Troop surge in Iraq

[Bill Peckham]

 
Sing with me through the tears. If you can't sing you can watch the old pro himself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnrHWhmMiz8&eurl=

(hat tip effect measure) Waist Deep In The Big Muddy by Pete Seeger 1963, planned for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1967 but CBS objected to the blacklisted Seeger making obvious references to the"big fool" in the White House, finally sung by Seeger on the Comedy Hour in 1968 as the finale in a medley of anti-war songs

    It was back in nineteen forty-two,
    I was a member of a good platoon.
    We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
    One night by the light of the moon.
    The captain told us to ford a river,
    That's how it all begun.
    We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
    But the big fool said to push on.

    The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
    This is the best way back to the base?"
    "Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
    'Bout a mile above this place.
    It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
    We'll soon be on dry ground."
    We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
    And the big fool said to push on.

    The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
    No man will be able to swim."
    "Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
    The Captain said to him.
    "All we need is a little determination;
    Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
    We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
    And the big fool said to push on.

    All at once, the moon clouded over,
    We heard a gurgling cry.
    A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
    Was all that floated by.
    The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
    I'm in charge from now on."
    And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
    With the captain dead and gone.

    We stripped and dived and found his body
    Stuck in the old quicksand.
    I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
    Than the place he'd once before been.
    Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
    'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
    We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
    When the big fool said to push on.

    Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
    I'll leave that for yourself
    Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
    You'd like to keep your health.
    But every time I read the papers
    That old feeling comes on;
    We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
    And the big fool says to push on.

    Waist deep in the Big Muddy
    And the big fool says to push on.
    Waist deep in the Big Muddy
    And the big fool says to push on.
    Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
    Tall man'll be over his head, we're
    Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
    And the big fool says to push on!

    Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)
    TRO (c) 1967 Melody Trails, Inc. New York, NY

[jbeany]

"Surge" - yeesh.  Who comes up with these word choices, anyhow.

Every time they use the word surge, I get a visual impression of the body-filled waters from that tsunami, only all the bodies are in uniform.

[BigSky]

You are kidding right?

The little communist POS pete seeger? 


Funny you would think he would move to Cuba or North Korea and lived his life in the system of his choice.

[Bill Peckham]

It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger. Not sure what the solution is to that but there sure is allot of it going on. If not Pete then how about listening to General Petraeus. He  "is probably the smartest active-duty general in the U.S. Army today. Late last year, he co-authored the Army's field manual on counterinsurgency—its first in over 20 years." (hat tip slate)

Here is the link to pdf of the general's guide to counterinsurgency.
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

[BigSky]

It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger.

The messenger's message is worthless by the fact that the messenger in question HATES America and democracy!

[Bill Peckham]

It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger.

The messenger's message is worthless by the fact that the messenger in question HATES America and democracy!

General Petraeus?

[BigSky]

It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger.

The messenger's message is worthless by the fact that the messenger in question HATES America and democracy!

General Petraeus?

Well that PDF never came up so dont know what he is saying now.  When it comes up I will read it.

He is indeed a good soldier.

However I would dispute him being the smartest active duty general.

 It was his job to train the Iraqi forces and by all accounts that has been a failure under his command has it not?

[Bill Peckham]

Try this article http://www.slate.com/id/2157155  The PDF took a while to come up even on my High Speed Connection - after all it is an Army report. Are there short Army reports too?

I have no personal knowledge to add so I like to read what smart paople are saying. I'll read any links you post.

[Sluff]

We don't have to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, They have more information than we do about current events, with limited information, possible tainted information, how can we sit here on the couch and think we know what is better for the Country than the ones who are overthere?

I'm prior service and I was taught to respect my Commander in Chief, regardless of his decision right or wrong. This is a free country and  many have died on the battle ground to give us this right to speak our minds, but I think most people only ride the shirt tails of the popular vote. I have many Brothers all over the world wether it's peacekeeping, or the front lines and for them I will keep my faith in my leaders. No one here knows the true situation of what is happening over there except the ones who have been there.

Media coverage is not accurate. Rumors are not accurate. Popular Vote is not accurate.

This war is not WWI, it is not WWII, it is not the Korean War, and it sure the hell is not Viet Nam so give our Brave Soldiers the proper respect they so rightfully deserve. I don't care about the war and the casualty count because If my Commander in Chief tells me we are doing good there then we are. Part of War is Loss of Life and it is a sad statistic but the numbers are definately less in each war than the previous ones. To complain without proper information is to say that the Brave soliers who died for you and me was in vain.

I have lost Brothers very close to me in the war on terror, that gives me the right to Rant.

[BigSky]

It finally came up and I scanned it.

Sorry but I do not see that he actually co-authored it.  He did the foreword. 

From the looks it looks to be that the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is the proponent for the publication and that it was prepared by the  Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.

[glitter]

We don't have to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, They have more information than we do about current events, with limited information, possible tainted information, how can we sit here on the couch and think we know what is better for the Country than the ones who are overthere?

I'm prior service and I was taught to respect my Commander in Chief, regardless of his decision right or wrong. This is a free country and  many have died on the battle ground to give us this right to speak our minds, but I think most people only ride the shirt tails of the popular vote. I have many Brothers all over the world wether it's peacekeeping, or the front lines and for them I will keep my faith in my leaders. No one here knows the true situation of what is happening over there except the ones who have been there.

Media coverage is not accurate. Rumors are not accurate. Popular Vote is not accurate.

This war is not WWI, it is not WWII, it is not the Korean War, and it sure the hell is not Viet Nam so give our Brave Soldiers the proper respect they so rightfully deserve. I don't care about the war and the casualty count because If my Commander in Chief tells me we are doing good there then we are. Part of War is Loss of Life and it is a sad statistic but the numbers are definately less in each war than the previous ones. To complain without proper information is to say that the Brave soliers who died for you and me was in vain.

I have lost Brothers very close to me in the war on terror, that gives me the right to Rant.

hear hear

[Bill Peckham]

We don't have to agree with the decisions made by our leaders, They have more information than we do about current events, with limited information, possible tainted information, how can we sit here on the couch and think we know what is better for the Country than the ones who are over there?

One way we can decide we know better is by looking at the results of past decisions. I can't see how we can say we are honoring our cousins and neighbors in uniform if we are blindly following bad leadership. Those in uniform have a duty to follow orders, we civilians have a duty to demand competent leadership.

Never forget our dear leaders work for us. I don't understand how one could be for the Mideast democracy project yet disparage democracy at home. Tainted information? Are you saying the results are tainted? Are you really able to simply put aside everything that has been said, everything that has happened, and just accept the next order? The next plan? Is that how you support the troops?

Sure all of this is over our pay grades but we are all the troops have. We are the ones who hired their leader and it is up to us to step up to our oversight duty. I think the way you honor the people over there is by demanding competency. I think the way to honor our troops is by giving our best effort and I don't think our government is preforming as well as this country is capable of doing. Damn the blame. Damn the political consequences but dammit we need to do a better job. This is happening on our shift. It is your job to understand this situation.

It has been three years. There are books about this. First person accounts of missed opportunities. See: Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq;  Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq; Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, et al, it is a long list. This is limited information? This is tainted information? Does the Baker/Hamilton report fall into that category?

The people who made the decisions in 2002 and 2003, the Generals and the appointees are there on your TV set telling you that we are way off track. The elder luminaries of both parties - the Baker/Hamilton Commission - have tried to point out that the horse has left the barn on our Iraq democracy project. Iraq is not going to be the first domino triggering a cascade of Mideast democracy from Egypt to Iran. There may have been a way to accomplish these goals back in 2002 but that was a long time ago and really the risk was never worth the reward.

If the Iraq debate is such a balanced debate that there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong then wouldn't the situation be getting better? Which books written in support of this policy are still read and held up as insightful. Who among all the people who worked in this administration, name a person who has had their reputation burnished. What person could you point to as someone who made their name by working in or for this this administration's?

[Bill Peckham]

It finally came up and I scanned it.

Sorry but I do not see that he actually co-authored it.  He did the foreword. 

From the looks it looks to be that the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is the proponent for the publication and that it was prepared by the  Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.

Right, but someone wrote it, I believe Petraeus was one of the authors. The point is the doctrine outlined we'd need 120,000 troops to clear and hold Bagdad. There are 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq. Unless we pulled from Korea where would we get the forces to clear and hold Bagdad? Wanting to do something is not enough, you have to have a reasonable idea that it can be done.

