RoadRash 0 #51 December 23, 2004 QuoteYou're right. I only know how the military operates. Yeah Anvil...you don't know a THING about the military do you...not a damned thing...... ~R+R......and I owe you a phone call Vinny......~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #52 December 23, 2004 Quote>That's BS. From the beginning, it has been said that our >commitment would be years "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Rumsfeld, Feb 7 2003. "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s" - Myers, Mar 4 2003 "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." - Cheney, Mar 16, 2003 The initial operation to overthrow Saddam took weeks. It has been said, time and again, that our occupation and rebuilding efforts would take years. That's what I'm talking about. Quote>Well, based on the publications I've read, about 85% of the HMMWVs are armored . . . I'll buy that; I've heard 75-80% but I'll give you the 10%. Nevertheless, until people made a stink, no action was taken. Indeed, we heard excuses about how it couldn't go any faster. Then there was a stink, and rapid action was taken. Manufacturers who had been turned down when they offered to produce more suddenly saw orders. And that's great; it's an example of the system working. It's just unfortunate that our troops had to create a public stink to jolt Rumsfeld et al into action. Incidents like this make me hope that there are more US soldiers brave enough to speak out against their leaders when they see such a problem. It could save a lot of soldiers. The ArmyTimes article on this highlighted several areas that affected this situation. First of all, the manufacturers were at capacity before and during the beginning of the war, etc. Several of them though, through process improvements were able to increase their capacity. The other area that hindered this, after the mfr's noted they could increase their capacity was the process the Army had to pursue to get the funds to authorize the orders. Apparently, the government process wasn't very efficient (unbelievable, I know). This forced the Army to draw from other funds while waiting for authorization from "the" fund denoted specifically to augment the armor on the vehicles. I believe part of the process required Congressional input as well. Quote>Still, I've seen no consensus on how many it should have taken. I have seen no consensus on the number. I have seen near-universal consensus that it should have been far more than we supplied - but that would have made the war a harder sell. And in early 2003, the top priority in the white house was selling the war. With no experience to back this idea, using hind sight, the invasion force did not need to be any larger than it was, but the occupation force should have been larger.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #53 December 23, 2004 Quotethe invasion force did not need to be any larger than it was, but the occupation force should have been larger. Had the invasion force been larger, the occupation force would not need to be... follow on forces would have been able to hold on to the EPWs instead of taking thier weapons and telling them to go home. They would have been able to secure arms caches instead of bypassing them, so that the arms and munitions would not fall into other's hands. They would have been able, or at least had a better shot at screening civilians, and containing the bad guys early on. More forces would have been able to cut off escape routes to Syria... there are a number of things more invasion forces could have been employed to do that would have led to a different situation today... and to sat that is hindsight is incorrect, becuase it was part of the OPLAN for the invasion of Iraq a decade ago. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #54 December 23, 2004 The sound you hear is me laughing. I repeat: learn a bit about how DoD operates and get back to us. Tell me, when idiot-boy Kerry said 'I would have ensured the ammo dumps were guarded' during the debate, you were one of those saying 'yeah he's got a point against GWB there'. Am I right? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #55 December 23, 2004 Quote12 years was to long to sit and do nothing. I am glad to hear that. It mitigates the fact you're not making sense. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #56 December 23, 2004 Well, this article makes a lot of sense to me: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/23/1103391893763.html QuoteA new report blames the continuing bloodshed in Iraq on America's failure to honestly assess the situation. The US is facing increasingly deadly attacks in Iraq because, as in the Vietnam War, it failed to honestly assess facts on the ground and is living in "fantasy land", a report says. The report, prepared by Anthony Cordesman, senior fellow of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said Administration spokesmen and women had appeared to live "in a fantasy land" when giving accounts of events in Iraq. Mr Cordesman, a former Pentagon official who has made several trips to Iraq, said Iraqi spies were a serious threat to US operations and that there was no evidence insurgent numbers were declining, despite vigorous US and Iraqi counterattacks. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #57 December 23, 2004 Quoteyou obviously havent read much of the data publicly available on this... nearly every senior leader (without a political cause to support) in the military establishment recognized that the 'cake walk' would not, could not occur as the 'adminsphere' claimed. This was based on information from those on the ground in Iraq prior and knowledge from the recognized experts in these kinds of conflict.. comparing Afghanistan to Iraq in this regard completely ignores the differences in culture, environment and enemy force. The administration likes to pretend there is a ‘single coherent group’ fighting against the US and that we will be able to 'cut its head off' to defeat 'terrorism', but anyone with any knowledge of the real situation will tell you this is not the case, they are simply united by a common enemy… US. the force protection issues were also raised BEFORE the invasion... in fact many soldiers and their families were personally purchasing body armor to address the obvious oversight on the part of the civilian leadership... there are reports from both 3rd and 4th IDs that stated they needed additional up armored hmmv’s for the kind of security role they were undertaking both BEFORE the actual invasion, and as the assumed their areas of responsibility.. without this very public 'town hall' session bringing this issue to the eyes to the general public, do you think any of this would be happening? Of course not……. once again the military has no choice but to file their reports, request additional equipment and then ‘shut up and color’ with what they have.....and there is even (political) pressure not to ask for things they cant easily get as well... Yes its being used as a political issue, but that doesn’t change the fact that Rumsfeld and staff ignored the data and went on with his own agenda, an agenda that is also clearly documented BEFORE Bush’s first election……. Admitting how difficult and how ill prepared we were for this type of conflict would have undermined much of the initial public support for invasion that existed… something they were not willing to do…after all its cheaper to lose a few extra soldiers than lose public support for your war and possibly lose an election later on... this administration has a well documented history of only looking at the data and advisors that agree, and then taking the actions that they have ALREADY decided on. It is a piss poor way to run a war and a country… “don’t let reality interfere with your template” after all.. it isnt your blood that gets shed when your wrong.. I think they got the cake walk prediction pretty close for the first phase of the war, this all reminds me of Arnett saying the US was bogged down when they paused for resupply after the first weeks' stunning advances, and plenty of pundits (still called experts today) universally taking that view seriously at the time. It doesn't matter how wrong the left was it still tried to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. Prediction after pessimistic prediction was wrong and then finally we have terrorist resistance (early on the dire outcome was looting but nobody gave a crap) and this is held up as the example that the pessimists were right all along, no they weren't right. And it's STILL not clear that extra forces solve the problem, in fact it's pretty clear they wouldn't, nor would they have mitigated it if the initial invasion had been larger IMHO. Once again, there were many dire predictions by experts that didn't come to pass. Your claim that there was universal disapproval of the plan is exactly the kind of false impression you're hoping a few dissenters leave the public with. It's wrong but the guys who agreed with the plan don't get on a soap box and bitch about it, they just execute it and present it. We've seen those individuals day in day out and you want to pretend they don't exist. I've seen reports on force protection the bottlenecks in production and the measures taken to increase production in what was basically not far off a cottage industry. I've even seen the modest manufacturing facilities for the ceramics so don't pretend I'm completely unaware of this stuff. Rumsfeld was right when he said America has always gone to war with the Army it has not the one you wish it had. If congress had wanted that force protection and a better safer army they could have paid for it, but it would have to have been done years in advance not at the 11th hour as you blame Rumsfeld for now. The left blaming Rumsfeld for this now is the height of hypocrisy. It's well understood which side of the house is keen to invest in a strong military when it counted, in the years leading up to this conflict. As for the HMMWVs the numbers on upgrades are being improved, the problem is being worked successfully. Anyone with a clue knows this takes time and has a budget, it makes good emotional fodder for the peanut gallery saying cost doesn't count but there are multiple demands on budgets many of them life saving and sacrificing one for the others can be counter productive. Not to mention if shortcuts were taken with adverse consequences there'd be hell to pay. Nobody in the administration has said there's a single coherent group fighting us or that cutting the head off will defeat it. If fact they have said the exact opposite. Whenever they've captured a big figure (like Saddam) they've been intentionally cautious and cited the distributed nature of the enemy, even in the face of inane questions from the press on the matter (one of the reasons Rumsfeld does such a good job). Setting up an invented mythology about this administration like the claims they make about our enemy and then attacking the mythology is not reasonable criticism. It's an anti-Bush irrational fantasy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #58 December 24, 2004 you really need to take the political blinders off.... some of us are trying to support the TROOPS, not the political misfits who put them in harms way without the proper equipment and training in the first place... anyone who cant see that we started this without proper preparation and ignored clear indications that we were getting into more than a 'cake walk liberation' is a fool... unfortuantely the fools are in charge...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #59 December 24, 2004 Quoteyou really need to take the political blinders off.... some of us are trying to support the TROOPS, not the political misfits who put them in harms way without the proper equipment and training in the first place... anyone who cant see that we started this without proper preparation and ignored clear indications that we were getting into more than a 'cake walk liberation' is a fool... unfortuantely the fools are in charge... Oh please, there was preparation out the wazoo, your gripe is that there wasn't prescience. Your overriding issue as you've already let slip is that America went to war in the first place. Your whole attack is framed by political blinders. The fact is I like the job Rumsfeld is doing, it's not perfect but he does a lot right. Claiming an attack on Rumsfeld is supporting our troops doesn't lend credibility to a flawed case. Nor does the claim that those who disagree with you are fools or don't share that support. More fun reading: http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson122304.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #60 December 24, 2004 hardly, quite clearly many military experts predicted EXACTLY what would happen... it just didnt line up with the vision the administration was trying to sell to the public so it was ignored.. more reading from an editor with no real political, diplomatic or military experience?? bah... i prefer to listen to those with real experience in the realm, even when they are ignored by the decision makers... to the peril of those who must do the work on the ground...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #61 December 24, 2004 I'm still laughing. Read up, speak with someone who knows what they're talking about, learn something, then get back to us. Since you didn't answer my question, I'll assume the answer is 'yes'. Not sure where you got the 12 years from, but good for you. I'm still laughing. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #62 December 24, 2004 Quoteyou really need to take the political blinders off.... some of us are trying to support the TROOPS, not the political misfits who put them in harms way without the proper equipment and training in the first place... anyone who cant see that we started this without proper preparation and ignored clear indications that we were getting into more than a 'cake walk liberation' is a fool... unfortuantely the fools are in charge... Your in SC dude What are you thinking this is not a personnel attack to the fans in SC really it's not.... Really as you were dress right dress or is it counter clockwise today Have happy R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
