You know, considering how often conservatives/Republicans make the claim that only they can make us safe, they're really doing an amazing job whittling away at national security by reducing our defense readiness.

At this point, Mexico seems to be about fourteen border guards away from being able to invade and occupy the U.S.

SphericalTime: You know, considering how often conservatives/Republicans make the claim that only they can make us safe, they're really doing an amazing job whittling away at national security by reducing our defense readiness.


And yet the Democratic-controlled Congress keeps approving money for more war. Jeez, don't be so obtuse.

This is getting serious, guys. If we keep leaving all our troops in the middle of the friggin' board, we're just asking for Japan to send over two transports with an armor and two infantry and take all our IPCs for the next two rounds.

That would be teh ghey.

Sumo Surfer: SphericalTime: You know, considering how often conservatives/Republicans make the claim that only they can make us safe, they're really doing an amazing job whittling away at national security by reducing our defense readiness.


And yet the Democratic-controlled Congress keeps approving money for more war. Jeez, don't be so obtuse.

Cause we can't exactly STOP paying for it, then make the troops buy their own ticket home now can we?

Quit shifting blame to one party or the other. They BOTH farked us up. Just the Republicans won't admit it.

I read a book once called On Killing about the psychology of combat. One of the main ideas of the book was that most people (the exception is psychopaths) have a pool of about 100 days that they can be in combat for. If they are in combat for longer then they will suffer from severe post traumatic stress disorder. Basically, it is inhumane to make people spend 500 days in combat.

lol..republicans and their supporters STILL dont accept any responsibility for the current state of the country..

typical..

sorry..it was a republican pres with a republican ran congress that got us into this laundry list world o'crap..war, recession, health care, immigration..man you name it..repubs touched it..it turned to turd..

no if's and's but's about it..

and no, dems cant do anything since repubs have been filibusterin and bush is ready to veto anything that remotely throws salt on their wounds or hints at passing thru congress..

ho hum..

is it november yet?

mmmata: republicans and their supporters STILL dont accept any responsibility for the current state of the country..

I think in most political threads people touch on this in a very specific way, but that statement could be posted in every thread about the war, the border, and the current political climate, etc.

Democrats aren't saints, but they didn't have complete control for 6 full years of every branch.

My point is that your statement, mmmata, covers all the bases.

zilch365: Sumo Surfer:

And yet the Democratic-controlled Congress keeps approving money for more war.

Cause we can't exactly STOP paying for it, then make the troops buy their own ticket home now can we?

Actually, I'm certain the troops wouldn't mind. Good idea.

Quit shifting blame to one party or the other.

That's the whole point of me posting a reply to the first offender. See: ... don't be so obtuse.

The Democrats don't even have control of the Democratic Party, how can you say with a straight face that you think they control congress? Seriously though, the republicans are in lock step for the war, the Democrats are divided with some for, some against... arguing that because the Democrats are in the majority it is their raison d'etre is just dishonest.

/I heard you on the wireless back in fifty two.

What really gets me is that the Democratic-controlled Congress keeps throwing more money at the war without being asked. Even though all the Republicans would love to stop spending the money (being the conservatives, after all, and the party of small government), those Democrats won't let them!

What? I've got it wrong? Oh.

Bah. War is for pussies who can't reason and asholes who don't want to.

simian04: Bah. War is for pussies who can't reason and asholes who don't want to.

Please refer to this before finishing your essay.

firefly212: The Democrats don't even have control of the Democratic Party, how can you say with a straight face that you think they control congress?

LOL. Do yourself a favor and Google Democratic-controlled Congress.

Seriously though, the republicans are in lock step for the war, the Democrats are divided with some for, some against... arguing that because the Democrats are in the majority it is their raison d'etre is just dishonest.

I think so too, but because many people are lemmings, the left is focused on opposing the right and vice-versa , rather than encouraging their members to stand up for their own virtues. If Democrats and Republicans spent more time policing themselves instead of their opponents then there wouldn't be so much fruitless finger-pointing.

LOLZ I MADEZ A DREW JOKES, DAT WILL MAKEZ PEOPLZ THINK I KNOWZ HIM AND WEEZ PALZ

Sumo Surfer: LOL. Do yourself a favor and Google Democratic-controlled Congress.

No, do YOURSELF a favor and take a government for beginners class. That way you won't make such a jackass out of yourself in public.

Pay particular attention to what the terms filibuster, veto and veto proof
majority actually means. Once you've mastered those terms come back and
tell us all about "Democratic-controlled Congress" or simply keep repeating what
that nice sounding man on the radio told you to think, we need people to make fun
of too!

I think so too, but because many people are lemmings, the left is focused on opposing the right and vice-versa , rather than encouraging their members to stand up for their own virtues. If Democrats and Republicans spent more time policing themselves instead of their opponents then there wouldn't be so much fruitless finger-pointing.

Except that it doesn't work like that - not in the real world.

You see, the big prize is what happens in the next election cycle. If one
party (or the other) manages to take the White House and a supermajority
in both houses of Congress, they get to set the agenda. In other words, it's
better to appear to lose several small battles if one wins the war.

We continually heard how defense spending cuts during times of 'peace' weakened the military's ability to respond in defense of the nation. At this particular time money has been no object in fulfilling the mission, yet, and as the report states, sustaining levels has severely strained the ability of the military to respond to any new crisis. Perhaps next time we will go with the Army we want and not the Army we have.

It seems to me one would opt for too many boots on the ground initially with the option of rotating them out if not necessary to complete the mission, rather than overextending your personnel through stop-loss and extended tours.



/R. Romero

While I of course totally agree with everyone that says, that George W. Bush is a machiavelliann genius / village idiot hellbent on ruining America and certainly to blame for the current state of affairs and everything that is wrong in the world I still have to woner about the statemnt in the headline.

Wouldn't the pentagon saying that they were doing fine as long as they weren't actually called upon to fight any wars sort of like your local firebrigade saying that they are fine as long as there aren't any fires?

Sure the US military has a lot of other jobs besides actually going out and fighting wars, but what it all boils down to is that fighting is what armies are for. You might own a ferasome looking gun that does an admirable job of discouraging people from attacking you, but when it fails to actually shoot you would still be upset.

If you consider that the US spends more (or almost as much depending on how you interpret the statistics) on its miliatry than the entire rest of the planet combined one might expect that it could handle a war with some more or less defenseless countries.

You might argue that the US millitary has some awesome hightech powers to nuke and bomb everyone shoot lasers at missiles, outmaneouver enemy fighterjets and outgun enemy tanks, but when that isn't helping you with your current problems than perhaps you are simply spending your money wrong. No matter how good your hammer is it is still worthless for problems that actually require a screwdriver.

Somebody has not been doing their job and while part of the balme certainly lies with the devious chimp currently in charge of playing figurehead one can't help but think that the problem lies a bit deeper and that certain fundamentla assumptions behind the whole system need to be rethought.

Bullpucky! Drew's beer goes to 11

Random Reality Check [TotalFark] Quote 2008-02-09 05:58:46 AM
Sumo Surfer: LOL. Do yourself a favor and Google Democratic-controlled Congress.

No, do YOURSELF a favor and take a government for beginners class. That way you won't make such a jackass out of yourself in public.

Pay particular attention to what the terms filibuster, veto and veto proof
majority actually means. Once you've mastered those terms come back and
tell us all about "Democratic-controlled Congress" or simply keep repeating what
that nice sounding man on the radio told you to think, we need people to make fun
of too!

I think so too, but because many people are lemmings, the left is focused on opposing the right and vice-versa , rather than encouraging their members to stand up for their own virtues. If Democrats and Republicans spent more time policing themselves instead of their opponents then there wouldn't be so much fruitless finger-pointing.

Except that it doesn't work like that - not in the real world.

You see, the big prize is what happens in the next election cycle. If one
party (or the other) manages to take the White House and a supermajority
in both houses of Congress, they get to set the agenda. In other words, it's
better to appear to lose several small battles if one wins the war.

Wow, who pissed in your wheaties this morning?

He was just pointing me towards all the loons who think that a one seat majority constitutes control, not actually advocating the idea.

With respect to how it works and the battles, wars blah blah... that is how it is, but not how it should be. The ultimate end of the current system is that everyone is to busy trying to gain/keep their positions of powers, and the battles/wars have more to do with that than with what's best for the country. FWIW, that's why for the foreseeable future, we'll continue on with the two party system... because as much as neither party wants to admit it, they like that you only get to choose between them and their friends across the aisle.

Personally, I look forward to McCain's explanation of how we'll handle a third quagmire in Iran...

Pillager Quote 2008-02-09 06:16:57 AM
Personally, I look forward to McCain's explanation of how we'll handle a third quagmire in Iran...

By invading (spins wheel).... Syria!

marius2: LOLZ I MADEZ A DREW JOKES, DAT WILL MAKEZ PEOPLZ THINK I KNOWZ HIM AND WEEZ PALZ

IS CRUISE CONTROL 4 COOL

firefly212: Pillager Quote 2008-02-09 06:16:57 AM
Personally, I look forward to McCain's explanation of how we'll handle a third quagmire in Iran...

By invading (spins wheel).... Syria!

And once that fourth front starts to bog down, we'll fix it all by invading *spins wheel*... Saudi Arabi... owait, that's not right. Spin again. *spins wheel* ... Iran again!

Loki-L: You might argue that the US millitary has some awesome hightech powers to nuke and bomb everyone shoot lasers at missiles, outmaneouver enemy fighterjets and outgun enemy tanks, but when that isn't helping you with your current problems than perhaps you are simply spending your money wrong. No matter how good your hammer is it is still worthless for problems that actually require a screwdriver.

I used to take that view when the Iraq war started, that everything looks like a nail to a hammer. More recently I have developed a slightly more sophisticated view. It was not so much that the military saw the problem as a nail, rather that the Bush administration went to war for revenge and not to bring peace to Iraq. Bringing peace was hardly even a consideration.

The whole quagmire could have easily been prevented if Bush, Rumsfeld, etc had made a short high intensity transition to peace after the war was over. They failed to make the transition mainly because they didn't even try to keep the peace. Instead they were obsesed with finding WMD and al-Qaeda. The former was never in Iraq, and the latter was not until after the war. I suspect that Rumsfeld thought that the free market would sort the country out. This is the wrong use of the free market as Iraq immediately post war was a highly volatile country undergoing enormous change.

Another factor preventing them from making the transition is that they lacked the manpower to agressively enforce the peace. On top of this they sacked all members of the Baath party, not realising that all public servants joined it.

So instead of making an intense six month commitment to bringing peace to Iraq, they went in on the cheap and fermented an insurgency that has now drawn on for 5 years and has proved impossible to stop.

firefly212:

He was just pointing me towards all the loons who think that a one seat majority constitutes control, not actually advocating the idea.

Cheers! I don't argue with emotional people. It's too easy.

The ultimate end of the current system is that everyone is to busy trying to gain/keep their positions of powers, and the battles/wars have more to do with that than with what's best for the country.

How dare you bring reason into this?

Pillager: Personally, I look forward to McCain's explanation of how we'll handle a third quagmire in Iran...

McCain would make a terrible leader. I loved when he introduced a bill proposing that consumers would be allowed to buy cable channels individually (there goes BET) so that greedy cable companies could no longer rape us for 50 bucks a month. But it stops there.

He thought his "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" was funny at a time when the U.S. conducted provocative mock dive-bomb exercises of the coast of Iran. Not exactly a quality I want in my president.

You know, when Deedee (grampa) went to war, he was gone for 2 1/2 years. He came home when the war was won.

Honestly, I think that's what we should have done. Sent everybody (practically) and just locked that sucker down. We have 1.5 million active-duty military, and another 1.5 million reservists. How can we not have enough people to handle Iraq? We've never had more than a couple hundred thousand over there, right? Even the Navy and Air Force guys could have done border patrol type stuff to keep the foreign insurgents from getting into Iraq in the first place.

A long deployment would have sucked, but it would be _over_ instead of this never-ending cycle of home-train-gone-lather-rinse-repeat every 7 months that's gone on forever and has no end in sight.

I'd be in favor of doing it today. Just send 'em and let them get their job done and come home when they can take their boots off and stay a while.

cackylacky: Honestly, I think that's what we should have done. Sent everybody (practically) and just locked that sucker down.

That was suggested by nearly every general at staff level, but the Rumsfeld Doctrine called for a smaller, faster, lighter military.

They kept asking for the military's opinion until they got the one HE wanted.

Unfortunately, you can't secure large ammunition depositories without the forces to do so, giving the then fledgling insurgency easy access to what came back at us.

We do not have the manpower to escalate and are barely maintaining the surge.

cackylacky

I'd be in favor of doing it today. Just send 'em and let them get their job done and come home when they can take their boots off and stay a while.

That was pretty well the idea behind the surge, we would go in, get enough military control of the situation that the political system could develop and Iraq could regain control of itself through policing and rebuilding it's governmental functions. Instead, we sent in our troops, the surge did what it was supposed to in terms of military control, and the Iraqi leaders, sensing that we would stay indefinitely, felt no impetus whatsoever to push forward with any political progress, reconciliation, or anything else... The reality isn't that the military can't handle the military part of the task... it's that the military has no ability to force them to develop an effective or efficient government system, yet cannot leave until this happens because of the ensuing destabilization. Nearer the beginning, I was of the opinion that we needed to issue a mea culpa, and ask for other international and regional powers to come in and help them establish a government... but now that the culture of dependence has solidified, I really don't see any way for us to get out.

moulderx1: We do not have the manpower to escalate and are barely maintaining the surge.

I would say that we DO have the manpower to do it, we just don't have the willingness to do so. It would be much tougher politically to do it now that people know that it was a bogus war in the first place, but it doesn't change my opinion.

But it's getting better over there. Like it or don't, having more troops on the ground is improving security and allowing Iraq to get back on its feet. The people are figuring out that the military wants to be back at home watching Iraq's successes on CNN and as soon as they get their country stable we're out of there.. My sweetie was over there in January for a few weeks and said that he couldn't believe all the new businesses and homes that were springing up in neighborhoods where even the military wouldn't go a year ago.

firefly212: I really don't see any way for us to get out.

If the recession is as bad certain experts say it will be, then getting out won't be a hard sell.

"We want to resolve this quickly, peacefully, and cheaply. Will all people that don't agree with us or do as we say please drown?"


USA mentality, I hate this farking country. Full of retards that think they are special and/or divine.

firefly212: I really don't see any way for us to get out.

Shaggy_C shared an idea a few months ago that was intriguing. He thought that we should tie continued military presence in Iraq to the political benchmarks that we want to see accomplished. So.. if they don't do XYZ.. that's a battalion. Gone. Figure out how you're going to take care of Fallujah, al-Maliki, because we're out of there.

Parliament takes a month off in August 'cause it's hot?... that's a brigade.

It's probably too hard-core, but there's something there. We'll continue to protect you as long as you follow the program. When you fail to live up to your end of the bargain, your security starts shrinking up like a noose around Baghdad.

I dunno, I kinda like it.

A old friend of mine in is the national guard band. For the last 6 or so years, I've joked to him that we know we are screwed when he finally gets deployed.
Guess what? He's being deployed.

We have worn down the combat units so much we are deploying the farking national guard band. What's next? Old men and young boys?

So we are not only destroying our economy and reputation by fighting a cruel, pointless war. We're also increasing the threat in the world while simultaneously degrading our ability to respond to it.

As an added bonus, we're pissing on the graves of those who died to defend our freedom by dismantling our protections from a tyrannical government.

That's a whole lot of fail, there!

Does the Pope shiat in the woods?

When does a "surge" become not a surge anymore? When it's been going for nearly a farking YEAR that's how. Face it folks: you got rolled by Bush again. It's a permanent troop escalation. It always was.

The real reason for the (relative) decline in casualties has not been the "surge." It's the temporary cease-fire negotiated by Muqtada Al-Sadr which is going to expire this month. You can bet your ass that casualties will start climbing again soon.

Loki-L: Somebody has not been doing their job and while part of the balme certainly lies with the devious chimp currently in charge of playing figurehead one can't help but think that the problem lies a bit deeper and that certain fundamentla assumptions behind the whole system need to be rethought.

I've been thinking this too. I believe the Iraq war has exposed some flaws in our military that could require fundamental changes to fix.

The Iraq war is pretty small, as wars go. We aren't exactly fighting Chinese troops in North Korea here. And yet we keep hearing about the cost of the war, and the strain on the military.

But what if this was a big war with a major power? Would we have had the money and troops to fight that? It looks like the answer is no. We'd have to implement a draft and submit to government control over the economy, like WWII. Our military is not as prepared for conflict as we are led to believe.

I think the root issue is our inclination to spend our military budget on high tech in an effort to avoid casualties. We spend so much per soldier that we can't afford many soldiers, which in turn means that we spend more per soldier to keep the ones we have safe, and so on.

It all works great until you get into a fight, in which case mass casualties are inevitable. Troops die, tanks explode, aircraft are shot down. And if the troops take years to train, and the tanks and airplanes take years to build, and they all cost millions more than the backyard explosives used against them, what then?

I believe we need to have more disposable equipment, and yes troops too, if we are going to be able to fight a real war. Our current approach is great on paper, but vulnerable to being overwhelmed by mass attacks from fanatical populations and uncaring dictatorships. Unfortunately, our natural foes are exactly those.

cackylacky: Shaggy_C shared an idea a few months ago that was intriguing. He thought that we should tie continued military presence in Iraq to the political benchmarks that we want to see accomplished. So.. if they don't do XYZ.. that's a battalion. Gone. Figure out how you're going to take care of Fallujah, al-Maliki, because we're out of there.

That isn't very fair. The US negligently broke Iraq, and when it emerged that it couldn't restore peace, Americans started blaming the Iraqis.

NutWrench: When does a "surge" become not a surge anymore? When it's been going for nearly a farking YEAR that's how. Face it folks: you got rolled by Bush again. It's a permanent troop escalation. It always was.

The real reason for the (relative) decline in casualties has not been the "surge." It's the temporary cease-fire negotiated by Muqtada Al-Sadr which is going to expire this month. You can bet your ass that casualties will start climbing again soon.

The decline in violence seems to be more about changes in approach than anything else.

Old strategy: have a few fortified bases in safer locations, sally forth to "fight the bad guys", and try to disband all militias.

New strategy: move the troops forward to protect the populace, and encourage them to arm and defend themselves.

The new strategy is working way better than the old. The militias are cutting down on violence dramatically, and are working in joint with US troops against the factions that refuse to work with us. Legitimate progress is being made.

The problem though is that we now have armed militias who are more loyal to the US military than they are to the Iraqi government. Not because we are setting it up that way, but because we pay & help them, while the Iraqi government is a non-entity.

This has got to change, or we will it impossible to untangle ourselves without a meltdown. The likely outcome would civil war resulting in millions dead. The only way to change that is for the Iraqi government to become functional, and for it to integrate friendly militias (i.e. ones that just want to protect their tribe) into its security forces while purging unhelpful ones (i.e. ones that support racial cleansing).

That won't happen until the Iraqi government is no longer just a Shia brute squad. So... we are stuck until the next election, in which the Sunni will hopefully have a bigger block.

SomeAmerican: I think the root issue is our inclination to spend our military budget on high tech in an effort to avoid casualties. We spend so much per soldier that we can't afford many soldiers, which in turn means that we spend more per soldier to keep the ones we have safe, and so on.

