Comments Posted By andy
Displaying 121 To 130 Of 258 Comments
IRAQ: THE WITHDRAWAL CLOCK IS OFFICIALLY TICKING
During Vietnam our enemies learned that even if they could not win any battles in the field that a psy ops campaign directed against the Aemrican people can be successful, however, it must be stressed that we never would have gotten to this point had we planned better for the phase of the war that came after the former Iraqi government was removed from power.
Actually, the PSYOP campaign was primarly targeting the South Vietnamese population and it was mostly successful.
Comment Posted By Andy On 14.10.2006 @ 00:08
And now, because of the Leftocrats, and lack of Will of the supposed Republican “elites†like James Baker, we’re going ot repeat history, having won ALL the battles, we’ll lose the War nonetheless!
You misunderstand the fundamental nature of insurgency warfare. Winning battles ultimately means little, because the opposing military/insurgent force is not the primary center of gravity in an insurgent conflict. That is the primary reason we lost in Vietnam and, with a few notable exceptions, we're using the same failed strategy today. Blaming it on war protesters or so-called leftists is simply incorrect and only further divides the country which contributes to the "lack of will" among the American people you describe. Name-calling and blaming, which is so prevalent on both the right and left now, serves no purpose other than to hasten defeat.
It's a question of will, but not the will to unleash more firepower, as so many incorrectly suggest. If the Iraqi people (like the South Vietnamese before them) don't have the will to win, then it doesn't matter what we do. We cannot defeat the insurgency in Iraq. Only Iraqi's can do that with our help, but only if they have the will to do so - something we cannot give them.
Comment Posted By Andy On 14.10.2006 @ 00:05
THE WEBSITE THAT STARTED IT ALL - STRANGE BUT TRUE
And meanwhile, back in the real world, some of us are still fighting the war in Iraq and around the world. It's really heartening to know that our political class and those beholden to it are spending such valuable time getting to the bottom of this weak political conspiracy.
Comment Posted By Andy On 2.10.2006 @ 09:49
DOES CONFRONTING TERRORISM MAKE IT WORSE?
You know, the military doesn't even call it Al Qaeda anymore and hasn't really for over a year. The acronym du jour is "AQAM" - Al Qaeda and Associated Movements. What this essentially means is that Al Qaeda as a venture capital organization for terrorism has largely been disrupted. But the slack has been taken up by independent groups and individuals who plan and conduct their own operations while giving their fealty to AQ. I think metastasized is a good way to describe it. Since all these groups are largely working toward roughly the same goal and they are often indistinguishable, they are lumped under one government acronym.
I believe the NIE's conclusions as reported are largely correct. I know that some right-wingers will start with the liberal bias in the IC again, but that is BS. BTW, I'm glad you not only refrained from that, but, unlike some previous articles, didn't talk about the NIE as a CIA construct. In fact you didn't mention the CIA once - bravo!
Anyway, back to the point. The fundamental question is: Was invading Iraq ultimately worth the consequences? It's a basic cost-benefit analysis, but, like you point out, it's impossible to know how alternatives would have turned out. In addition, the story is still unfolding and there are consequences yet unseen in the future.
To give you my perspective, let’s look at the two primary options and try to determine which was ultimately more achievable (with some 20/20 hindsight):
(1) Containing/deterring or otherwise preventing Saddam from directly threatening US interests in a significant way until he dies or is overthrown.
(2) Invade, ensuring Saddam is removed as a threat, but in the process stirring a hornet’s nest of terrorism and increasing the terrorist threat to US interests.At this juncture, keeping in mind that events are still playing out, I think containing Saddam was the more achievable goal for a variety of reasons I won’t belabor much here. Overall, the war has borne a large cost and has left us in a position of strategic inflexibility that limits our options in regard to other threats. The nightmare scenario of Saddam building nukes would have taken years or decades to unfold – time that might have been spent on other threats. But this is, naturally, just educated speculation.
I’m already cringing at the battle this NIE will bring between the right and the left and how it will be used by both sides divisively in this election season. Politicians will use it as a weapon instead of a learning tool. It’s the sad state of our Republic, unfortunately and my cynicism increases daily.
Comment Posted By Andy On 23.09.2006 @ 23:35
HAPPY BLOG BIRTHDAY RIGHT WING NUTHOUSE!
Glad you're still here and hope more $$$ is in your future!
Comment Posted By Andy On 23.09.2006 @ 22:47
BILL CLINTON AND THE BIAS OF FOX NEWS
Kurt,
The answer to your question is kind of complex. First of all, there were competing interests in the government over how to classify terrorists like UBL. Terrorism had long been considered primarily a law-enforcement problem, and so the Justice Department and the FBI wanted to capture terrorists and do it legally so they could be legally prosecuted. The CIA, DoD and others wanted them killed. Unfortunately, the precedent set in the 1970's was largely toward law-enforcement.
Add to this were laws put in place after CIA adventurism in the 1970's that legally limited covert ops, especially assassination.
Over the course of the Clinton administration, the strategy slowly changed from one of capture and prosecution to one of kill, though the specific policy was still confusing. After the attempt on UBL in 1998, which almost got him, he was much more conscious about his security and we never really got the intel for another chance.
Comment Posted By Andy On 23.09.2006 @ 22:45
I get more tired of this debate each time I hear it. It's largely nothing more than political finger-pointing by both sides. Both administrations are to blame. In fact, blame can be traced back through to the Carter administration. Frankly, I'm surprised the Dems don't focus more on Reagan who's policy of funding Islamists in collusion with the Saudis to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan could be considered the genesis of the entire Jihadi movement. The right also never talks about Reagan and Bush the elder pulling out of Afghanistan completely, including all of our CIA connections, after the Soviet withdraw, or any number of other factors that severly limited reprisal options available to Clinton. Likewise the left doesn't acknowledge the same limited options available to Bush before 9/11 or any number of factors that limited his ability to confront AQ.
But like Morissey said, it's time to move on. In fact, I just now read his whole piece and agree with it 100%.
Comment Posted By Andy On 23.09.2006 @ 16:01
IRAQ STUDY GROUP TO RECOMMEND "QUIT OR COMMIT"
The NYT came out today and basically confirmed what I said above about troop levels and readiness:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/22army.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Comment Posted By Andy On 23.09.2006 @ 09:45
We need to get past the "massive infusion of new troops" fantasy. Even if such advice were sound at this point in time (it did have utility in 2003), it is simply not possible. The Army is operating at peak capacity and is sacrificing readiness to keep the maximum number of troops possible in Iraq and Afghanistan. At any one time, almost 50% of the Army's brigades are deployed. The other 50% just returned and need to refit to replace those that are there. There simply are no more troops to deploy. Even this 50/50 ratio is unsustainable in terms of personnel and equipment readiness, which is why readiness levels have consistently declined since 2003.
Comment Posted By Andy On 22.09.2006 @ 10:08
If those will be the actual recommendations then I seriously question the judgment of the poeple on that committee. How is one supposed to internationalize the conflict when Europe's Armies are so small. The entire German military has about the same number of total personnel as our Marine Corp and Coast Guard put together. Even if they had the desire to, the Europeans don't have the military capability to send and support more than a token force which will do nothing to solve the problems in Iraq.
I don't know why there continues to be this belief that if only the "international community" somehow got with us on Iraq, then suddenly the insurgency would be defeatable. The problems in Iraq are way beyond international "legitimacy."
The continuing ignorance of politicians and even senior military leaders in this country is astounding. We have a large-scale insurgency in Iraq, and have for the past several years, yet we still are not applying any of the basic tenets of counter-insurgency warfare doctrine. These stupid calls for "more troops" is a common example of the idiocy among the political elite. I'm particularly disappointed with the military I love so much, especially the senior Army leadership which is somehow ignoring all the lessons learned from Vietnam and other insurgent conflicts. With a few notable exceptions the only leaders in the military who understand the fight we're in are resident in the Special Operations community. Unfortunately, the are not in command of the campaign.
What scares me the most is the same dumb-ass politicians will ultimately decide if we will go to war against Iran or not. Their abysmal track record fuels my cynicism.
Finally, it looks as though the blame game for our impending loss in Iraq has already started. People on the right are already giving excuses similar to those given after Vietnam. The left is at the top of the blame list for "dividing" the country. Next is the fallacy that we're fighting with "one armed tied behind our back." The illusion here is that if we would only allow our forces to be more violent and more aggressive then we could defeat the insurgents. There are many more.
I think this war is now lost, but not because it's unwinnable. It's lost because we've largely wasted three years of political capital given by the American people, who are running out of patience. Even if we adopted effective strategies tomorrow, I doubt America's patience will see it through to the end. The only hope I have is that we reduce our conventional forces considerably and turn the show over to our SOF brethren who will then engage in true counter-insurgency operations. We will have to choose sides and it will be very bloody, but in the end I think we could still be successful.
Comment Posted By Andy On 21.09.2006 @ 14:56
