The U.S. must abandon the Middle East

Surfer Joe? You must be from the left coast. Seriously, your thoughts equate to a goal of mankind, but I am just suggesting a small step toward that goal.

Why do we have bases all over the world? It seems that during the course of the Cold War we became the world's policeman, like it or not. Our allies and former enemies were devastated by WWII. But things change, and I am not sure we need to play that role as much. Japan and the E.U. are pretty much self-sufficient now and they can play a larger role in their own defense.

 

Here is the thing. I gave you an extremely solid reading list. As you would love me recommending your books for you, I recommend those books for outstanding reasons. Don gave me his comment and he favors Israel and in general moving away from the Middle East as a force. You can read his comments and see if I got him correctly.

I rely on first Franks since he made the plans and executed them. His book gives his planners enormous credit that they well deserve. So Franks is not hogging the limelight. If somebody told me that Ike carried out D-day in 1944 and won in 3 weeks, he would rank among the greatest all time generals. Some forget that Franks did face forces of more than 400,000, backed by Russian and French arms, who could predict he takes out Saddam in 3 weeks. Not I, I expected it to last longer.

The thing about Generals is there are plenty of records. If records claim they lie, it will come out. Franks explains what happened in easy to understand terms. Most readers will not get confused. And he has footnotes and explains his documentation. A person who has not read both books simply assumes they know. Authors often have an advocacy and want the book to prove their concept. As you must have in The Bode Testament.

Take the book on LBJ by the scholar Doris Goodwin. She is biased. I know she supports Democrats and worked hard to whitewash LBJ when she wrote the book on him. I read that book years ago.

So, I try to keep an eye for such bias. De Long really also nailed it. De Long a Marine General in fact.

Things for Franks did not go wrong. They went splendidly. When he retired, he had defeated Saddam Hussein and was hunting him. Post Franks, we never faced Saddam's Army again. We faced an insurgency but they used rather primitive weapons.

Franks refused command if he had to kowtow to politicians. He flat told Bush he would command and Bush would preside over his job. Franks got hot at the joint chiefs of staff too. Franks also complained over Feith in OSP. So I do understand what they did. Franks really put distance between his war planning and Feith as well. And Feith is not a stupid man.

I would judge that as war goes, those two wars were less politics and more military than past wars I am aware of.

Trump won't blow a dime on military unless the congress allows it. A lot of talk has gone on with every election in my memory and I am 78. I have voted for years for Democrats only to finally wake up. They are never the choice. Not since I abandoned them.

news sources get news where? If you talked to Hillary when she was a Senator, she was wildly in favor of those two wars. I don't care if she claims she changed later. Later did not reverse course. It only made her fans feel good from all appearances.

I rely on Franks as a very long term General Officer who learned as he rose in ranks. And he served in Gulf I so he was aware of what happened there. Bush 41 invaded. Democrats never bring that up. I doubt they really knew what the battlefield amounted to. I know because of reading Fred Franks book and it is very detailed. I have Schwartzkopf book too though I read parts of his.

Most Democrats think Bush was nice to not capture Saddam. I think it left a pain in Bill Clinton's behind the size of his bombs and missiles. Bear in mind that Clinton waged war on Saddam quite a lot.

Bush 41 could have cured the world of Saddam Hussein but did not.

As to Bin Laden, as you say, he had nothing at all to do with Iraq in the sense of playing any role. And Bush 43 never told us he had.

Based on Franks and De Longs book, Bush was entirely in the loop. Franks was extremely careful to the point he went to Bush even over Rumsfeld. I bet nothing you read told you how Bush and Franks had a deal? Franks however did not leave out Rumsfeld. He was too smart to simply ignore him. Rumsfeld never tried to plan details anyway. And as I say, Bush gave in person to Franks full assurance Franks managed the wars.

But to Don, I shall ask the man if I can supply his e mail address to you. As an Author himself, I doubt he will refuse.

 

Frankly, few of us will fail to support our departure from all over the world and those many bases. Most Americans have no clue where those bases are.

I served in Germany and learned this year they had closed both bases in Schweinfurt under Obama's watch I am not clear when the base closings were planned and it is possible they were planned during Bush or even Clinton.

OK, Bush set it up in 2004.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/w...ings-send-a-shiver-through-a-german-town.html

 

Why is it necessary for you to use the ad hominem approach? That generally indicates a lack of intelligence.

You also seem to be unaware that our troops searched for years for WMD's and found nothing. Saddam once had biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. They were destroyed by the weapons inspectors during the '90's.

You sound like someone who listened to SecState Powell's presentation before the U.N. in Feb. 2003. This is what he said about that speech.

Colin Powell: U.N. Speech “Was a Great Intelligence Failure”

"Colin Powell has called his 2003 speech to the United Nations, laying out the Bush administration’s rationale for war in Iraq, a “blot” on his record. The speech set out to detail Iraq’s weapons program, but as the intelligence would later confirm, that program was nonexistent."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/

 

Only so long as Assad is in power. Once "regime change" is effected in Syria, there won't be a Russian naval base and Russian aircraft will not be in Syria.

There is no more Yugoslavia, in case you haven't seen a map lately. That's another place Russia cannot port ships or base aircraft.

 

Let me see if I have this straight. You are blaming Clinton for Bush's attack on Iraq. Is that right?

Bombing and lobbing missiles is one thing, and, yes, I call that war. But creating an alliance that sent in upwards of 175,000 ground troops with naval and air support resulting in over 5,000 dead Americans, over 25,000 wounded, over a million innocent men, women, and children dead, and a sovereign nation destroyed is something else. I can assure you Clinton was not responsible for that carnage. The Commander-in-Chief at the time was Bush and he is fully responsible. He even said it in his book. He admitted the war was a mistake, but blamed it on faulty intell. In his book, he never once mentioned the OSP and Douglas Feith.

Please, I urge you. Google the Office of Special Plans.

"WASHINGTON — A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."

"The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.'"

Source: Associated Press

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22794451/...bush-led-us-war-false-pretenses/#.WAQDWSSznpw

"In your exposure, did you factor in the Clinton bombings?" Yes, I concluded that he was not to blame for the invasion of Iraq.

 

Your first sentence is a dream. Your second sentence indicates confusion. I didn't bring up Yugoslavia.

 

I'd love to "meet" him, Robert. "Don gave me his comment and he favors Israel and in general moving away from the Middle East as a force." Maybe we will even agree. I will forgive him for supporting Trump.

My idea in no way impacts Israel. We would remain strong in defense of the Jewish state, in a very real sense, our only ally in the Mideast. I don't trust our Arab allies. They are worthless.

 

There is a lot of interesting stuff here but nothing mentions the over all geopolitical situation. Understand something here our involvement in the Middle East Has almost nothing to do US needs or desires. Considered in Isolation getting the hell out of the Middle East makes perfect sense. But the Middle East is far more important to our allies in Europe than it is to us This has been the case since WWII. Here is the reality, either we destroy, not just hinder ISIS or Europe becomes a Russian zone of economic influence because of Europe's oil needs and the fact that an unstable Middle East cannot meet them.

 

I really blame Bush 41 for the first invasion. And then Clinton held up his end by what seemed to me when he did them, almost endless attacks on Saddam. It seemed when Clinton was in trouble with the H/R over the impeachment issue, he bombed. When it got to the Senate he had bombed.

As to the invasion we speak of during 43, certainly he ordered the invasion.

My case boils down to it was a long standing event and when Bush 43 got to the task, after he took out Afghanistan, it was a natural for this government to then go after Saddam. It was in the law already.

Thank you for saying it was also war. We were not at a point where we were not at war with Saddam as I see this.

And of course Bush 41 did start this going.

Oh, I don't think you get to add into war dead, those killed by the later insurgents. They were not defending Saddam at all. They simply were a major pain in the rumps of commanders on the scene.

The one million which I truly doubt, but why argue over the Iraqis, was not when Franks was in Command. Franks had won and retired.

Franks never caused that many of our troops to die. Franks losses were maybe 140.

When Franks got done, he did what he could to preserve infrastructure. Sure, no doubt some was destroyed. But some of that was defensive destroying.

I would say the destruction by Franks forces in cities would be missiles, bombs and perhaps tanks or artillery. Naturally this means buildings were destroyed. But consider the size of Baghdad for example and give Franks credit he did not wipe the city off the map. And he could have.

Take a look what ISIS has wiped off the map.

Again, I keep thinking you will get it. I thought I buttoned this up. As to Clinton waging war? You admit he did. Did he also invade? Not the way Bush invaded. I gave credit to Franks for a war handled very quickly. And he was picked by Clinton and used by Bush.

In Franks Book, he details some of the interference he got from Feith and also said he had to largely dismiss what he sought. Franks was a far better General than was Feith.

I have seem some books that have such bias they came it with minds made up to smear Bush and worked hard to ignore any evidence from our Generals.

Some allege Colin Powell was unhappy. Franks debunks that.

I will still google special plans. Now can I get you to read Franks book? I believe you will get a shock of your life.

Bush has not wavered from belief in his invasion, but he sure hates he got bad intelligence. He worked so hard to make sure he got correct intelligence.

See what is now red? I am an ultra careful reader. If there is a flaw, I will notice it. The flaw is the word or.

They blanket accuse Bush then sling in the tiny word we call or.

I well recall his case leading up to war. I know he kept calling Saddam a Grave and Gathering danger. But that is not the same as claiming he was chock full of WMD. I expect he learned that from George Tenet who promised Bush the place had them. And Clinton also had believed George Tenet. I don't know how to toss out claims and leave out George Tenet. Do you?

I served in a HQ/HQ Unit in the Army in Germany and was exposed there to how wars work. At least on the practice field. I can tell you flaws in our defenses in 1962-64 and say it based on my knowledge of our units there.

I did not fall off a turnip truck into the arms of General Franks. I had studied other generals also. As we ruminate over this again. I am reading a book on what German troops believed about the days ahead of D day and that will broaden it for me on that war. So I do study. And I do learn. And I hope to learn new things from you.

I largely dismiss OSP because General Franks dismissed them. Maybe Rumsfeld accepted their findings, but the General was rather annoyed at Feith. And still he said Feith is very smart.

I will ask Don if he thought the case was WMD or was it much richer than that. The entire story is not over WMD. That no doubt caught some attention since WMD was brought up. But when it got brought up, that came from a different General if you recall the time Colin Powell marched to the UN to lecture them about Saddam Hussein.

I have a real hard time faulting any of the two Bush nor Clinton over flaky intelligence from Saddam Hussein. The man lived to deceive. That got him into his worse trouble. Nobody believed him. He was a notorious liar. I am shocked you did not make that part of your case. Can you explain how you left out the lies of Saddam Hussein?

Bush would have told Congress about the WMD and the ties to Al Qaeda had he made that case. Want the actual video?

Let's both review his speech delivered over 911 to see where he talks about those WMD of Saddam or that he plans to invade Iraq.

Before I run on this topic, let me make sure I am understood.

First, to me, WMD does not justify war.

We could make war on Israel were that good enough. We could wage war on India or Pakistan were it good enough.

For my dollars worth, calling the shot to bang up Saddam took real guts.

My claim is simple. The war with Iraq was a fairly long process.

It started with an invasion of Iraq by Bush 41, prior to Clinton being involved. But Clinton did not end it. Clinton also bombed. When Bush 43 shows up for duty, a law to get rid of Saddam was on the law book. Congress and Clinton cooked up that idea. While I as one person would not have invaded Iraq for the same reason our troops do not belong in Syria in any capability, there they are. Do i approve what Obama does? No. Did i find the invasion of Iraq my cup of tea? No.

But I merely try to engage in the facts over what Bush did and why.

 

Oil from Ghawar fueled the Marshal Plan and provided fuel for our guys in Vietnam.. The US became a super power because of cheap oil from the ME when domestic production couldn't compete. Your view is a bit myopic.

 

One of my problems is age. I recall when the Suez Canal was blocked. I recall the leader prior to Anwar Sadat. Abdul Nasser, I am sure for most of you readers, his name is not well known to you. But when he blocked the Suez Canal, we thought a war was imminent. Nasser it is alleged nationalized the Canal to finance his dam project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser#Nationalization_of_the_Suez_Canal

So, this country that had at first approved the finance of his dam, yanked out.

My major point is we have been in the ME affairs for so long that I suppose we have to go to WW2 to hash it all out.

The idea we today would suddenly pull out is not logical. It is reasonable, just not logical.

 

That's not what happened.. I was there.

Eisenhower agree to finance the Aswan Dam.. Israel carried out Operation Susannah to bomb Americans and make it look like Arabs did it. Eisenhower reneged on the financing.. The Soviets stepped up.

 

Apparently at my age of 78, you are older than I am. Much older. Maybe you are in your 90s.

