Endgame

[Skybird]

From Capitol Hill Blue


The Rant
Field commanders tell Pentagon Iraq war 'is lost'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jun 5, 2006, 07:13


Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war "is lost" and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence killing 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month. Even worse, they report the massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha is "just the tip of the iceberg" with overstressed, out-of-control Americans soldiers pushed beyond the breaking point both physically and mentally.
"We are in trouble in Iraq," says retired army general Barry McCaffrey. "Our forces can't sustain this pace, and I'm afraid the American people are walking away from this war."
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has clamped a tight security lid on the increasingly pessimistic reports coming out of field commanders in Iraq, threatening swift action against any military personnel who leak details to the press or public.
The wife of a staff sergeant with Kilo Company, the Marine Unit charged with killing civilians at Haditha, tells Newsweek magazine that the unit was a hotbed of drug abuse, alcoholism and violence.
"There were problems in Kilo company with drugs, alcohol, hazing [violent initiation games], you name it," she said. "I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha."
Journalists stationed with the unit described Kilo Company and the Third Batallion of Marines as a "unit out of control," where morale had plummeted and rules went out the window.
Similar reports emerge from military units throughout Iraq and even the Iraqi prime minister describes American soldiers as trigger happy goons with little regard for the lives of civilians.
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki says the murder of Iraqi civilians has become a "daily phenomenon" by American troops who "do not respect the Iraqi people."
"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable," Maliki said. The White House tried to play down Maliki's comments, saying the prime minister was "misquoted" although Maliki himself has yet to made such a public claim.
''Can anyone blame Iraqis for joining the resistance now?'' Mustafa al-Ani, an Iraqi analyst living in Dubai, told The Chicago Tribune. ''The resistance and the terrorists alike are feeding off the misbehavior of the American soldiers.''
As the resistance mounts and daily violence escalates, the overstressed U.S. units are unable to control the mounting violence and conclusions escalate that the war is lost.
"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," says Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.
The former commander of American forces in Northern Iraq admits incidents like Haditha add to the impression that the U.S. cannot win the war.
"Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate," says Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham.
Others say the incident just shows the U.S. has lost he "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people.
"When something like Haditha happens, it gives the impression that Americans can't be trusted to provide security, which is the most important thing to Iraqis on a day-to-day level," says Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It tends to confirm all of the worst interpretations of the United States, and not simply in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and in the region."
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...ter_8790.shtml

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war "is lost" and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence

Don't tell George Bush that one and not forgetting Tony Blair.

[Onkel Neal]

Reports that we're losing the war… again? Those have been coming out every three months since the war began three years ago.


If I recall, I made my point a while back (six months ~ a year ago) that the US has done all it can do there, time to pull out. We enforced a UN resolution, made sure there were no WMDs, deposed the dictator, and helped the natives set up a democratic government. Plus we killed a lot of terrorists. No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them. The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny. They have a better shot now than they did when they were under the boot of the dictator. Time to look toward Iran.


Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!

[CB..]

it's 70's northern ireland on a massive scale--Jim
but not as we know it...

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Reports that we're losing the war… again? Those have been coming out every three months since the war began three years ago.


If I recall, I made my point a while back (six months ~ a year ago) that the US has done all it can do there, time to pull out. We enforced a UN resolution, made sure there were no WMDs, deposed the dictator, and helped the natives set up a democratic government. Plus we killed a lot of terrorists. No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them. The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny. They have a better shot now than they did when they were under the boot of the dictator. Time to look toward Iran.


Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!

I agree 100% Neal.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Reports that we're losing the war… again? Those have been coming out every three months since the war began three years ago.


If I recall, I made my point a while back (six months ~ a year ago) that the US has done all it can do there, time to pull out. We enforced a UN resolution, made sure there were no WMDs, deposed the dictator, and helped the natives set up a democratic government. Plus we killed a lot of terrorists. No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them. The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny. They have a better shot now than they did when they were under the boot of the dictator. Time to look toward Iran.


Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!

Have these reports been coming from the officers in the field? I see it diffrent. so far, the pentagon was spreading optimism. And bush did. And Rumsfeld as well. and his generals, too. Different suggestions so far were coming from people that were not within this apparatus, and from opposing politicians. that now those who should know it best also are reported to admit strategical defeat is new, to my best knowledge. But maybe I have missed the reports on the military saying it had lost the war, that is absolutely possible, of course. I do not scan all world medias day in, day out.However, the question now is what will be done? Waiting after the lections, when another Republican government could pull out and have four years time left to correct the negative prestige coming from that, or when a Democratic government is a thankful target to be held responsible then for having lost the war by pulling out too early? Field commanders have given it up, and they probbaly know ebtter than anyone else what they are talkiong about. so what consequences will be drawn from this? Business as usual?

[Onkel Neal]

My mistake, I didn't mean to suggest the US military has been sending reports as such from the beginning, just that one group or another has been proclaiming defeat from the beginning. Yeah, I agree, the State Dept. and Pentagon always paints a rosy picture, but one cannot expect otherwise. However, offsetting the overly optimistic picture are the press and foreign groups who opposed the military intervention--they painted a overly bleak picture.

What will be done? Pull US troops and most equipment out, hand over defense to the Iraqi govt. Make sure they are supplied with plenty of humanitarian and military aid and some human rights oversight, and let them get going with it. There has to be a time to acknowledge the US has reached its effectiveness… I suggest doing it before we get in that sloping trap of things getting worse and not wanting to leave until they are turned around. Things are as good as they are going to get under our control.

I certainly do not advocate political strategies concerning Republicans, Democrats. Let's just move on.

[Skybird]

I agree on what should be done. Like you, I have said a longer while now that it is time to pull out since nothing more can be accomplished (whereas in the early phase of the war, ignorring any political disputes and seeing it strictly militarily, I said that far more forces should be send into Iraq than what the pathetic Rumsfeld plan had prepared for). But something tells me that this administration will spend many more months with hesitating.We probably all agree in this: what a damn mess it all now is.

[scandium]

Have to disagree with you Neal, point by point:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

We enforced a UN resolution

Only the UN security council has the authority to enforce security council resolutions. The usual retort to this is that the UN doesn't have the capability to enforce its own resolutions, but history says otherwise: the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was done on a UN mandate. To the other typical retort that the US doesn't need the UN to 'defend' its sovereignty, two points: (1) US Sovereignty wasn't being threatened by Iraq, and (2) Iraq didn't need the UN to invade Kuwait back in 1991, either.

made sure there were no WMDs

UN inspectors were on the ground looking for these WMDs when the US had them abruptly yanked to begin its invasion.

deposed the dictator

Only to setup an interim dictatorship of its own under the helm of Viceroy Paul Bremer that, during its short reign, privatized Iraqi industry, destroyed the country's economy, and disbanded the Iraqi army - all of which arguably poured fuel over the emerging insurgency.

helped the natives set up a democratic government

I would characterize it instead as powerless government presiding over a failing state that resembles an anarchy more than a democracy.

Plus we killed a lot of terrorists

Estimates I've seen put the number of killed civilians between 35,000 to 100,000 - so far. Undoubtedly some of them were terrorists. I suppose you could chaulk the rest up to "collateral damage", or even argue under the ideology of pre-emption that they've been pre-emptively killed to ensure they don't become terrorists. In either case I'm not sure this is the best way to fight terrorism.

No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them.

Depends on who the "them" is. If its Halliburton you're referring to who's making a killing off this through their no-bid contracts, then I'm sure you have their gratitude ($3/gallon gas may be a funny way to show it, but maybe they'll send you a xmas card); if you've had your life turned upside down by this though, losing friends, family members, your job or your business then you probably appreciate that too - after all, to quote Rumsfeld from 3 years ago, "freedom is messy".

The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny.

To have that you need opportunity and for that you need some measure of economic prosperity (no matter how meagre) and security. Since Iraq has neither, I don't see them having control over their destiny any time soon.

Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!

I think they'll need more than luck.

[Skybird]

I do not share some people'S relative optimism on Iraq's future, and that this future is not decided. It very much is. The only question is to what degree American companies that tried to secure a foothold in the Iraqi oil business and other sectors they seized during the massive privatization wave under Bremer (as Scandium referred) can keep that foothold and preserve their influence.The argument that it was worse under Saddam I find to be almost insane. No, it has not been as bad under Saddam as it is now. There was not that ammount of murder and torutre as we see now, there was not that ammount of organized crime, there was not that masisvely climbing influence of religious ultraorthodx wings (in Baghdad people now get shot for selling Falafels on the street - for in Muhammad'S time, so is the argument, there were no Falafels). Under Saddam there has nopt been an industry of orgnaized kidnappings (couting by the thiusands poer quarter of a year), there has not been such a lack of water, eletcricity, sec urity on the streets. and last but not least, it was Saddam keeping the Iranian Mullahs and Taleban-style extremists out. Saddam is gone, fine - but that is only of concern for Saddam. If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".But all that is decided now, it is history, and the future will be a logical conseqeunce of the current state. I am not surprised by the outcome, how could I. The important question now is if and when Bush will bring home his people's sons and daughters. It's high time, and every further death is an even more useless one. For many of them a diffrent kind of battle will begin once they arrived back "home" - if they are able to think of it as that anymore. I repeat what I said repeateldy before: psychological consequences of traumatitzation by war action and stress in war can be very very massive and can ruin the whole rest of your life. American casualties are without doubt in the high tens of thousands, if not higher.the only winner of this is the American defense industry. They get payed for replacing detsroyed equipement, and repair and maintain all the equipement that after three years action must be very much worn out. the looser: the Iraqi people, and the American young generations. The taxes that are spend on Iraq are those taxes that not only are not available for their education and future life, but who are added to the monumental debt bill that has been added to the already high debts of the US, and that future generations will need to serve.Or should we assume that it never was planned to pay back national debts? Saw a movie yesterday, where one man said: why borrow money, if one has the intention to pay it back? Crazy planet this is. The older one gets, the less fun it makes.

[Drebbel]

If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".

Why ? You think it was safer, more properous, more comfy ?

[Skybird]

Ouh, and someone mentioned that terroists were killed. Yes. And for each one several other spopped up. By numbers we have more terrorists now in the world than before. In past months two or three times I remember to have red from American and British newspaper that assessements by US authorities cam to the conclusion that today there is more terrorist activity on a gloabl scale than before, and that the world has become less instead of more safer. If you fight with a hydra, you do not measure success by number of heads in your bag.

[Dowly]

Guerrilla warfare is hard to fight against. Anyone in the crowd can be a terrorist and there´s nothing you can do. Well, you could shoot the whole bunch, but that would look bad in the news.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

Have to disagree with you Neal, point by point:


Only the UN security council has the authority to enforce security council resolutions. The usual retort to this is that the UN doesn't have the capability to enforce its own resolutions, but history says otherwise: the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was done on a UN mandate.

I never said the US had the authority, did I? No, I said the US enforced the resolutions. The US and allies defended one of the main condition of the cease fire from the first conflict: No interference with weapons inspectors. The UN rolled over like a $3 whore, when Saddam wanted them out, no one stood up to him. We did, although very belatedly. And you say the first war was "done on a UN mandate"... pfft, call it UN, but it was really US. If the US and coalition had sat out that conflict, Saddam would still be in Kuwait. And probably Saudi Arabia by now. Seriously, when has the UN ever done anything significant without a major contribution by the US?

UN inspectors were on the ground looking for these WMDs when the US had them abruptly yanked to begin its invasion.

Yeah, sure. Saddam let them in at the last hour to pull the strings of the appeasement crowd. "Look, I let the weapons inspectors in, I'm a good guy". Hard to believe but that was an effective strategy, some people bought it.

Only to setup an interim dictatorship of its own under the helm of Viceroy Paul Bremer that, during its short reign, privatized Iraqi industry, destroyed the country's economy, and disbanded the Iraqi army - all of which arguably poured fuel over the emerging insurgency.

Yeah, you're really reaching now. Dictator Bremer, huh? Where is he now? Come on, get serious, man.

[Iceman]

Skybird you crack me up...you remind me of the big computer brain in I-Robot..."My logic is undeniable.....My logic is undeniable....." Someone needs to insert some nan-nites into your brain to slow it down lol.I wish I kept my "Wizard" pic of ya...I predict, I predict, BS all the time....It is not prediction pointing out the obvious things in life.You yourself proclaim the absurdity of the Muslim faith practiced in the countries over there and I my self have been en-lightened by alot of your posting rergarding this.The world is on a steady track leading to destruction and nothing you or any "Human" can do about it.The sun rises and again hastens to the place from whence it came.You don't have to be Christian or Jew or Muslim to know be-heading innocent people is wrong.Or strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up you countrymen because one is called Shia and one is called Sunni.This is maddness on a grand scale.Whether America would have gone in when daddy Bush was pres or now I feel the outcome would have been exactly the same.Only because America does not do what conquers of old have done and that is to make the loser submit like a whipped dog and if it doesn't it got shot.America used to do that 200 yrs ago ask any American Indian here that is left alive.It is a no-win only because we care and hate to see the civil war that will ensue now and more innocent people will die.If we didn't care then we would have massacred them ALL and be sending all that black gold home now for free.I do not know what you could do now except divide the country up into the seperate sects possibly, it seems it is being divided up now by themselves to just stay alive.I love ya Sky