PDA

View Full Version : Iraq 2003-2007



Maximatic
03-19-2014, 08:21 PM
Doesn't anybody wonder why the surge involved a strategy change, whereby secured areas would, only from that point on, be occupied? This is four years into the engagement, and they are, just at this point deciding to employ proper tactics that had been common knowledge for millennia. The idea that Powell and friends didn't know the futility of expanding beyond your ability to defend is not even on my radar. Forget it. If there's one thing generals know how to do, it's fight a fucking war.

I was a news junkie during that time. I listened to Rush and Hannity, Herman Cain and Boortz a lot, mostly out of habit, but I never knew much about the particulars of strategy being employed. I don't know if it's because details weren't reported or if I just didn't pay attention to that. I still thought of defense as a legitimate function of government, so my attitude was that I don't have access to all the intelligence, so I don't make calls on that kind of thing.

Then I heard that strategy change on a report where someone was explaining the surge. I don't remember how long I wrestled with that in my head, but I got to the point where I couldn't reject the conclusion that that war had been intentionally prolonged for at least that long.


If there is a plausible alternative explanation, then what is it?

Don't come in here and start talking about conspiracy theories. I'm not interested in your speculation about why I'm asking this. If can think of a better explanation than the one I've been forced to accept, give it, otherwise your off topic.

Irascible Crusader
03-19-2014, 10:08 PM
Both of those wars were being pro longed. My sister served over in Iraq and she said she felt they were security guards for the civilian contractors making billions off of lucrative infrastructure building contracts. That, more than anything, determined the length of the "war". Nowadays, no war is over until the military-industrial complex has gotten every last penny out of it.

Dan40
03-19-2014, 10:46 PM
Doesn't anybody wonder why the surge involved a strategy change, whereby secured areas would, only from that point on, be occupied? This is four years into the engagement, and they are, just at this point deciding to employ proper tactics that had been common knowledge for millennia. The idea that Powell and friends didn't know the futility of expanding beyond your ability to defend is not even on my radar. Forget it. If there's one thing generals know how to do, it's fight a fucking war.

I was a news junkie during that time. I listened to Rush and Hannity, Herman Cain and Boortz a lot, mostly out of habit, but I never knew much about the particulars of strategy being employed. I don't know if it's because details weren't reported or if I just didn't pay attention to that. I still thought of defense as a legitimate function of government, so my attitude was that I don't have access to all the intelligence, so I don't make calls on that kind of thing.

Then I heard that strategy change on a report where someone was explaining the surge. I don't remember how long I wrestled with that in my head, but I got to the point where I couldn't reject the conclusion that that war had been intentionally prolonged for at least that long.


If there is a plausible alternative explanation, then what is it?

Don't come in here and start talking about conspiracy theories. I'm not interested in your speculation about why I'm asking this. If can think of a better explanation than the one I've been forced to accept, give it, otherwise your off topic.

One word answer.

POLITICS.

The Generals know how to fight a war, but the politicians give the orders.

As LBJ said about Vietnam, "They don't bomb an outhouse without my OK!"

The politicians should tell the Generals, "Here's a war, go win the sumbich!"

But that is not what politicians do, is it?

Maximatic
03-19-2014, 11:04 PM
One word answer.

POLITICS.

The Generals know how to fight a war, but the politicians give the orders.

As LBJ said about Vietnam, "They don't bomb an outhouse without my OK!"

The politicians should tell the Generals, "Here's a war, go win the sumbich!"

But that is not what politicians do, is it?

Yes. And we should suppose that the generals did advise the politicians of all of it. We have to conclude, from all the information we have, that the goal of the politicians was antithetical to efficient and timely completion of the project, in both cases.

Dan40
03-20-2014, 01:12 PM
Yes. And we should suppose that the generals did advise the politicians of all of it. We have to conclude, from all the information we have, that the goal of the politicians was antithetical to efficient and timely completion of the project, in both cases.

Arrogance in politicians is the norm. Usually not so obvious as it is in obobo, but all politicians are arrogant.

Sure the Generals told the pols the facts and requested release to carry out proper operations.

But arrogant politicians always think they know better than their generals.

[After all we are the ones that started this war, we will be the ones to direct its finish!]

Maximatic
03-20-2014, 01:58 PM
Arrogance in politicians is the norm. Usually not so obvious as it is in obobo, but all politicians are arrogant.

Sure the Generals told the pols the facts and requested release to carry out proper operations.

But arrogant politicians always think they know better than their generals.

[After all we are the ones that started this war, we will be the ones to direct its finish!]

It finish?.. Oh, you mean its perpetuation. Right.