The link I posted explains what Eisenhower did. And his efforts to stop Nasser. I said we yanked out of providing financing. I really don't see our disagreement. As far as you blaming Israel, I know nothing of that. I think it important to we and the Arabs to relate more history than those of youthful age even know of.

 

The British, German, and French military is more than capable of protecting their interests in the Mideast. They are not doing it because we are doing it for them. This must end. In general, the U.S. can no longer protect the Western nations from all the evils in the world. We will help our friends, but they must assume responsibility for those matters that affect them.

 

Endless turmoil in the middle east keeps them preoccupied from lobbing rockets at Israel and gives something for our military industrial complex to do. It keeps our soldiers well trained. War is also good for the economy!

 

I saw your red line, pardon the pun. You overlooked the beginning of the sentence. "The study counted 935 false statements", that encompasses the part of the statement in red.

There are numerous sources.regarding the false reasons for the war. You simply chose not to believe them. Franks was not in a position to dismiss the OSP. He was not involved in the intrigue in the Pentagon. He is overruled by numerous sources who are familiar with Rumsfeld's attempts to make the war palatable to Congress and the American people. You dismiss the OSP for the simple reason that you do not want to believe their work. You should not dismiss them.

In terms of casualties, that, too, is based on many sources, including the million figure. Those casualties were a direct result of our invasion. If Franks lost only 140 men, good for him, but over 5,000 Americans were killed with 25,000 wounded.

I don't read books anymore. I am a news junkie now, and I do a fair amount of writing. Besides, like I said, generals are not very good sources. They are too close to the situation and they can be clueless as to what politicians are doing.

 

Uh no. They simply lack the force projection capabilities to do much more than get a few people killed. Why do you think the French and British needed US help in Libya? And Libya was easy. Hell it was all the French could do to keep a brigade supplied in whatever African country that was a year or so ago. There militaries are largely self defense forces. They can do nothing serious over seas without significant US help. It takes the French and British Navies together to equal the strength of one US carrier Group. And that strength is mainly committed to ASW at least on the British side not naval invasion. The British Navy is smaller and less capable now than it was for the Falklands campaign. The British Army is about 1 or 2 divisions. They lack refueling capability, for their relatively short ranged Eurofighters, which in any case are primarily air superiority craft rather than ground attack craft. Just to get to the point where they could begin to plan operations in the ME to defend their own interests would require at least a doubling of their own military budgets and probably more. And it would take a fairly lengthy period of time maybe as much as a decade by which time it might well be too late.

 

And yours is decades out of date.

 

When you string a long list of claims together, eg. long list of lies, then separate it with one word OR, that becomes a condition.

If i say you lied, OR you may have told the truth, does it mean you lied to me?

Again, let me reach you. When Clinton bombed Yugoslavia for day upon day, would you change from a Democrat over that?

Clinton waged war on Iraq as well. We don't mind saying when Pearl Harbor got bombed, Japan waged war on us. We can't then excuse ourselves when we do the bombing.

It was our bombs and missiles falling down on Saddam during Clinton. I drag in Clinton because he played a role between Bush 41 and 43, not merely to drag him into it. He used genuine bombs and missiles. If changing parties depended on harming the innocents. Clinton did so much damage to innocents I would shun the Democrat party and never vote for any of them,. Had Bush bombarded Yugoslavia as the Democrats so eagerly did, that could shove me to independents but not to Democrats.

 

You now have Don's e mail address. Bear in mind he too is an author.

Don is steady at the helm as I am. I don't jump parties over a tour of combat.

When Bill Clinton rushed into war against Yugoslavia, I bet you were very upset at the Democrats, so much so you never would support one again.

 

You've got me by ten years. But I still remember Nassar dying of a broken heart after the second time the Egyptian Army got it's ass kicked.

 

Operation Susannah was an attempt to keep the British occupying force in the Suez canal zone it largely failed and the only deaths were the operatives involved. It had nothing to do with Aswan. And occurred in 1954. But nce try.

 

We lived through some rough years for Israel. For a few years, it was them vs the Arabs and the Arabs lost all of the wars.

When I started posting, I was in my 50s. Every argument that can be made has been tossed at me by Democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

It was not in the link I supplied near as I can tell. But the fact that Israel did some serious butt kicking was in the link.

 

It was brought up by Margot, as blame for why Eisenhower pulled the Plug on Aswan a year latter. It was no such thing. The plug got pulled on Aswan because even by then it was clear that Egypt was becoming a Russian client state.