Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Out from In Country

“A lot of what we are doing now is just advising, helping them get the training that they need, among other things,” said International Police Liaison Officer (IPLO) Tom Gorman, a civilian police officer and advisor from Stark, FL. “I think being embedded in the police station like we are here, you’re able to build relationships, able to make a difference and show them what we do back home. These marines that come out here and live with these guys day in and day out, that makes a big difference.”

[…]

Said IPLO Gorman: “You’re trying to advise on a democratic way of policing, and it’s a big difference from the way the Iraqi police worked in the past, it’s a process. People tend to expect this to happen overnight, to change from what it was to a democratic way of policing. And it didn’t happen overnight in the states either. It takes time.”

Back from a month-long sojourn in Iraq, Bill Ardolino offers an extensive writeup on the Fallujah police transition team—and offers insight into the baby steps necessary to forge a democracy in the vaccuum of a felled dictatorship, itself built atop ethnic and tribal clansmanship.

Or, if you happen to be an anti-war ideologue, Bill offers an “apologia for the War Machine and its slackjawed hick babykillers.  Whom we love.”

66 Replies to “Out from In Country”

  1. Jeff Goldstein says:

    “Seriously, GI Orphan Raper. We love you!”

  2. nikkolai says:

    Some of us prefer “Rethuglican KillBots.”

  3. not happyfeet says:

    The remains of patrol vehicles hit by IEDs litter the compound.

    What sense does it make to tow IED-trashed vehicles back to HQ? None whatsoever if you ask me, which, no one did.

  4. What sense does it make to tow IED-trashed vehicles back to HQ? None whatsoever if you ask me, which, no one did.

    um, I think there’s some helpful info that could be culled from the wreckage. say, “hmmm, how did my shaped charge tear through this vehicle?” “how might that compare to this other IED on this HMMV?” or to look at the other side… “where might I add reinforcements?” just sayin’.

  5. lee says:

    What sense does it make to tow IED-trashed vehicles back to HQ?

    You didn’t think about this before hitting “submit”, did you?

  6. steve ex-expat says:

    Well, if Bill Ardolino from INDC Journal says it, it’s good enough for me:

    Get Your Bush-Cheney Gear!

    Posted by Bill [Ardolino]

    I’m especially fond of the ultra-cool “W” beanie pullover hat, the “Interstate W” mousepad and the leather “W” Coasters. Or for un flavor muy internacional, “Viva Bush.” (I’ve been saying that for years.)

  7. Civilis says:

    What sense does it make to tow IED-trashed vehicles back to HQ?

    It also might be that given the nature of IED damage, the vehicles may be repairable or at least a source of spare parts.

  8. Pablo says:

    Did anyone ever think this was going to be like throwing a switch? Who are those fools?

    Does “long, hard slog” ring a bell?

  9. Does “long, hard slog” ring a bell?

    no, no, no, we were promised sunshine and rainbows. flowers and candy.  although I haven’t been able to get anyone to provide proof of that one yet.

  10. The Lost Dog says:

    What sense does it make to tow IED-trashed vehicles back to HQ? None whatsoever if you ask me, which, no one did.

    Posted by not happyfeet | permalink

    I think that beyond the obvious, why leave relics for the Al-Qeda version of the “Bufort Pusser museum”?

    Or maybe so they can’t be used as props in the “insurgent Disco” theme on Friday nights. “Dancing on the HumVee”? I wouldn’t doubt it for a second.

  11. Darleen says:

    stevie! from your link

    I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.

    What wasn’t true about that?

    Now those of us without political ADD also recall the warnings that the attempt to reform a decades long totalitarian regime into a participatory democracy long the lines of an Iowa PTA meeting just might take a bit longer and be a bit harder.

  12. ThomasD says:

    Thanks for the link Steve XX.  But perhaps not quite what you intended to reinforce.

    ‘Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts… Gordon and O’Hanlon say we must not “assume that Hussein will quickly fall.” I think that’s just what is likely to happen. How would it be accomplished? By knocking out all his headquarters, communications, air defenses and fixed military facilities through precision bombing. By establishing military “no-drive zones” wherever Iraqi forces try to move. By arming the Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south and his many opponents everywhere. By using U.S. special forces and some U.S. ground forces with protective gear against chemical and biological weapons. By stationing theater missile defenses, to guard against any Iraqi Scuds still in existence. And by announcing loudly that any Iraqi, of any rank, who handles Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, in any form, will be severely punished after the war.

    All this from the Brookings Institution in 2002.  Huh, who would have thought they were shills for the White House way back then.

  13. steve ex-expat says:

    Now those of us without political ADD also recall the warnings that the attempt to reform a decades long totalitarian regime into a participatory democracy long the lines of an Iowa PTA meeting just might take a bit longer and be a bit harder.

    Darleen,

    Longer than the time between our entry into WWII and VE/VJ days with no discernable progress made?

  14. alphie says:

    I don’t think the U.S. Army is a democracy, Darleen (as Lt. Watada discovered).

    What makes you think a it can teach a whole country to be one?

    Flawed vision from the get-go.

    Almost as strange as the idea than the Bush administration could teach the Iraqi government how to be bi-partisan.

  15. yeah, keep stomping your feet stevexx.  then go here. or here. or here.

  16. Civilis says:

    …no discernable progress made…

    Lets see that again.

    …no discernable progress made…

    In full:

    Longer than the time between our entry into WWII and VE/VJ days with no discernable progress made?

    Do free elections and a constitutional government, even imperfect, constitute discernable progress?  Anyone?

    Steve-X is beyond parody.

  17. steve ex-expat says:

    Thomas,

    I think you are misattributing the Brookings Institute to Adelman’s words.  He was disagreeing with their assessment of the difficulties we would likely face in Iraq (see top of piece again).

  18. not happyfeet says:

    maggie – you’re probably right … it just struck me as not very helpful for the recruiting they talked about.

  19. Pablo says:

    I almost hate myself for even mentioning it, but O’Reilly is on the Edwards/Marcotte/McEwan thang toinght. Fox is pimping the hell out of it.

    Thank God I’ve got a sense of humor. Because if that’s not funny, what is?



    FEAR THE CHRISTOFASCIST NOISE MACHINE!!!

  20. not happyfeet says:

    ok fine – I see I’m the only one that did not know what to do if my vehicle is ever hit by an IED. I didn’t get the freaking memo.

  21. Pablo says:

    I don’t think the U.S. Army is a democracy, Darleen (as Lt. Watada discovered).

    What makes you think a it can teach a whole country to be one?

    You use an army that’s not a democracy to give them the chance to take the lesson.

  22. alphie says:

    Pablo,

    We’re spending over $100 billion (enough to build 100 nuclear power plants, btw) a year to keep the U.S. Army in Iraq.

    That leaves about $1.50 to teach the Iraqis how to become a democracy.

  23. Jeff Goldstein says:

    First of all, Steve ex-expat, the words I quoted were from IPLO Gorman.

    But if you think Ardolino is a Bushbot, you’re insane.

    Seriously, are you dismissing him because of advertising on his site? 

    How utterly dishonest and lazy.

  24. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Good thing those tax cuts are bringing in some much revenue, eh alphie?

    I’d say think of it as an investment, but then, well, nevermind.

  25. BJTexs says:

    stevo XX writes:

    Longer than the time between our entry into WWII and VE/VJ days with no discernable progress made

    Um, stevo, I don’t want to embarrass you but that period of time was when actual combat operations were still ongoing. I do beleive that the reconstruction and reconstitution of the governments for both of those countries took many years. In fact, stevo, we still have troops in Germany and a military prescence in Japan. The official occupation of Japan didn’t end until 1952 and there was no insurgency.

    Nuance, stevo, nuance.

  26. alphie says:

    People who bought shares in Enron though they were buying an investment, too, Jeff.

    Hope Mookie al-Sadr appreciates the army we’re training for him.

  27. Lurking Observer says:

    B/c, you see, if the army weren’t in Iraq, we’d have just cut ‘em loose.

    Sigh, alphie, don’t you ever get tired of showing your ignorance?

    TW:moving63, Perhaps after moving63 times, this time we’ll succeed in leaving alphie behind—alphie’s mom.

  28. steve ex-expat says:

    Jeff,

    If you are saying that the INDC Journal and Bill Ardolino represents some sort of unbiased journalism or that he is a purveyor of truth, then there must be another INDC Journal with another guy named Bill Ardolino.  Because I could put hundreds of his posts up here that inidcate that he is a right-wing partisan (in your world, you might separate that out from Bushbot, but an occasional criticism of Bush is hardly a sign of of non-partisanship from a guy who has been saying “Viva Bush” for years).  His obvious partisan leanings were not made clear in your post. 

    For the record, that was a post that I quoted from 2004 from INDC Journal, not an advertisement (unless the links to the various items went to a site that he owns, which would be dishonest on his part).

    Nevertheless, I don’t deny a certain amount of laziness today.  I’ve had a cold for 4 days and it is wearing on me.

  29. steve ex-expat says:

    By the way, Jeff,

    How the hell are you able to crank out this post, respond to me and also put up that humongous post about gay marriage in such a short time?  That is quite impressive.

  30. ThomasD says:

    Steve,

    Your read of the article is correct.  History has proved that the Brookings Institute’s projection of a long drawn out struggle to eliminate Saddam was wrong.  My faith has been restored

  31. N. O'Brain says:

    How utterly dishonest and lazy.

    Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink

    on 02/12 at 04:57 PM

    Bingo, Jeff.

  32. steve ex-expat says:

    BJTexs,

    Was there a V-I day already?

  33. Pablo says:

    That leaves about $1.50 to teach the Iraqis how to become a democracy.

    Someone hasn’t been watching the news.

    tw: child19

    I would have guessed 15.

  34. steve the expat –

    So I traveled to Fallujah, stayed in a downtown police station for a week and littered a failry negative post with direct quotes from marines and advisors, and my position is moot because I was (mildly ironically) pointing readers to support an advertiser selling obviously silly Bush gear in 2004? Even better, because I voted for him?

    My political leanings are on the table. This is quite different from being dishonest or honest when practicing journalism.

    The funny thing is, you clearly didn’t bother to read the post, which contains plenty of negative information to feed your political agenda. Instead, you chose to google for a post to invalidate my position. Which again, you did not read for yourself, attacking the attributed quotes from others in Goldstein’s post.

    Heck, compounding your dishonesty is the fact that in the same post you mention I linked to anti-Bush gear.

    You are an unserious person. My patience for people like you – of all political stripes – after going to Iraq is less than zero.

  35. steve ex-expat says:

    Bill,

    I apologize for not reading the post.  I went by what I understood from Jeff’s post, true.

  36. Pablo says:

    I apologize for not reading the post.  I went by what I understood from Jeff’s post, true.

    And then you smeared him, just because.

    Nice job, steve.

    Hi, Bill. Nice work.

  37. ThomasD says:

    Steve, your read of the article is correct.

    It was the two from the Brookings Institute who argued that the elimination of Saddam would require a long drawn out struggle entailing thousands of US casualties.  That author was the one who disagreed with that grim assessment and offered an alternate take on how the liberation of Iraq would procede.

    So it’s former assistant to Donald Rumsfeld, one; Brookings Institution, zero.

    My faith has been restored.

    Lest you wish to argue the Saddam possessed WMDs non-argument you might wish to consult Gordon and O’Hanlon’s source article:

    Once we announced our goal as regime change, moreover, Saddam would have little reason not to use chemical or biological agents against invading U.S. forces. We would still win, but casualties would increase as a result. With his back against the wall, Saddam might also use his missiles and weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets in places such as Israel, Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. As we deployed forces into the region, he could also try to sneak Iraqi agents armed with biological materials onto American or European territory. Even if some were caught, he could still credibly threaten reprisal in the event we actually began the invasion.

    The truly sad part is that so many who were dead set on stopping the invasion chose to fight that fight – and lose on the merits.  Thereby weakening anything else they chose to argue on the topic.  Yet had they accepted the righteousness of holding Saddam accountable for his crimes and the benefits of regime change then perhaps we could have had a fruitful discussion regarding the aftermath and therefore been better prepared for the problems we now face.

    Even after the victory was won, the effort would not be over. Large numbers of occupation forces, many of them surely American, would probably be needed for years—unless the United States were willing to run the risk that Iraq would descend into a protracted state of civil war. Iraq is eight times larger and six times more populous than Bosnia, where 40,000 to 50,000 NATO troops were initially needed to keep the peace and where 20,000 remain today. Scaling these numbers implies an occupation force beginning at some 250,000 troops and remaining more than 100,000 strong even after half a decade.

  38. steve ex-expat says:

    Yet had they accepted the righteousness of holding Saddam accountable for his crimes and the benefits of regime change then perhaps we could have had a fruitful discussion regarding the aftermath and therefore been better prepared for the problems we now face.

    Thomas,

    I believe you are saying that those of us who opposed the war are at fault for the bad outcome.  Now I know why the Detroit Lions have only won one playoff game in my lifetime.  I whined too much when they put Eric Hipple in at quarterback or Chuck Long, or Andre Ware or picked wide receivers in the first round of three drafts in a row.

  39. wishbone says:

    I believe you are saying that those of us who opposed the war are at fault for the bad outcome.

    Here we go again–stevie and his self-proclaimed “bad outcome.”

    A.  It’s not as bad as having Saddam at the controls with no sanctions.

    B.  It’s not over.  Or have you not noticed that your new Congress has decided to act more or less like adults?

  40. jdm says:

    Here we go again–stevie and his self-proclaimed “bad outcome.”

    It will be if he and his ilk get their way. Pretty much like ‘nam all over again.

  41. klrfz1 says:

    those of us who opposed the war are at fault for the bad outcome

    You sure as hell didn’t help, did you? Yes, you are responsible for the consequences of your own actions.

  42. Rusty says:

    I believe you are saying that those of us who opposed the war are at fault for the bad outcome.

    No you can be opposed to it all you want. you just can’t use dishonest excuses-Bush lied, No WMDs.Because you and I both know those aren’t the case. I too am morally opposed to war. Any sane person is, but my country has gone to war. The sons and daughters of my neighbors have gone to war. No matter the outcome, it is my duty to support them.

  43. Lou says:

    Wow,

    Steve XX commenting on something you no nothing about. What a suprise for a troll like yourself. Typical of people on your side of the aisle. Bill is right the tolence level for people like you is zero. And Bill great reporting I did read all of your posts. Thanks for a job well done.

  44. alphie says:

    Nice rationalization, jdm.

    Nothing’s ever the right’s fault, is it?

    Maybe if the pro-war crowd could estimate when their $100,000,000,000 a year experiment will be done one way or the other, they’d get more support.

    As Richard Feynman said about true science:

    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.

    All I see are a bunch of close-minded people telling each other stories…and spending other people’s money.

  45. wishbone says:

    Maybe if the pro-war crowd could estimate when their $100,000,000,000 a year experiment will be done one way or the other, they’d get more support.

    Golly gee qhiz, alphie–I thought the new majorities in Congress would settle that.

    Non-binding resolutions notwithstanding, it appears the Democrats have serious people who know that failure will have consequences that your pointy little head willfully will not consider.

  46. alphie says:

    The only consequence of our withdrawl will be the Iraqis will sort out the mess we’ve handed them on their own, wishbone.

    The stalker mentality of the pro-war crowd, only we can fix Iraq, is their creepiest talking point.

  47. wishbone says:

    The only consequence of our withdrawl will be the Iraqis will sort out the mess we’ve handed them on their own, wishbone.

    Willfull intellectual myopia.

    IT’S FANTASTIC!!!

  48. I don’t think the U.S. Army is a democracy, Darleen (as Lt. Watada discovered).

    What makes you think a it can teach a whole country to be one?

    Because it did in Japan.

  49. jdm says:

    Maybe if the pro-war crowd could estimate when their $100,000,000,000 a year experiment will be done one way or the other, they’d get more support.

    You mean as opposed to if the pro-war on, say, poverty crowd could estimate when their $140,000,000,000 per year experiment will be done one way or another so they could get more support?

    And let’s not forget, shall we that, that the war on poverty was declared nearly 50 years ago.

  50. I apologize for not reading the post.  I went by what I understood from Jeff’s post, true.

    Too blinded by your hatred for your parents?

  51. wishbone says:

    Too blinded by your hatred for your parents?

    You owe me a keyboard, a Greg Norman golf shirt, and perhaps and IPOD depending on the pattern dispersal, Robert.

  52. alphie says:

    hahaha,

    Is that all you guys got, Robert?

    It worked 60 years ago in Japan?

    Why don’t you play last week’s winning lottery numbers and see if you win, too?

    In fact, play them for four years and get back to us…

  53. Pablo says:

    history; Just like the Lottery!

    Go fuck yourself, alphie. You’re too stupid to live.

  54. Is that all you guys got, Robert?

    It worked 60 years ago in Japan?

    And West Germany. And Italy. And France, for that matter, though the occupation was much, much shorter—remember that France’s government prior to Normandy was the Vichy. They even fired on US troops landing in North Africa.

    What about the Philippines? South Korea?

  55. alphie says:

    We fought the insurgents for 14 years in the Phillipines, Robert, then we had to give them back.

    Is that what you’d call a good investment?

    Vietnam is the most historically accurate example, yet the pro-war crowd keeps avoiding it.

    The idea we can train the military of some third world country run by our puppets well enough that they can replace the $500,000,000,000 a year U.S. military is assinine in the extreme.

    And you know.

    So does everyone else.

    Why continue to lie?

  56. PMain says:

    Thomas,

    I believe you are saying that those of us who opposed the war are at fault for the bad outcome.  Now I know why the Detroit Lions have only won one playoff game in my lifetime.  I whined too much when they put Eric Hipple in at quarterback or Chuck Long, or Andre Ware or picked wide receivers in the first round of three drafts in a row.

    SteveXX

    I believe the thing more infuriating about your pathetically unjustified retort, well besides the fact you hadn’t bothered to read the linked posts to understand the point being made, is that you immediately placed the entire point through political filtering. Funny how none on your side bother to place the same skepticism upon either the reporting of those not in favor of the war & regardless of what happens in Iraq or bother to question the stances of bloggers who have never been there at all. It’s that same lack of introspection that allows you & your ilk to ignore the words, thoughts or comments placed by those that have actually been there & bothered to go beyond the green-zone, you know the troops asshole. In your little world, the troops’ opinions don’t count at all, but your side never bothers w/ explaining why those views don’t count or how you can completely ignore the overwhelming majority of voices closest to the action.

    It’s nice to see you admit you hadn’t read Bill’s posting before commenting, but it would be nicer if you actually were honest enough w/ yourself to see that that same lack of integrity goes a hell of a lot further then dismissingly ignoring the experiences of those who are there. It reflects, at best, a lapse attitude towards honestly understanding a subject & settling for a half-assed, incomplete view or at the worst, reflects your general lack of concern for the truth… unless it reflects your preordained & extremely, by your own admission, uneducated opinions. If your knee jerk response to Jeff’s post is such, what does that say about your entire philosophy or view-point on the war in general? My guess is you aren’t willing to forgo any assumptions, as you have already demonstrated that reading, much less recognizing any view point that differs from yours, requires next to no review on your part before you open your mouth.

  57. wishbone says:

    We fought the insurgents for 14 years in the Phillipines, Robert, then we had to give them back.

    1898 to 1946 is 48 years, alphie.

    OK–minus four for the Japanese occupation.

    And if the U.S. had “given them back” it would have been to Spain.

    And the Moros had nothing to do with independence.

    What’s your next genuinely inept misstatment of history?

    The idea we can train the military of some third world country run by our puppets well enough that they can replace the $500,000,000,000 a year U.S. military is assinine in the extreme.

    Soooo….on the one hand our military is useless and on the other hand irreplaceable.  I’ll give you this–if inconsistency were an Olympic sport, you’d be GOLD in Beijing in ‘08.

  58. Bison Six says:

    Longer than the time between our entry into WWII and VE/VJ days with no discernable progress made

    You’re really that stupid, aren’t you, Steve XX? World War II was a conventional war whereas Iraq is a counterinsurgency. I don’t have the exact numbers before me right now, but they’re usually a lot shorter in length than counterinsurgencies.

    Counterinsurgencies typically take between 9 and 12 years to conclude. We’re past Year Four.

    It’s also rather idiotic of you, trying to apply conventional war success metrics to a counterinsurgency. And, oh, by the way: there won’t be a V-I Day. The war by Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) will end in a whimper, and its’ date of death will never be exact. There will be no climatic battle for Berlin, or nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead, it will end with the remnants of AQI melting away into the countryside and leaving Iraq.

    Yes, you can take my remarks to mean that I continue to believe in an eventual Coalition victory in Iraq. Because, after all, as a historical fact, most insurgencies fail.

  59. alphie says:

    The budget of the U.S. military is over ten time the entire GDP of Iraq, wish.

    What’s the annual budget of the Iraqi military going to be after the thieves we put in charge loot the oil money?

    Maybe $1 billion at best?

    They’re going to replace our $100+ billion a year force and their billion dollar toys?

    Not even close.

  60. ThomasD says:

    I believe you are saying that those of us who opposed the war are at fault for the bad outcome.

    Your belief is not founded in reality as I said nothing of the sort. 

    It is truly frustrating that you ever fail to move beyond what notion I have of you.  Come on Steve, you are supposed to be an eduated man, surely you have some modus beyond wilfully obtuse?  Break the paradigm man, give me something I should actually ponder.  As it is you are a cartoon, making this far too easy and far too unproductive.

    Do you share any of this with your therapist?

  61. ahem says:

    Thomas: Stevexx is his own therapist.

    alphie: If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were related to another obtuse troll we used to have, monkyboy. Y’Cause you sound almost exactly like him. I’d hate to find out you were monkyboy….

    You aren’t monkyboy by any chance, are you?

  62. Patrick Chester says:

    alphie wrote:

    The idea we can train the military of some third world country run by our puppets well enough that they can replace the $500,000,000,000 a year U.S. military is assinine in the extreme.

    Odd, here I was thinking the purpose of building/training the Iraqi army was to protect Iraq. They aren’t going to have military bases all over the world, nor fleets of ships patrolling the oceans like the US military does. 

    Then wrote:

    Why continue to lie?

    What utter gall you have.

    Why do you continue to lie? Going for the “if I repeat it long enough people will either believe it or get too tired of debunking my lazy punk-assed mind” effect? You certainly aren’t a very clever liar, more like you fling whatever your tiny overheated brain comes up with and hopes it sticks.

    (Damnit, I responded to alphie. Sorry folks, couldn’t resist.)

  63. BJTexs says:

    Ahem:

    Of course he’s monkeyboy … and Neville Chamberlain from Patterico.

    The sad part is that both he and Steve XX managed to hijack the thread fro0m talking about the substantive points in Bill’s post.

    Bill, you did great work in Iraq and there are those of us out here who really appreciate it.

  64. Lurking Observer says:

    Seconding BJTexs’ thought.

    Bill, a tip o’ the hat to you for going over there and reporting what you saw, good and bad.

    BTW, steveXX, you might want to talk to your fellow traveler alphie about how little we contributed to WWII between entry and VE/VJ day. Since the Soviets did all the heavy lifting, don’t hurt yourself patting your back on what we achieved.

    Hey, take it up w/ alphie.

  65. RFN says:

    Yes, a big thanks for all your work, Bill.  Wonderful job as usual.  And this is coming from a guy that was NEVER a supporter of the initial battle.  But, I understand the consequences of leaving too early.  And I do understand the enemy, unlike the resident moron, *lph**, and the willfully obtuse headcase known as steve (Maybe daddy didn’t love you because you were an idiot?  Just a thought).

Comments are closed.