Article

2006-06-16 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2006-06-16 06:47|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Best of luck, Jim. Hope you bag a few.

Posted by Howard UK 2006-06-16 08:18|| 2006-06-16 08:18|| Front Page Top

#2 3/5 is one of the Marine battalions that took Fallajah in November 2004. They took the bridge from which the terrorists had hung the bodies of four Blackwater contractors, and painted this sign on the bridge:

This Is For the Americans of Blackwater
Murdered Here in 2004.
Semper Fidelis, 3/5 Dark Horse
F--- Y--

The battalion commander made them paint over that last bit. (Sorry, I can't find a link, but see No True Glory by Bing West at page 306-- a great book.)

Posted by Matt 2006-06-16 08:28|| 2006-06-16 08:28|| Front Page Top

#3 I've never really understood how a "Main Street" that is used by our troops could be called "IED Alley". It just seems that it would not be that hard to secure a particular stretch of road. But then what do I know? Anyway, I'm glad to see that they are coming up with ways to prevent that.

Posted by 2b 2006-06-16 08:31|| 2006-06-16 08:31|| Front Page Top

#4 "All is process, nothing stands still."

Heraclitus, circa 460BC

Those Ionian Greeks knew a thing or two.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-16 08:55|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-16 08:55|| Front Page Top

#5 take a road of 30 miles. how many guys do you need on it to make sure nobody lays IEDs on it. Remember, you cant assume ANYONE walking on the road is an enemy, so rifle shot range is too far for seperation. You need eyes close enough to see that someone stopping is doing something suspicious, say bending down like planting an IED. So lets say one guy every quarter mile. that 120 guys for 30 miles of road. Assuming youre comfortable leaving them standing out there with the nearest friendly a quarter mile away in either direction, but lets assume this is in completely open country, so an ambush is unlikely. Now take 120 and multiply by three, since you need 3 eight hour shifts. Thats 360. Again, assuming a quarter mile is good enough at night, but weve got those night vision goggles, so okay.

Thats 360 combat troops to secure ONE 30 mile section of road. given the number of US troops, and the number of first line Iraqi troops, and all the other things theyve got to do, is it worthy sparing 360 troops for one 30 mile section of road, of which there are a lot in Iraq? Sometimes, yes, if its the road from the Green Zone to the Baghdad airport. But mostly, no.

"you go to war with the army you have" - Donald Rumsfelf

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 09:44|| 2006-06-16 09:44|| Front Page Top

#6 Hey Matt, Agreed! A great book. Liberalhawk what's your point?

Posted by Rightwing 2006-06-16 10:04|| 2006-06-16 10:04|| Front Page Top

#7 I think it's that you snipe at your favorite target with the first brain fart that occurs to you.

Posted by Cleting Graque6012 2006-06-16 10:07|| 2006-06-16 10:07|| Front Page Top

#8
"Liberalhawk what's your point?"

He's answering, and educating 2b from post #3, about the logistical difficulties in securing a stretch of road, and preventing IED's from being planted.

Lost the plot, did you?

This is a good place to learn, but you have to pay attention. Reading comprehension and retention skills help too.

-M

Posted by Manolo 2006-06-16 10:23|| 2006-06-16 10:23|| Front Page Top

#9 "you go to war with the army you have"

Rummy was just stating the obvious for a brain dead press pool, and at the time it was still largely Clinton's military.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-06-16 11:06|| 2006-06-16 11:06|| Front Page Top

#10 Reading comprehension, huh? Let's see... After making a semi-laborious point about available troops required and what gets guarded as a result, he takes a swipe at Rummy. Now what purpose did that little quotation make? Is Rummy to blame that there aren't infinite resources available?

Fact is, he's had a chubby for Rummy and recited the plethora of related Dhimmicrat Talking Points from Day One. It's old, lame, and dishonest. The army we have is damned good, but if he's looking for someone to pin it on in the last sentence of such an exposition, well it was made a LOT smaller during the Clinton Era. Rummy's exactly and obviously right - we do what we can do with what we've got, and they all need downtime, too. You know how long it takes to train-up people, not to mention taking good people offline to do it.

That was his real point, Manolo, disguised as a mental exercise in covering a stretch of road - else it had no place in the comment, did it? How is it relevant, if it is not his actual point, his playground-level dig?

And that was my point. My reading comprehension is fine, thanks. You haven't been paying attention if you missed the endless Rummy Shots that come from LIBERALhawk and that his closer is irrelevant except when seen in this light. Comprende?

The real answer, of course, is training up the Iraqis and instilling some sense of nation in them, superseding sectarian and tribal BS. And that takes time.

BTW, what's with the pretentious signature bit?

Posted by Cleting Graque6012 2006-06-16 11:13|| 2006-06-16 11:13|| Front Page Top

#11 Oops, overlapped with you, Mr Mundi. Sorry for repeating some of the same points.

Posted by Cleting Graque6012 2006-06-16 11:17|| 2006-06-16 11:17|| Front Page Top

#12 unfortunately for you guys, I actually remember the 90s. The GOP sure did criticize military spending under Clinton - they attacked the lack of funding for ballistic missile defense, and they attacked readiness problems, esp in the USAF. They did NOT ask for an expansion in the number of ground troops in the US army and USMC. So blaming Clinton for the lack of resources in 2003 is silly, unless you think ballistic missile defense would have helped secure Supply Route Michigan.

And when the GOP came to power in 2001, they did start to address the problems in the military - esp BMD. But again, they did NOT try to expand the number of ground troops available.

Which is understandable - just as Clinton didnt expect 9-11, neither did Bush.

But even AFTER 9-11 Rummy resisted expanding the Army. An expansion in the authorized end strength of the US Army was finally pushed through congress by McCain, in 2004, I think.

And of course, even with the army we had, we could have put more boots on the ground. We had more available troops to go in summer 2003 then were actually there - we were, in fact rotating troops out, IIRC. Which is the normal thing to do, of course, to maintain readiness. Except that gave the insurgency a chance to build up, which has resulted in a much longer and bigger presence than might otherwise have been necessary. Which has strained readiness at least as much as a bigger commitment in summer 2003 would have.

and its not just democrats making these points (in fact the left democrats are NOT as inclined to make them, since it would imply that the war COULD have gone much better, which is heresy to them) Its made by sane Republicans, including Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, and many bloggers. Its also, apparently, the belief of the man who is the front runner for the Republican nomination for President.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 11:48|| 2006-06-16 11:48|| Front Page Top

#13 In fact the history of the size of our ground force from early 2002 on, and the size of deployment to Iraq, can NOT be explained, AFAICT, by resource constraints, but by Rumsfelds belief that "nation building" was a mistaken mission for the US military ('we dont do windows') and that it would not be necessary in Iraq, since there would be no significant insurgency in Iraq. Thats consistent with his statements during the looting of Baghdad ('just the same vase, over and over' 'democracy is messy') on into 2004.

Yes, Im angry. Im angry cause I supported and still support this war, and I want to win.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 11:53|| 2006-06-16 11:53|| Front Page Top

#14 its also a bit silly, on a site where little snarky comments are our bread and butter, to get all bent out of shape out of one little snarky quote like mine. Theres far worse directed against others here.

But this is a site for those who want to win the WOT, including in Iraq, and not for one political party, so I think my snark belongs just as much as any others.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 12:01|| 2006-06-16 12:01|| Front Page Top

#15 Rumfeld's transformation of the services is aimed at much more than the Iraq war. Those who fail to understand that will inevitably misread his comments and his actions.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-16 12:14|| 2006-06-16 12:14|| Front Page Top

#16 Excellent quickie whitewash of the Clinton Era. Indeed, as he downsized the manpower the politicians scrambled for ways to spend the "Peace Dividend" - I remember it, too - it is the curse of democracies to have greedy politicians who wish to polish their knobs with easy pickings. But the push for downsizing came from his end of the DC swamp everyone piled on.

After 9/11 "Rummy resisted" - prove it with a link. I think Rummy "resisted" doing anything rash - for several reasons. Rummy was given multiple tasks, including one that is usually more than enough to occupy 100% of a SecDef's time: total global force reorg.

At the same time, there has been a virtual (lol!) explosion in technology advances. The difference between Gulf War I and II is astonishing. And this had to be taken into account in everything, from the reorg to planning N years down the road, to fighting the war(s) in-hand and getting that new tech in-theater - if it's going to be adopted ASAP, etc. You make it sound so slick, he fucked up, when it is a huge undertaking. The military is one big-assed complicated machine, and he's doing (done) a remarkable job.

And he was directed to equip and man 2 war fronts.

I'm sure you could've done better.

As for the force size needed, it does depend VERY heavily on whether or not you are going to attempt nation-building. We can break things and be home for 2nd breakfast. That Bush decided to make an example of Iraq in the M.E. was one Goddamned Huge curve - you don't suddenly train-up 100,000 (or however many experts such as yourself deem needed) new troops on demand. The decision may be made overnight, but the reality won't happen for a long long time. And if you're also working with and assessing those new technologies to identify and procure and test and field force-multipliers, that tends to make you hesitatnt to start a multi-year upsizing effort, too.

Just quibbly little bits that actually affect decisions, I'll bet.

There has been a lot of post-war screwing up with DoD and State and CIA all complicit in the mistakes. And it all goes to that pesky little nation-building thing. Something we haven't done in awhile and never were too damned good at to begin with.

Americans have this funny deeply ingrained idea that if given the opportunity people will grab freedom. Naive, eh? When it comes to Islam, that doesn't apply, now does it? Rummy certainly gets a share of the blame for DOD's screw-ups. But you want his head on a pike. Bush disagrees, so you can stew for a year, or two, or three more.

The insurgency got its start because the Sunni Triangle got a pass. It's that simple. It grew as much because the Sunni Triangle continued getting a pass - instead of a thorough enema - as any other factor. Ask any of the military guys here who were there and see what they say. Hammer. Anvil. Oops, no Hammer. Thanks, Turkey.

The Triangle was never pacified. We're still dealing with it piecemeal years since the fall of Baghdad. Wonder why? I'd say it's because we turned the political game over to the Iraqis before there was a completed military pacification. They have had veto-power for more than 2 years, now. And they fucked up Fallujah and Najaf with it, for glaring examples. More of that nation-building crap. I accept Bush wanted to try it, but I don't believe it was worth what it cost us.

Holding up Krystol is clever, but he's not his daddy, he's a prima dona and his little spitfits don't impress me. I think he's a dick.

I'd love to hear what Verlaine says, and who he points to regards dropping the post-war ball, in specifics and overall. Wanna bet it covers the entire spectrum of participants? Oh, and let's not talk about our "partners" the UK down south.

I want to win, too. Put your chubby away and pray that Bush's experiment works. I'll even bet Bush wants to win. Maybe even more than we do. Oh, and let him be the President and have his own SecDef, okay? Thanks, so much.

I have read every single thing you posted on the Dhimmicrap sites. Know the litany of Dump Rummy bits by heart. More knowledgeable people, those with first-hand knowledge, such as Verlaine and Jarhead (Broadhead6?) and 11A5S and Oldspook should critique this and let the chips fall where they may.

And I knew the real message was a Rummy Shot, LOL.

Posted by Cleting Graque6012 2006-06-16 12:49|| 2006-06-16 12:49|| Front Page Top

#17 In that case, liberalhawk, you do not need soldiers. You need security guards. Call Pinkerton.

Posted by Fordesque 2006-06-16 12:54|| 2006-06-16 12:54|| Front Page Top

#18 Oops, again. Overlapped with you lotp and repeated your point. Sorry.

I'd love to play some more but I have appointments to keep this afternoon. So chew me up and spit me out, LOL.

Posted by Cleting Graque6012 2006-06-16 12:55|| 2006-06-16 12:55|| Front Page Top

#19 I blame frogistan and Turkey, our troops weren't where they needed to be.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-06-16 12:57|| 2006-06-16 12:57|| Front Page Top

#20 The change of operational tempo is welcome to many Marines in the company, who waited for a good fight since the battalion arrived in Iraq in January.

Weve seen more action as a company here in our first four or five days than we did in five months in Amiriyah, said Cpl. Matthew J. Thienes, a team leader with I Company. This place is the hub ... a way different pace and whole different ballgame. The 22-year-old from Lake Elmo, Minn., doesnt mind the extra work, either. Its fine, he said. Were doing our job.

Thats a key point! ONe the left consistently misses in thier mindset of victimology. These are not duped rubes, they are warriors! And warriors WANT to get into combat. Its what they do. Even now, too old and broken to do it anymore, I *still* want to go. The left will never "get" that. Its beyond their ability to understand the true spirit and heart of the warrior culture in the US, and its moral center: the sense of self-sacrifice and patriotism that reinforces and drives it.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-16 13:01|| 2006-06-16 13:01|| Front Page Top

#21 Oddly enough its a big diffeerence.

We are drvien by love of our country, love of our families, love of our values, and the bonds that a warrior has with other warrirors. Its all about what we are FOR. Our core is our belief in the individual and our shared values, and our willingness to sacrfice and take the burden ourselves.

The left is all about hate these days - and they are driven by what they are against. They have no core - its all external, everything is someone elses fault (aeveryone is a vitcim), finger pointing is more important than fixing, government more importnat than individuals. Thats why the left is so hateful: nothing at thier core - its a hollowed out empty ideology. Their core is their belief in non-individualism and their unshared values, and thier willingness to shift the sacrfice away from themselves and place the burden on others.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-16 13:07|| 2006-06-16 13:07|| Front Page Top

#22 This was a truly innovative tactic, and it took the US timeto adjust.

Your figures are off on securing the roadways - you omit a lot of technological changes, and any intelligence effects. Your numbers woudl be good for WW2, but are not indicative of 2006.

Consider that a MSR need not be locked down, just enough deterrent present to prevent ambushes and most IEDs. Remember, this is a war, there is no airtight way to prevent casualties other than to simply NOT FIGHT - thats the ultimate end of the "too many casualties, not enough troops" argument.

Sensors, ECM, UAV, carefully placed LP/OP, patrols, and proper convoy formation and security can and have reduced the effectiveness of IEDs, and will continue to do so.

The enemy has evolved by using larger explosives, and we are evolving counter-tactics and countermeasures as well (OPSEC precludes further discussion).

Add ot that the increasingly large numbers of Iraqi troops that are now reliable enough to take up local patrolling jointly with US forces. And don;t forget the intelligence tips that come to us through that channel. The Iraqi people are tired of the bombs and are turing the little bomb-making bastards in, in all but the most extreme Sunni/Baathist areas. And their support in the local populations is dwindling as well. People simply do not want them around anymore. Mao said the people are the ocean in which the guerilla swims. Well, in Iraq, the ocean is rapidly becomign a small pond incapable of sustaining much geurilla life. their predations have turned the ocean against them.

But even with all that, the biggest impact will be the recent political turning point. Remember, Zarq and 800 of his best friends are now dead or captive - major blow to the infratrsucture and command framework for the bad guys. Plus the inteliigence developed from all these captures is only now astarting to be exploited - especially unraveling the financial stuff, and busting "standoff" terrorist supporters like those Mullahs in Karbala. There there's the emergence of a "Strong Man" in PM Maliki (Arab culture loves the appearance of a "Strong Cheif") who is very active militarily and politially - and uuite astute with the Arab and Iraqi press. Bush's visit to bolster him and his cabinet and the Parliament were a big splash over there for that kind of "Strong" image building - despite that you never read it here.

So, given technology, tactics, and the changing political situation over there its not as big an issue as some here would make it out to be.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-16 13:22|| 2006-06-16 13:22|| Front Page Top

#23 liberalhawk is a dove. How many college kiddies have drunk themselves to death lately ?
The MSM will not pursue that any more.
How many liberals does it take to eat a lightbulb ?

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-16 13:22|| 2006-06-16 13:22|| Front Page Top

#24 1. Bush made the decision to nation build in Iraq. With good reason I think. and it was up to HIS secdef to do everything he could to make that happen, not to risk it so hed have a better air superiority fighter in 2012. or whatever.

2. Yes, its Bushs choice to make as to who his Secdef is. So? If Bush was standing behind someone who YOU thought was undermining a key aspect of Bushs presidency, im sure youd say so.

3. You dont sound like you much like nation building in the Islamic. Well, we probably wont do much more of it, especially if this ends in failure.

4. Yes, I know most of the ex-soldiers here are more conservative than I am on the Rummy, and more sympathetic to the admins conduct of the war. And the ex-soldiers on the liberal sites are LESS sympathetic than I am. From which i must conclude that the ex-soldiers dont all agree. And I must draw my conclusions from the info available to me, despite my own limitiations.

5. You are incorrect about the 90s. Everyone right and left expected a peace dividend - after the cold war it was simply not controversial. Present me with evidence that ANYONE important in the Republican party opposed the drawdown in ground forces, and I'll listen.

6. You seem to forget why we handed over political control to the Iraqis so early. Cause Sistani insisted on it, and it was Sistani who kept the Shias in check, and the Shia rebellion confined to Sadr and his minions. We were in a very bad way in spring and summer of 2004 - we were having extreme difficulty getting convoys into baghdad, IIUC. We simply did not have the troops to fight the sunni insurgents, and to take on Sadr AND to oppose Sistani.

If we didnt want to nation build, and just wanted to break things and leave, than we shouldnt have gone into Iraq at all - since an Iraq left in chaos was certainly worse than the threat posed AT THAT TIME by Saddams WMD, even if EVERYTHING we said about them at the time had proven true. But Rumsfeld supported the war, and supported the idea that we needed a positive outcome politically in Iraq. He cant escape blame by suggesting that nation building was never his idea.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 13:30|| 2006-06-16 13:30|| Front Page Top

#25 So many different points of view. So many cogent arguments. All interesting.

Y'all aren't as far apart as ya think.

Posted by Bobby 2006-06-16 13:47|| 2006-06-16 13:47|| Front Page Top

#26 Interesting comments.

Observations:

1) The article was written by a Corporal (most likely a Marine) about a Marine unit

2) The article doesn't state that the 3/5 is the only unit patrolling that stretch of road, which allows the possibility that the Dark Horse might be posted with attached Iraqi unit(s).

This article is a mighty thin reed on which to base an all-out Rumsfeld bash.

Posted by mrp 2006-06-16 13:57|| 2006-06-16 13:57|| Front Page Top

#27 Something to think about: if the Marines were to plant a few of their OWN IEDs and then using their NVG and other surveillance devices, surprise a few of the bad guys. Call it Pre-emptive IED, or something. And our stuff would be a lot more reliable (read: fun) to operate.

Posted by USN, ret. 2006-06-16 14:01|| 2006-06-16 14:01|| Front Page Top

#28 and it was up to HIS secdef to do everything he could to make that happen, not to risk it so hed have a better air superiority fighter in 2012. or whatever.

Fundamental misconception of the job, LH. The job is broader than your short-term focus.

But first to address the question of force size. The SECDEF *did* inherit a creaking military that had been leached dry from within to a dangerous degree during Clinton's administration. The count of active duty serving is a rather limited and inadequate indicator of the state of our military capability - which is why you didn't see Republicans and conservative Dems complaining on that particular count during the Clinton years.

