Newly-minted Democratic uber “hawk” John Murtha, on the US military and Iraq:
Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year, and the Army is “broken, worn out” and may not be able to meet future military threats to the country’s security, Rep. John Murtha said.
Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they’ve achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
“I predict he’ll make it look like we’re staying the course,” Murtha said, referring to Bush. “Staying the course is not a policy.”
Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq’s stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don’t always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.
He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.
“I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war,” Murtha said. “I’m looking at the future of the United States military.”
This insane calculus—which is the position of the Democratic leadership, at least in the House—argues, in essence, that going to war puts a strain on our troops, and that protecting ourselves is impossible if our troops are stretched thin from protecting us.
Again, I’m not sure how this message has gained any traction whatsoever; but then, I’m stunned each passing day by the number of people who throw their support behind a political party whose base is so obviously and unabashedly craven that it refuses even to find a workable rhetorical mask for its power-at-any-cost message that doesn’t insult the intelligence of anybody paying close attention.
As I’ve argued before (and as we know to be the case), the draw down of troops after the Dec 15 elections has been in the pipeline for a while, and the Democrats—worried about a Republican success in Iraq—have turned what is a victory for this country into a PR defeat in order to get out in front of the next stage in the Iraq war. Sadly, the Democrats realize the only way to do this is to frame the troop draw down as a defeat for the administration—or, at the very least, as a cave-in to their pressures.
Murtha, I think, probably believes what his own (underinformed) assessment of Iraq; but that the rest of the Democratic leadership (with a few notable exceptions) has embraced his assessment over that of Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq and is a better position to pronounce on such matters, speaks volumes about the party who is willling to sell-out the troops and the country for a few mid-term elections gains.
I’d say they should be ashamed, but that presumes that they have any shame to begin with. And I rather doubt it at this point.
****
(via The Corner)
****
update: Major John responds to Rep. Murtha
“our troops are stretched thin from protection ourselves.”
Learn to type, you non-typing neocon-nazi!!!
As long as we’re picking nits, “clope attention?”
BECAUSE OF MY GREASY HAIR !!!
The respect I held for Murtha went out the window immediately after hearing that comment.
Considering his military background and having been in combat, surely he must realize that by saying the Army is broken what it means to our troops. Moreover, what does it say to the enemy? It says front page Al Jazeera.
Every day I lean more and more towards believing the Dems are attempting to parlay the planned post election troop drawdown into something of their making. And will tout that because of their “pressure” the troops are coming home. Hopefully enough in the country will see it for what it is worth.
A broken army doesn’t have high levels (record levels?) of re-enlistment. I suspect Murtha defines “broken” as “Republican in the White House”.
Staying the course is not a policy?
Before any nitpickers show up to hassle Jeff about saying a guy with 37 years of service is underinformed about Iraq, keep in mind that it’s been 16 years since Murtha was in the military. We’ve fought three wars and intervened in the Balkans since then. Our military strategy was still fighting the Cold War when he retired. His personal military experience is about as out of date as an IT guy’s would be after 16 years.
Has Murtha recently contracted some degenerative brain disease? His recent pronouncements appear to be either traitorous grandstanding or mental illness-based delusional rants and it’s sad that I can’t tell which.
– Handing victory to our enemies
– Denegrating the military he once served
– Accusing the CINC of lying the US into war
What has the left become that they would cheerlead these taking points?
“Shame” is a bourgeois concept. We proud Progressives don’t endorse it. Sniveler.
FREE MUMIA!
And doesn’t declaring our military to be “broken”—which in military terms means routed, defeated, chased from the field—amount to “aid and comfort”?
Democrats are in a position where they’re publically calling for dramatic change, while “privately” calling for nuanced tweaks–to the extent that they’re willing to present a coherent strategy at all, knowing that anything workable can be torn down just as easily as they’re tearing down the Administration. This works for them so long as they’re in a position where they feel powerless but able to speak to the disenchantment of the country as a whole over the steady losses of American forces, combined with lack of WMDs, prisoner abuse, the nonstop “scandal of the week” barrage, etc. They’ll contunue to persue this track until next year, when they feel they can transform that disenchantment into crossover votes.
Robert, are you questioning patriotism again? ‘Cause that’s a big no no.
Murtha is an impassioned speaker, but not a logician. That probably makes him an appealing candidate/politician, but appeals to emotion do not make solid arguments nor sound policy.
I guess I am. For penance I’ll not look at the naughty parts of the ‘net for a few days.
They are handing Zaquari a victory.
I guess when you say “the enemy” to a dem, they think about Bushitler, not the people shooting at our troops. Iraqis not telling us about the enemy? Reports are up by a factor of ten. When Murtha vsists the troops does he ever let them speak, or does he just dismiss their talk as propoganda?
He ought to give tht speech at Ft Hood or Camp Lejune. I’m sure he’d like the reaction.
Related post:
U.S. Can’t Win in Iraq Says Murtha: Another Wrong Prediction
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure ya’ll will), but didn’t N. Vietnam invade S. Vietnam about two weeks after we “redeployed” out of there?
Jeff, you’ve made an incredibly important point here. Raise your hand if you think the lefty blogosphere and the MSM will run wild with Murtha’s statements, taking them as the gospel truth. Now let’s see the hands of those that even heard Lieberman had recently been to Iraq. Now the hands for anyone that actually saw anything via the lefty blogosphere or the MSM on Lieberman’s assessment (mostly positive) on the state of affairs there.
So we have two Democrats, both with messages about Iraq: one positive and informed, the other wildly negative and uninformed. Which narrative will the world hear?
Any question about MSM objectivity now?
Any question about the left’s support for the war on terror?
Ok.
All’s Bush has to do to get out in front of this thing is to say something like
“I’ve noticed how some politicians in Washington are now trying to claim the policy that this administration has followed for several years as their own. They know that we are prevailing in Iraq, and want to be able to claim credit for the victory in spite of the fact that since the last election they’ve opposed the policy of staying the course until victory. But you know what? I don’t care. They can claim all the credit they want. The fact is that this administration has not wavered in the pursuit of victory in Iraq and we’re not going to start wavering now as we get closer to our goal. Let the naysayers claim whatever they want. Under my watch, America will fight the terrorist forces aligned against us in Iraq until we have defeated them, and the victory that our soldiers have sacrificed so much for is ours. The naysayers can have all the credit, all the credit they want, so long as they don’t prevent America from securing our proper victory in Iraq.”
About the only silver lining to the Bush Administration’s inexplicable tone deafness toward defending the propriety of this war is that when it does decide to speak in it’s own defense, it doesn’t have to say very much—thank God.
:peter
Great post, Jeff. What needs to be discussed is the difference between the “Army” and the “Military.”
The Air Force or Navy are hardly stretched too thin. The Army, Marines and National Guard are used in Iraq because that is what they triained for–but to suggest that our 1.4 million armed service members are stretched too thin because 10% of them are in Iraq is ludicris.
I sometimes wonder if the pentagon likes to perpetuate that opinion to lure Iran/NoKo into making a mistake thinking we can’t blast their asses into oblivion.
Iraq suicide attacks at lowest level in 7 months
IT’S A QUAGMIRE!!! VIOLENCE IS ESCALATING!! THE TROOPS ARE DYING FOR NOTHING BUT A LIE AND BECAUSE CHIMPY MCHITLERBURTON WANTED TO AVENGE HIS DADDY!! BUT WE LOVE THE TROOPS!!
I guess John Murtha’s proud military bearing finally snapped after eight years of watching Clinton steadily cutting back on military assets–including benefits for veterans–while frantically deploying the troops all over the world. If he was speaking out then, the press didn’t cover it.
Can someone explain exactly how being a Vietnam vet confers either political or military expertise? I don’t see it. But then, I also don’t see how repeating the same strategy of timetables and hasty withdrawal that was such a disaster for the Americans and the Indochinese is a good idea this time around.
Hey, according to the MSM, Murtha is a hawk!
Murtha has given aid and comfort. That is certain. I have discussed in the past how Ho Chi Minh had expected the need to sacrifice one more generation of North Vietnamese. yet when Uncle Walter declared the war unwinable, it provided the moral boost needed to get move forward when they were at a low ebb.
What this American generation doesn’t feel is the hardship and shared sacrifice which had been the norm in times of war up to WWII. We continue to live a normal life, and thus have no real sense of what is happening (in a general sense) in far flung battlefields. I have not been subjected to blackouts, rationing, or war bond tours. This is a credit to the administration.
But if the Army, or military, is stretched thin, why is Murtha et.al. not being in the fore front demanding a greater budget, more troops, more equipment, more everything. Because then we just might win, and he can’t have that. It would be too good for us.
Murtha himself is broken. A broken-down old Vaudevillian spouting schmaltz and smarm, like a big fat florid Jimmy Durante.
“Ha-cha-cha-cha-cha, I got a million of ‘em. So I says to the guy, I says, ‘The army’s broken, I tell ya, livin’ hand ta mouth. I’ll moider the guy. Lemmie at ‘im, lemmie at ‘im!’”
Ponder the fact that Rumsfeld is a year older than Murtha. Compare the men’s physical appearances and apparent thought processes as expressed by their ability to argue a point.
Peter- personally, I agree with you – that, to me, was the solution a year ago and its the solution now. Unfortunately, for all the high marks I’ve given the Bush administration for its steadfast position on the war on terror, it gets very low marks for communicating a message similar to the one you set out in your post. Why not have spokespeople calling Pelosi and Boxer on their bullshit ? Why not have McClellen calling a press conference and doing a powerpoint presentation on Flipper’s constantly changing criticism ?
I can only think that the strategy reflects the president- he’s resolute and smart but is not and has never been a good orator, which is a shame. In a war with stakes like this, we need a Churchhill, we need an FDR, we need a Teddy Roosevel, we need a Ronald Reagan. A wartime president should be able to rally the citizens as well as the troops, despite the stumbling blocks put in front of him by the media but 43 never seems to get out in front of the criticism. His recent speeches have been a step in the right direction but quite honestly, I’m sorry he doesn’t name names and point fingers- Pelosi, Boxer, Murtha, that fat drunk kennedy – the american people have a right to know they are being lied to about the presidents intentions and who better to do that the president himself ?
According to the MSM any Democrat that’s ever served in the military, been in Boy Scouts or watched F Troop is a hawk.
Murtha’s “crime” is simply being wrong, aggravated by the fact that he’s a partisan politician. It could happen to any of us.
:peter
I almost jumped out of my chair watching Meet the (Liberal) Press when Murtha explained that he had consulted the Iraqi commanders…and dismissed what they said completely because it didn’t fit his pre-conceived agenda.
Russert let him slide, of course. It’s not the media’s job to challenge politicians on their statements—unless it’s Sith Lord Cheney.
I think Murtha’s career is broken and worn out and he should cede it to someone with some stones.
If Scoop Jackson were alive, he’d be turning over in his grave.
To think I used to be a member of this party…
Naming names just leads to an endless screach of “politics of personal destruction!” from the “Bushliedpeppledied” crowd. I don’t think the truth of any statements calling individual Benedict Arnolds on their behavior would ever get through the media smokescreen.
Dammit! Gotta remember to reset the name!
TW: force. Geebus, this thing is scary.
To capitulationists’ brandishing of Murtha’s service, like Kerry’s, is what’s broken and worn out.
Recall that Phillipe Petain was an true war hero. To the point of being a Field Marshal. Didn’t stop him from becoming a surrender monkey in his dotage.
Cordially….
As a consequence of his long service in the armed forces of the US, Rep. Murtha is entitled to a presumption of honor and competence. I am now convinced that, after much hard and public work, Rep. Murtha has comprehensively rebutted that presumption.
I’ve been thinking this for a while now… the Dems are placing themselves into the position where they can claim credit for the victory that has already happened. Just as they have placed themselves in a position to blame Bush for any terrorist attack when it occurs. Their strategy hinges on American Failure, which makes me want to quote something Jeff said in this very post, as it bears repeating…
Only thing is, they rely on people only paying attention to those 10-second sound bytes, like the ones that praise Murtha’s heroism while ignoring the treasonous effects of the words themselves.
Again, I’m not sure how this message has gained any traction whatsoever;
Uh-huh:
“A Congressional Budget Office report this week said that the Army cannot sustain an Iraq occupation force of the present size – 150,000 troops – beyond March 2004 without getting assistance from international forces, more National Guard units, or more U.S. marines, or keeping its own soldiers in Iraq for tours longer than one year. These are just some of the reasons why many experts worry that the Army, which has taken decades to evolve into what is generally regarded as the best in the world, could be on the verge of a stress fracture.”
Uh-huh…the headline is dated September 8, 2003.
Your link is two years old.
Uh-huh…you are grasping at straws all right. Please don’t throw yourself out the window, though I know your world is falling apart.
Sure the MSM is giving Murtha a free pass, but what irks me is that on the same page they will show Leiberman’s statements indicating the forward progress the US military has made. It makes me sick when these outright lies are taken for gospel and fuel for the moonbats ire. Sure 10% of the fighting force is currently engaged on the GWOT, but what kind of message is Murtha sending to the remaining % of the military? That they are incompetent in defending the USA. Seems everytime this guy speaks, his hole becomes increasingly deeper. Hope to the point we will soon only hear faint ehoes and murmurs….
March 2006 is fast approaching, PIATOR. That’ll be two years since that report. With enlistments largely meeting goals, high re-enlistment rates, and good morale, I’m kinda wondering where those stress fractures might be. The rest of us mere peons lack your x-ray vision.
I meant echoes
Joementum’s comments are positive and conflict with the story of intractable chaos that the media is rolling with; therefore they are critical of Joe’s comments but applaud Murtha, who emotes for the troops and whose pleas are running parallel to the media’s perspective.
(see: Katrina)
March 2004 was a year and a half ago, by the way.
When you see
“Iraq suicide attacks at lowest level in 7 months.”
When a quick perusal of FBI crime statistics for murders show that the combined murder count for New York, Chicago and Detroit, on almost any year surpasses the total American military deaths encountered since the beginning of the Iraq AND Afghanistan campaigns.
When Iraqis brave the very real threats to life and limb to participate in elections.
When tips on terrorists from Iraqis is on the increase and has become a major factor in preventing attacks.
When the Iraqi troops are successfully shouldering an ever larger portion of the fighting.
When democrat senators return from Iraq and tell us that their first hand witnessing of events diverges wildly from the MSM accounts.
Well, that’s when you know that we’re in an unwinnable quagmire. Unfortunately, the quagmire’s not in Iraq. It’s right here and it’s in the fetid fever swamp of cynical any lie for power democrat politics and the MS Mrags that parrot their tripe.
Uh-huh…the headline is dated September 8, 2003.
Your link is two years old.
Quite right. Feel free to post links substianting the claim that the situation has corrected itself, rather than resorting to argumentum ad cloaca.
How about:
Because it has sustained itself beyond March 2004.
Please check the date. In my world it’s December 1, 2005 and the Army is still (succesfully) operating in Iraq.
Close that window quick…I know you are itching for a swan dive.
Quoth Phonecian in a Time of Romans
As far as I’m concerned, Americans weeping because they’ve lost their spouses, their mothers, fathers, sons and daughters in these illegal, stupid wars are a good thing. The rest of us outside the US should look on at the sight as we would look on at a dog having its nose rubbed in an indoor accident, and for the same reason. Distasteful, yet necessary for housetraining.
Feel free to try to defend the position that the situation was a situation to begin with, numbnuts. I just went outside and checked and the sky still hasn’t fallen at my house. You are truly an amazing creature, your arrogance is exceded only by your stupidity. I can google a couple of links in about 30 seconds to defend my position that bigfoot is descended from neanderthals chased across the ice bridge by the first human immigrants to North America. That doesn’t mean it is correct, and it doesn’t constitute a reasoned argument.
PIATOR using an 18-month-old GAO report to predict imminent disaster for the Iraq mission reminds me of what Voltaire said when told that coffee was a slow poison. His answer:
“It must be, because I’ve been drinking it for seventy years.”
The “Army” Rep. Murtha was speaking of sure isn’t the one I am serving in. When I enlisted in early 1985, we were just getting near the finish of fixing a legimately broken Army. A broken Army is the Army of 1978-1981 – lousy morale, shoddy equipment, lots of drug use, poor pay, and loss of a sense of purpose. The only thing that kept us on the right path was a group of determined officers and NCOs that helped turn things around in the 1980s.
We have very high morale, good (not great) pay, near non-existant drug use, a clear sense of purpose and very good equipment (urban legends and planted questions aside). While serving this past year (and earlier this year) in the “broken Army, I was at the end of the longest sustained supply line in the history of human conflict (in the Hindu Kush mountains too, for God’s sake!). I had (mostly working)e-mail and phone, OK food, water, medical support, etc. We had so damn much ammo we needed to build a bigger supply point.
I personally re-upped two of my NCOs for 3 and 6 years.
Broken? No.
“These are just some of the reasons why many experts worry that the Army, which has taken decades to evolve into what is generally regarded as the best in the world, could be on the verge of a stress fracture.â€Â
PITOR
Interesting isn’t it how when terrorists are in combat, they “create more terrorists”, turn the battlefield into one “giant training ground”, “learn new techniques” and generally become more formidable and dangerous.
Yet, when the U.S. military is in combat it “looses its edge”, “wears out”, “lives from hand to mouth”, “suffers from “stress fractures” and finds itself hip deep in an intractible quagmire.
Yet for some reason I find it hard to believe that the terrorists are producing more experienced suicide-bombers than we are experienced soliders.
Major John – thanks!
No, no, Idiot in a time of Romans is correct.
The US army collapsed 21 months ago. The right-wing media is covering it up, by manufacturing stories about the troops. And then, they top it off by making up stories about elections.
It’s all a lie. Saddam has been back in power since April of 2004, and the kites are flying again.
Next, you’ll be hearing lies about how the economy grew by 4.3% in the fourth quarter.
Um … 4.3% in the 3rd quarter. The 4th quarter is still up for grabs.
By the way: “Minotaur in a time of Theseus”. Jeff, you got some right literate-type people on this site. Kudos
Murtha, I think, probably believes what his own (underinformed) assessment of Iraq; but that the rest of the Democratic leadership (with a few notable exceptions) has embraced his assessment over that of Joe Lieberman, who just returned from Iraq and is a better position to pronounce on such matters
Murtha’s made several trips to Iraq in the past year, plus nearly weekly visits to troops at Walter Reed. And you can claim his military experience is somehow outdated, but he is still the ranking minority member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which he used to chair.
How exactly is Lieberman in a “better position” to judge things? Or for that matter, how are you?
Murtha began making this argument over a year ago; Lieberman just returned.
For starters.
Feel free to post links substianting the claim that the situation has corrected itself.
No-one? Why am I not surprised?
Let’s see – Sept. 10 2005:
National Guard Stretched too Thin
WASHINGTON – The National Guard is stretched so thin by simultaneous assignments in Iraq and the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast that leaders in statehouses and Congress say it is time to reconsider how the force is used.
Republicans and Democrats alike worry about the service’s ability to balance its federal and state missions of fighting wars and responding to domestic crises.
14 July 2005:
Army Tries to Keep up With War
Frequent troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the U.S. Army so thin that many combat units are spending more than one of every two years on foreign battlefields, according to a RAND Corporation report issued Wednesday.
Under U.S. Army rules, a soldier must spend two years in the United States for each year spent in a foreign combat zone.
“But if the demand for troops continues at current levels, regular Army combat units will have only about one year at home before being deployed again,” the RAND report said.
Feb. 7 2005:
Rumsfeld: Troop Recruiting To Increase
WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday there is no question the U.S. military is being stretched due to fighting a long, hard war in Iraq, but insisted that a heavy emphasis on recruiting and retention should eventually ease the problem.
“It’s clearly stressed, but they’re performing brilliantly, they’re doing a fabulous job,” he said on CNN’s “Late Edition” – one of several talk shows he appeared on Sunday.
Quoth Phonecian in a Time of Romans
As far as I’m concerned, Americans weeping because they’ve lost their spouses, their mothers, fathers, sons and daughters in these illegal, stupid wars are a good thing. The rest of us outside the US should look on at the sight as we would look on at a dog having its nose rubbed in an indoor accident, and for the same reason. Distasteful, yet necessary for housetraining.
And it’s working, too:
“How would you rate the job George W. Bush has done handling the situation in Iraq—as very good, good, poor, or very poor?”
VGood Good Poor VPoor Unsure
% % % % %
11/30/05 15 29 25 29 2
There’s some quote I can’t quite recall to the effect that the American people can be relied on to reach a sensible decision – after they’ve tried out every other alternative.
And yet, and yet, and yet:
The US military has in fact “sustain[ed] an Iraq occupation force . . . beyond March 2004”
20 months and counting.
Hmmm, who to believe, Roadkill in a time of SUVs, or my lying eyes?
The good news for roadkill tho is that we won’t need sustain a force a more than 100k in Iraq for much longer. Actually, er, that’d be bad news for roadkill.
And don’t forget ya’ll, that according to roadkill’s logic, b/c Al Jizz has shown Bush more than Binny Lad, then they can’t be biased.
Or something.
Quoth Phonecian in a Time of Romans
As far as I’m concerned, Americans weeping because they’ve lost their spouses, their mothers, fathers, sons and daughters in these illegal, stupid wars are a good thing.
PIATOR:
”…argumentum ad cloaca.”
You admit it, then?
A couple of random but hopefully useful points to move the ball forward:
1) The Dems keep trotting out their few veterans not because they respect their service, but because they know we do. They use them to say unpalatable things because they think former service shields you from criticism for stupidity now. And because they think military service two or three decades ago somehow makes you more qualified than, say, the Commander-in-Chief, to talk about our current military.
2) The Dems keep talking about a strategy for victory as if they’ve got one (or even seen one). What they really mean is that we should go ahead and quit so that they can focus on important stuff like teacher salaries and school lunch programs.
Not that those are bad things, but they might come behind winning a war in priority.
TW: remember
As in remember what happened the last time Congress gave up on an ally.
So, “stressed” = “stress fractures”? I don’t think so. That’s moving the goalposts, PIATOR. I just spent a tour in Kuwait, and worked with deploying/redeploying units. The units are stressed, naturally. They aren’t falling apart. Or did you ignore the high re-enlistment rates?
This is old news, and pre-dates even the first Gulf War. The Guard (in some states) stopped training for riot control (a state mission) because it took too much time away from their federal mission. This was actually applauded by some because of the old image of the Guard suppressing labor riots around the turn of the 20th Century.
Further, Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA) is limited not by the availability of troops, but by the availability of funds and suitable equipment. As a rule, if the state has to pay for the troops, their deployment is limited. If the Feds pay (e.g., FEMA is reimbursing state costs), then it’s an issue. Sometimes, as such mobilizations are often voluntary. Not always, but often enough. The missions generally don’t warrant full mobilization.
Finally, some state governors sued Reagan for deploying Guard units to the Honduras to train the Honduran Army to fight Sandanista supported guerillas. They lost, the judges ruling (as I recall) that the Federal mission took precedence over state needs. It’s been that way since the Civil War, I do believe.
This argument is old news, PIATOR, and ultimately a constitutional decision on just what sort of militia forces the states really need. Not for you, a dedicated anti-American, to cherry pick for arguments.
This article is correct. The units are rotating in and out of Iraq at a rate such that some people have multiple deployments, breaking the policies set by the Department of the Army.
Note my emphasis. Congratulations, you are ignoring current events. Ever hear of the plan to bring the soldiers back from Iraq? Oh, wait, that’s right, you believe that we’ll be there until 2012 (or longer), so you can cackle and rub your hands in glee at the deaths of soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
Man, are you ever fucked up.
A big part of this is that America is fighting a peacetime war. Which is great for the civilians, who don’t have to give up anything at all, but tough on the troops.
I think the least that could be expected from we civilians is not to bitch about the hard work the troops are doing. Yeah, fighting a war under peacetime rules stretches the Army a bit thin. But there’s a friggin’ chasm between that and claiming the Army is going to collapse. If reenlistment rates were plummeting, I would be seriously worried. But they aren’t; they are exceeding quotas in every branch of the service.
Baghdad Bob, 22 March 2003
Baghdad Bob, 2 3March 2003
Phoenician in a time of Romans, 1 December 2005
PIATOR,
As mentioned above, the links you provide do, indeed, show that deployment rates are creeping being beyond traditional peacetime policy.
All this tells me is that the cut from 54 brigades to 30 brigades during the 1990’s was premature. Additionally, it does tend to suggest the possibility that during a genuine wartime deployment , one does not customarily only put 1/3 of it’s deployable forces in the field at any given time.
Ok, fine, but where are you going with this?
Seriously. I mean I get the data point, but I’m not following your argument.
Major John—Don’t get me started on the Carter-era leftovers speckling my unit when I enlisted.
Oh, wait, that’s right, you believe that we’ll be there until 2012 (or longer), so you can cackle and rub your hands in glee at the deaths of soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
You really need a remedial reading course. I believe the exact opposite – that you’re *not* going to be there in 2012, no more that the Soviets were in Afghanistan 10 years after they invaded.
If the Iraqis are really lucky, what will be there will be an Iran. If they’re unlucky, what will be there will be a Czechoslovakia. And if they’re very unlucky, what will be there will be a Somalia.
What won’t be there will be Americans. Or a secular democracy, not that that was ever a real goal.
Major John;
I got in the Navy about four years after you did, thanks for holding it together through the dark times.
In the Carter era there were areas of the carrier where an officer wouldn’t go for fear of his life (gangs had formed you see).
Thanks for making it the military I’m proud to be a part of.
You know I have to question the deployments as well. My Godfather was in the Army and he only deployed once…1942-1945.
The Army is just going through the pain that the Navy and Air Force went through in the ‘90s. Remember that we (USN, USAF) have been fighting a hot war with Hussein since 1991. The need to keep an extra carrier in the Gulf broke the deployment cycle wide open, 8 month cruises with less than a year turn-around was becoming the norm and USAF requirements in Turkey caused the same issues.
Quoth Phonecian in a Time of Romans
As far as I’m concerned, Americans weeping because they’ve lost their spouses…are a good thing.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think that in years to come, GWB will be most harshly, and most deservedly, criticized on his inarticulateness. Hopefully both of the parties will take to heart that a successful presidency depends on having a president articulate enough that he or she can participate in national political narratives.
The Dems have known this for years since they are constantly at a disadvantage with the facts. They learned long ago that when the facts aren’t on your side, manipulate the schema within which the facts reside.
Again, I agree. You can’t have the staff upstaging the boss after all.
I guess Rumsfeld would say that sometimes you have to go to war with the President you have and not the President you want. I hate to pimp a lonely old blog post of mine—a test post really, since the site hasn’t officially launched—but I wrote a little about this very thought here after the mid-term elections last month.
Phoenician, not to put too fine a point on it, but you are an idiot.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in order to seize the territory, not to liberate it. The Spetsnaz kicked things off by shooting the president and installing a puppet dictator.
The Red Army was not popular in Afghanistan: They lost 1.5 million men. The fighting lasted 10 years. Despite their need for troops, only the worst soldiers and the hardcore Spetsnaz served in Afghanistan. No one wanted to go there.
During the course of the war, over one-third of the Afghani population fled the country and became refugees. There was no voting, there was no rebuilding of schools, economic aid, etc. Nothing.
I don’t know what country you’re writing all this crap from, but do us all a favor and get stuffed. We’ve all seen enough posts from America-hating Leftists assholes over the past four years to wallpaper a thousand latrines. You have nothing to add to this discussion. Why don’t you go torment Adam Yoshida or something?
Phony, whatever drugs you are on, you need to adjust the dosage.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in order to seize the territory, not to liberate it.
Uh-huh, as you say.
The Spetsnaz kicked things off by shooting the president and installing a puppet dictator.
Really?
So far you’re only pointing out tactical differences, not anything relating to the morals or ethics of launching an aggressive war and occupying a country of no threat to you.
But do keep trying. It’s amusing to see you flounder.
anti-piscine bigot!
No! Do tell. Follow the news, PIATOR? Unless it’s you needing that remedial reading course, this has been discussed recently.
Huh?
This strikes me as wishful thinking on your part, much like the pre-war predictions of heavy US casualties, excessive civilian casualties, the Lancet “study”, and so on. Fueled by your rampant anti-American views, your imagination runs at high speed, and we see comments from you that make little sense. And I’m referring to most of your posts, not just this one.
BTW, nice job, ignoring the rest of my post.
And you are still one fucked up person.
The Red Army was not popular in Afghanistan: They lost 1.5 million men.
Oh, brother.
# Soviet deaths:
* FAS 2000: ca. 14,500
* 20 May 88 Chicago Tribune: 12-15,000 killed
* Isby, War in a Distant Country: 13,310 KIA as of 25 May 1988
* 24 Dec. 1989 Arizona Republic: 13,310
* War Annual 6 (1994): 13,833
* Wallechinsky: 14,454, incl. 11,381 in combat
Try again, FA.
Wow, so Allawi is a puppet dictator in Phoenician’s universe?
Remind what Allawi is doing now. Is he PM?
Pretty nifty for the imperialist Americans to install a dictator, and then only a few months later allow him to be voted out of office.
Sheesh. Talk about your floundering.
This strikes me as wishful thinking on your part,
Oh, I’d prefer Iraq as a secular democracy. But it isn’t going to happen – it’s you engaging in wishful thinking if you think it is.
The best result I see as possible would be a heavily theocratic near democracy (“Iran”), with other possible results being a split into different groups (“Czechoslovakia”, although “Yugoslavia” seems more probable), or a collapse into tribalism and warlordism (“Somalia”).
BTW, nice job, ignoring the rest of my post.
You mean where you blathered on at a tangent, totally missing the point? Yeah, there’s only so many hours in a day.
Jeez, PIATOR, quoting GlobalSecurity, on a year-and-a-half old Chicago Tribune article? Those “permanent” bases ain’t permanent, they are “Contingency Operating Bases”, a new term describing interim bases in the region.
This article from GlobalSecurity is more recent, though somewhat dated.
The portion of that article that is fairly accurate follows:
Emphasis is mine.
This page was updated last on 12 June 2005. Your link is dated over a year earlier. Nice cherry picking.
To update the “13 small facilities” turned over, check this press release, and this one. More are planned.
Do keep with the cherry picking for points supporting your “argument”. It’s amusing to see you flounder.
Heh, you missed the point. But, as some people have noted, you are a floundering idiot. Allowances should be made for your handicap.
Fresh Air, there were 1 million Afghan casualties in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That’s probably what you thinking of.
IOW, la-la-la-la-la-la-la-I-am-not-listening-to-you!
This cracked me up and not just because there’s been no such country as Czechoslovakia for a dozen years.
If they’re lucky they’ll have a country that’s comparable to a horribly repressive theocracy that’s one of the worlds biggest sponsors of terror.
If they’re unlucky they’ll get a country comparble to a pair of parliamentary democracies with membership in the European Union and excellent human rights records. Oh and their per capita GDP will increase by about 800% the poor, unlucky bastards.
OK, sport. Whatever you say.
Long time reader, yadda yadda.
I am in Iraq right now. Have been for the past year plu. Taji, Mosul, Baghdad and now (at Camp Cupcake) in Tallil.
The morale of the US Soldier is high, we are kicking a$$ every day, the country is getting better every day, most of these scumbags (or as Moore wd say “Freedom Fighters”) are dead end ba’athists, or foreign fighters.
I was up in Mosul when out troops set up for River Gate and the other northern ops at Tall Afar and needless to say they AND their ING/NIA counterparts did major damage.
The only way we will lose is we keep on listening to idiots such as Murthra, Pelosi, Moore and Dipshit in the time of whatever.
I would recommend to all that they call up or write their congressmen and tell them to stay the course.
FYI – we will NEVER leave Iraq – we are presently designating 4 permanent bases (N, S, E, W) and if you don’t think we are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djoubuti, the Stans for a long time you are sadly mistaken.
Peace.
I question PIATOR’s patriotism.
Has he ever mentioned what country he’s from. I know he’s not American, but that’s all I know. Why is he hiding his flag?
C’mon Puckered Lips just in time for my Srotum, let’s hear some of your national pride. I’ll try and get you started:
Oh Canada, our home and native land.
True something something,
In all our something ….and
With something something
We see thee rice
The drugs are strong and free
The food is good
It comes from wood
We stand on guard for thee
Let me know if I’m getting warm.
I’d bet our phoenie is from down under. They seem to produce a special kind of strak raving moonbat down there.
Alas, ‘tis true.
I’m thinking of a more sophisticated origin.
I picture PIATOR sleeping in a burning car in one of the quiet “neighborhoods” of Gay Paireeeeee.
(this comment may cause liver damage and is in no way intended to disparage the gay. Void where prohibited)
Peace, yourself, H. Thank you so much for what you’re doing.
I knew PIATOR’s mom and you sir are no Stalin!!
God bless you, H.
Great, H! Good luck in your tour, and be sure to shoot first.
Thanks for everything, H!
Thanks H!!
And fourths on the thanks to H. You’re doing good, you know, we know it. Sorry about my idiot apparent-countryman.
TW: Corps. But Army, Navy and Air Force too.
I can’t help but be grateful for the new way PIATOR has given us to mock the left. Let the “in a time of” meme be fruitful, we were dangerously running low on new ways to shame people who have no shame and who defy parody on new levels every day.
But I’m more grateful for posters like H.
Of course, I made that last post before I found the quantum singularity of the “in a time of” thread. Jesus, my back and legs… ow ow ow ow.
most of these scumbags (or as Moore wd say “Freedom Fighters”) are dead end ba’athists, or foreign fighters.
Not quite:
“The CIA last month also updated its analysis of the breadth of the Iraqi insurgency, including Iraqis that are not only former Baathists, “dead enders,” but also newly radicalized Sunni Iraqis, nationalists offended by the occupying force and others disenchanted by the economic turmoil and destruction caused by the fighting.
Foreign fighters associated with Abu Musab Zarqawi and his al Qaeda-affiliated insurgent group, who once were seen as the prime opponents along with tens of thousands of criminals freed by Saddam Hussein before the war began in 2003, are now described as lesser elements but still a source of danger.
[…]
Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the panel, said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., head of the Multinational Force Iraq, reported during a closed hearing two weeks ago that the coalition forces killed or captured 15,000 suspected insurgents last year, a number far larger than earlier U.S. estimates of 6,000 to 9,000.
McCain raised the question of the reliability of any figures the administration offered. “We went from a few dead enders to killing or capturing 15,000 in the period of a year, and that’s why there’s a certain credibility problem here as to what the size and nature of the enemy we face.” “
And, dating back to 03/04, a graphic showing the targets of attacks – the vast majority being US troops. The NY Times has a similiar graphic showing 75% of the attacks aimed at US troops around Jan 05.
And, to round things off, here’s a CPA poll from May 04 and a MOD poll from Oct 05 showing what Iraqis think of American troops.