POL-Interesting reconstruction article

[Vinatieri for Prez]

If this is accurate, man, we're talking some keystone cops stuff with regards to the Iraq reconstruction effort:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/

My favorite part related to the guy put in charge of the health crisis: "He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort. Several members of Haveman's staff noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers in their daily lives than tobacco. The CPA's limited resources, they argued, would be better used raising awareness about how to prevent childhood diarrhea and other fatal maladies."

Also, it really is just sad that bright and qualified people were dumped over partisan politics. Apparently, the reconstruction plan could be centered on one idea: "Make Iraq America." Some brilliant thinking there.

[Oilers9911]

Who needs to worry about car bombs and gunfire and kidnappings, just don't smoke and everything will be ok.

[Dutch]

Also, it really is just sad that bright and qualified people were dumped over partisan politics.

Are you suggesting the Republican Party follows the same ideology as the Democratic Party, MSNBC, the AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FoxNews?

Oh, the humanity!

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Yes, blame it on AP and Reuters!

[Passacaglia]

If you were applying for a high-level government job, and asked if you voted for W...wouldn't you just lie? I think the breach of ethics involved in asking the question justifies the breach of ethics involved in lying about it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Yes, blame it on AP and Reuters!

Drawing a parallel.

As for the msnbc story, it is based on a book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran that will hit shelves September 19th. This is just a little advertising to maybe help bolster sales a bit.

He's your kind of guy, totally anti-Bush. So he won't hold back in lashing out at the Republicans. How much of his partisan attacks will be true? How much will be typical shit that is spun? Who knows. Will it be unbiased? I doubt it.

Speaking of ethics, if this is important news, was it withheld from the public so that his book sales wouldn't be hurt?

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Its been reported several times over the past few years. Even if it wasn't reported before you only have to look at the bios of some of the appointees to run Iraq and you can see that they were unqualified for their job. Or look at how Bremer listed lowering the export tax and stricter driving laws among his big achievements.

I would think that someoe who sees Iraq as the central front in the war on terror would be pissed that our chances of success have been pissed away in favor of ideological purity.

[Glengoyne]

This is easilly the grandest failure of the administration. We had people who had led nation building ventures in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia, but the people, and therefore the lessons learned in those endeavors weren't brought to bear on Iraq. I don't think it is a stretch to say that the administration put very close to zero effort into planning for standing Iraq up after the successful invasion.

[Flasch186]

Glen

In all honesty, even if its a small %, you seem to be becoming a bit less favorable towards the admin on this front...which I find admirable that you can admit a fault whe you see it.

kudos to you sir

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Glen

In all honesty, even if its a small %, you seem to be becoming a bit less favorable towards the admin on this front...which I find admirable that you can admit a fault whe you see it.

kudos to you sir

I think I've pretty consistent on this point. Early on when, was it Garner?, was initially declared the czar over Iraq's reconstruction, only to resign within a few weeks. I saw the writing on the wall at that time, and felt that the lack of appropriate planning was aggregious.

If anything has turned me off of late, it is the lack of effective leadership continually demonstrated by the administration. In 2004, I gave GW credit because he was leading the nation toward the goals he felt were necessary. I quite often didn't agree with the destination he was targetting, but I honestly felt the fact that he had an objective that would seemingly outweigh concerns regarding public acceptance was somewhat admirable and different from what Kerry was offering, or not offering as the case may be.

Today, I see him attempting to lead the nation simply by declaring that the nation, congress included, needs to follow him because he is the president. His proposal for trial rules for the Gitmo detainees seems to boil down to him declaring that "Congress needs to pass this legislation because I say it is necessary." When the Supreme Court threw out the admin's original rule set, I didn't consider it nearly the defeat many represented it to be. The reason for my assessment, was that I felt all that he had to do was work closely with congress, rally some reasonable support together, possibly even bipartisan, find common ground, and essentially build a set of rules that very closely resembled those that they had initially put in place. Instead, they go "dark" for a time, and then reveal a proposal consisting of the same rules during a highly publicized press conference. The administration seemingly made NO effort to build any sort of concensus in congress related to the proposal, and that, in my mind, is poor leadership.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: Its been reported several times over the past few years.

I did not know that. I was under the impression from the original post that this was brand new information.

Even if it wasn't reported before you only have to look at the bios of some of the appointees to run Iraq and you can see that they were unqualified for their job.

We could say the same thing about our own country every four years. We completely evaporate the entire leadership structure every time we change parties. And we undertake pretty significant changes every four years. Replacing people with experience with people with less experience.

Being involved in Kosovo may not be as relevant if you are somebody who will just jump on the other end of the rope and fight the Bush administration. I can see how the Bush Admin might be concerned about that as well as the lack of experience. But if we use the framework of our own nation, having people work together has provided some pretty good success for us. While partisan bickering, despite experience, or because of experienced partisanship, arguably leads to less than optimal results.

We can argue about progress in Iraq, certainly, but you can't guarantee progress if the Bush Administration hired partisan Democrats from Kosovo to lead Iraq. We might still be debating how many troops to use in the fight for Fallujah.

I would think that someoe who sees Iraq as the central front in the war on terror would be pissed that our chances of success have been pissed away in favor of ideological purity.

I am under no illusion that the Iraqi terror-insurgency is a pushover that would simply be smited away if only the Democrats were in charge. The Al Qaeda is very good at what they do. If Iraq was failing all on it's own, they wouldn't be there coordinating bombings of Mosques and Markets. The reason Iraq is a violent place is because Al Qaeda is trying it's hardest to make sure it does not succeed. If the Democrats were somehow inclined to do a better job in Iraq, the Al Qaeda's resolve would mirror that success.

It will take time, it's turning out to be much tougher than expected. I guess I just don't see how regurgitating old news as pretending it's fresh MSNBC news just to reslam the Iraqi effort in advance of a journalist's book sale is helping.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I did not know that. I was under the impression from the original post that this was brand new information.



We could say the same thing about our own country every four years. We completely evaporate the entire leadership structure every time we change parties. And we undertake pretty significant changes every four years. Replacing people with experience with people with less experience.

Being involved in Kosovo may not be as relevant if you are somebody who will just jump on the other end of the rope and fight the Bush administration. I can see how the Bush Admin might be concerned about that as well as the lack of experience. But if we use the framework of our own nation, having people work together has provided some pretty good success for us. While partisan bickering, despite experience, or because of experienced partisanship, arguably leads to less than optimal results.

We can argue about progress in Iraq, certainly, but you can't guarantee progress if the Bush Administration hired partisan Democrats from Kosovo to lead Iraq. We might still be debating how many troops to use in the fight for Fallujah.



I am under no illusion that the Iraqi terror-insurgency is a pushover that would simply be smited away if only the Democrats were in charge. The Al Qaeda is very good at what they do. If Iraq was failing all on it's own, they wouldn't be there coordinating bombings of Mosques and Markets. The reason Iraq is a violent place is because Al Qaeda is trying it's hardest to make sure it does not succeed. If the Democrats were somehow inclined to do a better job in Iraq, the Al Qaeda's resolve would mirror that success.

