Comments Posted By Jonathan
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 99 Comments
Baghdad has a population of six million people, counter insurgency doctrine calls for a troop to population ratio of twenty troops for every one thousand civilians. Divide six million by one thousand and you get six thousand, multiply that by twenty and you get one hundred and twenty thousand troops needed for Baghdad alone.
Iraqi troops are mostly useless, they have been thoroughly infiltrated by insurgents of one stripe or another and they cannot be depended on in a tight situation, as has already been demonstrated more than a few times. If Baghdad is to be pacified, it will be American troops that will have to do most of the heavy lifting. There are many problems with training Arab troops, you can read about those problems here if you wish.
I note that it is the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade who will be the first into Baghdad. Paratroopers often make REALLY poor counterinsurgents. They are, by inclination and training, extremely aggressive and hard men. Just think of two incidents: Derry, January 1972 and Fallujah, April 2003.
Common factor? Paras of one sort or another vs. civilian protestors. Not a good mix. I know that we're hard up for boots on the ground, but the paras? Great at direct action, raids and such. Patient, slow-moving, painstaking civil-military operations? Not so good.
General Shinseki was right when he called for several hundred thousand troops to invade and occupy Iraq, but he was over ruled by the civilian leadership and the war was done on the cheap for political reasons. The inevitable consequence of the civilian decision to invade Iraq with inadequate forces has now played out and no one has a clue what to do.
A force of seven hundred thousand to one million troops would now be needed to bring peace and stability to Iraq. It could have been done originally with four hundred to five hundred thousand, but now that the sectarian strife has been allowed to go on for three plus years it is going to take many more than simply preventing the strife from happening in the first place.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 11.01.2007 @ 07:18
Ooops, I missed the link for "it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMDs"
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 11.01.2007 @ 09:39
How unrealistic am I being by hearkening back to the domestic tactics we used in World War II that successfully gave every American a stake in our victory or defeat? Obviously, very little of what I proposed above would be possible or even practicable.
If we did it in WWII why is it not possible nor practical to do it today?
I'd be on board with the Iraq war if I thought the administration was truly serious about winning it. We should have called for a draft, rescinded the tax cuts and implemented many of the measures you mentioned in your OP at least two years ago when it was clear that we were losing in Iraq. But that would have been unpopular and would have threatened Republican chances of hanging on to power so it wasn't even considered.
If the administration is truly serious about their "Clash of Civilizations" rhetoric, why then have they told the general public to "just go shopping" and not called for some serious sacrifices from the American people?
When I was about eight years old we moved into a house that happened to have a huge stack of old National Geographics in one of the closets, left over from the previous occupants. I read every one cover to cover and I can recall vividly that the magazines from the years of WWII had several articles in every issue about the war effort, including photos and reporting on combat in all the theaters of the war. I was fascinated by those war era magazines and learned a lot about WWII in my very early years.
The reason the American public is not on board for the Iraq war is that the administration has made it quite clear by it's actions that it isn't really serious about winning this so called global clash of civilizations. Actions speak louder than words and as long as the actions do not match the rhetoric the administration will never be able to get the public on board for a war that was sold as a "cakewalk", that I doubt it will last six months", that it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs, that we would be greeted as liberatorsand that "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.".
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 11.01.2007 @ 09:34
According to Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, during the planning stage of the Iraq invasion Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who even mentioned planning for the occupation phase of the invasion.
Does anyone seriously think that Rumsfeld would take such a position without the approval of President Bush?
This war was lost before it ever started, when the planning for the occupation was completely ignored because it would cost too much and use too many troops.
General Shinseki's professional opinion was that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to occupy Iraq, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both publically disageed with that estimate and said it was much too high.
General Abizaid has since said that Shinseki's original estimate was in fact correct.
Place the blame for this debacle where it really lies, on the highest levels of the civilian leadership, President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 11.01.2007 @ 06:48
DOING SOMETHING RIGHT: THE SOMALI RAID
Why is pointing out that the three top AlQueda operatives that were supposedly targeted in fact escaped inane?
All I was doing was quoting a "senior US official" and I provided a link to the story in question. How is pointing out facts a "gotcha"?
Why are you such a brainless twit?
Show me where I have been uncivil or called anyone any names.
Do you consider what you wrote in that quote civil?
Do you have other commenters that comment on more than one thread?
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 11.01.2007 @ 15:18Luke 6:41
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Al Qaeda suspects survive U.S. strike on Somalia
11 Jan 2007 13:31:01 GMT
Source: ReutersNAIROBI, Jan 11 (Reuters) - A U.S. air strike on Somalia has failed to kill three top al Qaeda suspects, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.
"We are still in pursuit. We and the Ethiopians and everyone else wants to interdict terrorists," said the official, who declined to be named.
What a surprise.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 11.01.2007 @ 12:24
BRING ME THE HEAD OF JAMIL HUSSEIN
Chip:
In 1994 when we took control of the House, 12 years ago, it wasn’t that — we wanted to treat Democrats the way we had asked to be treated. And, frankly, that’s what we did.
At risk of being charged with spamming, I'll reply.
I wish you would explain what the above quote really means because it doesn't make much sense to me. I didn't quote the whole thing because that part of the quote was more or less meaningless to me.
Do you really wish to argue that Democrats were treated fairly by Republicans in the years since 1994? That's what you seem to be saying but I want to be sure.
As for Pelosi's speech regarding bipartisanship and so forth, that's more or less standard boilerplate political rhetoric which may or may not mean anything significant.
Back to the Jamil Hussein story in order to remain at least somewhat on topic. It looks like AP may well have been in error in their reporting due to using Mr Hussein as a single source. If that is the case then AP should publish a retraction and/or retractions and an apology. Would that be enough to satisfy you or do you require something further from AP?
As I pointed out earlier, the Iraq Study Group Report makes the point that violence in Iraq is being underreported by a factor of about ten, with there being about eleven hundred acts of violence on the day for which they analysed the data while only slightly under one hundred actually made it into the official record.
I'll freely admit that reporters make mistakes, in every news story of which I have personal knowledge of the subject I have found errors of either fact or interpretation. I can recall before the Gulf War that sixty minutes did a piece on military hardware in which they called into question the reliability of that hardware in a dusty desert environment. It turns out that sixty minutes was dead wrong and the equipment worked very well when it came time to actually use it.
I'm one of those people who nitpicks TV shows and movies. They show a car driving fast on a dirt road with the tires squealing, tires don't squeal on dirt. They show a Harley riding down the road and it sounds like a two stroke dirt bike. They show a dirt bike and it sounds like a Harley. There was an episode of "Fame" not too long ago, it's set in New York and they played a basketball game outside. There were palm trees in the background. These sorts of errors ruin my suspension of disbelief and spoil the show for me, and the errors are many and frequent.
I bring that nitpickyness to reading news stories and other information. If the information is not logically self consistent or directly contradicts what I already know then I consider the information source unreliable.
I never really paid attention to the original "burning deaths" story, I saw it on Google News but wasn't particularly interested and didn't click on the link. I'm not a ghoul and have little interest in violence for the sake of violence.
I still don't understand the burning desire of some people to focus on the truth or falsehood of just a few of the overwhelming number of violent stories coming out of Iraq.
I know I ramble, I'm trying to distract myself and I let my thoughts get carried away. The words just pour out of my fingertips without much conscious effort on my part. In real life I'm actually pretty taciturn, belive it or not.
Take a lesson from Stretch. Stop letting bloggers, pundits and entertainers get under your skin and get with the program.
Who is Stretch and what is the program?
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 7.01.2007 @ 03:34
Stop with the spam comments already. You’re getting to be annoying. Annoying people don’t last long at this site.
OK, whatever. I've made my point and you know it. That's all I wanted.
Part of the reality based community since Y2K.
WHAT YOU'VE "MADE" IS AN ASS OF YOURSELF. AND AS FAR AS ME "KNOWING IT" THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THAT YOUR IRRATIONALITY AND CLUTTERED THINKING IS BOTH BORING AND ANNOYING.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 6.01.2007 @ 22:55
Sigh.....
OK, I'm gonna post this again and see if any righties have the huevos to comment, although I seriously freakin' doubt it.
“What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would like to have been treated.â€
-Incoming House Minority Leader John Boehner of OhioIs there anyone else here who sees how seriously psychopathic the above quote is?
This comment was made in public and on the record, the person making it has not the self awareness to realize just how shameful it is.
And righties call lefties "whiners"!
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence
-Me
All right, go on back to rearranging the deck chairs on that certain ship of the White Star Line.
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY A SPAM COMMENT. THE REASON IT WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE IT IS NON GERMANE TO THE POST. STICK WITH THE SUBJECT OF WHAT I WRITE OR RESPOND DIRECTLY TO SOMEONE.
YOU HAVE A DISORGANIZED, CHAOTIC MIND WHICH IS WHY YOU CAN'T SEE HOW OFF TOPIC THIS POST IS. IF YOU WANT TO POST YOUR OWN CRAP, GET YOUR OWN BLOG. DON'T WASTE MY BANDWIDTH BY POSTING IT HERE.
rm
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 6.01.2007 @ 22:37
We are we where are in Iraq not because the reportng was wrong. We are in Iraq to begin with because the reporting was wrong. But honestly, with hundreds dead per day in a wide open civil war, you are parsing words and missing the mess we made over there.
You are exactly right, the ship that is Iraq is going down and the righties are just frantically rearranging the deck chairs and pointing out the the pursers mate has a smudge on his uniform, trying desperately to distract everyone else from the inevitable fact of the sinking.
The reporting before the war is what has us in such deep do do in Iraq. The facts were out there which showed that invading and occupying Iraq was a fools errand, even if done with adequate troop levels. All I used was my own knowledge of history and military doctrine and a lot of Google searching to find out the facts, why could the media not do the same or even better? The media has infinitely more resources than do I, one lower middle class man with an internet connection. At the time all I had was dialup too.
"From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit -- we would still be there, and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of the occupation," [Norman] Schwarzkopf wrote in his 1993 autobiography, It Doesn't Take a Hero.
Of course, this sort of deception by the media and the politicians is nothing new.
"The loud little handful -- as usual -- will shout for the war. The pulpit will -- warily and cautiously -- object... at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, ‘It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.’
Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men...
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. -- Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)
The myriad falsehoods leading up to the war are what really scream for examination, not the pecadillos of some brave reporters trying under very dangerous circumstances to bring us the news from the outer ring of the seventh circle of hell that is today's Iraq.
I SHOULD HAVE DELETED THIS COMMENT TOO. WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE AP AND THE POST ABOVE? AND YOUR BRINGING UP THE "FALSEHOODS" FROM BEFORE THE WAR AND NOT RESPONDING DIRECTLY TO MY CHARGE THAT THIS IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT SAYS TO ME EITHER YOU DON'T OR CAN'T READ WHAT I WRITE. WHAT KIND OF IDIOT GOES RIGHT AHEAD AND DEMONSTRATES EXACTLY WHAT I WRITE ABOUT WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A COMMENT ACKNOWLEDGING AT THE VERY LEAST THAT IT ISN'T A STRAWMAN?
READ THE POST AND COMMENT. NO GOING OFF ON TANGENTS. NO INSULTING THE HOST OR OTHER COMMENTERS. THEMS THE RULES. ABIDE BY THEM OR ELSE.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 6.01.2007 @ 20:45
