Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > July > 18 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USFending off big trouble in Afghanistan
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The rising casualty rate among our forces in Afghanistan — in the last two months, U.S. and allied fatalities in Afghanistan have exceeded the death toll in Iraq, with July likely to follow suit — has focused public and political attention on what has long been a secondary front.
This week alone, the Pentagon announced the deaths in Afghanistan of three metro Atlanta residents — Cpl. Jon Ayers of Snellville, Cpl. Matthew Phillips of Cumming and Master Sgt. Mitchell Young of Jonesboro. Ayers and Phillips were among nine U.S. soldiers killed when their isolated outpost was attacked in a coordinated assault by Taliban fighters.
That assault was repelled, but survivors of the attack have since been withdrawn and the outpost abandoned. The move is an acknowledgement by U.S. commanders that they do not have the manpower needed to defend that ground.
The same is true of Afghanistan as a whole. The Pentagon has been forced to fight the Taliban and Afghan warlords with manpower and resources it knows to be insufficient, as an “economy-of-force campaign.”
In military terms, that means Afghanistan has been getting just enough resources from the Pentagon to keep the situation roughly stable, while the bulk of the U.S. military was committed to a more aggressive battle for control of Iraq.
That calculation reflects the reality that Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars but two theaters in the same war, with both theaters drawing from the same limited pool of military and civilian resources. The decision to concentrate our effort in Iraq was made despite the fact that Osama bin Laden had used Afghanistan, not Iraq, as his base and remains at large. (Afghanistan also has a bigger population and roughly 30 percent more land area than Iraq, both suggesting it would take more manpower to pacify.)
Unfortunately, that strategy has suited bin Laden and his Taliban supporters quite nicely. He too sees the struggle as a two-theater war, but from his perspective, he has managed to keep the bulk of the U.S. military tied down in far-off Iraq even though he is expending almost no resources there. Meanwhile, he has consolidated his position in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
We are now seeing the consequences of that strategic mistake. Almost seven years after the attacks of Sept. 11, the CIA reports that bin Laden and his allies have built a new stronghold in Pakistan to replace that lost in Afghanistan, and are using that sanctuary to destabilize not only our Afghan allies but parts of Pakistan as well.
There are no easy answers. The United States and its NATO allies have tried to suppress a Taliban and al Qaida offensive by gradually increasing troop strength, but so far the Afghan “surge” has had little effect. Taliban attacks continue to increase. In recent days, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has renewed his longstanding call to draw down our troop commitment in Iraq and use that manpower to further reinforce our effort in Afghanistan.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, takes a similar position, although Mullen also stresses the importance of maintaining recent security improvements in Iraq.
“I’ve made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can,” Mullen said. “Nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so.”
This week, Republican nominee John McCain joined the chorus, noting that “security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive.” He called for three additional brigade combat teams in Afghanistan to blunt Taliban gains, but given McCain’s commitment to maintaining troop levels in Iraq, it is uncertain where that additional manpower could be found.
America’s two-theater strategy has been founded on the hope that we would get lucky on the timing. The Bush administration hoped that the battle in Iraq would be concluded fairly quickly, allowing reinforcements to pour into Afghanistan before the Taliban regained their footing. Nobody in the White House or Pentagon anticipated that more than five years after marching into Baghdad, well over 100,000 U.S. troops would still be tied up in combat in Iraq.
Now, time may be running out on that strategy, especially as the Taliban become more aggressive and entrenched. We have taken a gamble in Afghanistan by trying to do too much with too little for too long, and it’s a gamble we could end up losing.
Comments
By hillbilly ragger
July 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Would it be asking so very much to hear this Administration admit that they blundered? That they actually meant what they said, that they really thought we’d be greeted as liberators and that the goodwill from the Iraqis in the afterglow would be enough to keep them from cutting one anothers’ throats? That with a little more attention to detail, there was reason to think this mighta worked, but it didn’t, sorry?
Ya know, I could accept that. No hard feelings. But with this Administration it’s all Pee-Wee Herman, all the time: “I meant to do that!”
And I’m not even sure I should accept this. A more likely explanation is that the neocon thugs who really ran things (Cheney, Wolfie, et al) actually wanted chaos and a money funnel. But yeah, maybe it was just a really awful strategic blunder.
Wonder how long the multinational force in Afghanistan stays multinational? Oy, oy, oy…
Anyway, I’ll call sheets downstairs.
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Fortunately, Bush swore to bring Bin Laden to justice, no matter what.
I guess he’ll get around to it sometime in September, October… something like that.
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
I am a conservative Republican who voted for Bush twice (and would again if he faced the same candidates). Unlike most Democrats, I speak up when conservatives are wrong … but I digress. I made a promise to myself soon after I left Vietnam that I would not keep silent on these types of issues. Here’s the bottom line:
When Clinton took office we had 20 U.S. Army Divisions.
When Clinton left office we had 10.
Bush has been president for 7+ years and we still have 10 !
Clinton was wrong in reducing our forces and Bush has been wrong in not building them up. If it takes a return to the draft then so be it.
As has so often been said, “The U.S. Military is at war and American is at the mall.”
Oh, perifidious nation ……………
By GodHatesTrash
July 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Our prolonged presence in the Middle East gives Al Qaeda an issue to rally around, to build their capabilities for further destruction.
Our prolonged failure there inspires them.
Our complete inability - it will be seven years in less than 2 months - to bring anyone to justice for Sep 11 makes our country look like a nation of cowboy clowns.
We are playing whack a mole in two countries with not enough sticks and an exploding mole population. There is no strategery, never has been, never will be. No one, not even Alexander the Great, can keep Afghanistan under their thumb, what makes Americans so arrogant to think their Chickenhawk Curious George can?
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
We only need a massive army if we have a massive enemy to fight, Corporal. Where is it?
And don’t say ‘terrorism’ or “Al Qaeda.” They’re small, scattered operations and you can’t fight them with soldiers anyway.
So with the Cold War over… what’s their mission? If you come up with an answer, please call Rove & Co. They’ve been scrambling to come up with one since the early 90’s.
By BangaGong
July 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Plant the entire country in marijuana, burn it to pacify the populace, and repeat as needed. Make love, not war.
By hillbilly ragger
July 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
“Clinton was wrong in reducing our forces”?
Why?
Isn’t that what Poppy Bush was going to do, anyway, had he been re-elected?
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
To Copyleft:
Perception is reality ! A massive force is always a detterent and it keeps others from starting fires while you deal with the one in front of you.
Iraq would have been over long ago if we had had the divisions required to defeat the Iraqi Army, seal the borders, control all the cities and surrounding countryside and help rebuild the infrastructure - all at the same time. We didn’t and it has been chaos.
P.S. May I ask what “War College” you attended ?
By RW-(the original)
July 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Corporal,
That was my first thought as well. It’s painfully obvious that Clinton cashed the “peace dividend” prematurely, but it’s equally inexcusable that Bush hasn’t built the force levels back up.
Jay,
I’m glad you see this as a two front war rather than a “good” war and a “bad” war. Somehow it seems that hasn’t always been your position, but I digress. Why don’t you consider the tens of thousands of fighters that Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq as resources?
Afghanistan presents a completely different challenge because of the overall terrain and the lack of infrastructure. Not to mention that pesky problem of trying not to invade Pakistan. Somehow it seems that those tens of thousands of fighters that can’t fight us in the Hindu Kush since they’re currently dead in Iraq will be helpful to our efforts.
Perhaps it’s also time for us to demand that our NATO allies beef up their fighting forces as well.
By Mr. WhatDoIKnow
July 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
I wonder … If Mellott got rid of Bookman & Co., do you think circulation and advertizing at the AJC would increase?
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
We DID defeat the Iraq army… such as it was. What we can’t do is use soldiers to
Conduct an occupation, especially when it’s proven unnecessary, or
Find and stop terrorists, which they’re completely unsuited to do.
This us-against-the-world, balance-of-power nonsense is a relic of the Cold War and its shortsighted attitudes. It’s time to switch back to Wilsonian internationalism, the way we should’ve been operating all along.
By Fix-It
July 18, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
Drill here drill now, become energy independent, then we will have no reason to be over there. Bring all of our troops home and put them on our borders and let the towel heads kill each other off.
By Wild Bill Hiltner
July 18, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
Jay, Jay, Jay, my dear sweet, deluded Jay - still trying to salvage a shred of dignity from last year’s “the surge is doomed” screed, aren’t you. This is, I must admit, a nice twist and sort of like one of them old country song title THE SURGE FAILED (in Afghanistan.) Look war is a fuild thing and you can’t have a “mark-to-market” every single night. This ain’t a big deal because: a) your favorite team, Al Qaeda, has said the central front on the war on terror is in Iraq; b) the Taliban doesn’t control anything; and c) we’ll make adjustments and use our superiority to kick their tails. I remember a sports upset whenn the tv announcer said something to the effect “that’s why the play the game rather than letting Vegas call a winner” and thats the way war works, too. Our enemy doesn’t care about who should win, they are going to fight the way and try different things in the hopes that something they do (or someone we elect)makes us quit. You need to put down the Al Qaeda/Taliban pom poms, settle back and let the military handle the actions.
By getalife "whiners"
July 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
“I know how to win wars” and his fans go crazy
Can ya feel it?
By thogwummpy
July 18, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
Three things. A: Bookman is of the same ilk that implies that we missed Bin Laden (who is likely in Pakistan now) at Tora Bora because we had our troops in Iraq instead of Afghanistan. However, fact is that the Tora Bora operation ended December 2001—-and we didn’t invade Iraq until 2003. And B: Like Obama, he foolishly thinks somehow Afghanistan has more strategic impact than Iraq…which is utterly absurd. And C: Jay absolutely refuses to issue any blame to Saddam for the war; even though Saddam’s shooting our planes out of the sky over Iraq on 9/11 and then bragging about it days later in published statements where he aligns his his cause with that of the hijackers; was sure to draw a concern from threat analysts, and ergo the ultimatum which led to war 18 months later. YOU CAN’T CONDEMN THE IRAQ WAR, WITHOUT PRETENDING SADDAM WAS INNOCENT AND TRUSTWORTHY. That’s the math; and historians aren’t going to play Bookman’s distorting game.
By Midori
July 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Corporal,
I got out of the Army before Clinton was voted in office.
George Bush, Sr. started the massive drawdown — not Clinton.
By ghost rider
July 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
By “The Corporal”
July 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
CORPORAL..Sounds like you are reciting Rudy Giuliani when you talk about troop reductions.
Yes, Bill Clinton did cut troops, no question!
Here’s what ol’ Rudy said Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It’s called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We – our Army had been at 725,000; it’s down to 500,000.
Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 (which was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers – a far cry from 725,000.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nhdebatethegopfield.html
By rmorrow
July 18, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Too bad Bookman can’t blame any of our feckless European “allies” who refuse to fulfill the commitments they made for this “legal” and “necessary” war.
Let’s just blame it all on Bush.
By Clint Carruth
July 18, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Hey there Jay.
I read a VERY disturbing article on Rawstory.com about Diebold’s CEO personally tampering with the 2002 Georgia elections in Fulton and Dekalb Counties. Why has this not been reported by you all? If you visit rawstory.com, you will find the article on the main page. I certainly hope someone at the AJC looks into this.
Thanks
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
To Midori and Copyleft:
It doesn’t matter WHO started, continued or didn’t build back up our military - Democrat or Republican. I call it like I see it. That’s the issue. We need AT LEAST a 20 Division Army to fight terrorism and keep others from trying something stupid. Isolationism simply brings a Pearl Harbor down the road. You ignore creeping cancer at your peril.
Copyleft: You prove my point. If we had had adequate divisions we would have been long gone and wouldn’t be “perceived” as occupying …………
“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivilized who can”.
The Islamic world is working toward another Caliphate. We had best be ready.
By smokey
July 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
I did not see Iraq as a threat to America, although Saddam was a bully, he was basically a bully in his neighborhood adn not really interested in taking on the US or any of our European allies. On the other hand, bin Laden did cause an attack on our soil and the Taliban protected him. Afghanistan was the natural place to send troops to resolve this matter.
We should have finished this before entering a second conflict. With 150,000 troops in Afghanistan along with our allies, we could have taken controll and finished this war in a timely matter, instead we have increased the number of individuals fighting us.
By GodHatesTrash
July 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
James, is that Clown College you went to a War College?
By ghost rider
July 18, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
When Clinton took office we had 20 U.S. Army Divisions.
When Clinton left office we had 10.
Are those not your statements CORPORAL?
You were taking POTSHOTS at Clinton when you didn’t even have the facts!
By the way CORPORAL what war college did you attend? Correct me if I’m wrong but one must be the rank of a light colonel!
By Barney
July 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
We can fix it quick with handful of nukes. Leave Tehran, Damascus and ALL of Pakistan a glowing heap.
By ron
July 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Has it perhaps occourred to anyone here that one of the reasons that things are so quiet in Iraq is because the combatants are now in Afghaniston?We leave Iraq and they return.We need more troops.A draft would be nice.Now.Not next week.No ,I can’t go.I’m too old.I went before.My son and daughter-in -law went.My grandchildren will go when they’re of age.We need to hold Iraq and fight in Afghanistan.That will take additional troops.I once drove by the Carlisle War Barracks.
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
In response to RW:
Most of the insurgents and terrorists who claimed some ties to al Qaida in Iraq were Iraqis who were drawn to the cause by the presence of US troops in their country.
Only a very few were al Qaida in the sense that they had a previous history of allegiance and alliance with bin Laden. Al Qaida in Iraq was kind of a franchise operation, manned by locals who probably wouldn’t have otherwise been AQ recruits.
By Copyleft
July 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
We need AT LEAST a 20 Division Army to fight terrorism and keep others from trying something stupid.
Simply: No, we do not.
Isolationism simply brings a Pearl Harbor down the road.
And if anyone were suggesting that the only optons are neocon interventionism or isolationismm, you’d have a point. Fortunately, that’s not the case.
Copyleft: You prove my point. If we had had adequate divisions we would have been long gone and wouldn’t be “perceived” as occupying
And you prove MY point. If we had adequate leadership and intelligence we wouldn’t have ever invaded, let alone tried to occupy a country that was proven NOT a threat to us.
“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivilized who can”.
In other words, principles are nice, but we can’t afford them when the chips are down? Sorry, but I’m not that cowardly.
By TPA
July 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Rmorrow,
you and whose army?
Which country in Europe are those 50K troops going to come from? Romania? Italy?
You may be able to squeeze out a few thousand troops from France or Spain (Germany is another matter - they’re not willing to commit combat troops due to constitutional law), but 50,000???
And by the way, please speak with a little respect about our allies: some of them (Denmark, Norway, UK, Netherlands) are actually contributing at higher troop levels/population than the US is. And they have the body bags to show for it! But, who cares - they are all gutless Euro trash anyway, right?
By the snake
July 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
The fool who refuses to learn from history is doomed to repeat it!
Take a lesson from “Black Jack Pershing” he addressed the “radical Muslim Uprising ” in the Philippine islands by taking captured “terrorists” executing them and burying them with slaughtered pig remains there by in the “belief of Islam” condemning their souls to hell. You do not fight an ideological war on the battle field; you fight it in the mind and heart.
By Yawn
July 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
Okay, the comment was that we need more troops. And yes, that Clinton and Bush II should’ve kept or added more soldiers.
But do you know how inane you all sound when you can only discuss whether it was Bush 1 or Clinton who lowered the troop level? It was over 15 years ago, for Christsakes. Does it matter? Is it more important to lay blame on the opposition or to have a discussion about troop levels?
Just once, I’d like to see either side in these blog arguments spend as much time on the issue at hand as they do on casting blame on the other side. Yawn.
By RW-(the original)
July 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Sure Jay. How is it up there over the rainbow?
By getalife "whiners"
July 18, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
“Time horizens”, McCain said Mission Accomplished 2.0. Obama in Iraq .
Taliban ruling Afghanistan but the ones that attacked us are in Pakistan.
The insanity continues.
By dirty harry
July 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
A measure seeking to commemorate President Bush’s years in office by slapping his name on a San Francisco sewage plant has qualified for the November ballot.
The measure certified Thursday would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.
A fitting tribute to such an incompetent abject failure of a president this country has ever seen!
I think a synchronized flush would be appropriate when the measure passes!
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
The Islamic world is working toward another Caliphate.
The Corporatist @ 12:51 — as one of your Repug friends stately so succinctly: “the chickens have come home to roost.”
By Abomi Nation
July 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
Its Clinton’s fault? Are you serious??? LMAO!
Bush has had 7 and a half years to rebuild the armed forces if that were the case.
So where are the Bush supporters? It seems to me he has been abandoned by his own supporters. Millions of his supporters didn’t join the armed forces when Bush said we have to fight them there so they won’t fight us here. Its not Clinton or the liberals that let Bush down, its his own supporters.
The armed forces are now accepting felons because our “warriors” and Bush supporters won’t leave their careers or schools. Some threat!
Blog on warriors!
By Midori
July 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
Abomi Nation,
you crack me up :)
By ghost rider
July 18, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
By Yawn
July 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
YAWN…If you don’t get the argument .. you are beyond help.
The point is “THE TRUTH” If one is to make a supposition based on inaccurate information without someone questioning that falsehood…Ala IRAQ WMD?
Get it now?
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
To GodHatesTrash:
Where have you been? Missed you.
MCRD partner ! And after that the University of Da Nang with a graduate degree from Dong Ha University and a doctorate from Con Thien College.
To ghost rider:
I served via “on the job training” as opposed to too much “book learning” ! How about you ?
To yawn:
I said, “It doesn’t matter WHO started, continued or didn’t build back up our military - Democrat or Republican.”
Can’t you read? Go back to sleep!
To Copyleft:
Pacifism is a luxury paid for by warriors.
P.S. They taught us in bayonet training how to take on more than one attacker. Just take out the one on the farthest left and keep circling to your left as you take the rest out one by one. Amazing how that also applies to politics ………… :o)
By T
July 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
So, how long are the troops that just left Iraq going to get at home before they go to Afganistan?
Send the troops here. No, they should be here. No, they should be in both places and increase the numbers. * Worthless dribble* What troops? We are using the Reserves and the National Gaurd. *Reserves- to keep back or save for future use, disposal, treatment, etc. * Dictionary.com
The Draft Now!!!!
By Truth March
July 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
Afghanistan proved too tough a nut to crack for the former Soviets. (but not for Jesse Jackson, of course).
It’s ridiculous that a force of soldiers any less that what the soviets had could do anything but hold a fort.
The assault on our base there displays such reckless negligence in the command there, that I want those responsible fired. Where was the perimeter? Where was the air cover?
You have to set up killing zones and mine the approaches. You just dont set a bunch of soldiers down and say, “Good luck”.
Who was in charge of that base? Who was the tactical commander, the regional, and the strategic?
I want heads!
Rw knows the facts about al queda in Iraq, jay, he’s just a troll, and that’s all he’ll ever be. A no good, lyin’ fithly piece of conservative troll scum.
By Paul
July 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
dirty harry 1:23
So the powers that be think Pres Bush’s term should be symbolically commemorated with a plant that takes refuse, the essentially good for nothing end product, the leftovers, of a life-sustaining process, as its input (the situation at the beginning of his term?) and turns it into something (water, other benign or life-affirming porducts) beneficial, represented by the conditions at the end of his term?
And this out of San Francisco. Amazing.
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
To RW:
Every intelligence and military analysis I’ve seen says the same thing. Sorry if it doesn’t conform to your preconception.
Sometimes the truth can be like that.
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
To T:
The Draft - Yes !
And start the draft with CopyLeft, GodHatesTrash, AbomiNation, yawn and ghostrider ! Hey - Bookman too ! Maybe they will go to Canada. No, can’t do that this time - Canada is sending them back …………
Sorry - have to go out for awhile now guys ………. :o(
By ghost rider
July 18, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
To ghost rider:
I served via “on the job training” as opposed to too much “book learning” ! How about you ?
Since you ask CORPORAL! I served with the 1st Cav(am)229th ABN; Anh Khe, Pleiku. 1965-1966.
By the way I never attended a war college..I was a lowly Warrant Officer!
By Taxpayer
July 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Perhaps the Corporal is in need of some book learning. It’s all in the strategy.
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
To ghost rider:
I previously said, “It doesn’t matter WHO started, continued or didn’t build back up our military - Democrat or Republican.”
Then “my brother” based on what I said above I would hope you would agree. They screwed us once. It’s not right to do the same to our troops now. If we put them in harm’s way it should be with the appropriate numbers, the best equipment, and the political will to win.
India, 3rd Bn., 4th Marines (DMZ ‘67-68)
By CommunistAJC
July 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Jay, should we just pack up and fight here in the states? I mean, sooner or later like it or not, you’re going to have to face reality and understand that we are at war with an enemy that wants us all dead! Conservatives AND liberals. D-E-A-D! You can not compromise with this enemy and as much as Obama and John F. Kerry say we can, they will and we will all learn a hard lesson. War is tough and soldiers die. Deal with it.
By RW-(the original)
July 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Jay,
It’s kind of like your man made global warming stance. You only choose to believe those that hold your views. I look at both and apply common sense when I see differing viewpoints. I tend to agree that a lot of those folks were already in country and quite possibly native Iraqis. Where we differ is when and how they they became radicalized. they were far too organized through weapons stockpiles, communications and safe houses to have been peaceful goat farmers that became Islamofacists because they didn’t like us only after we liberated them.
However this is a horse that’s been beaten on these blogs for years and no matter how much empirical evidence is shown, those on your side will steadfastly refuse to see it.
By RealityKing
July 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Yes, war is hell. And hell is unpredictable.
But now.., we no longer worry about Talaban training camps in Afganistan. We no longer worry about Saddam’s desires to build nuclear bombs or enforcing his no fly zones. And to boot.., 57 million people are free today from the tryany and oppression of those few. 57 million people are now pursuing new life, liberty and happiness.
Yes, nobel causes indeed…
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Abomi mi Ami @ 1:29 — I think that The Corporal’s suggestion to reinstate the draft should pull from those voters who returned Dubya to the White House in ‘04. I mean, we should be a little more lenient for those who mistakenly voted for him in 2000, but to do it again in ‘04 requires payback! Draft ‘em, I say, and make America the military might that matches its rhetoric!
By Scratch
July 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
Jay and his ilk want this country to fail. They want this country re-made in the image of Europe. They hate anything that smacks of strength and honor. Screw them.
By GodHatesTrash
July 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Our Chickenhawk-in-Chief to be honored???
*(07-17) 14:57 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco voters will be asked to decide whether to name a city sewage plant in honor of President Bush, after a …measure qualified for the November ballot Thursday.
Backers of the measure, who for several months circulated a petition to place the measure on the ballot, turned in more than 12,000 signatures on July 7, said organizer Brian McConnell. The Department of Elections on Thursday informed those supporters, the self-proclaimed Presidential Memorial Commission, that they had enough valid signatures - a minimum of 7,168 registered San Francisco voters - to qualify for the November ballot.*
By Truth March
July 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Jay, I said that RW is a troll. Now he’s going to come back with more nonsense about al queda in Iraq, but probably with an imposter alias troll.
Everyone knows that while there may be a small contingent of true Al Queda in Iraq planning and doing the paper work. The brunt of the terrorists calling themselves Al Queda are foreign nationals and Iraqis who are there for suicide missions and the support that goes into suicide missions.
The continental united states is in no danger of attack by al queda. Zero. They aren’t going to come here. They cant get across town in Baghdad, morons.
You conservatives are exposed as fools, liars, and restroom lip-service attendees. You’re all nothing but Sen. Craig in front of a microphone with his wife denying he’s gay.
Nobody believes a word RW writes, or any of the trolls on the right.
Hey Jay, you want to see smoke come out of RW’s ears? Ask him what he thinks the mission of us troops in Iraq is.
too funny.
By Paul
July 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Jay
Not trying to get in the midst of your conversation with RW, but the composition of al Qaeda in Iraq does depend on the time frame involved.
A study the US Military Academy of al Qaeda records comprising Aug 2006-Aug2007 found most AQ were Saudi.
Link: Compostion of AQ Iraq
I’m sure other studies will show other composition. And a post-surge result is many Iraqis who aligned with AQ have repudiated it and aligned with local authorities.
Regardless, I find the “composition” question more academic than practical. AQ and the represented philosophy is not state-based. That’s the entire point of “nonstate” terrorism. So, country of origin of the adherents is interesting, as is their education level, food preference or hair color. But it is not like fighting Germans in WWII.
I find the “two theaters in the same war” statement interesting. What “war” would that be? Many maintained the Iraq War was a diversion from the “War on Terror (Islamic militants, primarily AQ). The view changed somewhat, given (as cited earlier) OBL’s assertion that Iraq was the critical battleground. Here is a decent analysis of his most current view:
Link: Post-US in Iraq
By Scratch
July 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Mmmmmm. Neo-copperheads.
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Scratch @ 2:09 — I also want America to show its strength and honor again, and the only way to do that is to give IRAQ back to the Iraqis. It’s their country, not ours!
And I believe that if we’re going to have any chance for a successful outcome in Iraq, we need to do what the Iraqi gov’t has suggested to us several times: “leave already!”
Or are you not paying any attention to what the Iraqi gov’t says about our continuing occupation?
By RealityKing
July 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Afganistan proves that when it comes to implementing agreements.., NATO is about as worthless as the UN.
By ghost rider
July 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
CORPORAL…Now that you put it that way July 18, 2008 2:00 PM post:
Yes, I agree 100%..It’s a crying shame what has gone on over there!
Rumsfeld..”You go to war with the army you have. Not the army you want.”
I hated it then, I hate it now…Another war for no reason!
Anyone who hasn’t smelled the stench of war has no idea what going to war means!
And, I’ll close with this. SEMPER FI!
By Paul
July 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman
And this is a good summary provided by the Congressional Research Service of AQ Statements and Evolving (key word, there) Ideology from 1994-2005.
Link: AQ Evolving Ideology
Amazing how much I read in forums such as this are more of what we think our opponents believe, rather than references to their own statements of what they believe. Can’t come up with a very good strategy under such circumstances, as the link on OBLs concerns post-US in Iraq illustrate.
By RW-(the original)
July 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Goldie,
Have you ever bothered to look at the time frame most of the Iraqi officials have given for us to “leave already?”
I think 3 to 5 years is about the shortest so are you really interested in doing what they’ve suggested?
By Midori
July 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
Scratch — what is “weak” or “dishonorable” about Europe?
They saw thru Bush’s lies and refused to participate in his Excellent Adventure in Iraq.
Sounds pretty smart, strong and honorable to me…..
By T
July 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
The Draft.
It is long over due. Not the same kind of draft that was used previously. Lets see little Suzie get her lucky lotto number called. Sustain The Line, Sweetie!!
Oh, and don’t think you are too old. The army has increased the age limit.
Then maybe when your little boys and girls have to go to war or go to jail, someone will make a valid argument. Really, how long are we going to deplete the human and material assets of the military?
By MistyMystic
July 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Any word on charities or concerted efforts to take of our own Jay??
….Cpl. Jon Ayers of Snellville,Cpl. Matthew Phillips of Cumming and Master Sgt. Mitchell Young of Jonesboro.
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Good question, Mystic. Let me see what I can find out.
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
RW— 3 to 5 years may be what you call “most of the Iraqi officials” wanting, and there are others who say sooner. I think what the issue now is: will McBush finally agree that permanent bases in Iraq are not feasible?
I believe Sen. Obama is on the correct track with his 16-month strategy for a careful withdrawal. McBush may desire in his own mind that Iraq is “like Japan and South Korea” for the next 100 years, but it ain’t happening in the Iraqis’ minds!
By GodHatesTrash
July 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
In Iraq you have a population that has been at more or less constant war since 1980. Iraq had an army of 300,000 troops in 2003. For the Gulf War, they had over a million men in their army. Thanks to their oil, they had all the conventional weapon systems and ammunition dollars and euros could buy, and, unlike Georgia, a workforce educated enough to build their own weapons. Iraqis are not goatherders - most of them are people that value education and science.
The percentage of the Iraqi population that had military training and real-time experience is therefore extremely high.
After the Gulf War, Saddam, as arrogant as he was, was smart enough to change the strategy for the next one. When the US invaded, the Iraqi army simply melted away, most taking their guns and hiding them. Our commanders did little to secure the stores and supplies that they captured, and when Bremer was stupid enough to disband the Army and put them on the street, there were literally millions of trained soldiers for Al Qaeda recruits and militias to fight the American occupation, along with explosives and weapons and small arms to fight a guerilla war for a hundred years or so.
Southerners whine about Yankee occupiers seven generations after the fact. Sadly, the Iraqi people are not just lazy whiners. They are a patient, crafty, well-trained enemy.
By Mrs. Godzilla
July 18, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
GOP cyber-security expert suggests Diebold tampered with 2002 election IN GEORGIA
A leading cyber-security expert and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections……Spoonamore received the Diebold patch from a whistleblower close to the office of Cathy Cox, Georgia’s then-Secretary of State. In discussions with RAW STORY, the whistleblower — who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation — said that he became suspicious of Diebold’s actions in Georgia for two reasons. The first red flag went up when the computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas and applied it in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds.
JAY if you are scanning the blog today….how does this get on the frontpage were it belongs?
By Truth March
July 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Leave it to Paul to post a link to “last year’s story”.
By RW-(the original)
July 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
Goldie,
Most of the Iraqi officials are talking about much longer timeframes than the 3 to 5 years. Obama has the shortest timetable of anybody I’ve heard.
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
To Paul:
If you look, though, the report says that the Saudis were the largest group of FOREIGN fighters for AQ; it doesn’t address how many of AQ’s fighters were actually Iraqi.
Everything I’ve seen suggests that in Anbar and elsewhere, the majority of AQ-in-Iraq foot soldiers were Iraqi. Things began to turn when the foreign-born jihadists began to get too extreme for the local boys. That’s when the Iraqi Sunnis decided to boot them out, turning to the US for help in doing so.
By Fix-It
July 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
I have a great idea; you need to earn the right to be an American. Straight out of high school you serve 2 years active duty and 2 years reserve. Then go to college or work, if you want to drop out of school at 16, go straight to the services do not pass go do not collect $200. Then maybe some of these lazy liberal sponges will get a back bone.
By Peter
July 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
I guess it looks like the Bush’s “Terrorist Protection Plan” has not worked……Bin Ladden and his followers are getting stronger !
The USA is NOT any safer since 911, because Bush has done ZERO about Bin Ladden.
Can you imagine a guy can blow up 4 jets, hit the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon, kill thousands of Americans……..and be let off SCOTT FREE by the Bush Administration.
Can you even imagine they say they are TOUGH on Terrorism ?
Now that strategy has apparently back fired, and we have a stronger enemy because of that.
Vote Democrat for a SAFE AMERICA !
By Paul
July 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Goldie
My concern is, bases in Iraq or (Obama) somewhere in the “region” still with the purpose of having close-in forces to reengage in Iraq only perpetuates our involvement. From our opponents’ perspective, we’re still there.
Don’t you find it interesting ((let’s see, what have I been called, Bush-lover, neocon, right-wing etc etc etc) that I’ve made the case for a complete disengagement from the region, while many Obama supporters argue over what form regional basing and presence should take? Well into the future?
By Paul
July 18, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Truth March
There were three links. Which one?
By Fix-It
July 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Peter, it is sad that you think that voting democrat will make you safer. The lack of any passed legislation in the last 30 days is proof that the democrats are do nothings. That is the longest “do nothing” in American history. If you think that Bush is an idiot, guess what Pelosi and her administration of dumacrats has a lower rating than Bush. Vote for real change, vote all incumbents out, and put in independents.
By T
July 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
By Fix-It
I love the idea. Mandatory service. Has a nice ring to it.
By RealityKing
July 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
English Loyalists battled American Revolutionaries for 8 bloody long years in tip for tap battles of terror like none see before their time. All after the English surrendered at York Town. The same can be said about what happened after the civil war. A long bloody mess, even to this day say some.
Blood letting seems to be the unavoidable consequence of achieving freedom. Evidently it takes that to change some minds. But “freedom” is worth it, even if it’s not your own.
By Paul
July 18, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
Jay 2:43
Okay, I see what your original point was. I do agree with the substance of your post. Many here will be loathe to admit, though, that what you described were inputs in the counterinsurgency strategy referred to as “The Surge.”
One could observe, though, that many Iraqis were AQ of convenience. That, also, I believe, was part of the strategy component of the surge. The part about the foreign-born tied into RW’s contention that AQ recruits were drawn into Iraq, which OBL called on them to do (and many here seem to dispute), and many were subsequently killed.
Peter
You really should look at changes in funding and operation of financial networks worldwide, actions in southeast (not southwest) Asia, intelligence and security arrangements with other governments, before making absolute assertions such as “zero.”
By BT fan
July 18, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
Jay Bookman, do you swear to write the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION, William Jefferson Clinton, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? CANCEL MY PAST VOTE FOR YOU..
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
July 18, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
The second theater of war was opened by the idiot Bush in a fit of Napoleonic lust for conquest of an oil-rich nation. About a month after our brutal attack, the moron declared: ” MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” aboard the U.S. Abraham Lincoln. Of course, the only thing accomplished was to engage the United States in war for perpetuity in that country. Meanwhile, Bush is on record as saying he wasn’t really concerned as to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. In December 2001 his whereabouts were known. He was in a cave complex in his redoubt located in the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan. He was allowed to escape to Pakistan. The mission, from the beginning, should have been to search every inch of Afghanistan, find bin Laden and reduce him to one pound of ashes. Didn’t happen! Bush needed bin Laden alive and threatening. Bush has been in business with the bin Ladens for over thirty years and they are still business partners. Together they have changed the world for the betterment of themselves but to the detriment of everyone else. Find bin Laden! Kill him! Bring Bush to the bar of justice for his many crimes against humanity!
By N-GA
July 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Paul,
I followed your link on AQ Evolving Ideology. Nothing new in there for anyone who follows in depth news reporting as opposed to news-lite.
However, I found it interesting that there was some comment and a little analysis about how AQ takes some of the credit for the collapse of the US dollar, apparently because of what we spend on military actions in the War on Terror as well as the impact of high oil prices. It begs the question: Is it realistic to think that Bin Laden and others are using large sums of money to try to manipulate the oil markets? A stretch, perhaps?
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Paul @ 2:49 — I certainly understand and appreciate your view about no bases. I’m not sure that Kuwait or UAE would present the same problems as installing bases in Saudi Arabia, for instance. Also, I believe the current mindset is that we need to protect our oil companies’ interests, as well as showing strength with Israel. Maybe we just keep our bases in Israel itself? I haven’t heard what’s been suggested lately, how ‘bout you?
By Paul
July 18, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
Happy hour’s started early today…
As far as the Bush allowed OBL to escape mantra, for the umpteenth time:
Link: Tora Bora
So he have a Centcom commander who gave us Desert Storm II. didn’t coordinate with State, had a “not my job” attitude with the reconstruction government - and retired a few months after the invasion … yet all the blame goes to Bush.
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
RW @ 2:42 — letsee, if we’re talkin’ about the “16-month withdrawal” plan, today that would be the equivalent of about 2 years from now. I think that’s a pretty fair compromise to make with the Iraqis about them getting their own act together, controlling their own country and military sects, and figuring out what’s next for their own people. Remember, they need to “stand up” for themselves and 2 years from now sounds like the perfect compromise for that to occur.
We can’t offer a military solution to their current problems today — they’ve got to control their own destiny at this point.
By getalife "whiners"
July 18, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
The gop are moving left to Obama’s foreign policy positions for the election.
Of course, this is the populist position and massive flip flop but the corporate media have their backs.
This election will be close but should be a blow out.
By GodHatesTrash
July 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Dubya’s ineptitude has made Osama bin Laden into an Arab David. W’s Goliath is thrashing around like a wounded water buffalo in the Middle East, death by a thousand teenie-tiny cuts, one IED one carbomb at a time, a few hundred Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and Iraq keeping some 200,000 American troops and as many contractors tied down chasing their tails and shadows. Meanwhile Osama watches CNN and HBO comfortably somewhere in Pakistan or who knows where. Dumbya’s vengefilled over-reaction, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians, has turned the common criminal Osama into another Salladin for the people of the Middle East.
As long as the GOP is in power, Osama will most likely die of natural causes.
By N-GA
July 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
While there are no absolutes, one important requirement that must be met in order to disengage from the volatile Middle East is to become energy self-sufficient. That should be priority #1. There are other benefits as well.
If we successfully develop important technolgies that help us achieve that goal, then we have an investment in alternative energy industries that can pay off by helping to improve our economy, improve the stature of the US dollar, and significantly change our balance of trade.
I really don’t care if this administration is “winding down”. President Bush needs to provide leadership right now. He should take this case to the people in every way he can. He should reverse course on drilling, and demand that Congress spend all of its time on energy legislation…tax incentives for wind, solar, geo-thermal, and other energy sources…fuel consumption taxes on gas hog vehicles built from 1/1/09 and later…accelerated approval process for nuclear power plants…removal of import duties on ethanol…C’mon! I’ve never been a big fan of T. Boone, but he’s trying to lead and he’s not even a politician.
By eliana
July 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
Obama and McCain finally found something to agree on: Afghanistan is where the real war’s at! While McCain still wants to fight in Iraq some more, Obama thinks Iraq is totally last year’s war and we should just throw everything we have at Afghanistan. Regardless of what they think of Iraq, the verdict is in. Afghanistan is the war to watch!
How must Iraq feel to be yesterday’s quagmire? If only these two chaotic regions could talk… http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/17/iftheyimdiraqandafghanist7775.php
By Paul
July 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
N-GA
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all, keeping in mind, though, that people/groups will often take credit for situations to make themselves appear stronger. I’m not sure, given the financial controls instituted post-911, what funds AQ could bring to bear directly; however, we’ve discussed before the amount of funds held by sympathizers in the Saudi royal family.
I tried three times last night to post, didn’t go through. Real quick, Zach’s Spice Company, Original BBQ Rub (NOT BBW as in bottled stuff) is great on brisket.
Link: Zach’s Spice Company
I’ve fixed it at the same time as brisket with others’ “favorite” and Zach’s won every time.
Also, you may want to check on the brisket every so often - it can generate a LOT of liquid, which you may want to suction out of the file pouch.
Goldie
I was trying to illustrate the end point desired. I’d like both Obama and McCain to be clearer, and consistent, on that. We left Saudi Arabia at the request of the Royal Family - our central operations were there, moved to Qatar. No way will we go back. Or should we. Yes, we do need to protect, no so much company interests as US national interests until we can operate without the only thing they have to offer us (oil). That’s an area where I disagree with Sen Pelosi - the signal to the Middle East oil producers if we reversed decades-old policy and said “nothing’s off the table in our efforts to disengage from the Middle East as a source of supply” would be enormous.
Israel’s a whole other can of worms. I would hope we’d never agree to bases there. And I doubt the Israelis would ever ask.
And thanks for taking my earlier “dig” post good naturedly!
By N-GA
July 18, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Paul,
Thanks for the link. I’ve already ordered a 5 lb. bag of their brisket rub. Can’t wait!
I think I’ll place a wire rack under the brisket, then wrap the whole thing in aluminum foil. That will keep the brisket from “stewing”. What do you think?
By Paul
July 18, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
N-GA 3:40
Yes, yes and yes. I especially liked the “after 1/1/09” as it does not penalize for decisions made under prior circumstances.
You’ve got my vote, now run, #!@@%$!
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
And thanks for taking my earlier “dig” post good naturedly!
Paul — you’re welcome. We’re all allowed permission to post opposing viewpoints at times — free speech and all that Americana. I love America!
By GodHatesTrash
July 18, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
You know, James, lots of troops just means lots of targets, especially if you are patient and disciplined, which the enemy is.
By RW-(the original)
July 18, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
Goldie,
Maybe we should apply the moonbat drilling theory to troop withdrawal. If we can’t achieve the end result into sometime in the future then we shouldn’t even begin.
““““““““““““““““““““““
Bill Pascrel (dhimmicrat-NJ) just said that the ONLY way gas prices can be lowered right now is to release the strategic reserve. Wouldn’t a gas tax holiday reduce prices right now?
By Paul
July 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
N-GA
I think the liquid’ll come up higher than the rack. By a couple times. Especially if there’s a good level of fat on top, as is usually the case with an untrimmed brisket.
You hit on the key part - you don’t want so much liquid that it steams or stews. I keep at least a half inch of liquid at the bottom. At least. You don’t want it to dry out and get crusty. It also depends on the brisket - if it’s untrimmed it won’t generate nearly the liquid. I’ve had them turn out where you can slice it and turn out where as you lift it with tongs it just falls apart.
You’re gonna love it -
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
To Goldie:
Any any draft MUST include women this time !!
To GodHatesTrash:
Why do you call Bush “Chickenhawk” ? (By the way, have you ever read the book?)
To ghost rider:
Those who have “seen the elephant” always look at things a little differently ….
By Paul
July 18, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Goldie 4:05
Who are you and what have you done with our Goldie?!!?
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
RW — too bad you’re still drowning in the wingnut theory that our perpetual occupation of Iraq is a good thing.
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Corporal @ 4:17 — by all means… but remember, we talking about only those millions who voted for Bush-Cheney in ‘04 who will be drafted to rebuild our military that’s so depleted now. You gotta stand behind your ‘04 vote and stand up for America for once!
By Goldie
July 18, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Paul @ 4:24 — I think I got a jump on you for happy hour today! Y’all have a peaceful weekend — I’m outta here!
By "The Corporal"
July 18, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this
To Goldie:
Is our perpetual “occupation” of Germany and South Korea a good thing?
By Paul
July 18, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Goldie - you, too!
RW-(the original)
I said the other day regarding Spkr Pelosi asking Pres Bush to release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that Pres Bush maintains it isn’t legal to do so and Sprk Pelosi said “just do it, you really have the authority.” Interesting, all the calls about breaking the law and one could say Spkr Pelosi and the Democratic Party is encouraging the Pres to do that which they’ve condemned.
Here’s Sprk Pelosi’s letter to Pres Bush about tapping into the (SPR):
Link: Spkr Pelosi ltr
And here’s the text of the Law. Pesky thing, the law (oh, trigger mechanisms to specify other circumstances have been discussed, but Spkr Pelosi hasn’t seen fit to even call for hearings to change the law).
Sec. 6239. - Congressional review of Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan; implementation
Neither the Distribution Pla