[Rerun]

Sing with me through the tears. If you can't sing you can watch the old pro himself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnrHWhmMiz8&eurl=

(hat tip effect measure) Waist Deep In The Big Muddy by Pete Seeger 1963, planned for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1967 but CBS objected to the blacklisted Seeger making obvious references to the"big fool" in the White House, finally sung by Seeger on the Comedy Hour in 1968 as the finale in a medley of anti-war songs

    It was back in nineteen forty-two,
    I was a member of a good platoon.
   

1942 was WWII.  Most people hold WWII in high esteem. 

Let's ask the people who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001 if we should pull the troops home.  Let's ask Saddam Hussein if he is sorry for all his black deeds...oops he's dead.  Thank you George Bush.

Seattle is about as liberal as they get, so who knows what you hear.  Any service men that I've talked to say we are doing good over there.

The difference between WWII and now is we can't just go drop the Atomic Bomb because this war has no borders.  These terrorists are everywhere.  Even in the United States.

[Sluff]

Bill Peckman,

I believe in backing our leaders right or wrong. Election time is the time allotted for change and when the majority decides who is in then thats the way it is. Like I said before, the honorable thing to do is support our troops instead of judging our leaders.

Our soldiers need to know that they are out there because our leaders sent them there as a necessity, and that we back them at all cost, thats what they are doing aren't they, backing us at all cost?

The question is troop moral, if all you hear is negative comments about your commander in chief, THAT IS going to bring down troop moral. However if the troops hear positive comments about our leaders and about the accomplishments of there duties, we are then a force to be reckoned with.

Everyone makes mistakes and I'm sorry going to war is not text book sometimes, but I hardly think any President would make the call if they did not think they were making the right choice.

People sit around thinking they know more than everybody else, but they do it in the comfort of their homes in their own enviroment but half of these people have never been to war, who are they to judge?

Although you bring up some good points, I don't see a value in debating it so I'm ending here, I've had my say, we can agree to disagree.

[Bill Peckham]

1942 was WWII.  Most people hold WWII in high esteem.

They "were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna," to me this just points out that you need good leadership all the time. Even in Loozianna. Men in uniform depend on their leaders. We do not "Hire and Forget". We vote someone into office and then we have oversight responsibilities. That's how it works, or at least that is how it suppose to work.

[Bill Peckham]

Seattle is about as liberal as they get, so who knows what you hear.  Any service men that I've talked to say we are doing good over there.

Whatever Couger   More liberal than Eugene?

[Zach]

Let's ask the people who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001 if we should pull the troops home.

I lost a dear friend on 9/11.  He worked at JP Morgan Chase Bank at One World Trade Center.
There were several people who died at the U.S. Customs offices that worked with my Dad.

I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone for good.  The world is much better.

But, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[nextnoel]

I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone for good.  The world is much better.

But, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

EXACTLY RIGHT!

As a sidebar, I worked for 10 years as a systems analyst for the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon, and one thing I learned was that none of us has the whole story of what's going on - or what WILL be going on.  I respect to the nth degree every one of the troops fighting for us, and I respect the Office of the Presidency, but that doesn't mean I agree with some of the decisions being made at that level.  Even allowing for not knowing what all goes into the decisions, I think that in hindsight, a case can be made that "mistakes were made".  In my view, adapting strategy to current needs based on past learning is not a weakness, it's a strength, and we should do some of it!

[BigSky]

First off there was no scandel to the Iraq war.

Iraq committed numerous terrorist attacks and acts of war on the US over the years.  There were 5 major reasons listed for our war with Iraq.  Yes even to date we have indeed found some WMD despite claims of some on the issue.  Were they the stockpiles as Bush had outlined that we thought Saddam had from UN reports?  No.  Bush has long ago admitted we have not found the huge stockpiles of WMD's.  That does not however mean we have not found some WMD of which Saddam was banned from having ANY at all!  As of 2004 the ICS listed that it had found 47 canisters of sarin gas alone.  Was this enough for war??  Maybe, maybe not, however it was over more than WMD remember?


As to 9/11 and Iraq.  We went to war with Iraq because of 9/11, not because they were involved with 9/11.

Was Iraq actually involved with 9/11.  So far what we are told no.  However....

We will never probably know Iraq's true involvement if any on 9/11 because of the CIA bs.  After all the CIA missed Iraq's involvement in the 93 WTC bombing.

It is noteworthy that Atta did meet with Iraqi Intelligence in the Czech Republic.  Does this mean that Iraq was in on 9/11?  No, but it brings up questions.

Of course an "unnamed source" at the CIA says it didn't happen.

Problem is I believe the Czech Republic because its leaders stood  before cameras and gave their names and said it did happen but yet the CIA who screwed the pooch on this event and the 93 WTC, says it didn't happen.  Hmm I believe those who stood up and put their names out their over some POS at the CIA who will not even give his/her name to their claim.   But thats me.



 
What is going on now is a fight with terrorists. 
There is no battle plan to fighting terrorism like their is with an organized government.  Fighting terrorists is a dirty fight and is by no means a conventional battle like past wars have been.

We were all told up front the fight with terrorism was going to be a long fight.

My how soon some forget.

Yes over 3000 US soldiers have died.   Any death of a soldier is not good.  Yet over 6600 died on D-day alone.  This fight with terrorism is just important as our fight during past world wars.

We have seen how the Clinton Administrations  idea of using the courts to fight terrorism worked. Somalia, Cole, Kohbar Towers and on and on and on.  After Somalia where Clinton tucked tail and ran and left the troops high and dry, Bin Laden called America a paper tiger and said he would attack us anywhere he wanted, the result....9/11.

Terrorists are still going to try to strike this nation.  So either we fight them in Iraq or somewhere else.  The more we keep them preoccupied somewhere else the less time they have to focus on attacks on mainland US.




 

 

[Sluff]

First off there was no scandel to the Iraq war.

Iraq committed numerous terrorist attacks and acts of war on the US over the years.  There were 5 major reasons listed for our war with Iraq.  Yes even to date we have indeed found some WMD despite claims of some on the issue.  Were they the stockpiles as Bush had outlined that we thought Saddam had from UN reports?  No.  Bush has long ago admitted we have not found the huge stockpiles of WMD's.  That does not however mean we have not found some WMD of which Saddam was banned from having ANY at all!  As of 2004 the ICS listed that it had found 47 canisters of sarin gas alone.  Was this enough for war??  Maybe, maybe not, however it was over more than WMD remember?


As to 9/11 and Iraq.  We went to war with Iraq because of 9/11, not because they were involved with 9/11.

Was Iraq actually involved with 9/11.  So far what we are told no.  However....

We will never probably know Iraq's true involvement if any on 9/11 because of the CIA bs.  After all the CIA missed Iraq's involvement in the 93 WTC bombing.

It is noteworthy that Atta did meet with Iraqi Intelligence in the Czech Republic.  Does this mean that Iraq was in on 9/11?  No, but it brings up questions.

Of course an "unnamed source" at the CIA says it didn't happen.

Problem is I believe the Czech Republic because its leaders stood  before cameras and gave their names and said it did happen but yet the CIA who screwed the pooch on this event and the 93 WTC, says it didn't happen.  Hmm I believe those who stood up and put their names out their over some POS at the CIA who will not even give his/her name to their claim.   But thats me.



 
What is going on now is a fight with terrorists. 
There is no battle plan to fighting terrorism like their is with an organized government.  Fighting terrorists is a dirty fight and is by no means a conventional battle like past wars have been.

We were all told up front the fight with terrorism was going to be a long fight.

My how soon some forget.

Yes over 3000 US soldiers have died.   Any death of a soldier is not good.  Yet over 6600 died on D-day alone.  This fight with terrorism is just important as our fight during past world wars.

We have seen how the Clinton Administrations  idea of using the courts to fight terrorism worked. Somalia, Cole, Kohbar Towers and on and on and on.  After Somalia where Clinton tucked tail and ran and left the troops high and dry, Bin Laden called America a paper tiger and said he would attack us anywhere he wanted, the result....9/11.

Terrorists are still going to try to strike this nation.  So either we fight them in Iraq or somewhere else.  The more we keep them preoccupied somewhere else the less time they have to focus on attacks on mainland US.
 

Well Said. Big Sky

Thanks

Sluff

[Rerun]

Big Sky - That is what I was thinking but didn't know how to word it.

                                        

[Bill Peckham]

Bigsky I agree we'll never know what business Atta had in the Czech Republic but does it make sense that the Wahabi terrorists of 9/11 would partner with the Bathist Sadam? And what was Iraq supposed to have supplied? There seem to be a clear quid pro quo between the terrorists and the Taliban. The terrorists take out Massoud and the Talban have to tolerate more international diplomatic heat. They really misjudged - they screwed up and brought the world down on their heads.

I just can't help wondering what sort of hand we'd be playing if instead of going into Iraq we had continued into that ungoverned area along the boarder with Pakistan and then camped on the Afghanistan/Iran boarder. I think there is a lot to be said for a strategy of realpolitik that would have used Sadam to press Iran. I mean you have to stretch to find a connection between Iraq and Bin Laden but what about Iran? I know the whole shia/sunni, Arab/Persian hatred but still my point is the US had some actual good options once upon a time.

Now we have only bad options. So I think we have to look at the manuals. Evaluate the situation away from emotions and domestic politics. We should follow the advise of by the book experts - our generals, our elder statesmen, our history. One point that counterinsurgency manual made is that to do the job you need a lot of men —at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 locals. Baghdad has about 6 million people. The outcome of the current situation may well be the outcome of the situation if it was a civil war. It may or may not fit the historic definition of ciivil war but the necessary outcome may have to be the same - sunni/shia one side will have to win. If that has to happen what are we going to do about it? What are our too few guys suppose to do?

I worry when I hear the casualty numbers used to say it's been worse and those past sacrifices paid dividends. It's not over and with those dividends came consequences. It also depends if you think the comparison is 1973 or 1965. Last night we were told to pin a lot of hopes on the people in the Iraq leadership. That is very hard for me to do.

[kitkatz]

Simply put if we leave Iraq in its present situation, there will be civil war and it will destabilize the region.  It will also give other countries a reason to go into Iraq and the areas around the region and take over.  If one Arab country goes, the whole barrel of them will go and the region will become a real hot zone.  If the government can stabilize itself in Iraq and begin to police it people and settle terrorism in the area, then we can begin moving American troops out of there.  Remember Iraq was pretty stable because Saddam Hussain was in large and in charge, when we deposed him we set up a sequence of events we are now responsible for correcting.  We cannot just leave it and bring our soldiers back home right now.  I wish we could and I do NOT agree with sending more over there to die.

[BigSky]

Bigsky I agree we'll never know what business Atta had in the Czech Republic but does it make sense that the Wahabi terrorists of 9/11 would partner with the Bathist Sadam? And what was Iraq supposed to have supplied? There seem to be a clear quid pro quo between the terrorists and the Taliban. The terrorists take out Massoud and the Talban have to tolerate more international diplomatic heat. They really misjudged - they screwed up and brought the world down on their heads.

I just can't help wondering what sort of hand we'd be playing if instead of going into Iraq we had continued into that ungoverned area along the boarder with Pakistan and then camped on the Afghanistan/Iran boarder. I think there is a lot to be said for a strategy of realpolitik that would have used Sadam to press Iran. I mean you have to stretch to find a connection between Iraq and Bin Laden but what about Iran? I know the whole shia/sunni, Arab/Persian hatred but still my point is the US had some actual good options once upon a time.

First off remember that Saddam was FORBIDDEN from having any association or funding any terrorist or terrorist group.

Well the Iraqi coalition government said if found documentary proof that Saddam had Atta in country and was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. 

You might note that Saddam has a long history of funding Abu Nidal.


Saddam had a long history of funding Muslim terrorist groups.  Al-Qaeda was behind the 93 WTC bombing but it was considered a black flag operation by Iraq.  Yousef was brought into build the bomb.  Yousef was called the "Iraqi" by those that got caught.  After the bombing one of the suspects escaped and went to Iraq where he was given safe haven by Saddam.

One of Saddam's own sons (Uday) ran a paper called the Babel.  In it he triumphed  their talks with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

A senate intelligence report stated that Saddam and given Bin Laden financial and logistical support for more than a decade.  That an Iraqi defector had stated that bin laden had met with Aziz in 1998. 

It might also be noted that a CIA report in 2000 on the Cole bombing stated it was the work of Al-Qaeda but that Iraq had played a role in it.

Also an indictment by the Justice department during the 90's made the link between Saddam and Bin Laden.

Newsweek ran an article in 1999 that stated the following:

Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Just days after this ran ABC ran the following:

Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

Again remember that Saddam was FORBIDDEN from doing any of the above when he asked for a cease fire to the first Gulf War.

The history goes on and on and on between Saddam, bin laden and terrorism.

After all those that committed 9/11 were also out drinking and going to strip clubs.  Both a violation of their religion.   So to think that they would not associate with Saddam because he was secular is misguided.


So it does not take a stretch of imagination to see the links.  No it doesnt.  It is well documented before 9/11 occurred.