Smilin' Bob in Baghdad
The Washington Post reports that a secret Pentagon group reviewing America's options in Iraq has outlined three major strategies:
1. Send in a large number of extra troops -- perhaps several hundred thousand more -- to help break the cycle of sectarian violence.
2. Cut the number of U.S. troops in Iraq but undertake a long-term expansion of training and advisory efforts.
3. Undertake a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
So far, so good. But according to the Post, Pentagon insiders couldn't resist the temptation to attach their own macho shorthand to the three options:
"Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home."
There's even a hybrid version called "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long."
Whew. Makes you long for the innocent days of "Shock and Awe." You think these guys have been watching too many Enzyte commercials?
30 Comments:
hahahah ...oh man. That's good.
Military stratagy has gone downhill ever since John " Johnny Wad" Holmes died.
If we are not committed to winning, we should get out ASAP. Why should another troop die if the politicians are going to pull the plug in 4-6 months.
We started losing the Iraq War as soon as the USA politicians inflicted their "politically correct" war policies and Bush bowed to their demands.
The remaining viable choices now are harsh. We need to make two basic demands on Iraq. If they don't deliver, we need to cut our loses and get out now.
Demands include:
-The Muslim religious leaders within Iraq must issue a Fatwah condemning suicide bombing of civilian targets and public places.
-Give each of three geographic and tribal factions an independent option. We will support you from a remote base only if you control your internal area. If any of three doesn’t agree, we will not come to their aid or defense within their geographic area.
Iran and Syria are financing and organizing a large percentage of the terrorism within Iraq. To negotiate and reward these two states for stopping their actions is a sign of weakness and reward for their disruptive actions.
USA troops patrolling Iraqi steets is stupid. Its proven to be a losing strategy.
Why allow the hidden enemy to pick-off and kill our troops a couple at a time, as they walk the street or patrol in Humvees? Stop subjecting our brave troops as easy targets!
To Anon 8:58 P and anyone else who wants to chime in....
Please define what you mean by "winning."? What is it and how do we know when we are there?
Same for "victory" or "Goals Accomplished."
Thanks
"if we are not committed to winning...." - please define "winning". If it is the stable democracy that GWB has envisioned, "winning" may be an impossible goal in the near future. We are certainly not much closer to that than we were three years ago.
In a nation of almost 23 million people, 150,000 American troops are a drop in the bucket unless the peopl themselves are along with the program. Right now it sure seems like they're not.
It's not a question really of military strategy, its a political problem and those are not easily solved at the business end of a gun.
To all of the people who condemn those fighting our forces in Iraq, just what would you do if a foreign nation's army rolled tanks down your streets all day without prospects of withdrawl? Its really easy to by an armchair quarterback in war, and its even easier to dismiss all those fighting our forces as terrorists, but maybe to them, they're just repelling foreign invaders? I'm curious to hear responses . . .
Don't you all get it? Let me paraphrase Malcomn X - You been took. You been Had. You been Bamboolzled and hornswoggled!
There never was a victory plan. The plan was to get us over there and KEEP us over there. A blind man watching " Dancing With The Stars" could see that. Hmmmm
How should we define winning in Iraq?
If we achieve a vast majority from the following collection of objectives, we are winning.
-USA Troop death rates from war within Iraq are declining significantly.
-Required USA troop count within Iraq starts to decrease significantly.
-USA funds expenditure on Iraq starts to decrease significantly.
-Iraqi troops are patrolling the Iraq streets and USA troops are stationed in remote bases as reserves for quick hit support missions.
-USA troops are not occupying Iraqi neighborhoods.
-Iraq reconstruction is expedited with Iraqi funds.
-We do not tolerate private militias running entire cities like Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
-The three Iraqi factions agree to work together or they are partitioned into independent states ASAP.
-Women retain their full citizen rights. Accepting legal treatment for females less than males is not acceptable.
-Iraqis are policing Iraq, paying for operations, and protecting their country’s borders.
We won or “mission accomplished” means you have not lost.
Losing includes:
-Leaving because politicians can’t handle the heat rather than sound reasoning for leaving.
-We lost in Vietnam. If it smells like Vietnam we’re losing. If the Iraq populous does not support us we should leave ASAP.
When is our work done?
We either leave the country or we remain in support bases like we have in Korea, Germany, etc.
If we are willing to settle for less or a stalemate within Iraq, we should leave ASAP. Tomorrow wouldn’t be soon enough.
Are you interested in equitably comparing 1)Islamic Terrorist extremist who purposely kill civilians in as gruesome a manner as possible to 2)USA troops? If yes, your mind is made up and you are a hopeless cause.
5:37, you are missing my point completely. I was merely pointing out that not everyone who fights us there (nay, I dare say not even the majority) are terrorists, as you call them. To most of them, (Iraqis, the overwhelming majority) we are a foreign occupying force to be detested until we are gone. Until we leave, our soldiers, who are meant to fight, not occupy, will continue to have targets on their back. Watch the 1985 movie "Red Dawn" in which kids fight Russians who invade our neighborhoods. Its easy to call a pitiful and cowardly counter-insurgency terrorist . . . I'm sure the British considered our rebel forces the same during the revolutionary war.
To answer your initial question Ray, it seems these guys are still thinking that this is video war games. There is still blind regard for the fact that is war that has taken thousands of our soldiers' lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives and was started on a fabricated lie. These terms are nothing but a means to 'dehumanize' the horrors that are being committed on all sides of the equation. Terms such as 'shawk and awe', 'mission accomplished' and this latest slap to our intelect caters to the soundbit society that we continue to perpetuate without understanding.
I agree there are many motivations for the people fighting in Iraq, against our USA troops.
This is war. You can call them terrorists, the enemy, the bad guys, the competition, freedom fighters, the other side, and jihads, whatever.
Unless we are prepared to kill them as they fight against us, we should leave NOW.
9:52 PM, I'll leave you to defend the actions of individuals that purposely target CIVILIAN (i.e. their own citizens, women and children) life with torture, terror, and death, for the greater effect of their cause. Then you may label them as you please.
to 4;40-
Ok those all all nice things, how do you do it militarily? How do you chang a thousdand plus years of Sunni and Shiite hatred at the pint of a gun.
You gave a nice little list od positive signs, but how do you make them happen.
People, when Merle " Okie From Muskogee" Haggard say's " Let's get out of Iraq" - you KNOW it's time to get out!
http://alter-or-abolish.blogspot.com/
To Anon 2:10 PM, November 22, 2006.
Wars should be fought by commanding officers directing troops in the field. I'm not qualified to direct the war from my couch. Just as the USA defeatist politicians can not command the fighting from their Washington leather-covered reclining chairs.
Civilian leaders set objectives. Military Leaders direct the war.
When Civilian Leaders direct war troop movements and fighting tactics we end up with "Politically correct" fighting. This is a proven strategy for failure as happened in Vietnam and is occurring in Iraq. (Note - Have you read the historical accounts by the N. Vietnam military leaders? They thought they were losing the military war but won the politics and weakened American will? And this was even with foolish PC fighting inflicted by USA politicians on our military.)
You win Wars by killing the enemy, controlling the battlefields, and subjecting your own troops to reasonable calculated risks to accomplish the mission. If you are not prepared to win (kill the enemy) then don’t fight the war. Wars will have collateral civilian deaths too. Prolonging the war by fighting with PC tactics only subjects the civilian population to greater hardship and death toll. Wars are nasty. The quicker they are over and the enemy subservient the better for all.
We are losing the fight in the Iraq War because of Politically Correct stupidity, such as:
We allow the enemy to use mosques as safe harbors.
We refuse to go after and kill Sadr and other militia leaders and clerics.
We subject our troops to ambushes, by limiting our fighting to minimal force excursions.
We won’t acknowledge that some of the enemy is fighting a religious war against us and respond accordingly.
Etc.
We will never solve the Sunni versus Shiite thousand year old conflict. Since when did that become our mission?
Finally, when the active commanding military officers say the war is lost or not winnable…..GET OUT NOW!
I don't know Merle Haggard. Since when did entertainers become military experts? I don’t care if they are for or against the war. They know no more than you or me.
However, they are on a public platform to strongly influence American opinions and the polls that politicians love to follow.
If we are going to fight wars by public opinion polls …..we lose.
Anonymous said...
I don't know Merle Haggard. Since when did entertainers become military experts?
They became military experts when the military experts started running for cover and stabbing each other in the back!
Winston Churchill was a courageous and steadfast political leader (Prime Minister) of Britain during WWII. He rallied and led Britain to victory.
For his efforts and historic accomplishments he was quickly congratulated and unceremoniously kicked out of office by the same populous whose lives he saved.
You don't fight wars to make friends and for contemporary popularity. You fight to WIN.
Well Anonymous, Bush is not Churchill. During WWII, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were major world military super power nation states. al-Qaeda is a relative handfull of crackpots. If we left Iraq they ( al-Qaeda in Iraq) would be hunted down and killed by the shia ... very swiftly.
In this conflict ( or whatever term you want to use) - we are the major world super power imposing our will on others. It was doomed from the start. These things always are.
If al-Qaida left Iraq tomorrow (they won't), the conflict would be no less difficult for the USA troops. The Sunni and Shiite are fighting each other and both are fighting against the USA troops. The Sunni and Shiite have learned to kill just as brutally as al-Qaida. The Sunni and Shiite now are attacking each other within and near mosques, but mosques are still officially off limits to USA troop excursions.
We're stupidly trying to play referee among parties that don't want to share power. If we expect to win by "fighting nicely", we lose. With the limited objective news information I have access to, the only viable option left is three independent states that each individually choose whether they want USA support. But before we agree to support anyone’s Independence, our demands must be met or we leave ASAP.
Anonymous; Who is our enemy? al-Qaeda declared war on us several years ago in a fatwa, demanding that we remove our troops from the arab peninsula and stop supporting Israel in their war on the Palestinian people ( as they see it). al-Qaeda is a relative handfull of Sunni crackpots.
They also want to rebuild the " Caliphate" which would make them not only Sunni crackpots, but dead Sunni crackpots if secular nationalists like, uh, Saddam had anything to say about it. Or if Shia Iran gets ahold of 'em. Or any other sovereign, predominantly Muslim state, like, uh, Turkey happens to not want to join " The Caliphate".
How did blundering into Iraq and overthrowing Saddam, who is/was also on al-qaeda's hit list, help us fight an enemy that made a declaration of war on us?
You say: " The Sunni and Shiite are fighting each other and both are fighting against the USA troops. "
Well guess what? That would not be happening if we had listened to the voices of reason ( and there were many prominent voices all across the political spectrum) and NOT invaded Iraq.
It appears to me you are saying if we would only - Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out - we will win. Win what, for whom? And why should any Iraqi "meet our demands" ?
You sound like Reinhard Heydrich in Lidice.
Go Big means bigger USA troop death count. We need to fall back onto remote bases, and only as a support role, for side(s) we are willing to work with. Let the Iraqis do the dirty work of killing each other in "street fighting".
at 7:12 PM, November 22, 2006 Anonymous said...
I don't know Merle Haggard. Since when did entertainers become military experts? I don’t care if they are for or against the war. They know no more than you or me.
However, they are on a public platform to strongly influence American opinions and the polls that politicians love to follow.
If we are going to fight wars by public opinion polls …..we lose.
*******************
Remember an actor named
RONALD REAGAN??
Want to try again?
Al-Qaeda has grown well beyond their Sunni roots. Muslim fundamentalism, extremism, and adherence to jihad engagement with the infidels are the interpretations of the Koran that appears to be the unifying factor today. However, this movement is growing and it is naïve to attempt to identify a single group or motivation for their actions.
As a side note.
Unfounded assumptions typically reveal more about the author’s agenda than the author’s accusations.
Name calling is a tactic used by those with a dearth of insight and expression.
Hatred consumes all in its path. Forget Iraq, it seems there is plenty of hatred going around in this blog.
Labeling Ronald Reagan as limited to a "lifetime" entertainer is childish. Let's see. He was Governor of California and President of the USA. And I think he was voted into these offices by the public. History speaks louder than your rhetoric.
By your logic, if one's first job is a stockgirl, does that mean they are only qualified to do warehousing the rest of their life? Such nonsense!
I agree that hatred is a blindfold for intelligence.
Well um.. Anonymous, I have to admit - you busted me making assumptions. To call my assumptions " unfounded" is a bit much though.
My assumptions are founded on your and vague postulations ( and assumptions).
You say: The Sunni and Shiite now are attacking each other within and near mosques, but mosques are still officially off limits to USA troop excursions.
Then: We're stupidly trying to play referee among parties that don't want to share power. If we expect to win by "fighting nicely", we lose.
You are assuming that we are " fighting nicely", so I must assume that you think if we " fight meanly", we win. I must assume ( because you aren't specific) that you think if we engage in what is called - collective punishment - and destroy any and all mosques where - " The Sunni and Shiite now are attacking each other within and near" - we win. Do you really believe that? Please define " winning" in Iraq.
Who is our enemy? I asked you once before, and will assume this is your reply: "Al-Qaeda has grown well beyond their Sunni roots. Muslim fundamentalism, extremism, and adherence to jihad engagement with the infidels are the interpretations of the Koran that appears to be the unifying factor today. However, this movement is growing and it is naïve to attempt to identify a single group or motivation for their actions."
Now, I can only assume from this ( because you're not specific) that you define winning as - Kill 'Em All - Let God Sort 'Em Out
Yeah, and besides, Ronald Reagan knew what he was doing! He sold components to the Iraqis to use chemical weapons on the Iranians, and he sold weapons to the Iranians so he could support death squads in Central America. Where are the old GOP values like that? Does anyone else find it mindnumbingly Orwellian that the crimes we prosecute Hussein for today are the same ones we aided and abetted him with twenty years ago? Ronald Reagan was a terrible decision maker who was nothing more than a slave to the military industrial complex. He, like Bush does now, holds skewed information up to public scrutiny in a tactical and well-organized manner to mislead and scare us all. Iraq is nothing more than a way for us to strategically take control of energy resources and try to combat a resurgent Iran. Why is Iran resurging? Ironically, because of our invasion of Iraq. . .
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home