It's called the Mogadishu effect. After the blackhawk down incident the US military is afraid of loosing soldiers.

The thing is, in war generals need to be prepared to loose their soldiers. That is why Patton was so successful - he had no qualms about his soldiers dying.

Mr Logo: cackylacky: Shaggy_C shared an idea a few months ago that was intriguing. He thought that we should tie continued military presence in Iraq to the political benchmarks that we want to see accomplished. So.. if they don't do XYZ.. that's a battalion. Gone. Figure out how you're going to take care of Fallujah, al-Maliki, because we're out of there.

That isn't very fair. The US negligently broke Iraq, and when it emerged that it couldn't restore peace, Americans started blaming the Iraqis.

Most US politicians agree that the US needs to stay in Iraq until the situation is either resolved or clearly hopeless.

Whether we can restore peace or not yet is an open question. Sustained progress does seem to be taking place, but it is slow going.

General Petraeus, when he took command, said that counter insurgencies took on average ten years. He said it pretty quietly, as you can imagine.

Cagey B: This is getting serious, guys. If we keep leaving all our troops in the middle of the friggin' board, we're just asking for Japan to send over two transports with an armor and two infantry and take all our IPCs for the next two rounds.

That would be teh ghey.



AXIS and ALLIES references gain kudos any day.

I'll worry when they start drafting people, which by then I'll fake being gay, or get a tattoo on my forearm.

fark the military and their bags of lies.

Adding something about Drew and beer: the magic way to a greenlight.

Yawn.

cackylacky: I would say that we DO have the manpower to do it, we just don't have the willingness to do so. It would be much tougher politically to do it now that people know that it was a bogus war in the first place, but it doesn't change my opinion.

The Pentagon, no surrender monkeys they, seem to disagree. We are still losing an average of 30 guys a month (we just lost 4 Friday northwest of Baghdad and a fifth in Tameem), al Sadr ordered his Mahdi to observe a cease fire that expires at the end of the month and politically the Iraqi government is no closer to getting their collective xhit together than they were pre-escalation of troops.

I struggle with this argument all of the time. Ultimately I think we can't win a war by playing fair with an enemy we cant define.

Our soldiers have been remarkably restrained considering all that they have to deal with, and I am really surprised that we haven't seen far more news stories about soldiers going over the line and committing heinous atrocities against Iraqis in general.
Has it happened to some degree? You can be sure of it. But I give a lot of credit to the men and women over there for their restraint and professionalism.

I think anyone put into the same situation will struggle with their own humanity when weighed against the risks, and despite the fact that I am a reasonable person, if I were put in that same situation I cannot state that I wouldn't "go over the line".

It s a dirty war, and I think our service members have been given the impossible task of "fighting fair".

So how do we win and maintain a sense of morality at the same time?

So when are the goose-steppers who keep posting Cox and Forkum cartoons on Fark going to enlist?

ajos: I struggle with this argument all of the time. Ultimately I think we can't win a war by playing fair with an enemy we cant define.

First you have to define 'win'. Winning is stabilizing Iraq so the Iraqi government can take care of their own security. As it stands we are paying former Sunni insurgent factions hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'help fight Al-Qaeda'. I'm not aware that our troops have a hand tied behind their back on how to engage the enemy, but I'm pretty sure the methods used in sectarian fighting isn't covered by the UCMJ. To those who bitterly oppose the occupation that's America by proxy, so we're painted with the same brush.

There is no point at which those who oppose our presence will be beaten down through attrition or come to realize that a cessation of hostilities is in their best interest. The Shi'ite led government of al-Maliki has to get the Sunnis on board and form his own coalition of the willing....That's something we can't do for him or the Iraqi government at the end of a gun barrel.

Thanks moulderx1,for a very salient point. It really isn't the warfare, its the politics of the situation and the factional disagreements that are preventing resolution. But, does that then mean that no matter how many "insurgents" are killed, we're stuck there until they find their own way to peace?