Hearts and Minds... by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Hearts and Minds...

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Friday, July 13, 2007 18:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 848
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:33 AM

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070730&s=hedges

Ouch, just... ouch.

I have little useful to add, save that the sooner we let go of the banana, the sooner we can pull our hand out of this monkeytrap.

Our grunts seem just as much victims of policy as the Iraqis, from my impression here, which kinda sucks cause most of em deserve better than this.

Our position has become obviously untenable, in the classic military sense of the term, if it has not been already - we're just creating more angry soon to be insurgents than we can possibly handle with every screwup, and such screwups are inevitable with how badly this has been bungled.

But how do you really go about firing EVERYONE from Battalion level up ?

Cause that's what you'd really have to do if blame is assigned, fire almost everyone over the rank of Captain, all the way up the CinC, and that's downright unrealistic and impossible.

Just get the hell OUT, before we hit 100-monkey point with the whole middle east and wind up facing the whole horde of em under a new Saladin, and be damned thankful that culturally they're very territorial and almost never pursue an adversary past the boundries of their own turf.

I don't see any answers here.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 4:32 AM

SERGEANTX

Cut and run.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 7:58 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Our position has become obviously untenable, in the classic military sense of the term,

Hmmm...you must not understand the classic military use of the term. Our position is that we are in complete possession of the country. We can go anwhere, occupy any position, regardless of enemy strength or our own, casualties are minimal and easily replaced by reserves and new trainees, not to mention returning WIAs, our material losses can be more the made up for with minimal strain on our domestic production capacity, the enemy is reduced to hit and run tactics and cannot sustain stand-up engagements involving more then a handful of troops, they cannot freely move, cannot mass for attack, cannot establish secure routes of supply, cannot bases to train, and cannot openly occupy territory of any kind. This is completely different then the situation in Vietnam.

Militarily we could stay there a hundred years.

Politically its a different story. The Democrats have done more to lose this war in Congress then all the terrorists in Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We can go anwhere, occupy any position, regardless of enemy strength or our own

Wow. The last time I saw such utter disregard for facts was when Auraptor posted.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:42 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Gotta watch out for those folks at The Nation. Aren't they a buncha liberal Democrat pro-French terrorist appeasers and defeatists? Aren't they pro-Hillary, Al Gore-loving tree huggers? Don't they want the people behind 9-11 punished?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:51 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Auraptor posted this first part, not Signy.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
We can go anwhere, occupy any position, regardless of enemy strength or our own
Wow. The last time I saw such utter disregard for facts was when Auraptor posted.

Well, he is TECHNICALLY corrrect. We can go anywhere, occupy any position. Holding it is another story.
And, yes, they cannot mass for an attack. 'Course they don't DO mass attacks.

And they can't create supply lines. BUT they DON'T NEED supply lines.

This is one of those elephant versus ant situations- and we're the big bad elephant, can throw our weight around, crush bunches of ants and anthills anywhere, anytime. But there's lotsa ants, and only one elephant. Sooner or later, they're gonna eat our corpse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The part that got me was..."regardless of enemy strength or our own". Yeah, let's just stroll down the streets of Baghdad, no body armor, no weapons, no patrol-mates,

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

edited : AH ! It was a joke of hyperbole. Now I get it !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I call BS, Zero.

Financially we cannot sustain it, they grow stronger while we grow weaker, every day we're there costs us more money while our screwups and hostility increase the insurgents support.

I've said it from the start, trying to fight a 4GW war with a 2GW army and 1GW tactics is idiotic and counterproductive.

How exactly do you propose we "win" then ?
By killing every Iraqi in Iraq ?

We control only the turf we're standing upon at the time, and then only so long as we're on it, to fully conquer it would require killing every living thing on it - do we really wanna do that ?

And sure, we could pull a Lincoln and just bury them in bodies for a while, but in spite of what you'd like to believe, that also cannot go on indefinately, we're keeping these troops out there to the point of significant pyschological casualty as it is, and replacement sources are drying up quickly, it's not a sustainable position.

The real problem is financial, this is absolutely, unarguably NOT sustainable on a financial level, we're bankrupting our nation rapidly, just payin down the debts for this so far is gonna take a century as it is.

You want it, YOU pay for it.

Explain to me how we're gonna keep things goin when the other countries, China included, decide to stop extending credit to us while we sink ourselves in deeper and deeper.

Explain to me how we're gonna pay up when they start calling in the markers, eh ?

This isn't a movie, you don't just storm in yelling hoo-rah and win the day, someone has to pay the bills, and folks like you who DID vote for this, shoving it off on folks like me who did NOT, is gonna come to some ugliness in short order when those bills start comin due.

It won't be the iraqis that defeat us, it'll be economics combined with our own blind stupidity.

I bet the Chinese are laughing up their sleeves at us even now, go look at how much money we owe em already - you ready to get into a war with them too, when they demand we pay up ?

You want it, YOU fight it, YOU pay for it.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:16 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Cut and run.

Amen.

No, it ain't a perfect solution, but it is the most moral thing we can do.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Honest criticism is hard to take--especially from a stranger, a relative, an acquaintance, or a friend.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:47 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
No, it ain't a perfect solution, but it is the most moral thing we can do.

Yup.. the thing is, we've already 'won' as much as can be expected through military means. You can't rule people who don't accept your sovereignty - other than through tyrannical means. That ain't us. I'm sick to death of the neo-con dummygogs crying 'defeatist' every time someone brings up intelligent alternatives to the current morass. So, I'm saying, let's get the "defeat" over with and get the hell out of there.

Call me a 'chicken' or a 'wimp' if you like, but I got over grade-school politics shortly after grade school. The bushies should attempt the same.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:49 AM

SERGEANTX

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 13, 2007 6:14 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

Quote:
You can't rule people who don't accept your sovereignty

Isn't that why America (and Canada) was created in the first place? To get away from Sovereign government's who FORCED their rule and policies on them?

Just sayin' is all.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*Peter* Peter*; power *re-peater*~
`@/
/Y
/_)

*Petrelli for President. Together we can soar.*
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**********~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HEROE'S IS MY CRACK!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE