disarray, and our response is to send 23,000 more troops and think that will make a difference.

Color me pessimistic.
The whole problem lies in the fact that everyone, regardless of whether you agreed with the war or not at any point from the beginning until now, thought that the Iraq War (or Iraq Campaign, if you prefer) would be pretty easy to execute. We had imprecise knowledge and false perspective concerning the whole reason. We were lead to believe that, regardless of what civilization we are dealing with, freedom would awaken some love of peace and cooperation amongst the population and good will toward the United States. Using that misconception, we thought that securing the peace and stability of Iraq would be much easier before we would have to begin the transitioning phase of the operation. And security was easy to maintain...for two hours. To save face, I believe, the order was given to begin the transition and the difficulty of securing the territory, as well as the fact that stability wasn't achieved, was swept under the rug. And now we have a mess. Although I don't believe it is half as messy as the media and the Democrats would have us believe, it is still a mess, and we are walking a tightrope. However, the Democrats see our tightrope walk as a sign of failure and want us to jump off. I believe, as opposed to the Scaredycrats, that we must continue our tightrope act until we get to the platform on the other side and are able to climb down the ladder with dignity and pride and adulation from the crowd.
There are 3 myths that the US are prone to.

1. That the world thinks that the US form of "democracy" is the best thing since sliced bread and that the world world would be a better place if they had it.

2. That everybody is Jealous of the US.

3. That the US are world police.

US Hubris: hubris noun arrogance or over-confidence, especially when likely to result in disaster or ruin.

It's the or bit that Europe apply to the US not the arrogance.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2007, 12:49 AM
proof-hunter's Avatar
proof-hunter proof-hunter is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 929
usa
proof-hunter is a jewel in the roughproof-hunter is a jewel in the roughproof-hunter is a jewel in the rough
Credits: 6,572
Default ...

jsh1120,
OK you liberal butt head, lets hear your plan.
Lets hear in detail your dam plan, besides running away.
what is the liberals long term plan? not one liberal has
spoke out on this. liberals are as silent as Islamic groups
are against speaking out against radical Islam.

But now it's your turn to speak out with the plan.
Keep in mind that we and WE alone broke Iraq
and the rest of the world WILL judge us on how
we fix what we broke, so a time table will not work here
because if Iraq is not fixed by your dam date, the rest
of the world will say the Americans truly are dangerous
to the rest of the world, because as they can point out
with facts, we break crap and don't fix it.

And to top it all off, when we pull out and Iraq falls to
something as bad as the Taliban, then that problem
too, will be our fault in the eye's of the rest of the
world.

Now it's your turn to speak out about your plan
that will solve those problems I just spoke of.
__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden