Iraq Surge

[TrekkieMage]

Bush Tells Nation He Will Begin to Roll Back Surge

As wonderful as this is, I feel like it's a hollow gesture. He said he's starting to pull out because of the "success" in Iraq. And yet it seems like that particular area is no more stable or safe than it was when we went in.

And he still is not giving us a time-table.

It seems like he's just trying to put a spin on this to make it look like it was all his idea and not political pressure steming from his fading control over Congress.

[Arellia]

Rolling back the surge is an illusion. People feel like we're cutting back troops, but we're not. We're going back to the number of troops we had 9 months ago, and I still haven't heard anything about 12-month tours of duty, instead of 15. We're back to levels of violence we had when things really took a turn for the worse in Iraq... this is better? No.

If it were me, I'd enact 12-month tours and pull back to the FOBs right now. Actually, I would've done that four months ago, but it's a little late to talk about the past. Pulling back to the FOBs would mean our troops would be safer and in better living conditions, we would hold the key territory we really need, and still be able to make quick-reactions. Also, this would make phasing all the troops out easier, and more comfortable in the time between. That's an ideal plan from my point of view. I really hope we see something like that coming out of congress, because I think it's something that even moderate republicans could agree to.

[Kyle Reese]

I'd like to hear how you've come to the conclusion that Iraq is no safer or more stable than it was before the surge, TM.

And I still say not giving a time table is a good idea. I hear it explained over and over but no one seems to listen. What are we supposed to do if the insurgent/terrorist groups and militias decide to lay low until US troops leave and suddenly the bloodbath starts up worse than at any point we were there? Would we just sit back and watch?

I'd also like to address the whole "political" situation in Iraq. First off, our Congress hasn't done much since the surge began either. Second, is it not possible the reason for the lack of political progress is that they're still terrified of being assassinated or their families being killed?

Based on General Petraeus' credentials alone, we need to pay more attention to what he says than what Bush says. Not that MoveOn or Code Pinko have any respect for a four star General.

Anyway, based on what I've heard and the reports that the commanders on the ground have given, the surge looks like it's working. Why end a strategy with so much potential before we can really start to speculate on it's full effect? Anyone besides me seen the results of Operation Phantom Thunder last month? I eagerly await the results of Operation Phantom Strike as well.

[TrekkieMage]

The fact that people still need to sleep in bullet-proof vests in Baghdad and that government officials are still concerned about their families being murdered is what gives me the impression that Iraq is still a mess.

All I'm saying is that this "withdrawl" feels like a very hollow gesture by the White House and that it's just a faint political move based on massive political pressre with the election next year.

It seems purely political and hardly based on the welfare of either Iraq or our troops - especially how divided the Republican polls are and how the Republican party is having a difficult time with all the anti-war noise right now.

[Republican_Man]

I have no time to elaborate, but I just wanted to say that for once I agree with TM, though for different reasons. I see this as a purely political move on the part of the president, what to me is a dispensing of his stated interest in doing only what's right for the country and not what's politically expedient for him. No, this is a political move on the part of the President in an election season. I see success after success with the surge and now he wants to pull it back and end the successful strategy? That's ridiculous. If anything he should do Arellia's idea of reducing the 15-month tours of duty to 12-month tours, not stating specifically that he would reduce the number of troops there retroactively like this.

Needless to say, I was displeased by the political move of this president over Iraq.

[Arellia]

[WeAz]

Not entirely about the surge, but the Blackwater merc company was just banned from operating in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7000018.stm

[Kyle Reese]

[PrankishSmart]

I think the problem some people are having with a withdrawl or reduction is that, not so much that you risk the insurgents attack level to rise, because the threat is always there it is a dynamic threat I don't believe to rise and fall in level with troop numbers. It is that America runs the risk of *potentially* giving control to such insurgents if they mass cooperate or form some sort of faction or group.

It is understandable for America to become very concerned with the situation of a withdrawl and the possibility of the unknown. While mass troop involvement is occupying Iraq, the situation has relative control and current local affairs and the situation is overlooked first hand. With no troops (or little troops), you loose control of that situation and that is the uncertainty.

It is interesting to me that such topics like christianity that is so common in America is taken with such a huge leap of faith and certainty, with no guarantee yet, a war withdrawl and admit to failure is not met with an equal leap of faith and certainty which has more guarantee of being future correct, and includes backup options. Note the word guarantee, and not chance, or possibility.

[Arellia]

[ObsidianPrime]

[Kyle Reese]

Now, you know a lot more soldiers than I do, obviously. They won't let me in the USMC for a little while longer, though I will be joining the Marines DEP at the end of the school year. The reason I don't see what you're saying is what I'm hearing from the only soldiers and officers I actually have contact with. Lots of soldiers are signing up for multiple tours, otherwise we wouldn't have anyone to send back there and we'd end up with a draft. That's cool you know so many soldiers, but I don't have that privilege, and no offense but reading what you tell me about them doesn't feel much different from another news article.

Are those "statistics" the same polls I keep hearing about? If so, know that I haven't trusted a poll in years. The tips given to us by Iraqi civilians are a big contribution to our success so far with the surge.

Our civil war and the one in Iraq are completely different. There wasn't outside interference in ours because no one else was threatened by the outcome. When did I ever say we should fix every country? And even if we did help in places like Darfur we might as well quit after a few years there as well because we'd only face another insurgency.

If the Iraqis don't want democracy, they shouldn't have voted. It gives a false impression.

There will always be violence everywhere in the world. I don't need to be reminded on that. But you still haven't addressed what to do about Al Qaeda in Iraq. If we left, they wouldn't. Do you not believe they will attack us?



Ok OP, stop attacking me like I'm a fat adult who wouldn't be brave enough to pick up a rifle and fight for his country or a political junkie. I never told you what you or your friends think. I'm telling you what I've heard, and I wasn't generalizing.

If anything, you're generalized opinion of teenagers is creating false impressions of myself in your head. I don't listen to "pundits" or "talking heads" or my parents to get my information about the military, or for much else. If you think i'm being "ignorant" by giving my opinion, you must not remember what it was like to be a teenager. I don't care if you're in the army, but your years of experience don't give you immediate permission to attack me for not having that experience too.

If you want to change my opinion, fine, but stop attacking me for having it. I am not a politician, I'm not pulling the strings, and I can only use what information I have available. If that pisses you off, that's not my problem.

[Arellia]

Actually, Kyle, he does not have a low opinion of teenagers. He's married to one. Me.

In his defense, I think that if it were you or a loved one going to Iraq, you might have a more visceral response to someone encouraging a war you have to fight, but do not believe in. At this point, you are still sending other people to fight a war you have not experienced.

We will always have troops to send regardless of whether they like the war. For one, some people need the military to survive. For housing, food, and a chance at college. Some people have nowhere else they belong, some people are driven in life only by the instinct to protect their country. Those men and women will always be around, and they make up a core of our army.

I do not believe Al Qaeda will attack us. If they wanted to do what terrorists do--attack our own civilians--they would have. And of course, they've tried. If we had defenses and a stronger homeland, it would be even more difficult. I could smuggle a nuclear warhead onto fort campbell. I can get boys on post in my trunk without a problem. Our posts are not protected, our borders are open... what's to stop them now? Not a thing.

I mention fixing every country because I don't see why Iraq, why now. Why them, not someone else. It may as well be someone else, because at this point, Iraq does not pose a threat to us.

My comment on the tips given to soldiers by the Iraqis is based on the testimony of the 2nd cav and the 101st airborne. If you have a problem with their statistics, I suggest you take it up with them.

This is a harsh political battle we are fighting right now--most of the people fighting it do not have any personal ties to the war itself. Those of us who face the hardships of army life every day because of the war are quicker to anger, we are hit harder by decisions that in reality, don't affect most of you at all. So you send 30,000 troops, so you don't. So you break up the plans for a family to have a child or enjoy their newborn baby, so you don't. You make these decisions lacking a certain amount of peril, a certain amount of empathy. If choosing to stay in Iraq for five more years meant that your best friend had to die, or that your girlfriend had to leave for a year and possibly be scarred for life, you might think a little harder, try to make things a little easier. The fact is, most people don't have to think about that. Most people don't have to think about how they're going to come home and resume family life after being traumatized for over a year.

Of course, soldiers volunteer to endure these hardships, and families agree to support them. However, these sacrifices should only be made when absolutely necessary, when the goal is clear, and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The issue here is that the cost is too high, for a 'victory' that is... well, it may all be in vain. It may all fall down around you. There is no enemy to destroy, only the enemy that you see that day, for that second, not in uniform, unidentified, threatening to end your life. We are fighting for a certain kind of change in a certain country with a certainly different kind of culture that we paid no attention to. We are depending on someone else for what we will call our success, and the likelihood of that success is slow in coming, if it will ever come at all. Our success is up to the Iraqi people, therefore it is their war, and they should fight it.

I'm sure this isn't changing your mind, but I can hope it changes something of your state of mind. How about this. Next time you support the continuation of the surge and long deployments, or maintaining the current strategy in Iraq, imagine that it is breaking up your family in the worst way, at the worst time. Imagine that the person you love most will come back emotionally scarred, without limbs, or dead. Then multiply that by 160,000. And then you have the cost of the Iraq war.

I don't quote the bible much in recent times, but once there was a quote regarding Noah and his ark. It went something like, "Before you begin anything, first counteth the cost."

Let's try that, shall we?

[Kyle Reese]

Naturally, I understand that. I hope you also understand that I don't have a choice at the moment.

You say that they've tried to attack us, but you don't think they will? I don't need to remind you that they already have. Surely you don't think they've changed their minds over the years? They won't just attack whenever they're ready to attack, they need permission from their leaders just like our military. The foiled Transatlantic bomb plot last summer was just about ready to be carried out, and was only stopped by our intelligence services. Don't you think if we hadn't been on their tails, they would've gone through with it?

If we can't agree on the threat from AQI then there isn't much point in discussing the civil war, because that's what it all comes down to when you talk about whether or not this is our fight. If they weren't there blowing up their truck bombs and terrorizing all sides that disagree with them and it was all Sunni on Shia violence then it would be just a civil war. Then, as irresponsible as it would be, if we were unable to stop it by any means then I would support a troop withdrawal. But I see the threat from Al Qaeda as real as the 9/11 attacks were.

You're right, I don't have any personal ties to the military yet. Soon I hope it will become a main part of my life so that I can have a better perspective like theirs, but until then this is all that I have to go by. But that doesn't mean their lives are nothing to me. They're not just numbers. The only ones I've talked to or heard from personally have told me they believe it's a just cause, and that they signed up for multiple tours because of it. What else do I have to believe? If the experience isn't personal, I don't feel it. The worst I've had is girlfriend problems and losing them. I have nothing to go about trying to imagine what it would be like. Even if I did, what could I do about it? It causes problems for the families, but the threat of terrorist attacks would always simply overcome that. Why? Because I don't have experience in that arena. Not for several more years at least. I can't change it by using my imagination because I wouldn't believe myself.

[Arellia]

*shrug* Then I thank God you're in the minority. I notice you never mention the erosion of the effectiveness of our army regarding equipment and readiness states, but I guess that also doesn't affect those who aren't in the army, which is the branch that takes the brunt of this war. It's alright, though, I like it when they don't have the money to put my husband in a safer vehicle. It helps me sleep to know that he's using all that tried and tested decades old equipment which we have no hope of replacing for years to come. Actually it doesn't, but who would've guessed? I'm really done arguing with you, since obviously nothing I say has any power in your mind. I could of course offer counter-arguments, but I'm really wasting my time at this point. Have lots of fun with that.

[PrankishSmart]

[Kyle Reese]

[Theresa]

[PrankishSmart]

[squiggy]

[ObsidianPrime]

I'm sorry I haven't replied, Mr Reese, to your latest display of penultimate...mmmn, I can't really find the precise word. I'm looking for something witty yet subtly insulting, but nothing is coming up.

I do have to apologize, for a couple of things. The first is that I'm really not at my best conversationally, or debatorically (yes I even had to make up my own word). I'm a little bit rattled about a few amendments to the Defense Appropriations Bill that I watched fail these past few days. Mr Reese, this is what makes me so angry at people such as yourself. Mind that I understand that 1) you are still a child, and when I was the age that Arellia has said to me that you are, I felt much the same way, and 2) you're not a voter, being too young, and thus aren't directly responsible for any of this.

That said, you seem, to me, to actively promote the mindset which has not only elected, but REelected not only arguably the most catastrophic President this nation has ever seen, but also the cadre of careerist politicians which are actually the only thing which has allowed him enlarge the scope of the damage which he has done to almost every aspect of this nation and our culture to its present magnitude. In point of fact, they are STILL enabling him to do so, as evinced by the failure of the amendment to the Appropriations legislature that would have mandated that every single American soldier should spend at least as much time stateside as he or she spends deployed overseas.

I'm sure you are aware, but for the edification of readers who may not be so informed, there were in fact fifty-six Senators in favor of the amendment, but it was defeated by filibuster (the threat of which is, naturally, enough to do the trick).

I ask you, why would any man or woman who had this nation's best interests at heart vote against such an amendment? Existing policy calls for combat tours not to exceed twelve months deployed except when required for mission fulfillment, and existing policy also calls for soldiers to experience one twelve-month (OR LESS) combat tour, followed by a minimum of two years stateside in garrison.

Already we're pushing the envelope with fifteen-month deployments for the vast majority of combat troops (being the Army. To my knowledge your precious Marine Corps, as of several months ago, was on six-to-eight-month tours and since may well have gotten all the way up to twelve). Around the eighth month is when most combat soldiers, and even noncombat soldiers, begin to show serious drops in job performance (combat efficiency, mechanical defects, accounting problems).

Additionally material readiness is no laughing matter. Two years may seem like a long time, but having a one-to-one deployment ratio would provide barely any cushion time for most units. My brigade just in the past few weeks has managed to stand up to fully mission-capable, and we�re deploying sometime in the next week or two. We�re talking not just about time for the soldiers to �rest,� which if you were in the military, especially, I�d imagine, in the Marine Corps, you would know is a fairly laughable term.

I�m talking about material readiness. Equipment, in short. Infared lasers for night missions, night vision optics for night missions, close-combat optics for rifles, and even rifles themselves. I am my platoon�s Armorer currently, in addition to my other duties, and so I�m intimately familiar with the number of M4s that my entire company was short on until the middle of last week, when several M4s were transferred from my battlion�s Forward Support Company. Of course they came without clamp-on optics or lasers, which are pretty generally required for most of the missions wich my unit is expecting to undertake.

Probably I�ve gone into too much detail with that, so I really can�t go any further. Another thing you could look at, though, is vehicles. We�re expecting to conduct a goodly number of mounted patrols while in-theater, and we�ll be doing so in Humvees. I�m not sure how many people here are really familiar with what a Humvee is, but it�s kine of like a very wide, incredibly boxy, underpowered pickup truck with the most primitive imaginable controls and absolutely no frills.

The M1114 up-armored Humvees which we will use in Iraq are the same, with a tubocharged engine and thousands of pounds of armor added to them. Unfortunately, all of this comes at a price, and before a single soldier, weapons system, or bullet is added to the vehicle, it is already at it�s engine�s maximum rated performance weight.

Additionally, as is commonly stated on the news, Humvees lack underside armor. This makes for an interesting dilemma, given that the incredibly vast majority of troop deaths are caused by roadside bombs and IEDs, almost all of which are located at ground level, and a great deal of which are buried under the road itself. Imagine being on a long road trip in a vehicle with a broken air conditioner. All of a sudden there�s an incredibly loud noise, and seven thousand tiny fragments of molten steel suddenly decide to join you in your troop compartment, through the floor. Probably not the best day anyone has ever had.

To explain the fact that the inadequate up-armored Humvees have not been replaced, military officials have stated that the up-armor kits for the trucks were less costly and at the time they were instituted just as effective as designing and construcing new vehicles which would have been built for the tactical role they were expected to assume (unlike Humvees). When the point that this seemed to be more of a stopgap manuver than anything else, officials at the time responded that they were projecting that this would be the best solution given that they weren�t expecting to be this heavily involved in Iraq for this long.

However, our Presidential administration apparently had different plans, and so troop safety and battlefeild survivability have fallen by the wayside. So-called MRAPs, or Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, would have more than ever been completely instrumental in decreasing casualties and increasing combat effectiveness, especially in light of the President�s vaunted Troop Surge, which had the goal of putting soldiers directly into contact with the local populaces, living in patrol bases in the middle of neighborhoods to improve response time and zone control. In all honesty, given what I know from intellegence breifings that my unit received, those three soldiers from the 10th Mountain who were kidnapped from an overrun American position, the other soldiers in their vehicles killed, would probably not have been subjected to the hideous, projected torture and then killed after being kinapped from the smoking wrecks of their vehicles, had those vehicles been Cougars, or Buffalos. Or Strykers, or Bradleys.

Morale is low. Equipment readiness is low. The equipment that we do have, that is �ready,� isn�t designed for the mission we use it on. The job is wearing and the cause is pointless. Maybe this is an ideal situation for Marines, a group of soldiers who I must say are certainly as a whole hardcore. But for the Thinking Soldier, especially this particular one, it�s more of an indicator that we need to step back. Our nation is not prepared to support us, financially, morally, or materially, in this mission. Two branches of our nation�s government are trying desperately to do their duty, and check the Executive Branch�s rampant corruption and neglect of the nation. How much longer does this have to go on? The Republicans have lost control of the government. Next year 22 Republican seats in the Senate come up for reelection, and if the Republicans manage to retain even 10 of those seats, I for one will be awed. The President will be out of office in January of 2009. The war will end, then. Then, at the very last, our government will consist of individuals who will acceded to the will of the people, and begin to bring our fighting men and women back home. Where we belong.

Why delay the inevitable? Why does the President continue to send soldiers into the valley of death? How many more dead boys is it going to take before we can finally wash our hands of Iraq, let the government that we failed to construct implode, and watch all sides descend into the hellishly bloody civil war that they want and that we could well have, once, had we had some kind of plan for our invasion�s endgame, have averted, but now have no hope of?

Dear god, man! You�re well-spoken and articulate. Obviously intelligent. THINK, god damn your eyes.

[Ntypical]

Well I will have to assume that you are already deployed. So I will have to wait for a response. That is if I am here when you get back.

I see a lot of angry people in here that can not think ahead, and even more that only get their information from uninformed service members or the nightly news. That is not meant as a flame.

If we pulled out now, what do you think would happen to the region? Honestly? You know as well as I do that if we pulled out now we would be back there inside of five years to start over from scratch. Then what would happen, it would spread, and spread. That would be very bad for us and the rest of the world.

The key is NOT to kill all the bad guys, we can not do that. The key is not more armor. That is more of a hindrance as far as I am concerned. Yeah great Idea, build a bigger truck, then put more people in it because you can not afford as many. Bad guy just builds a bigger IED and ends up killing more people with it. We have gone armor crazy, it is insane.

What they are you talking about �you don�t have the right gear?� What gear do you think you need?

Also TM, Baghdad has been a green zone for well over a year now. No one is sleeping in their armor. Yes bad things still happen there, bad things have been happening there for three thousand years.

The key to Iraq is to keep it together long enough for the ISF and the POB to get trained, so they can take over. And they are getting better. Leave them now and they will fall apart, then your kids get to go over and fight them again. Does that sound like a good idea?

Also, you will never see every U.S. Service member pulled from Iraq. We will have people there until the end of time. The numbers will go down, but we will always have a force there. Hell it has been what? Sixty two years since WWII and we still have people in all those countries. True they are not fighting them, but they are still there. Once we gain a foothold we rarely let it go.

How can anyone say that they support the troops but not the war? How can you tell someone that you do not support that which they dedicate their lives to?

Yes most Marine units do between seven and twelve month pumps, some do longer. But remember this. The Corps is there doing the Army�s job. We are not an occupation force. You should consider us being there as a favor to you. As we are much smaller we can not support that mission and continue to operate under our established doctrine in the rest of the world. From what I gather you are saying that today�s military can not do 15 months. Why is this, are we getting soft? How would you have done when the troops stayed until it was over? Remember that they did it with no phone, no internet, no webcam, and they stayed there the whole damn time!

The majority of service members I have talked to do not seem to share your view of Iraq. Hell I have been trying to go back over there for several months now. I am tired of sitting stateside and rotting. Do I want to go and kill people? No! Do I want to go and die? NO! But I do want to earn my paycheck.
From reading your other posts I gather that you have been in for about a year. That is barely enough time to finish boot, school, and work up, if you have not been there you can not speak as to what it is like. If you have not been there several times you can not speak as to if it is getting better or not. Plain and simple. Every region over there is different yes. But from my multiple deployments over there I can honestly say that things are getting better, and I am willing to go through the hardship of going back so I can help out more.

If so many service members are tired of it why are retention numbers through the roof across the board? Enlistment numbers are a bit down, but I attribute that to the laziness of our youth.

Lastly, what are you talking about uparmor? They started to replace that kit with the MAC armor several years ago, uparmor only makes up something like 8 or 10 percent of the trucks now. But once again armor is not the answer.

S/F
Matt

[Arellia]

[Ntypical]

[charlie]

Don't take this as a flame or anything. If soldiers wants to be in the military and don't expect to get deployed anywhere, then they shouldn't joined the military. That is my opinion. If I had more time online then I would sit and make a long post I know everyone been wanting me too, but my job gets in my way. It upsets me when people are so against the war knowing that we are there and no one shows no respect for the soldier. When I was in Iraq , I heard all the commotion people back home bashing the war while I am there in Iraq protecting their butts. Yes, they can have an opinion, but don't you think that we hear all that and think can the people stop fighting rather this war is right or wrong and worry about their lives? Life is too busy to fuss and argue over a war. This is not aimed at anyone on here so don't just don't read parts of what I say. There will be wars and rumor of wars... I won't bring religion in here most definetly... it will just stirr up a fight so scratch there will be wars and rumors of wars out lol....



In a way I am glad I am not in the army anymore so I won't be risking my life for people who disrespects the troops and what we are trying to do. I am not saying people on here just ones i am talking about.