Iraq Surge

[Debra]

charlie wrote

[squiggy]

I stand by Charlie. He's a good chap((Despite some bad remarks to a certain fruit princess's cooking)), and anyone who wants to take a shot at a man who only left the army because of a TUMOUR, and upon having it removed went RIGHT BACK INTO PUBLIC SERVICE as a Police Officer, protecting our' rights, and our lives, will have to get through me first.
And you are right, Debra. It's not the Army people are frustrated with; because the Army is made of the people, or relatives of the people, it's the war, which they aren't sure that it's America that should be fighting it.((Or only america, with us Canadians serving them bagels, and getting killed in friendly fire incidents....))
Personally, I believe it is the time to start pulling out a little at a time, to see if the new Iraq government will work. If it won't, then put the man back at the posts, and continue to constantly re-enforce. If it will, then start giving this Sovereign nation it's sovereignty back.

((As a question... is it a sad thing that I still think the entire war was about the oil?))

[Ntypical]

[Arellia]

[Debra]

Ntypical

[Ntypical]

[quote="Arellia"]

Waiting on my husband is... required? As if this is some kind of easy job? Waiting on my husband is by no means required, sir, it is my choice.[/quote By the vows you took when you two were married you are required to wait for him If you choose not to then you broke said vow. I never said it was easy, but waiting on your hubby is NOT supporting the troops. It is supporting your hubby, and that is something you are supposed to do ANYWAY.

[Arellia]

I like how my sacrifice for my husband and for my nation is totally irrelevant, to put it in your words, 'hot air.' It's the reason I wake up every day. Again, I'm done debating you. I just had to say that. I take offense at how you treat the role of wives in this war so casually.

[Ntypical]

[ObsidianPrime]

So I'm given to understand that there's something of a controversy here? First of all, I would like to correct a few of your assumptions about myself and my wife.

In the first part, my wife's knowledge of the social, political, cultural, and military aspects of this war doesn't just come from a few conversations with my squadmates. Nor, in point of fact, does my knowledge of conditions in-country and how they've changed. You may scorn me all you like; after all, all I've done is devote (so far) more than a year of my life to our nation's Army. I understand that this is not a significant nor worthy undertaking, and I'm sorry that I have failed to meet your expectations in this regard.

To continue, my wife has spent more time than I really like to think about gathering raw information as well as analyses from just about any source you could possibly imagine. She is not unintelligent; in fact she's probably the most intelligent individual whom I've ever had personal dealings with. Naturally she examines other people's conclusions with an eye for what their angle is, and how they're spinning information. On a sidenote, the type and amount of spin which is coming from most pro-war sources is simply fascinating.

As for myself, yes. I am on my first deployment. I was one of the lucky ones from my Basic Training company, who was assigned to a unit that had just returned from a tour. Wonder of all wonders, I actually had almost enough time to train with my new unit before we went overseas to do the real thing. Training time I will probably go over later, when I start discussing my actual experiences. For the most part, the positions that I hold regarding progress in the war come from a blend of information gathered by my wife's extensive research and a sound general knowledge of the culture and history of the area. To round that out, I've spent a lot of time listening to the senior NCOs in my company talk amongst themselves, and to us. My squad leader is coming up on his seventh year in the Army, and is starting his fifth deployment, the most extreme example that I have.

So to answer your statements, no. Myself and my wife do not have a grunt's-eye view of this conflict. Instead, we have spent a great deal of time trying to assemble the most complete picture that we possibly can.

Now, I could go on for several pages about troop and equipment readiness levels, morale levels, political and military trends, and all kinds of things. Of course those things won't help, I've touched on them briefly in the past on this thread and the result was just to have various individuals of various intelligence and rationality levels spin the facts to support whatever position they hold.

I'd like to bottom-line the entire situation, but first there is one thing that you addressed that I simply can't let lie, and that's armor and vehicles. Now, I understand that you're a Marine, and that as a Marine you don't have the same kind of outlook that, say, an Army soldier would have. But I just can't see how you could favor NOT replacing Humvees with something better. Sure, the enemy will build a better bomb, and the story about the Abrams tank that was killed by an IED composed of twenty-five separate 150mm (or 155mm, I don't recall) artillery rounds.

But there's just no way around the fact that a Humvee, whether it's a 998 which was then refitted into an 1114 with up-armor kits, a prebuilt 1114, or one of the new...I believe they're called 1151s that are entering service right now, is not suited for presence patrolling and route clearance under the conditions which exist in any sectors I've ever heard about in Iraq.

Simply put, there's no underside armor. Sure, even the windows can stop rounds from any weapon from an LMG on down cold; even the windows on the turret. None of the armor matters when a bomb detonates and even some of the explosive force is directed through the underside of the vehicle.

Most of the highly-publicized new MRAP designs feature hulls which are not only gifted with underside armor, but also feature geometry which directs the explosive force around the vehicle, which is almost more critical than having the armor to withstand the blast, given what it does to relieve the stress on the vehicle. Cougars, Buffaloes, and the other designs are specifically designed to operate in the conditions which our vehicles are being used in, and these designs could have been put into large-scale production significantly before they were.

As for being obsessed with armor...I have yet to meet a single soldier who believes that more protection for a vehicle is a bad thing, with the exception of Humvees. This exception is unilaterally because of the simple fact that Humvees weren't designed to carry the amount of weight that the up-armoring (kits or no kits) was requiring them to; only now are the upgraded models coming into service. In point of fact, every soldier in my company devoutly wishes that we were a mechanized unit, and that we had been in line to get Strykers. Soldiers who came to us from the Stryker brigade in Alaska spent quite a bit of time wishing that they had their old vehicles back.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how it's remotely possible that having more armor is a bad thing, as long as you're not compromising your vehicle's effectiveness as a combat platform.

Anyway, that was a fairly large digression. My goal, as stated above, was to bottom-line all of this. The simple state of the matter is that the Iraq war is coming to a close. Will we continue to have a troop presence in Iraq? Yes. Of course we will. The new embassy will easily be able to support its own combat battalion, from what I'm given to understand, if not more than one. It would also be completely pointless to evacuate the hardpoints on BAIP, and lose our critical control of the airport.

Regardless of what will happen in Iraq, this war has gone on for too long. The people of America have seen too much corruption and neglect in their government, and regardless of what is good for Iraq, the Middle East, or anyone else, they want the troops to come home.

Presidential elections are coming up, and there's no hope for any candidate who does not promise to begin to end the war in Iraq to be elected. 22 Republican seats in the Senate are coming up for reelection and I guarantee that there will be unprecedented turnover there, as well.

The cornerstone of our nation is rule of the majority, and the majority will swung against Iraq years ago. Troops are going to be redeploying out of Iraq and not being replaced, our zone of control is going to shrink down to sections of the capital, perhaps other key airfields. This is going to happen, and there is no way to stop it short of some kind of major, nation-galvanizing event. The American military is straining closer to the breaking point with each passing week. The last time a single issue polarized American society to this degree, I think we're all aware of what happened. Our nation's economy, society, and military cannot continue under this strain and come 2009 the people will get what they want. Why does it then become necessary to stick it out to the bitter end, knowing for absolute certain that what you're doing will come to naught at a definite date in the future? You might call that honor, or integrity, or some other misnomer, but to me it seems that the better path would be to cut our losses, because the hundreds of millions of men and women back home have already set their minds on what they want us to do.

But who am I to say. I'm only a low-level grunt in the Army. I'm not educated, or well-read, or observant or rational or intelligent at all.

[Ntypical]

Thank you very much for answering my question of her without answering it. I never once said that you were uneducated, I simply said that you are uninformed. I have not seen an uparmor kit since the push for Fallujah. Everything since then has been MAC kits that are much better protected. I never said that I am not for better armor. I said that it is not the answer, and I believe that I put it pretty plainly earlier. But I will break it down for you.

You get a bigger tougher truck. You have to put more people in it (because you can not afford as many). Bad guy then throws more boom boom at it. Ends up killing more of us. All it does is gives them more bang for their buck.

Yes we do need mounted patrols out there. But we rely far too much on armor. You move too fast, are too much of a target, and by moving too fast you observe less. I firmly believe that a lot of the problems would be solved by running more foot mobile. Yes it takes longer to accomplish said mission, and you are more vulnerable. But it forces the insurgency to fight us on our own ground.

Now I asked a simple question earlier. Could you please answer it (or better yet have her answer it)?

[Arellia]

Alright. If you really need my answer. I keep trying to get out of this debate, if you haven't noticed. But whatever, I have time to spare.

I learned that the army is severely stressed, with few troops here to protect the homeland and equipment that is not being replaced. I learned about the economic hardship, and how in ten years the Iraq/Afghan war, assuming we pull back to 75,000 troops, will put us $2.4 trillion in debt. I learned that we cannot reform a government ourselves, and that terrorism is an ideology, not a group of clearly delineated people; it can be defended against, but not pursued like this. You can't destroy an idea, and that's what terrorism is, at its core. I figured out that the original premises for the war were either lies (see CIA agent Valerie Wilson) or have been achieved (Saddam taken out of power), and that there must be an ulterior motive to this war, with so many resources being poured into something... I don't know what. The goal of keeping terrorists at bay does not require an occupation force at this point, and the Iraqi people need to settle this dispute amongst themselves, with us lending aid--but less aid--to the country. We're throwing bodies in the middle of a civil war.

I've listened to Petreus, other generals of lesser name, votevets, conservative and liberal shows, CIA agents' stories, the words of the administration, I've learned more about history, I have talked to boys who have been there more than once (my cousin is one of them, sergeant in the 2nd cav), the MFSO, senate hearings, house hearings, votes, congressional records... if my studies have not been thorough enough to form an educated opinion, then I suppose I'll just have to... what? Go there myself? I may have come to a different conclusion than you, but it's not for lack of an open mind, or neglecting to collect information. I don't see how I could possibly be called uninformed. Two people can view the same information and come away thinking different things, both are informed, but both disagree. My husband and I sometimes disagree on things (usually minor things, but eh) because of very simple differences; he is a warrior in his soul, I am training to become a doctor, and therefore, I am a healer in my soul. It gives us different perspectives, however, those two perspectives work well together. Just like I think many perspectives are needed to resolve the problems in Iraq--what we're doing right now is not sustainable, so we need creative ideas to change it.

I must ask, if we suddenly went to war with, say, Canada, for no reason... would I be unsupportive of the troops for being against that war? Is it never right to dissent? I don't think so. It does not make a person unpatriotic, nor does it make them dishonor the troops. Your reasoning is flawed, but this is more semantics than anything. I dissent, therefore I am somehow averse to a dedication to the military... that's not what I believe.

[Debra]

If in any war, if troops was against the war then why they join in the first place,. It's their duty to protect and serve. That's why we have men and women in the military to go to war when needed. If they didn't want war then they should never joined in the military. Can't just join the military and not expect to go to war one day cause there will be or is a time to go to war. I am not saying war is right. But, the Iraqi war was because to help free innocent people/ Don't take my post the wrong way as bashing or anything cause I am not. This is be the last time I come talk about this at least for a day or so. Topic too touchy lol

[Ntypical]

[Arellia]

Oh, yes. Congress, President Bush, Petreus, Crocker, conservative talkshows, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the congressional record, testimonies, "numbers"... those are all left-wing conspiracies, right?

$2.4 trillion dollars in debt just for the wars. I believe our debt stands at about 7 trillion just now.

Some economists worry that we're going into a recession. The dollar has dropped tremendously--now equal to the Canadian dollar.

We currently have a huge proportion of our combat troops either overseas, or not mission capable at this time.

I support the dedication to the country. I do not support the war. Simple.

CIA agents have come out recently saying that the justification for going to war--the WMD's--were justifications they explicitly told the president to leave about, because they were untrue.

Please don't even bother continuing to try to convince me otherwise. I've heard all the arguments, and I don't appreciate being talked down to. I tried to make capitulations--true ones--that we both have opinions that could be arrived at depending on situation that are important to the debate, you can't even recognize that I've studied it at all. Stop asking me questions because I'm not going to answer any more. Not because I'm losing, not because I'm surrendering, but because it's not worth my time.

[Ntypical]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50746

"The U.S. has located some 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003 with more likely to be found,"


http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-6835:1

"report to the Security Council in April 1998
assert that Iraq has not accounted for and may still possess a significant CBW capability, including: 500-700 mustard agent artillery shells, over 150 bombs filled with BW agents, and 45 CBW missile warheads."

[squiggy]

[Ntypical]

Thank you for the informed and intelligent answer!

Edit to add: Sorry I did not post this earlier, it was a busy morning.

[PrankishSmart]

[Ntypical]

[squiggy]

Ntypical
I find it interesting how you can call someone unintelligent without actually doing it, and then deny doing it. You DID insinuate that Arellia was 'less intelligent then others', without saying it outright, and I believe you owe her an apolagy, which, you insinuated, but never actually came out and did it.
The point of the matter is that she IS sacrificing a great deal for her country. Every day, she may learn that her husband died. Can you imagine living with that?
I doubt it, with your nice cushy desk job, and all.
The fact of the matter is, that she IS supporting the troops. Every day she pays 'taxes', despite the fact that she likely has a hard time doing so, which are then spent on the tanks, and uniforms, and weapons. This is SUPPORTING THE TROOPS. She also believes that this war is pointless((Which it is, by the way. It was started simply because Bush wanted to start a war with Iran, but had a typo on the order, or something intelligently impaired like that. It's a Bush thing.)), and that it should not have been started.
THIS IS HER RIGHT. She has the right to her opinion, and NOT TO BE INSULTED FOR IT.
You can throw all the pictures of cute little children you want, but this war was morally wrong. If the war was to get Saddam out, you did it! Now knock it off already!
Let poor women like Arellia get thier' husbands back so they can get on with thier' LIVES.
Insult my opinion all you want, I don't care. Just don't insult hers. It's a correct one.
And apolagize to her.

[Ntypical]

Squiggly. If you would actually read my posts instead of assuming you would see that I did apologize for calling her uninformed. Also you would have noticed that I gave her props for sticking by him. Now take a look at what my MOS actually is and you would see that I have not been behind this nice cushy desk my whole time in, and I have been trying to leave this desk to go back to a team. Assumptions are not good things to make.

Now please tell me how it was a morally wrong war? Someone please tell me. I keep seeing it, but when I ask for a good solid reason why it was I get the same damn answer, and I have showed that the answer given by those who say it was wrong is bs time and time again. So please tell me how the hell is it a morally unjust war?

I will have something for ya when I get home, so check back brother.

[ObsidianPrime]

Okay, Debra. I've been wanting to answer that question you asked; I'm sure a lot of people who aren't soldiers wonder that.

I disagree with this war, for a variety of reasons. I have yet to see any kind of point made in support of this war which would cause me to seriously rethink that position; it would take a deal of actual concrete evidence to do that, not a set of teenagers and military or political dogmatics spouting skewed or completely falsified/erroneous statistics.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that I don't feel the urge to serve my country; to do that I chose to join the Army. The chain of command which I swore to obey determined that I was to be deployed to Iraq. That being the case, here I am.

More important than my duty to my nation, though, was my duty to my fellow man; simply put, I knew that the men and the boys who comprise my unit would be here, doing this job. I believe many things about this war; wrong reasons, wrong strategies...many things are wrong with it. Every single soldier who has lost his or her life in the past several years has died to no point and purpose, and that goes beyond tragic. Argue tactics, politics, whatever you like, it's the incontrovertible truth that America is tired of this war, and close to eighty percent of Americans want the war to end. It's ending, one way or another.

As I see it, my duty to the men and women of the armed forces was to join those same armed forces and do my part. I could not in good conscience live my life, knowing that soldiers like my friends and comrades in my unit were going to war and I wasn't. It's the thing that I hate so much about the very most vocal proponents of the war; the young radical Republican set, who write essays and presentations and websites about how we should stay in Iraq in order to spread the joy of good political buzzwords like freedom and democracy around the world, and also to stop the spread of bad political buzzwords. If you feel so strongly, come and fight with us. You don't even have to fight, you could take pictures or write news articles for Stars and Stripes all day. I could have, should have gone to college but instead I'm here. You can sacrifice your ambitions if your personal ambitions are so much less important to you than your espoused political ideals. I'm sorry, I find such drones worthless, if this offends anyone I can easily edit this post later to remove it.

That's why I joined the Army, that's why I'm in Iraq. I hate the war, I hate the powerful men who have sent my comrades to fight and die in service of some kind of political agenda which is not clear to me at this time. But I love my country, I love the people (despite how they might frustrate me at times), and I love my fellow soldiers. Yes, even the Marines.

...yes, even Marines who ignore the fact that the major classes of purpose-designed armored vehicles have to this date maintained a zero-fatality rate among their crews, despite being hit by numbers of 'bigger and better' IEDs.
[/i]

[Ntypical]

[Debra]

Well I guess we agree to disagree. My husband was in Iraq twice and he would go back if he could. Cause he felt like helping people. He doesn't like war either , but sometimes it is neccessary. He hates that he isn't in the military anymore. He loves his country. Not saying you don't. So don't misunderstand what I am saying. My husband would have to really discuss this so I guess it is time for me to step out of this topic and let my husband speak whenever he has time off again. I could go on and on til I am blue in the face on this...

[PrankishSmart]