It will take time, it's turning out to be much tougher than expected. I guess I just don't see how regurgitating old news as pretending it's fresh MSNBC news just to reslam the Iraqi effort in advance of a journalist's book sale is helping.

Uh, it's not a regurgitation. No one was "pretending" it's fresh. There's new stuff in the article in terms of concrete examples of the failure of reconstruction. But, yes, I think it's been quite obvious over the last couple of years how terrible the preparation was. However, I am surprised by your inability to admit any fault on the part of the administration. I mean, really, give it up will ya'.

As for your points, I hardly think the political ties of people going over there would have led to a stalemate on whether to start up the stock exchange right away or not focus on anti-smoking. It's not the partisan choices alone that was troubling -- it was using it to trump everything including ability and experience. If there was a qualified republican to do the job fine, but here they chose unqualified ones.

[Dutch]

Uh, it's not a regurgitation. No one was "pretending" it's fresh. There's new stuff in the article in terms of concrete examples of the failure of reconstruction.

Okay, that's countering what JPhillips said. The "new" examples that the Washington Post unearthed, then, were withheld from public consumption to coincide with the book sale?

However, I am surprised by your inability to admit any fault on the part of the administration. I mean, really, give it up will ya'.

I've stated what I believe has gone wrong. But I am not so brash as to say I know for sure what we could have done better in hindsight. That's exciting print, it sells, but I question the relevancy or how constructive the dialogue really is, a few years later. Perhaps if the man would have brought this information to light as soon as he knew about it, instead of for his book sale, it might have been more useful than just making us argue about it again.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Reading your post I have to ask, who is the one being hyper-partisan? You seem to believe that having any Democrats involved in Iraq would have led to an even greater failure. I guess your just as enamored of ideological purity as the administration.

But this really has nothing to do with demanding that Dems be put in charge in Iraq. I don't doubt that there are ample numbers of qualified Republicans and/or independents. What this admin did for key positions, however, was to recruit mostly young, inexperienced ideologs from conservative think tanks and the college Republican leadership. Iraq reconstruction became an entry level position into the conservative power base.

I can't say I saw this specifically happening, but my opposition to the Iraq war was based on my belief that the Bush admin wouldn't do what was necesary to win, and much to my distaste I have been proven right over and over.

That's also why I'm in favor of withdrawal over the ext year. I see no reason to believe that Bush is leading Iraq to a better future. We're spinning our wheels, unwilling to leave and unable to change course. Meanwhile a couple of America's finest die every day.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: Reading your post I have to ask, who is the one being hyper-partisan? You seem to believe that having any Democrats involved in Iraq would have led to an even greater failure. I guess your just as enamored of ideological purity as the administration.

There are actually many people involved that are Democrats, but perhaps not the ones at the top? Assuming Hillary Clinton becomes the next President, are you going to be pissed if she doesn't hire the most experienced Secretary of Defense that has experience with the Middle East? How about Secretary of State? Are you going to be upset if she hires new people that agree with her ideologies on how things should be done? And if that isn't enough, if Rush Limbaugh writes an articles detailing how Hillary Clinton hired a bunch of Democrats to handle the Iraq case, will you take it as the gospel?

But this really has nothing to do with demanding that Dems be put in charge in Iraq. I don't doubt that there are ample numbers of qualified Republicans and/or independents. What this admin did for key positions, however, was to recruit mostly young, inexperienced ideologs from conservative think tanks and the college Republican leadership. Iraq reconstruction became an entry level position into the conservative power base.

Who had experience with reconstructing a country that was under attack from a massive terror campaign? Did the admin pick the best people? Who knows. Was the journalist with the book sale going to blast anybody Bush picked? No doubt.

I can't say I saw this specifically happening, but my opposition to the Iraq war was based on my belief that the Bush admin wouldn't do what was necesary to win, and much to my distaste I have been proven right over and over.

How is the Bush Admin supposed to defeat the Al Qaeda-led terror insurgency in Iraq? I'm not sure the Democrats knows how to do that in a without doing what has been done.

That's also why I'm in favor of withdrawal over the ext year. I see no reason to believe that Bush is leading Iraq to a better future. We're spinning our wheels, unwilling to leave and unable to change course. Meanwhile a couple of America's finest die every day.

The plan right now is to get the security forces of Iraq to a point where they are handling all the security in Iraq. They are a lot closer to that goal than they were a year ago, and much further than two years ago. Remember a year ago when the Iraqi military wouldn't fight the terror-insurgents? They have progressed extremely well in that regard. The plan is for US forces to continue to hand over provinces and missions to the Iraqi army. The US Forces will not retreat and leave the country and abandon the Iraqi's like we did the Afghan's in the 1980's. We'll move to bases and continue to provide support when needed.

And I don't want American soldiers to die, if that is what you are implying by my support for the global war on terror. But don't forget that the soldier's purpose of fighting is for you. A soldier is a hero because he is prepared to put his life on the line. And a soldier is prepared to do that for his friends, family, and his countrymen. The ultimate goal, in the end, is not the well-being of the American soldier, but the American citizen. 3,000 American citizens died at the hands of the Al Qaeda when the American soldier wasn't fighting Al Qaeda. It will be a cold day in hell when they run from that fight.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: This isn't about cabinet positions. This is about specific skill sets for very focused positions. I don't quibble with the top positions, although I do think its almost criminal that Bremer got an award for his terrible work. When you get a few levels down the chain of command to the people who are doing the nuts and bolts work of rebuilding a devestated country you ned people with some expertise and experience in what they are doing. And the thing is we have those people available from Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti, Eastern Eurpoe, and Russia. In almost every case though this admin chose the people with the right ideology instead of the right qualifications.

You want to confuse the issue by saying nobody had experience rebuilding Iraq while there was sectarian violence and an Al-Queada terror campaign while Georg Bush was President. The nature of the world is that we'll never have experience doing the exact mission, but we can use our experience in similar missions to help us learn faster and make fewer mistakes. This is where we've failed. By first ignoring the need to seriously plan for reconstruction and then using it as a way to reward contractors and political operatives we have squandered the billions poured into reconstruction, and within the next month the money runs out.

You present a much rosier view of the situation in raq than I have seen. Senior military officials have recently said that Iraq was on the verge of civil war, that Al-Anbar has been lost to Al-Queada, that violence is spreading in the south of Iraq and that we don't have enough troops to extinguish all of the fires currently burning. We know the Iraqi security forces are rife with the same sectarian splits that are causing much of the violence in Iraq. We know that the Shia and Sunni militias are in most areas more powerful than the local security forces. We know that Maliki recently went to Iran and made comments about the Iranians lending military support to the government. What makes you believe that things are going so much better?

Finally, I certainly don't think you want American soldiers to die, but given the way this admin is running the mission I can't support the continued casualties. If I were seeing real progress I could support the mission as I still believe in much of the Bush rhetoric about Iaq, but they have continually tried to do things on the cheap and we've been left with a mission of not leaving.

When this war is looked at by historians I believe it will be seen as a squandered opportunity to use American power to benefit the people of the Middle East and the culprits will be the incompetents in the White House that have run this into the ground.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How is the Bush Admin supposed to defeat the Al Qaeda-led terror insurgency in Iraq?

If he/they don't stop worrying about the politics/being politically correct so much and focus on accomplishing the task with efficiency, they can't & won't.

Unfortunately we lack the good judgement, national will & intestinal fortitude to insist on those things being done, so the chances of seeing that happen are slim.

edit to add: Those comments seem to leave a rather obvious question of why I still support the deployment in the region, let me try to clear that up in advance. It's because I still haven't quite yet given up hope that we'll grow a pair & get the job done. It's a faint, flickering hope, but I haven't given up completely yet.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: This isn't about cabinet positions. This is about specific skill sets for very focused positions. I don't quibble with the top positions, although I do think its almost criminal that Bremer got an award for his terrible work. When you get a few levels down the chain of command to the people who are doing the nuts and bolts work of rebuilding a devestated country you ned people with some expertise and experience in what they are doing. And the thing is we have those people available from Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti, Eastern Eurpoe, and Russia. In almost every case though this admin chose the people with the right ideology instead of the right qualifications.

You mean like Haliburton and all their expertise dealing with the military and Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzogovina? It may not have been you specifically, but a lot of anti-Bush folks raised hell about Halliburton getting the lion's share of the Iraq contracts instead of companies that frankly had no experience that measured up to the good work that company has done and had done. Let me be clear when I make the accusation that you will attack whenever and whereever the Bush Admin makes a decision, you will take the opposite view. Polar opposites, or reactionary opposites? I'm beginning to wonder.

You want to confuse the issue by saying nobody had experience rebuilding Iraq while there was sectarian violence and an Al-Queada terror campaign while Georg Bush was President. The nature of the world is that we'll never have experience doing the exact mission, but we can use our experience in similar missions to help us learn faster and make fewer mistakes. This is where we've failed. By first ignoring the need to seriously plan for reconstruction and then using it as a way to reward contractors and political operatives we have squandered the billions poured into reconstruction, and within the next month the money runs out.

If there were people willing to help with the reconstruction of Iraq, yes, bring them aboard. But regardless of experience, if they opposed the mission or disagreed with the reconstruction effort, there's really no sense in bringing them aboard.

You present a much rosier view of the situation in raq than I have seen. Senior military officials have recently said that Iraq was on the verge of civil war, that Al-Anbar has been lost to Al-Queada, that violence is spreading in the south of Iraq and that we don't have enough troops to extinguish all of the fires currently burning. We know the Iraqi security forces are rife with the same sectarian splits that are causing much of the violence in Iraq. We know that the Shia and Sunni militias are in most areas more powerful than the local security forces. We know that Maliki recently went to Iran and made comments about the Iranians lending military support to the government. What makes you believe that things are going so much better?

Senior military officials have not said Iraq was on the verge of civil war. They said it was a possability, and quitting on the Iraqi security forces by western advisors and the US military would make it more likely, not less likely of a civil war happening. But those same military officials stated that it is their opinion that a civil war can be avoided if we stay the course.

Is there violence in Iraq? Yes. When did I ever deny that? Never. Is violence the reason we should quit on the mission? No. Who's painting a rosy picture now? Since when did anybody say this was going to be easy? You guess you keep telling me that it should have been done without any violence, yet, you never explain how that is possible when those instigating the violence are not US forces.

Finally, I certainly don't think you want American soldiers to die, but given the way this admin is running the mission I can't support the continued casualties. If I were seeing real progress I could support the mission as I still believe in much of the Bush rhetoric about Iaq, but they have continually tried to do things on the cheap and we've been left with a mission of not leaving.

Can you define real progress for me? As for the mission, I clearly disagree with your assessment, it simply can't happen over-night. If we agree on anything, it's that the terrorists are making it much harder than we imagined they could.

When this war is looked at by historians I believe it will be seen as a squandered opportunity to use American power to benefit the people of the Middle East and the culprits will be the incompetents in the White House that have run this into the ground.

I'm not really very concerned about what the historians write about President Bush. Revisionism runs rampant these days anyway. And if history is written by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, we can go ahead and pencil it in right now.

[JPhillips]

You mean like Haliburton and all their expertise dealing with the military and Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzogovina? It may not have been you specifically, but a lot of anti-Bush folks raised hell about Halliburton getting the lion's share of the Iraq contracts instead of companies that frankly had no experience that measured up to the good work that company has done and had done.

This isn't about contractors its about the leadership of the CPA. Stop trying to confuse the issue.

Let me be clear when I make the accusation that you will attack whenever and whereever the Bush Admin makes a decision, you will take the opposite view. Polar opposites, or reactionary opposites? I'm beginning to wonder.

Did you not read where I said I agree with the stated goal of the mission in Iraq? What I'm pissed about is how the Bush admin consistantly put domestic politics over actualy getting the job done in Iraq. We never had enough troops, we never had a plan for reconstruction and we never have been able to change tactics as the situation has changed. Let me be clear when I say Bush & Co. fucked this up and your blind support for them harms the mission. No matter how fucked up Iraq gets you'll always be there to say things will be better someday.

But regardless of experience, if they opposed the mission or disagreed with the reconstruction effort, there's really no sense in bringing them aboard.

So, yes ideological purity is the most important qualification for you. Disagreement with how things were being done might have resulted in more progress. Going lockstep with every decision of Rumsfeld and Bremer sure didn't work.

you keep telling me that it should have been done without any violence, yet, you never explain how that is possible when those instigating the violence are not US forces.

Show me where I said that. Hint: I never did.

Can you define real progress for me? As for the mission, I clearly disagree with your assessment, it simply can't happen over-night. If we agree on anything, it's that the terrorists are making it much harder than we imagined they could.

How about three years later having some gras on security in Iraq. The only way we have been able to say attacks are decreasing is to stop counting car bombings as attacks. Something like 1000 Iraqi's are dying each month from violence, kidnappings and assasinations are rampant, previously safe areas in the south and north are experiencing increased attacks, Al-Anbar province has semingly been seced to the terrorists, Iran's ties to the government are growing stronger and its alleged that Iranian advisors are already working with Shia militias in Iraq, and the Iraqi military isn't as strong as the militias. This is three years later and our equipment and troop strength can only decrease without a dramatic global redeployment. Every month the violence rages lower our chances to ever bring it under control. Of course I don't believe we can put a halt to the violence as its got to be a decision made by the Iraqis.

Revisionism runs rampant these days anyway.

Well at least on this we agree.

[JPhillips]

Progress might be settling on a counter insurgency strategy after three years.

In a Volatile Region of Iraq, U.S. Military Takes Two Paths

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 15, 2006; A01



AL-FURAT, Iraq -- With a biker's bandanna tied under his helmet, the Special Forces team sergeant gunned a Humvee down a desert road in Iraq's volatile Anbar province. Skirting the restive town of Hit, the team of a dozen soldiers crossed the Euphrates River into an oasis of relative calm: the rural heartland of the powerful Albu Nimr tribe.

Green Berets skilled in working closely with indigenous forces have enlisted one of the largest and most influential tribes in Iraq to launch a regional police force -- a rarity in this Sunni insurgent stronghold. Working deals and favors over endless cups of spiced tea, they built up their wasta -- or pull -- with the ancient tribe, which boasts more than 300,000 members. They then began empowering the tribe to safeguard its territory and help interdict desert routes for insurgents and weapons. The goal, they say, is to spread security outward to envelop urban trouble spots such as Hit.

But the initial progress has been tempered by friction between the team of elite troops and the U.S. Army's battalion that oversees the region. At one point this year, the battalion's commander, uncomfortable with his lack of control over a team he saw as dangerously undisciplined, sought to expel it from his turf, officers on both sides acknowledged.

The conflict in the Anbar camp, while extreme, is not an isolated phenomenon in Iraq, U.S. officers say. It highlights two clashing approaches to the war: the heavy focus of many regular U.S. military units on sweeping combat operations; and the more fine-grained, patient work Special Forces teams put into building rapport with local leaders, security forces and the people -- work that experts consider vital in a counterinsurgency.

"This war was fought with a conventional mind-set. The conventional units are bogged down in cities doing the same old thing," said the Special Forces team's 44-year-old sergeant, who like all the Green Berets interviewed was not allowed to be quoted by name for security reasons. "It's not about bulldozing Hit, driving through with a tank, with all the kids running away. . . . These insurgencies are defeated by personal relationships."

The real battles, he said, are unfolding "in a sheik's house, squatting in the desert eating with my right hand and smoking Turkish cigarettes and trying to influence tribes to rise up against an insurgency."

Cutting Deals

Under the glittering chandeliers of his newly remodeled salon, Sheik Jubair adjusted his fine, white cotton dishdasha , or traditional robe, and lit a cigarette.

As if on cue, the American team sergeant leaned over and handed him an ashtray.

The 63-year-old sheik is the de facto ruler of the Albu Nimr, a wealthy tribe whose influence stretches from Anbar's violent capital of Ramadi up the Euphrates to Haditha. Jubair knows the U.S. military needs his tribe as much as it needs the military. Shunned in the 1990s for plotting against Saddam Hussein, the tribe backed the U.S.-led overthrow of Hussein in 2003. But Jubair now faces threats from Anbar's entrenched Sunni Arab insurgency, which he said put a $5 million bounty on his head.

Week after week, the team has spent long hours cultivating Jubair -- funding his projects, buying his son a PlayStation, even holding his hand during treatment at a U.S. military hospital for an infected toe. In return, Jubair has supplied hundreds of police and army recruits, as well as intelligence targeting insurgents in the region.

During a recent visit at his home in al-Furat, Jubair pressed the team sergeant for a hospital, a gas station, a school, payment for a damaged car and a mosque. "We don't do mosques," the sergeant replied.

One minute the tough and temperamental Jubair was unbuttoning his shirt to show off a wound acquired in the Iran-Iraq war. The next, he was pouting because the American team dared visit his nephew and rival, Sheik Hatem, a.k.a. the "boy king," who officially heads the tribe and lives in the same compound.

"He's young and doesn't know anything," Jubair scolded the team sergeant. "If you give him projects, I will close the city council and come here!"

For the Americans, such engagement is as vital as it can be maddening. "Sometimes I feel like I'm dealing with teenagers," the sergeant said. "They even do the 'mom' and 'dad' thing with me" and the team captain.

It's also work that involves keen judgment and knowing when to cut deals. After the team arrived in January, it captured a former police colonel accused of stealing cars and $60,000 in pay and killing another police officer. But when the colonel was detained and sent to Abu Ghraib prison, sheiks Jubair and Hatem pleaded for his release. "They said you will increase your wasta and all that," the team sergeant said, "so we secured his release, a controlled release."

The compromise helped win the tribe's backing for a local police force. But it also heightened frictions with the U.S. Army battalion, whose convoy transporting the detainee had hit a roadside bomb.

A Clash of Cultures

Every night like clockwork at the U.S. military camp -- known as a forward operating base, or FOB -- outside Hit, a loudspeaker atop the Special Forces team house blasts an alert that the Army battalion is about to shoot off flares.

"Attention on the FOB! Attention on the FOB!" a male voice boomed one recent night. "There will be an illumination mission in 10 minutes. Go Cowboys!"

"I've tried to figure out a way to cut that wire," the team sergeant muttered as he stood on the roof, bemoaning the battalion's predictable tactics.

The clash of military cultures was apparent from the start in late January, when the Special Forces team captain, scruffy after days in the desert, arrived at the Hit camp and introduced his team's mission to Lt. Col. Thomas Graves, commander of the 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment. Graves, a close-shaven West Point graduate from Texas, said nothing and walked away, according to team members.

"We grow our hair a little longer," the team sergeant said. "We wear mustaches, and the conventional Army doesn't want to deal with you because they look at you as undisciplined. We're the most disciplined force in the Army!"

To Graves, the problem boiled down to communication and his battalion's limited, or "tactical," control over the Special Forces. "It's not that they have long hair. I don't care if they're frickin' from Mars," said Graves in the camp's chow hall. "They have a responsibility to tell us what they were doing, but they refuse to do it."

Graves said the Green Berets and their Iraqi army scout platoon once shot at his tanks; he said he never investigated the incident but declined to explain why. Concern over his troops' safety led him to initiate steps to remove the team, he said, adding, "I don't care if you're frickin' naked, just don't shoot at my tanks!"

Training Iraqi Forces

At a desert firing range outside Hit, a squad of Iraqi army scouts attacked a line of silhouetted targets, emptying their AK-47 assault rifles and then switching effortlessly to pistols. Next, they practiced sweeping a room, pivoting through the doorway and shouting bursts of Arabic.

Training foreign military forces is a core Special Forces mission -- and the top priority of the U.S. command in Iraq. The Iraqi scout platoon, recruited from the Albu Nimr tribe and coached by the team in Hit, displayed an agility and confidence unusual among Iraqi soldiers. And the Americans fostered loyalty in the platoon.

"We've been to their homes, we've treated their children. They are our partners," said the team captain, an energetic officer from Los Angeles.

"We walk with them as brothers," said Mokles Ali Muklif, the Iraqi platoon leader.

But last spring, when the scouts spotted a roadside bomb during a solo mission and warned U.S. forces about it, they were detained by Graves's battalion, blindfolded and forced to sit in bitter cold for seven hours before the team could secure their release. "I was livid," the team sergeant said.

Later, when the Special Forces team offered to give advanced training to the entire Iraqi army battalion, Graves rejected the idea. Morale continued to drop in the Iraqi battalion, its manpower down to 60 percent after hundreds of soldiers quit over lack of pay, poor food and duty far from home. "We could have had the battalion conducting unilateral ops, and 1-36 could be sitting back at the firm base," the team captain said.

Instead, the team threw all its energy into mobilizing the Albu Nimr tribe behind a police force -- first in its territory of al-Furat, then in the broader region including the contested town of Hit.

A Recruiting Drive

Col. Falah Salah Shimra, 41, a portly tribesman with an imposing demeanor, examined the charred shell of a police station destroyed by a bomb planted on the roof.

Chief of al-Furat's growing tribal police contingent of several hundred men, Shimra minimized the attack on his fledgling force. "Basically, within our area we have no threat at all," he said. "The threat is from outside."

Nearby, tribal police manned a checkpoint, wearing blue shirts as uniforms. None had body armor. Most used their own rifles and ammunition and patrolled in their own vehicles. Many had gone for months without wages until the Special Forces team helped cut through red tape and graft to secure their full pay in July.

Once they get more equipment, Shimra said, he plans "to extend our security all around Hit and get rid of the insurgents."

Indeed in July, backing from tribal leaders led to Hit's first successful police recruiting drive.

"We knew there would be no people in Hit, so to facilitate success we put out word in al-Furat," the team sergeant said.

But a dispute emerged when Graves decided to "lock down" Hit with tanks and hold the recruiting drive at a frequently mortared U.S. combat outpost inside the town rather than in a safer tribal area across the Euphrates. "It's the most dialed-in place!" said the team sergeant, whose men narrowly missed being struck by a mortar shell during the drive.

In the end, only three Hit residents volunteered. But about 150 tribesmen crossed the river to sign up. Graves said he considered the police recruitment to be one of the U.S. military's biggest achievements in his area, and he acknowledged the Special Forces team's help in enlisting the tribesmen. "They deserve credit for that," he said of the team, whose tour ended last month.

The Special Forces soldiers realize there are drawbacks to relying on the tribe, which is focused on protecting its own territory and interests and which imposes tribal law that can undercut civil authority. Every decision, from firing a policeman to averting revenge killings, requires the sanction of tribal leaders such as Jubair. But the reality in Anbar, the team captain said, is either to "engage the tribes . . . or leave them to the will of the insurgency."

[Dutch]

So, yes ideological purity is the most important qualification for you.

Like a football team, sometimes system guys just perform better.

But I get what your saying, if there's a million ways to get from point a to point b, and one path is chosen, in hindsight, you can find a path that possibly could have been better to take. I undestand your point. Do I think Monday Morning Quarterbacking is helpful? To somebody selling a book, I think so. To the effort in Iraq? Not at all.

[Dutch]

And just to break up the love fest,

Speaking of Republican and major journalist relations, here's a nice clip of President Bush and a New York Times journalist greeting each other at a recent press conference.

http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-09-15-FNCPPCnyt.wmv

[JPhillips]

Its not Monday Morning Quarterbacking when many of the problems were predicted before the war, but the admin stubbornly refused to listen to any contrary opinions. They pushed Shinseki out when he said they needed more troops, Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who talked about reconstruction, they ignored warnings about disanding the Iraqi army, they refused to give any but minor contracs to Iraqi companies, and they never settled on a policy to deal with counter-insurgency.

In every business but the White House fucking up this consistently would lead to people getting fired, but Bush gives these flunkies medals and his unconditional support. Again, if you really care about winning in Iraq why aren't you pissed at the half-assed job the Bush admin has done?

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch, any reasonable person would conclude that, for whatever reason, the reconstruction of Iraq was a failure. You agree with the ideological approach that you admit that the administration took. Does that mean that the ideology of the Bush administration is a failure? If not, does that mean that the mission was one that was doomed to fail?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Dutch, any reasonable person would conclude that, for whatever reason, the reconstruction of Iraq was a failure. You agree with the ideological approach that you admit that the administration took. Does that mean that the ideology of the Bush administration is a failure? If not, does that mean that the mission was one that was doomed to fail?

See now, I don't agree with this assessment. I'd say they have still made progress, and that it simply isn't an abject failure by any means. Mistakes, fundamental mistakes, avoidable mistakes, incalculable and costly mistakes were made. That doesn't mean that they haven't had accomplishments, even large accomplishments, nor does it mean that progress wasn't "lost" along with all of the time and money wasted.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Since when did anybody say this was going to be easy?

Well, let's see, shall we?

Originally Posted by Cheney

I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. (Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03)

I think that the people of Iraq would welcome the U.S. force as liberators; they would not see us as oppressors, by any means. And our experience was after the Gulf War in '91 that once the United States acted and provide leadership that in fact, the community, the region was more peaceful for some considerable period of time. That is what made possible a lot of progress in peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians back in the early '90s. (Cheney, CNN American Morning, 9/9/02)

Originally Posted by Rumsfeld

Think of the faces in Afghanistan when the people were liberated, when they moved out in the streets and they started singing and flying kites and women went to school and people were able to function and other countries were able to start interacting with them. That's what would happen in Iraq. (Media Roundtable, 9/13/02)

Originally Posted by Wolfowitz

[Rejecting Army Secretary Eric Shinseki's assessment that the mission would require large numbers of troops for a long duration:] "We can't be sure that the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators, although based on what Iraqi-Americans told me in Detroit a week ago, many of them - most of them with families in Iraq - I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down. In short, we don't know what the requirement will be, but we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark." (Wolfowitz, House Budget Committee, 2/27/03)

Sounds like some in the administration thought it would be relatively easy.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

See now, I don't agree with this assessment. I'd say they have still made progress, and that it simply isn't an abject failure by any means. Mistakes, fundamental mistakes, avoidable mistakes, incalculable and costly mistakes were made. That doesn't mean that they haven't had accomplishments, even large accomplishments, nor does it mean that progress wasn't "lost" along with all of the time and money wasted.

I guess it depends on what you define as success in Iraq.

Overthrow Saddam? Success.
Establish a new government? The jury's still out.
Stabilize the Middle East? I think we can say that that hasn't happened.
Make America safer? I wouldn't say so.

To be fair, it's going to take about twenty years before we can really judge whether this has been a colossal failure or not. But it's not looking good.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Its not Monday Morning Quarterbacking when many of the problems were predicted before the war, but the admin stubbornly refused to listen to any contrary opinions. They pushed Shinseki out when he said they needed more troops, Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who talked about reconstruction, they ignored warnings about disanding the Iraqi army, they refused to give any but minor contracs to Iraqi companies, and they never settled on a policy to deal with counter-insurgency.

In every business but the White House fucking up this consistently would lead to people getting fired, but Bush gives these flunkies medals and his unconditional support. Again, if you really care about winning in Iraq why aren't you pissed at the half-assed job the Bush admin has done?

I believe the administration listened to everybody's view. Then when they made a decision, those whose viewpoint was not accepted complained about it. If they were no longer willing to work with the task at hand because their view wasn't accepted, what are you supposed to do?

If you tell your wide receiver corp that you are going to give the ball to the running back more and one receiver is no longer willing to be productive on the field or in the locker room and complains to the media, what happens? What would you do? Cave in and throw the ball to the receiver more? What about all those who supported handing off to the running back? Fuck them? Of course not.

It doesn't make sense that going with one man's opinion over another man's opinion would have made everything go without a hitch. It's a fallacy. The reconstruction effort would have been hampered by Al Qaeda if we had 100,000 troops or 500,000 troops in country. There's reason to believe and arguments to be made that without using a massive force in a role more suited for WWII, then we would have had no more success but more targets and more casualties for the hidden suicide bombers to attack. Hell, 5x as many guys at a checkpoint could have just equaled 5x as many American casualties to report to the AP.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Dutch, any reasonable person would conclude that, for whatever reason, the reconstruction of Iraq was a failure.

If the reconstruction effort ended today, I would agree it *was* a failure. The Iraqi government, the Iraqi Military, the US Military do not agree with your assessment that the effort is complete.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You agree with the ideological approach that you admit that the administration took. Does that mean that the ideology of the Bush administration is a failure? If not, does that mean that the mission was one that was doomed to fail?

If you want to set it up like that, then I can conclude that my ideology is one that the reconstruction effort is being hindered by terrorism and we must continue to press the fight to the terror-insurgency. Hell, I could go further to say that the Al Qaeda's ideology is one that insists the US military leave Iraq right now. Is it fair to say then, that your ideology and the Al Qaeda's ideology have more similar ground than your ideology and my ideology?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Well, let's see, shall we?

Sounds like some in the administration thought it would be relatively easy.

It's a free country, everybody is allowed to have an opinion, but I've seen Rumsfeld speak of the effort as a "long effort" that will "take some time", but he was referring to the greater global war on terror-insurgencies.

Those quotes were really about overthrowing the oppressive regimes of the Taliban and the Baath Party. I think you may be confusing those totalitarian dictatorships with the ensuing terror-insurgency run by the Al Qaeda.

And if Rumsfeld was suggesting that the Al Qaeda would throw flowers at our soldiers, I would side with you and disagree.

Now, what has happened, any everybody has acknowledged because it's painfully obvious, is that the Al Qaeda's ability to organize a tough, no holds barred resistance through bombing checkpoints, convoys, mosques, economic infrastructure, oil pipelines and markets (and taking hostages and executing Iraqi civilian police and murdering Iraqi government officials) took America and our Allies by surprise.

It was a surprise attack on the same scale as 9/11. Nobody really saw it coming. But just because the enemy turned out to be tougher than expected, isn't a reason to run away. It's actually all the more reason to show our resolve.

[law90026]

I think the point that is being made is that the administration did the following things wrong:
1) choosing persons to run the administration in Iraq who were clearly not experienced enough to do so;
2) choosing these people because they were Republican;
3) not taking the reconstruction of Iraq seriously.

You can argue that hindsight is 20/20 but I think what JPhillips says is right: in any other organisation, heads would have rolled for mistakes made of such monumental nature. Instead, these poorly chosen persons are being rewarded.

And suggesting that the US should have been taken by surprise by Al-Qaeda's ability to fight back? Seriously, did you really expect there would be no reprisals of any nature. It's a war after all. The fact that the US administration would even be surprised by that is another indication of how unprepared they were for the post-War Iraq situation.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

See now, I don't agree with this assessment. I'd say they have still made progress, and that it simply isn't an abject failure by any means. Mistakes, fundamental mistakes, avoidable mistakes, incalculable and costly mistakes were made. That doesn't mean that they haven't had accomplishments, even large accomplishments, nor does it mean that progress wasn't "lost" along with all of the time and money wasted.

The country is mired in a civil war that we are powerless to do anything about, and nobody has a plan to stop it. We are more than likely going to declare victory and go home either after the 2006 election or after the 2008 elections. Given that, I don't see how it could be seen as a success. That's not to say that there were no accomplishments, but no reasonable person can look at the pre-war assessments and goals, and look at the reality today, and call it a success. Today their are a lot of emotions tied up in the war which cloud the ability to see it for what it is, but Glen, let's say we went back in time and told 2003 Glen about the situation in Iraq today. Let's tell him that we had spent nearly a trillion dollars, that the country had death squads roaming the streets, that dozens of Americans were being killed each month, and that it was impossible to venture outside of a small area in Baghdad because of the risk of kidnapping or murder. Let's tell him that William F Buckley Jr said that we were defeated and that longtime National Review editor Jeffrey Hart called it a 'disaster'. What would 2003 Glen say about the success of the occupation?

[MrBigglesworth]

Just a general observance: Many people are conflating the insurgents in Iraq with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda makes up a very small part of the insurgency. At first, we were fighting Sunni's to keep them from killing Shiites, and now we are trying to keep Shiite death squads away from Sunni's (to explain it in complete overgeneralizations). Just because a Muslim is opposed to our policies, it doesn't make them part of Al Qaeda.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If the reconstruction effort ended today, I would agree it *was* a failure. The Iraqi government, the Iraqi Military, the US Military do not agree with your assessment that the effort is complete.

What is the plan to turn things around? It appears that your plan is to clap louder and yell more about how great things are, but I don't think that is going to work. If you know of another plan, I would love to hear it, but I've asked several times before and gotten nothing but evasion. Leads me to believe that the plan is that sometime after an election we will declare victory and go home.

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you want to set it up like that, then I can conclude that my ideology is one that the reconstruction effort is being hindered by terrorism and we must continue to press the fight to the terror-insurgency. Hell, I could go further to say that the Al Qaeda's ideology is one that insists the US military leave Iraq right now. Is it fair to say then, that your ideology and the Al Qaeda's ideology have more similar ground than your ideology and my ideology?

Sophomoric insinuations of being on the same side as the terrorists aside, let's assume that things in Iraq follow the trajectory of the past couple of yeas and get worse. Would you call that a failure of Bush's ideology, or a failure of the entire idea?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by law90026

I think the point that is being made is that the administration did the following things wrong:
1) choosing persons to run the administration in Iraq who were clearly not experienced enough to do so;
2) choosing these people because they were Republican;
3) not taking the reconstruction of Iraq seriously.

You can argue that hindsight is 20/20 but I think what JPhillips says is right: in any other organisation, heads would have rolled for mistakes made of such monumental nature. Instead, these poorly chosen persons are being rewarded.

Your argument is valid, I don't disagree with it's validity. But I have stated my counter argument, which you have ignored. Was it because it was not qualified enough for you, or did you just stick with what you felt comfortable with? It happens, I don't blame you for that.

And suggesting that the US should have been taken by surprise by Al-Qaeda's ability to fight back? Seriously, did you really expect there would be no reprisals of any nature. It's a war after all. The fact that the US administration would even be surprised by that is another indication of how unprepared they were for the post-War Iraq situation.

I did not say the US was surprised that the Al Qaeda was violent. In fact, I have said, and it is clear, that it's the opposite.

The surprise, I think, was that nobody expected the Al Qaeda to spend so much time and so much of it's resources fighting with and for the Baath Party. Prior to the Gulf War II, it was assumed that the two sides were bitter enemies.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Just a general observance: Many people are conflating the insurgents in Iraq with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda makes up a very small part of the insurgency. At first, we were fighting Sunni's to keep them from killing Shiites, and now we are trying to keep Shiite death squads away from Sunni's (to explain it in complete overgeneralizations). Just because a Muslim is opposed to our policies, it doesn't make them part of Al Qaeda.

The local insurgents have joined together with Al Qaeda in Iraq quite a bit more than you imply.

Originally Posted by wiki

For months, it appeared as though two separate wars were being conducted in Iraq. One was a militant campaign, largely conducted by foreign jihadis, of high-profile suicide bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings. The other was a guerilla war being conducted by nationalists, indigenous Sunni Islamists, and disenfranchised former Ba'ath Party members against American troops. Recently, as Zarqawi's network has taken root and grown in Iraq and as the insurgents have become more radicalized and religiously motivated, the distinction between the two has reduced. The June 24 offensive, which combined guerrilla, and conventional tactics and in which a number of groups operating under the Zarqawi umbrella participated, was the clearest indication of this shift. Militants in this group also have been known to operate with other insurgents in Samarra, where they openly patrolled, enforcing Sharia law and distributing audiotapes of the Qur'an before a U.S-led offensive on the city in the beginning of October.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What is the plan to turn things around? It appears that your plan is to clap louder and yell more about how great things are, but I don't think that is going to work. If you know of another plan, I would love to hear it, but I've asked several times before and gotten nothing but evasion. Leads me to believe that the plan is that sometime after an election we will declare victory and go home.

Sophomoric insinuations of being on the same side as the terrorists aside, let's assume that things in Iraq follow the trajectory of the past couple of yeas and get worse. Would you call that a failure of Bush's ideology, or a failure of the entire idea?

No, sir, you answer my question first, "Have you always known you were a master debater?" Answer my question!

[Dutch]

That was just a joke, Mr Biggleworth, breath.

[JPhillips]

Dutc: Your football analogy needs some work. We'll stay with the run the ball versus the reciever that wants it to be thrown. During the game, though, we see nine man fronts and the running game gets stopped. Meanwhile the reciever is single covered most of the day. Now wouldn't you say the stubborn reliance on the run was foolish?

That's what you are leaving out, results in Iraq have almost always proven Rumsfeld et al wrong. Almost every single prediction we were given has been wrong. At what point do we hold people accountable for their failures?

You also act like having more troops in Iraq would just lead to more men in the same places. We have been working on a whack a mole strategy for the past three years because we don't have enough troops to clean out and hold territory. As we arrive the terrorists move or stop until we have to redeploy to another hot spot. Just look at Fallujah. We cleaned it out, but then we had to leave and now its once again a base for the insurrgents. Face it, Shinseki was at least more correct than the DOD leadership.

And please stop arguing that nobody saw the violence coming. Many warned the DOD and they were systematically ignored.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutc: Your football analogy needs some work. We'll stay with the run the ball versus the reciever that wants it to be thrown. During the game, though, we see nine man fronts and the running game gets stopped. Meanwhile the reciever is single covered most of the day. Now wouldn't you say the stubborn reliance on the run was foolish?

Glad you said that, the military has adjusted to the strategies, they have adapted. They did these things, like your analogy suggests, while events were being played out. What we are talking about here, however, is events that happened in the pre-game stages.

That's what you are leaving out, results in Iraq have almost always proven Rumsfeld et al wrong. Almost every single prediction we were given has been wrong. At what point do we hold people accountable for their failures?

Election Day 2004 was a good a point as any.

You also act like having more troops in Iraq would just lead to more men in the same places. We have been working on a whack a mole strategy for the past three years because we don't have enough troops to clean out and hold territory. As we arrive the terrorists move or stop until we have to redeploy to another hot spot. Just look at Fallujah. We cleaned it out, but then we had to leave and now its once again a base for the insurrgents. Face it, Shinseki was at least more correct than the DOD leadership.

And please stop arguing that nobody saw the violence coming. Many warned the DOD and they were systematically ignored.

I argued for combatant commanders in Iraq who say they have enough troops and suggest more troops would be innefective given what they have experienced.

And if you're opinion is that everybody saw Al Qaeda waging a massive bombing campaign against Sunni's and Shia in attempts to start a civil war in Iraq by aiding the remnants of the Baath Party, and that Al Qaeda was going to take a lead role in assassinating free Iraqi diplomats and civic leaders, and that Al Qaeda was going to be murdering Iraqi police by the bus load then I am unaware of such comments prior to the invasion in 2003. Because prior to the invasion, you always said that Al Qaeda hated the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein and wasn't in Iraq and wanted nothing to do with Iraq.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

There's reason to believe and arguments to be made that without using a massive force in a role more suited for WWII, then we would have had no more success but more targets and more casualties for the hidden suicide bombers to attack. Hell, 5x as many guys at a checkpoint could have just equaled 5x as many American casualties to report to the AP.

As you know, my brother just spent a year in Ar-Ramadi with a unit that was 1/2 strength, at best. As luck would have it, I also just started my new job at the same time as a Marine Captain who just served two tours in Iraq (the second in Anbar province - small world), who sits next to me now.

Both of them disagree with your assessment above.

Two examples:

When my brother's team of 3 was attacked at their checkpoint, had they been at full strength they would have been able to a) identify the suspicious vehicle at a much greater distance and b) have more people covering the inspection area. As it turns out, they got very, very lucky, but if they had been at full strength, they would have had things covered much better which = less risk.

When my brother's company (again, at half strength) was ambushed by insurgents while en route to recover the bodies of Marines who were shot down by the same insurgents, part of the tactical problem they had was not enough manpower to properly secure the area, hence the ambush. When they called Brigade Command for backup, they were told there would be none forthcoming in a timely manner because there was no one currently available.

In short, Dutch, you need to spend some time in country, especially in hot zones, before you make assertions like the above and expect them to stick.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I argued for combatant commanders in Iraq who say they have enough troops and suggest more troops would be innefective given what they have experienced.

The view on the ground in Iraq is that said commanders are either a) posted in high-visibility areas such as Baghdad where they do have enough troops, b) FOBbits with no actual combat experience, c) saying the correct political things to enhance their careers and/or d) idiots.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Election Day 2004 was a good a point as any.

Hmm, wasn't this the election of "We're in a war, people. We don't change leadership in a war. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda."

And if you're opinion is that everybody saw Al Qaeda waging a massive bombing campaign against Sunni's and Shia in attempts to start a civil war in Iraq by aiding the remnants of the Baath Party, and that Al Qaeda was going to take a lead role in assassinating free Iraqi diplomats and civic leaders, and that Al Qaeda was going to be murdering Iraqi police by the bus load then I am unaware of such comments prior to the invasion in 2003. Because prior to the invasion, you always said that Al Qaeda hated the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein and wasn't in Iraq and wanted nothing to do with Iraq.

Your ability to ignore the truth is amazing. I guess if you tell yourself that it's true enough times, you can believe anything.

Al Qaeda is not in Iraq to return Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party to power. That is not their goal now, nor has it ever been. There might be former Baathists working with Al Qaeda today, but that does not equate to Al Qaeda aiding the Baathists.

And you really should have read more dissenting opinions prior to the invasion. There were a lot of voices out there saying that by invading Iraq we were opening up the country to terrorists. The administration knew this, hence the whole "fly paper theory" nonsense and it's better to fight them over there than here. The fact that this administration was taken by "surprise" shows that they are either completely incompetent in this arena, or they're just trying to cover their asses since they completely misjudged how things work in the real world versus think tanks.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: I'm sure that you are aware that a couple of ex-commanders in Iraq have said that they asked for more troops but were denied by the admin. I'm also sure you're aware that even though Bush won the election he is still free to hold accountable those responsible for poor performance. And finally I'm sure you know that all the way back to Iraq War 1 there was ample advice saying that Iaq would devolve into a sectarian chaos if we eliminated Saddam Hussien and left a vacuum in authority.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I believe the administration listened to everybody's view. Then when they made a decision, those whose viewpoint was not accepted complained about it. If they were no longer willing to work with the task at hand because their view wasn't accepted, what are you supposed to do?

If you tell your wide receiver corp that you are going to give the ball to the running back more and one receiver is no longer willing to be productive on the field or in the locker room and complains to the media, what happens? What would you do? Cave in and throw the ball to the receiver more? What about all those who supported handing off to the running back? Fuck them? Of course not.

Dutch, please read the article. You're getting this completely wrong. This was not about people who weren't willing to play ball. They were replacing people already in field with decades of experience in their fields of expertise and hands-on experience rebuilding war-torn nations with completely inexperienced political flacks (patronage appointments). They turned away skilled experts who wanted to go to Iraq and help because they didn't like their take on Roe v. Wade! This is not about people failing to be team players...

[law90026]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Your argument is valid, I don't disagree with it's validity. But I have stated my counter argument, which you have ignored. Was it because it was not qualified enough for you, or did you just stick with what you felt comfortable with? It happens, I don't blame you for that.

Let me paraphrase what I think your argument is and you let me know whether I'm off?

1) The people chosen were the right ones because they agreed with either the Bush administration and/or the War in Iraq. I say this because you posted that the people there had to agree with this .. they couldn't be dissenters.

2) The wrong people were those that didn't agree with the Bush administration and/or the War in Iraq even if they had excellent qualifications. That's because they weren't supportive.

3) This is essentially a complaint by people not chosen to go.

4) It's fine that hindsight shows the monumental mistakes made, because it was believed the right decisions were made at the relevant time.

If this is your argument, then maybe you haven't read the article or you don't believe in its truth. Whichever it is, these are the points that have been disregarded:

1) the right people were not the ones with Republican leanings or support of the war, not when someone with no financial background was chosen to open the stock exchange, not when a person who assisted in Christian (!) aid was chosen to replace an experienced person with tons of experience in relief and medical work ...

2) the wrong persons were those picked for the position with little or no background in the areas they were supposed to lead just because they "supported" the war or the Republicans;

3) while hindsight is 20/20, there is a difference between making a choice between difficult decisions and choosing an obviously wrong choice. Put it another way. If you were to go to war, would you want a 24 year old graduate with no background in the military leading it? Or would you want a veteran leading it, regardless of whether he was pro-Republican or not? That's the decision that was essentially made, an obviously wrong one. It wasn't a decision between 2 veterans capable of leading an army .. that's a difficult choice to make and it's unfair to criticise in hindsight.

4) I'm not even sure what else to say. It's one thing to support a decision when it's a hard one, but it's another to support a decision that has consistently been proven to be the wrong one. The Iraq war I would argue falls into the latter, both in terms of the original intent/purpose and how it was subsequently carried out.

[Dutch]

Good Christ, people, don't take this the wrong way but my fingers are getting tired.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As you know, my brother just spent a year in Ar-Ramadi with a unit that was 1/2 strength, at best. As luck would have it, I also just started my new job at the same time as a Marine Captain who just served two tours in Iraq (the second in Anbar province - small world), who sits next to me now.

Both of them disagree with your assessment above.

Two examples:

When my brother's team of 3 was attacked at their checkpoint, had they been at full strength they would have been able to a) identify the suspicious vehicle at a much greater distance and b) have more people covering the inspection area. As it turns out, they got very, very lucky, but if they had been at full strength, they would have had things covered much better which = less risk.

When my brother's company (again, at half strength) was ambushed by insurgents while en route to recover the bodies of Marines who were shot down by the same insurgents, part of the tactical problem they had was not enough manpower to properly secure the area, hence the ambush. When they called Brigade Command for backup, they were told there would be none forthcoming in a timely manner because there was no one currently available.

In short, Dutch, you need to spend some time in country, especially in hot zones, before you make assertions like the above and expect them to stick.

How many people are in your brother's unit?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

No, sir, you answer my question first, "Have you always known you were a master debater?" Answer my question!

Dutch with no plan, there is no possible way that Iraq will turn out to be a success, and I think you know that. As a major supporter of the war, you should be calling your representatives and telling them to get their shit together and come up with a plan.

[Dutch]

Flere,

Also, I saw in the Stars and Stripes the other day that all personnel who spent their own money on body armor and equipment are able to get up to $1100 in compensation if they provide receipts. Did your brother do this yet?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: I'm sure that you are aware that a couple of ex-commanders in Iraq have said that they asked for more troops but were denied by the admin. I'm also sure you're aware that even though Bush won the election he is still free to hold accountable those responsible for poor performance. And finally I'm sure you know that all the way back to Iraq War 1 there was ample advice saying that Iaq would devolve into a sectarian chaos if we eliminated Saddam Hussien and left a vacuum in authority.

Iraq is getting more troops. According to this article from today, Iraq has 300,000 troops in the pipeline. I haven't seen any exact numbers, but I know some of these troops are already working alone without US support. A good chunk are working with US troops. And more still are still in training.

The 'plan' has been to get these men trained so they can 'stand up' so the US military can centralize itself on a few military bases in Iraq and 'stand down'.

As for progress, you would have to look at a timeline for Iraq troop experience as of today and compare it to what it was like a year ago, and what it was like two years ago. I think such a visual representation of the Iraqi military would show progress. I would hope so anyway. If the Iraqi military isn't making any progress, the news media hasn't let me know.

General Abizaid is the commander of the US Central Command.

http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?id=997

Iraqi Troops More Effective Every Day, General Says
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2006 – Iraqi security forces are becoming more capable every day and are fighting and dying for their country, where the future depends on them and their fellow citizens, the commander of U.S. Central Command said yesterday.
“I come to the conclusion that Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country, that the government has pledged their sacred honor and their future to making this work,” Army Gen. John Abizaid said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “Their lives are on the line.”

Iraqi forces now number more than 300,000, and while they still have some bad days and challenges to overcome, they are steadily improving, Abizaid said. He also noted that numerous Iraqi officials have visited Washington, D.C., lately and have all expressed confidence and commitment in the fight against terrorism.

Critics who say the U.S. needs more troops in Iraq are of the mindset that U.S. troops should be doing all the work, Abizaid said. Leaders on the ground believe, however, that Iraqi troops must continually take more responsibility for their own country, and that the ultimate solution will not be solely military, he said.

“It's not a matter of the application of military forces only,” he said. “You've got to have governance moving forward. You have to take down the militias. You have to apply military forces when you need to. Over time, you need to apply more and more Iraqi military and governance power to the equation. We can do that.”

Sectarian violence is still a problem in Iraq, Abizaid acknowledged, but areas where U.S. and Iraqi troops have applied pressure have seen a slight drop in violence, and more progress will be made over time.

“Things in a counter-insurgency (mission), as you well know, take time to mature politically and militarily, and we're confident (that) with the measures we're taking now, we can be successful,” he said.

The goal of coalition efforts in Iraq is for Iraq to emerge as a responsible member of the international community -- a country that will respect the rights of its people and reject terrorism and violence, Abizaid said. That is the same goal the Iraqi government has, he said, and Iraqi leaders are able and willing to make it happen.

“(Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki) is going to build an Iraq for all Iraqis, and it's a hard thing to do,” Abizaid said. “They can do it.”