1st, we have to decide WTF we want to do there. Only then can you deal with how.
2nd, intel in counterinsurgency comes from the locals. If they don't like you, you're fucked.
Cheney was the one who called the place a quagmire. His most recent explanation is that 9/11 requires us to find quagmires and jump in.
That's because (a) his kids aren't there, but (b) his cronies' employees are.
There aren't English words for this obscenity.
EDIT: I'll tell you what I think, Doc, and that's that the RNC knows goddamn well what it wants (and that is the PNAC agenda, because it pays off their constituencies). They also know that if they advertise it, the voters would tell them to fuck themselves.
I really don't think the average American voter has much interest in making the world American. I suspect it would have mostly happened on its own, soon enough, if the neocons had known to leave well enough alone; but it's somewhat harder to convince a Russian or Chinaman these days of the native sagacity of Americans and their institutions, post-Bush.
-- Modified on 8/7/2007 1:02:04 PM
Stephen Pizzo never fails to provide a real picture of the fallacies expressed by the apologists who continue to pursue Petraeus' heroic, but failed "last stand." While the "liberated" suffer and die and their purple fingered Parliament goes on vacation like the U.S. Congress. What the hell? It's hot in August. (Links are on the link.)
Gunga Din Takes a Vacation
Written by Stephen P. Pizzo
Friday, 03 August 2007
by Stephen P. Pizzo
You may talk o' gin an' beer
When you're quartered safe out 'ere,
An' you're sent to penny-fights an' Aldershot it;
But if it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water,
An' you'll lick the bloomin' boots of 'im that's got it.
Sure, you turn the lights out if you're going away on vacation for a month. But the Iraqi parliament apparently went a step further when they left for a month away from away from the troubles in Baghdad – they turned off the water too.
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Much of the Iraqi capital was without running water Thursday and had been for at least 24 hours, compounding the misery in a war zone and the blistering heat at the height of summer...Residents and local officials said large sections of the city had been virtually dry for six days because the electricity grid can't provide enough power to run water purification and pumping stations. (Full story)
Oh, and did I mention it's 117 degrees in Baghdad this week? Of course, it is a dry heat.... which is one of those good news, bad news facts. This year it's extra dry heat. Here's an inconvenient fact – it's drier in Baghdad this August than it was five Augusts ago when Saddam the Sadist ran the place. Back then, (before the Iraqis were liberated,) they had water every day. They also had electricity at least 18 hours every day.
Today Iraqis consider themselves lucky if they get 2-hours of juice a day.
That was before August 1. Now it's down to an hour of electricity a day, and no water. Not a drop. Not for even a minute a day.
And did I mention it's 117 degrees there now? So hot that even the pampered members of Iraq's useless-as-tits-on-a-boar parliament skipped town for the month.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the US Congress is about to bug out for a month as well. And you can be sure President Bush will be flying air-condition Air Force One, well-stocked with bottled water, to Texas for his annual Crawford ranch vacation as well.
At least the Iraqi parliament had an excuse most of us can at least understand, if not approve of – it's hotter than billy-blue blazes in Iraq in August, and they're tired of dodging hourly assassination attempts.
What's Washington's excuse for skipping town?
Simple.. in a word their excuse is ... “Petraeus.”
Democrat or Republican, just ask them what the hell they're waiting for before calling an end to Bush's Vietnam and, to a person, they'll chirp “General Petraeus.” They'll explain that they understand you are hearing a lot of bad news about what's going on in Iraq, but that such “anecdotal” reports are not useful. They are waiting to hear the real deal from our man on the ground there, General David Petraeus, when he reports to Congress in September.
Well, should you run into one your elected reps during, what we can assume will be their cool and well-hydrated August vacation, you might mention that, unless the 8-million severely under-hydrated folks in Baghdad are lying about their current “living” conditions, we don't need to wait for General Petraeus' report. We already know enough to know that that the US's misadventure in Iraq has failed.
o Failed to improve the lives of the Iraqi people,
o Failed to produce a government that can resolve a single one of Iraq's pressing problems – or for that matter a single un-pressing problem.
o Failed to save Iraqi lives, having killed more innocent civilians in any given recent month than Saddam did during his most grouchy periods.
o Failed to rebuild what we destroyed during our invasion of the country
o Failed to jump start Iraq's only source of income, it's oil industry
o Failed to disarm Iraq's sectarian militias
o Failed to reverse the rising tide of ethnic cleansing in Sunni, Shia and Kurdish regions.
o Failed to restrain the growing influence of Iran over Iraqi affairs.
And now we learn that we've even failed as Baghdad's Gunga Din. After four years, $600 billion dollars, 3700 dead US soldiers and who knows how many tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, we/they can't even provide the hot, thirsty, and increasingly dirty, Baghdadians the most abundant resource on earth... water.
So it's a 117 degrees in Baghdad, and the public water system is dry as a bone.
Let's repeat that until it sinks in:
It's 117 degrees in Baghdad and there's no water.
It's 117 degrees in Baghdad and there's no water.
What could General Petreaus possibly tell us in September that would mitigate, explain or justify that single fact? What could he possibly report that would convince congress and the American people that 136,000 US troops and half a trillion dollars of our treasure have produced, or can produce, positive results for Iraq or the Iraqi people when one month before his testimony it's 117 degrees in Baghdad and there's no water service in that nation's capitol city?
How can he explain away an elected Iraqi parliament that leaves it's own people in such dire – life threatening – conditions to go on vacation for a month? A parliament that since it was elected has produced not a single piece of useful legislation. A parliament whose members, family, friends and militias have stolen more US aid money than they've invested into their nation's infrastructure. How do you think they're paying for those vacations aboard – trips they try to disguise as official business or for medical treatment. Even when the Iraqi parliament has not declared a mass vacation, up to half of them don't show up for work because they are off gallivanting the globe.
"More than half the members of parliament, ministers and senior officials are on vacation, sick leave or on official assignment abroad" at any given time, a government official said on condition of anonymity. "It is common practice now that they spend more time abroad than in their offices. The main reason is their fear of being targeted inside the country." (Full Story)
So if you are unlucky enough to run into one of our vacationing members of Congress this August, here's all you have to do. Walk right up to them and, when they reach out to shake your hand, grab and don't let go. Look them right in the face and recite the following:
“It's 117 degrees in Baghdad and there's no water.
It's 117 degrees in Baghdad and there's no water.
It's 117 degrees in Baghdad and there's no water.
What the holy hell are you waiting for?”
-- Modified on 8/4/2007 12:05:22 PM
Hell, they lost more French civilians in the days of taking back the city of Caen then we have in the 5 years of the Iraq war but shit, what's lives got to do with it?
let's get movin....
-- Modified on 8/4/2007 2:54:04 PM
oops. I guess you aren't gonna be out front, are ya?
That's the trouble with people these days, they aren't lining up to get killed for people who already put a yellow ribbon on EVERY FENDER!!
Let's do this right,
YOIu list how many people you killed and I'll list how many I killed.
The tiebreaker goes to the guy who's KIA's are within the closet distance. I know, that disadvantages pilots and artllery men but I'm sure you'll beat me with the greatest #'s anyways...
for somebody ELSE to do their fighting.
The ONLY thing MORE amazing is how fucken incurably STOOPID they are.
do you even HAVE a chest, BK? Is that the reason you're so fucken anxious to lose a half-million people before yer dumbass GWB defines a fucken OBJECTIVE?
Well, we keep going the way we have, you'll get your way soon enough.
Ooohhh, you're so BRAVE, SUCH A HE-MAN, with all those FUCKEN YELLOW RIBBONS, ya little chickenshit!!
Chest-thumping PFCs are God's gift to the Corps. But you ain't no Pat Tillman here, asswipe.
it's the new dance craze. Beatcher chest if you can find it. Just don't be enlistin. Plenty of welfare mothers like that lil England girl, she can do the fighting, we need BK and Quad here to "FIGHT THE WAR OF IDEAS!"
why he does'nt recognize something "tongue in cheek"
and then you prescribe a half million more casualties as a solution, it's a little hard to see the irony.
On August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the American Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 70,000 people. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and 6.6 percent severely damaged.[4] In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries, and hundreds more from radiation. [5] [6]
by the American hand, if Obama gets elected.
Hardly apologists for the war, read this...
Apologists is probably a good description, at least for Pollack. The guy was an advocate for war with Iraq and wrote a book in 2002 called "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq." Would it be safe to assume that this op-ed piece was at least partially an attempt to salvage his reputation over a failed policy. Also, these guys reached their conclusions after visiting Iraq for eight days. Here's another perspective from an Australian reporter who's been in Iraq since the start of the war from a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper:
Cooper: [We have] Michael Ware, who has been there in Baghdad and all across Iraq almost nonstop since the fighting began. Right now, he's embedded with American forces in Diyala Province, coming to us through a nightscope camera. Because of the danger there, they're not allowed to turn on any camera lights. Michael, you just heard the vice president saying he expects General Petraeus to report significant progress when he gives his assessment come September. What do you think of the vice president's evaluation?
Ware: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.
The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.
And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created. [emphasis mine]
So, to say the obvious, we're building up Sunni forces just as we once built up Saddam (who was Sunni) so he could oppose Iran. But once we leave, how will our having built up Sunni militias IN THE LONG RUN help Iraq to be at peace, and help the Sunnis and Shiites stop wanting to kill each other? Doesn't sound promising to me...
A bit later in the Ware interview:
COOPER: Well, the vice president also referred to this New York Times op-ed written by -- by Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, who returned from Iraq. They were applauding the military progress and the Iraqi security forces' ability to hold areas and keep insurgents out. How much have the Iraqi troops themselves actually improved?
WARE: Well, there has been improvement in the Iraqi troops. They are standing up, to a greater degree, in certain pockets.
But, honestly, Anderson, it is a myth to believe that the Iraqi forces have been rid of their sectarian or militia ties. No matter how much any commander wants to tell you, the minute the American forces turn their backs, these guys revert to form, be that Sunni or Shia lines, Kurdish ethnic lines, or be it militia lines.
So, there is still no sense of unity. And, without America to act as the big baby-sitter, this thing is not going to last. So all these successes that O'Hanlon and Pollack point to exist. They're real. But the report is very one-dimensional. It doesn't look at what's being done to achieve this and what long-term sustainability there is. ... The question is, is America prepared to pay this price? [emphasis mine]
"Ware: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that's indisputable."
Nobody said we won-- but progress finally being made is a good thing. Even Ware acknowledges it.
to get away with a sideswipe."
I guess a disaster is preferable to a cataclysm?
if you wanta put your moeny where your mouth is.
What's your bet? What result will you bet on, what odds?
For example: will you bet that next years' casualty rate is going to be LOWER than last year? or HIGHER?
Will you bet - ah, forget it.
in Phoenix, LA, Dallas, NO et al? Would you rather walk to work because you can't find a gasoline station opened? That is the scenario that will occur if we leave Iraq. Our energy supplies will be threatened and we will probably end up making fire with sticks.
Second point, the article was a piece of drivel. You truly are reaching for an argument if you think quoting Sir Rudyard Kipling has any relevance to the events of today. Perhaps I should agrue that it is our duty to remain in Iraq because it is: "the white man's burden".
Third point, I've been in 100 degree weather with no running water. It was called bivouacking in the Saudi Desert. One of my jobs was to clean out the latrines, take the shit out, add in the napalm, then stir it up real good and burn it.
That is what I should do with your crap. Listen buddy, this war is not easy and the first four years were I admit did not go well. But one thing that will piss me off is you blaming the lack of electricity on General David Petraeus or his troops.
It is not the Army's mission nor are they in charge of the electricity grid, maintaining the roads, bridges, educating the children or the government and diplomatic functions.
Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates made it known on Capitol Hill last week it is not the Army's job to construct the power plants etc. He has told the President and Majority Leader Pelosi, the other agencies in the government i.e. State Department must now shoulder the burden of reconstructing Iraq.
General David Petraeus and his troops are putting their life on the line and doing a helluva a job, and all you can do is bring up shit. You should be saying thank you.
-- Modified on 8/5/2007 9:45:28 PM
No one is blaming Petraeus and Gates. We know they jsut trying to clean up the flaming pile of shot they got handed because of the fuckups of
Rumsfeld and Franks. But it's a bit disingenuous to say to State Department "we broke it, now you fix it" after Rummy and DoD completely cut out the State Department early on and completely disregarded their planning and warnings about rebuilding Iraq post invasion. Besides, do you really want someone as incompetent of Secretary of State Rice trying to manage nation building in the middle of that mess? That's a scary thought.
impressed with the job Sec. of State Rice has been doing. Though I do wonder if the Bush Adminstration is providing her with the tools and the management commitment to do the job right? For example, this whole passport fiasco.
Granted, Rumsfeld was no master planner and as military strategist, he sucked. What I like about Gates and Petraeus is that they are being honest of what the DoD can do and will do, and that it is a start.
Respectfully, the problem I had with your post is the use of literary quotes to prop up an opinion with no facts. It was being cute.
There can be no question both Gates and Petraeus were not wearing gloves when they were handed the job of cleaning up the huge mess made by their predecessors. What needs to be done is to clean up the mess, learn from the mistake, and hold those responsible, accountable. Not that that would ever happen with our current government. The Reps are too engorged and the Dems too eager to take control of the Imperial powers this administration has usurped.(flowery words, of course)
And as far as Rice is concerned, at one time I was VERY impressed with her and her credentials, despite her conservative leanings. Now however, after seeing her inaction(sic), I think she should just put on a pair of those $5000 shoes of hers, and start walking. And keep walking. Away. Far away. Go write her memoirs and be a trophy administrator for a conservative think tank.
Franks and Rumsfeld deserve nothing less than execution for their parts in the needless deaths of thousands. Dubya & Cheney should be locked in a room, their eyelids taped open a la Clockwork Orange, and be forced to watch Farenheit 911 repeatedly. I'm such a sadist.
1st, we have to decide WTF we want to do there. Only then can you deal with how.
2nd, intel in counterinsurgency comes from the locals. If they don't like you, you're fucked.
Cheney was the one who called the place a quagmire. His most recent explanation is that 9/11 requires us to find quagmires and jump in.
That's because (a) his kids aren't there, but (b) his cronies' employees are.
There aren't English words for this obscenity.
EDIT: I'll tell you what I think, Doc, and that's that the RNC knows goddamn well what it wants (and that is the PNAC agenda, because it pays off their constituencies). They also know that if they advertise it, the voters would tell them to fuck themselves.
I really don't think the average American voter has much interest in making the world American. I suspect it would have mostly happened on its own, soon enough, if the neocons had known to leave well enough alone; but it's somewhat harder to convince a Russian or Chinaman these days of the native sagacity of Americans and their institutions, post-Bush.
-- Modified on 8/7/2007 1:02:04 PM
We know the little buggers hate us, and we don't have time for it.
So we buy them off. We create a bunch of little warlords, mafiosi, throughout Iraq, and we play them off against each other. We make the money off the oil; we FUCK the central govt, and we have money managers bid the militias off against each other. Threats of underbidding, military force, etc, should keep it more or less manageable. We have to keep them pretty small, can't be having any single group controlling a provice or town - need several competitors, and we need to have enough troops on hand to knock heads when we need to.
So US companies make money on the oil, and on the contracts, and US taxpayers pay the troops and contracts, and we might get the casualties down to a couple a day, and we stay there until the Democrats grow a pair ask, WTFK?!!
But don't forget, we're there to liberate Iraqi women so they can suck our cocks.
So the 1st 4 years didn't go well.
Now why do you suppose that could be?
Do you think the next 4 will go any better?
Any guesses what might make a difference?
Are you sick of the fucken spin? Who the hell put these troops' lives on the line? and what good has it done, and what good is is going to do?
So lets pay fucken KBR double cost plus to rebuild Iraq with shitty construction. Doesn't matter, the militias will destroy the place before it's in operation, as they have before.
The one strategy that might have a chance is to buy out the militias. So we've divided them all up against each other, and a lot of the oil money goes back to them in payoffs, but Halliburton gets a cut, and security is provided by the Americans - the white collars pay the taxes, and the blue collars pay the blood.
Cheney knows goddamn well he got us into a quagmire. But it's a PROFITABLE quagmire - at least for the RNC stockholders.
Napalm we used works remarkably well for burning shit because it attaches itself to everything. Real sticky stuff, which is why you had to be careful not to touch it.
Before the Army, I always thought napalm was some made up movie prop until I actually saw the stuff. I should have known you were a shit-stirrer too, hey just kidding. Now back to Iraq:
Respectfully yes I do think we have a winnable strategy. Yes, I do agree the last 3-4 years we were inundated with happy talk. Rumsfeld made the classic stratagem mistake of too many bombs and too few troops.
With Gates we finally have a no BSer who understands the complexity and limitations of modern warfare. The utility of force and it's proper application is something Rumsfeld and his boss never understood.
..by the way welcome back. I respect your views because you are intelligent, though a bit recalcitrant. You were also an actual American fighting man, which is something I never got to do, actually fire my weapon.
-- Modified on 8/6/2007 9:50:23 PM
but anywhere there is a shitter is a rear echelon, and it wasn't all that often we had to do that.
This thing is out of control. It was out of control before we went in. There was no defined goal, and they knew it was going to collapse into an insurgency. Shit, it was as obvious as the nose on your face.
Counterinsurgency is policing with infantry. You can't do it unless you have local political support, and that is usually pre-determined, and beyond the control of even theater commanders. The successes we have reported are probably the result of paying off local militias. But the whole thing is so political, it makes me puke.
"Win"?? What's the objective? I can define an objective that will show we've already won. Until the objective is defined, you can't start to win.
GWB may be a fucking moron, but the RNC knows enough of what they are doing, and it has nothing to do with securing the American people, nor supporting the troops.
and in fact, I got my people out of it too. Because we were line units. That's the usual deal with Marines, either on board ship with real flush toilets, or on the line, where they're too much trouble. It's only field bases that they use them.