View Single Post
      02-08-2007, 01:28 PM   #148
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
1- The number of troops required to deal with Iraq's regular military forces was not miscalculated. The problem occurred when the number and types of troops in the pipeline for the post-conventional phase were not the right type for the situation that developed. We planned for a situation where the most pressing problems would be civilian dislocation and deprivation and that was not the case. We were surprised by the speed at which the Ba'athists and the 'al-Qaeda elements were able to organize into an operational insurgency. We expected a window of opportunity to get a provisional Iraqi government on its feet and begin to train a new security force before opposition could organize, we assumed wrong. The alternative of course, was to pour more forces into the country after Saddam fell and then have people (like you) blame us for causing the insurgency and inflaming the populace by our heavy presence.
.
Actually, there was not insurgency in Iraq before we stepped in. The "Iron Fist" was preventing all that. Actually, I would not call all of them "insurgents", some of them are actually -- resistance. Fighting against agression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
2 - I do not remember anyone giving a firm estimate on how long it would take or how much money. I do remember being told it would be a long, hard struggle.
.
Correct, the "firm" estimate was never given, however, no one has even thought that 4 years later a lot is left to be done. For God sake, the WW2 lasted less than 5 years! Plus, if Bush said that it would cost a trillion of $ to do it, I don't think Congress or anyone in the right mind would approve it. Get my point? He misled everyone on this war -- PPT presentations, rushing, "With me or not patriot", used the 911 for his personal fullfilment, no length limit...

3- I do not believe anyone underestimated the need to secure either the Iranian or Syrian border. Quite simply the failure to adequately do so flows from the same assumption mentioned above, the time the opposition would need to organize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
4- I defy you to read about GEN Abazaid and tell me he does not understand and appreciate the history of the region.
.
Then, he (them) is not either applying his knowledge correctly or he simply thought he knew it... Please see the link:
http://www.geocities.com/onlythecapt...npub090503.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
5- Have you ever read the speech the President gave on the deck of the Lincoln? He said we successfully rid Iraq of Saddam. He never said our job was finished. He said,
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
.
Actually, I avoid listening to his crap.
Anyway, all I remember is the sign "Mission Accomplished".
Also, above in his speach -- he says "the parts of the counrey remain dangerous". That was then. Now, it is the whole country, there is no safe place in Iraq!


I am not sure how you come about the limited military knowledge you have but I would suggest you find another source. The idea that we would be unable to deal with North Korea in a conventional conflict and are not trained to do so is absurd. A conflict with north Korea would undoubtedly be very bloody and wreak havoc on the infrastructure of the RoK but there is little doubt that north Korean military would lose any conflict with the combined forces of the US and RoK. The confined mobility corridors


Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Looks to me like you refuse to accept that there are consequences to quitting. Your pessimism and misguided delusions of what may motivate the conviction of the President and others that this is a fight we have to win is further evidence that you have allowed your irrational hatred of this President to control your thinking in this matter.
.
I guess, I and 6.5B other people are irrational and all the media is just talking crap nowdays... All is going great over there...exactly as planned and desired...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
I am certainly glad you were not around during the dark days for the Union in 1863 or after Battle for Kasserine Pass in 1943. War's are won or lost, the only way we can lose this one is by quitting.
.
You're comparing the WW2 war with this??? Give me a break please
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote