Iraqi Civil War?

jackehammond said:
Dear Member

My member didn't write that post, I did. :mrgreen:

jackehammond said:
Sorry, disagree. Even some Iraqi have stated as such. As to countering IEDs your own commanders have stated they are ahead of the curve. And the unconventional outside the conventional is an answer given to say "We don't know."

Okay, you can disagree. Won't change what I've personally seen, though.

And NO COIN or war against an insurgent has been won with the "less is more" tactic.

I didn't say anything about any "less is more tactic" that doesn't even exist. I said, you can't throw numbers at the problem and expect it to go away. No matter how many guys you have out there, you cannot solve an unconventional problem with completely conventional tactics.

And you just can't haul off and hide 152mm shells that easy in vast numbers.

Wrong. Sorry, but I've seen some very creative ways of hiding ordnance, and without local intel they never would have been found.

You won't do it. But read about World War One.

I find it kinda funny you assume I haven't already.

Your answer is very familiar to the answers that were given when at last some started to question the British and French generals (British Army commander General Haig in particular) about chewing barbwire for a few yards.

Then it is clear you didn't understand a word I said.

And how did Shinseki waste resources? He agreed with the VP Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense under Bush's father that it would be dangerous to take the nation below 14 US Army divisions after the collapse of the USSR. And after 9/11 Bush had a mandate easily to increase the US Army from 10 to 14 divisions or even adding another battalion to every combat brigade. He was a loyal soldier.

You know, it's always a good idea to read up on all of the decisions that's been made before making a guy out to be the "loyal soldier" based on ONE correct comment. He was very PC, changed a lot of things for the worse in the Army. Start with wasting so much time and money on the black beret and go from there.

Finally, in almost every interview (ie they have been ordered not to now) every brigade commander has stated they need more boots on the ground. And these are not arm chair generals either. And if you agree the numbers of US forces in Iraq are being determined by the commanders on the ground and not the politicians in the White House I give up...

Did you even read my post? Just curious. The whole point of my post was a) numbers don't solve all of the problems and b) tactics are our biggest issue. I didn't say anything about us not needing more boots on the ground, or that putting more would be a bad idea.

I also said the media screamed about our tactics, so the politicians screamed about our tactics, therefore, we've got conventional guys running an unconventional war conventionally. You can put as many guys on the ground as you want, but unless you change your tactics, they aren't going to do much good. If I have to explain why (and I certainly will if you need me to) then you aren't as informed on this as you think.

For purposes of discussion, please actually read the posts before responding. I know you get a lot of info from other forums (I see you gleen info on a few forums I post on as well) and articles so a lot of your stuff is pretty static, but there should always be room for reading what others are actually writing and being able to respond to what they actually said.


PS> The way a lot of the US troops (ie especially the enlisted) are rallying to Bush and Rumsfeld's defense reminds a lot of General George McClellan in the American Civil War. They almost all damned Lincoln when Lincoln at last had enough and first demanded an explanation why with his outnumbering Lee three to one he would not give battle and then when he did at Sharpsburg, Maryland almost was defeated by Lee and had a draw with 23,000 killed and wounded in one day and called it a victory. Lincoln fired him at last. The soldiers gave replies like yours about politicians and the press interfering. After the Civil War ended and they got to see the records they were shocked to learn that McClellan has used their loyality for his own ends. James Webb a famous Vietnam War Marine combat veteran and author and US Secretary of Navy under Bush senior stated there will be a lot of disappointed soldiers and marines the same years down the road.[/quote]

Where did I rally to the POTUS or SECDEFs defense? I didn't. You haven't seen any posts like mine in any historical readings. You didn't even see or read my post.

Dude, R E A D the posts! When you don't, you remove any chance of being able to respond because almost everything you claim I said or implied in your post wasn't actually the case at all in mine.


Eh, I'm probably wasting my time. I'll try this: Okay, you're right! Let's leave it there. :thumb:
 
Last edited:
Somebody posted this earlier and I think its a good point.

In fact the Iraqis have been fighting a civil war since before the fall of Saddam. I am referring to the Kurds, who basically have been fighting the Sunni (run by Saddam) since mid-1995. So in that sense Iraq is already in a civil war.

When it comes to Iraq I think it all depends about area we are discussing. For example the area around Basra is relatively quiet where as certain areas in Baghdad are quiet dangerous.

I'm sure the media exaggerates certain elements, but on the other hand the White House is even more guilty. The White House has basically declared the war over 3 different times in the past 4 years and yet the fighting continues...
 
Has there ever been a general ANYWHERE in a combat situation who said, "Nope, no thanks I don't want any more troops, we're fine."
???
 
jackehammond said:
The Chief of Staff for the US Army, Shinseki, warned GWB and Rumsfeld that they needed a lot more boots on the ground for the occupation and he basically got canned for telling the Emperor that he had no clothes.
Excuse me, but this is false.

Shineski served his full four year term. His retirement was planned months prior to his testimony (in which you delcare he said the emperor had no clothes).

Link

http://media.nationalreview.com/060321_02.jpg

Regarding civil war, I don't see anything wrong with describing Iraq in terms of a civil war. It's just not a civil war between equal sides. It's essentially 10,000 vs. 25,000,000. The US has recently (last year or so) made overt and behind the scenes negotiations with the Sunni leadership. It's paid dividends, but the work is far from finished.

The recent proposed bi-lateral talks between the US and Iran are intriguing because it seems both parties are realizing their individual strategies simply aren't working and may both fail. Again, work viewing the developments that come from the talks.
 
Last edited:
This is looking more and more like Vietnam every day. :shoothea:

I see in Iraq's future three different countries, constantly fighing one another, in a situation similar to the former Yugoslavian countries.
 
jackehammond,
I'm not really all that interested in the depth to which this should go, but it's interesting that you noted McClellen.

He was famous for asking for more and more troops.

Just odd that you use him as an example of someone who used the good faith of the troops and didn't seem to notice his primary political tactic was to say he never had enough troops (another point being discussed).

Again, not really trying to stoke coals. Just interesting.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Somebody posted this earlier and I think its a good point.

In fact the Iraqis have been fighting a civil war since before the fall of Saddam. I am referring to the Kurds, who basically have been fighting the Sunni (run by Saddam) since mid-1995. So in that sense Iraq is already in a civil war.

Would that be when the CIA kept telling the Kurds over and over again that they had the President's support but then on the eve of battle the CIA pulled their support?
 
Airborne Eagle+JackeHammond I think you are both right.

It is true that Gen Shinseki was always schedualed to retire within 6 months, but after the General went public Rumsfeld immediatly announced his sudden retirement publically and the General was never heard from again. It was very obvious that Rumsfeld silenced him. Shineski wasnt 'fired' like the liberals claim, but he was punished because he dared publically oppose the president, a fate that happened to several other people such as Ritter,O'Neil, Clarke, and of course the most famous, Joe Wilson.
 
Well, if you want to claim that no one's heard of those guys again, I'd like to hear the justification.

Heck, you can't get Wilson off the TV.

Most generals, after they retire, disappear. The military life is hard and when you get the chance to have time with the family (which was sacrificed for years, decades), you take it. In addition, we're traditionally non-political in uniform and it usually stands to reason we carry that attitude, in public, after we leave the service. Not always the case, of course.

Richard Clarke ran afoul of media attention when his obvious contradictions kept coming out. His testimony before Congress directly contradicted things he said prior and he implausibly contended both were the truth.

Here's a snippet from wikipedia (noted because someone else did the research of a source text and not meant as an indication that wikipedia's reliability/credibility is the basis for noting the following):


Here are the facts as determined by the Senate Select Committee's investigation (pages 39-44):
  • The U.S. embassy in Niger issued a cable reporting that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal warranted a hard look.
  • Valerie Plame suggested her husband travel to Niger to look into it.
  • A WINPAC analyst sent an email saying the results "from this source" will be suspect and not believable but CIA decided to send Wilson anyway.
  • In February 2002, Wilson arrived in Niger and met with former officials of Niger, no current officials.
  • On March 1, 2002 the CIA published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely, unrelated to Wilson's trip. This assessment was not provided to Vice President Cheney.
  • On March 8, 2002 an intelligence report based on Wilson's trip was disseminated. The report indicated the former Prime Minister of Niger had said no contracts to sell uranium to Iraq were signed during his tenure. However, an Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999 to discuss "expanding commercial relations." The Prime Minister took this to mean uranium yellowcake sales. The PM let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.
The Senate Report was critical of Wilson because his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA's account. Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The intelligence report actually confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the PM as seeking uranium. Wilson claimed the CIA told him about documents pertaining to an alleged uranium sale to Iraq. The CIA reports officer denied giving Wilson any such information and noted there were no "documents" circulating at the time. (Pages 44-45)
Many further details of the trip can be found in the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, which contains a 48-page section dealing with intelligence related to Niger.


Wilson is a just a flat out fabulist. His report to the CIA contradicts his Op-Ed, he has a wildly confused timeline, and has dropped off the TV circuit because of the inconsistancies.

Let's not forget that for each person the Bush opposition accuses the administration of ruining," there are about 10 or so that go on and on. There's no grand conspiracy, as Fitz is coming to find. Plame was known as a CIA employee prior to Libby and Novak.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/14076459.htm

Further, there's a strong reason to believe that Richard Armitage was the source of the "leak." Armitage is hardly an Iraq War supporter and I'd even question describing him as a "Bush supporter."

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2006/03/13/20060313_155000_flash3.htm

I think the hysteria over Bush leads otherwise intelligent and rational people to some other-worldly conclusions.
 
Last edited:
As you said not always, Wesley Clark is still around. Colin Powell is another. But Shineski was put in the broom closet, you could tell that just by listening to Rummys tone when he made the announcement.

Richard Clarke contradictions? He predicted 9/11 and the Bush Administration ignored him. The only part Clarke was wrong was the location (he thought it would be on Foreign soil, not in the homeland).

As for Plame, if her identity wasnt so secret then how come several of her contacts in Pakistan were murdered after her identity was revealed? Appearently not everybody knew. But the truth her role is still largely classified. What we do know is this, A)The CIA had her marked down as a covert agent B) Somebody in the White House gave that infomation out C) the timing of the outing was just a few days after Wilson wrote his NY times OP-ED Piece. Its suspicous to say the least...

If Wilson is a fabulist than why is Libby under indictment? (and very likely Rove to be as well). Libby has already stated to Fitzgerald that he revealed the name 'under orders from superiors'. I simply cannot believe that a White House that is obcessed with control would let one of their dogs out of the kennal with specific instructions. Its just not the nature of the Beast.

I'm not picking on you, one person badmouthing the president could seem like sour grapes. But 4 different people on different subjects speaks volumes about the nastiness of this Administration. This behavior can be traced to back before Bush was President.
 
mmarsh said:
As you said not always, Wesley Clark is still around. Colin Powell is another.
Clark has/had presidential aspirations. Of course I'd expect him to be around. I haven't heard from Powell in a long time.
mmarsh said:
Richard Clarke contradictions? He predicted 9/11 and the Bush Administration ignored him. The only part Clarke was wrong was the location (he thought it would be on Foreign soil, not in the homeland).
Actually, this isn't correct and is an example of how he presented two sides of a story without blushing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02


RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
''''
ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...
CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started.
....
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
....
ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda — did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?
CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.
QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?
CLARKE: Yes it did.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
 
Part II (couldn't fit it into one post, due to size limitations)

mmarsh said:
As for Plame, if her identity wasnt so secret then how come several of her contacts in Pakistan were murdered after her identity was revealed?
I will need a credible news source for this, please.

mmarsh said:
But the truth her role is still largely classified. What we do know is this, A)The CIA had her marked down as a covert agent B) Somebody in the White House gave that infomation out C) the timing of the outing was just a few days after Wilson wrote his NY times OP-ED Piece. Its suspicous to say the least...
First, it's known that she held covert status at one time. It's not clear, and the trial will bring this out in full detail, if she was still on covert status at the time of the article.

Further, I question the sanity of a man, whose wife was purportedly undercover with the CIA and known by her maiden name, deciding to go public with details about nuclear proliferation issues. That doesn't strike you as an incredibly stupid decision? I've come to reckon that she was no longer in covert status, but she was employed by the CIA.

Now, reading the Novak column (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/07/14/160881.html), the only reference to Plame is:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Nothing about covert status. She was, in fact, known in the DC community as a CIA employee (not all employees are spies and certainly not all have classified employment). That a White House representative "outed" her when it was already know to at least one other reporter suggests we have a careful tailoring of the details presented to the public. In other words, that dog don't hunt.

mmarsh said:
If Wilson is a fabulist than why is Libby under indictment? (and very likely Rove to be as well).

Wilson's series of lies and inconsistancies are a separate issue from Libby's indictments. Wilson lied about his findings in Niger, the role of his wife in getting him the trip, and any involvement with the Vice President's office. Further, his inability to keep a straight timeline suggests he's not very careful with other facts.

Libby's under indictment for, among other things, misleading the investigation. He stated, for example, that he had heard Plame's employment was common knowledge prior to him disclosing it. As it turns out, this is the case. It will be interesting to see what happens to the charge.

In the end, Libby may very well be convicted of certain charges. However, noticeably absent from any of those charges are crimes concerning the illegal disclosure of an agent's status. Further, the possibility of Armitage being a source prior to Libby blows a hole in the theory that the White House deliberately leaked her status to get back at Wilson. Armitage would've never assisted in it because he was opposed to the Iraq War.

Rove hasn't been indicted and I doubt he will be.
mmarsh said:
Libby has already stated to Fitzgerald that he revealed the name 'under orders from superiors'. I simply cannot believe that a White House that is obcessed with control would let one of their dogs out of the kennal with specific instructions. Its just not the nature of the Beast.
What he is likely saying is that he was given talking points to push out. Among the talking points (approved by the Vice President, more than likely) were:
- Plame's status as a WMD proliferation expert with the CIA (again, there are plenty of above the table employees in the CIA), and
- Plame's influence in getting Wilson the gig.
mmarsh said:
I'm not picking on you, one person badmouthing the president could seem like sour grapes. But 4 different people on different subjects speaks volumes about the nastiness of this Administration. This behavior can be traced to back before Bush was President.
First, I'm not taking any of this personally. We're discussing politics.

This is simply the nature of politics. Clinton's crew savaged every woman accusing him of sexual impropriety, for example. Doesn't make it right, but when you step into the arena of politics, you shouldn't be surprised if you get lumped up.

Clarke had a book to sell that, coincidentily, wsa published about the time of his testimony. He may have played himself as a humble civil servant, but no one should buy it since he was putting out a "tell all" book in which he was the sole oice of reason spanning several presidencies.

Wilson went on to serve on Kerry's staff during the election in 2003 and 2004. Prior to that, he swum with the sharks, so to speak. This is why I find it very hard to believe a guy who knows DC well enough would be so stupid. I don't think he was stupid. I think he knew his wife wasn't in covert status, hadn't left the country in five years, and her career as an agent was over as soon as the kids arrived.
 
Back
Top