As regulars here know, I have worked in both the commercial and defense technology arenas for several decades and am the spouse of a retired career officer. We saw the neglect and drain during the 90s up close. The question isn't WHETHER the military needed a lot of transformation and attention -- it's WHAT that should look like. And Rumsfeld began addressing that well before 9/11.

I must draw my conclusions from the info available to me, despite my own limitiations.

The problem with your analysis isn't so much specific data, LH, as it is that you seem to lack an appropriately scoped and informed view of several tectonic shifts which are underway and to which it is the SECDEF's role to respond. These include, as a subset, the breakup of the post-WWII power structures; the role of information and network technologies in social, political and military change; the dangerous stagnation of socialist economies in democratic states and the coming tidal wave of demographic and social consequences from the collision of that stagnation with the retiring generations; the deliberate neglect of European military capabilities, which shifts so much of the response to these events onto the US to deal with; the proliferation of WMD technologies and know-how, facilitated by technological changes; and last, but not least, the nature of the optimal *professional* military under all of these circumstances, which can be projected to continue to unroll for at least 15-20 years or more.

That's the DOD "CEO" hat that the SECDEF wears.

He *also* wears the DOD "COO" hat, one task of which you have focused on.

And just as a sidenote, the nature, pace and urgency of transformation will differ among the services for a variety of reasons, made more intense by the fact that it must be carried out simultaneously with the current low-level ground conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arguably, this shift was always going to be hardest on the Army, both logistically and culturally. OTOH, lessons learned in theater have supplied accelerant for some of those changes and I suspect that that process will continue for some time.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-16 14:15|| 2006-06-16 14:15|| Front Page Top

#29 #4 - there are far less "ex soldiers" (We call ourselves Veterans) on the left sites. Many there are poseurs, and of the ones that aren't most are either peacetime REMFs like Kos or old angry Vietnam protestors who think this is Vietnam all over again and Rumsfeld is Macnamara.

So your point 4 is moot at best.

As for naiton building - what the hell else are we supposed to do?

The primary problem in the world today is the failed natiion states that abound - and thatthey have become a festering growth area and safe haven for terrorist organizations and for Islamic Fundamentalism.

The cure for that? Nation building. And that takes time effort money and blood. Iraq is key. Its geographically central to the Arab world, it can be self-sustaining once its settled in, and it will have influence on all its terror supporting/funcing neighbors - Syria, Saudi, and Iran. The terroists logistic lines used to cross Iraq - no longer. The dictatorship and Caliphate are dreams of the neighbor nations which can be shattered by a functioning and stable democracy in the middle.

Iraq was geopolitically vital, and remains so.

As far as the 90's RIFs go, there were a lot of folks in the Navy who warned us of the loss in capacity for combat, capacity for production (we are down to s single shipyard for many of our most critical ships), etc. Yet this has been the Ameircan pattern going back to the Revolutionary war. Get in a war, hurry to catch up arming up, and demobilize as fast as we can afterwards, usually to excess. So nothing here is new. But it is exepnsive.

The Army is having the same troubles with the "Big Division" brass that the Navy had with the "Battleship Admirals". Its a fundamentally different way of conduction large scale operations than we have used since the plains indian was of the mid-late 1`800's, or the actions in the Phillipines in the lat 19-ealry 20th century. Big Divisions have been the way to go since WW1, arguably won WW2 and were very effective in Korea and the Cold Ware Europe. But tis time for a change, and thats why "Rummy" has faced so much opposition. Has he messed up? Yes. But its a mtter of degree and gaps, not intent nor fundamental direction. So Rumsfeld is right - irritating, but right onthe fundamentals.

We had the wrong army for this fight in 2003; we have the right now now in 2006. But the one thing we didnt have in 2003 was time - we'd squandered far too much of it talking in the UN, and our (incorrect in some spots as it turns out) intelligence painted a picture that required immediate action.

So, to get back to the article, its overblown to say we dont have enough troops to secure our MSRs. We do - its a matter of applying them well, and realziing that we are in a war zone and that no matter how well we execute, there will be casualties. But the trends are good in terms of tactics and countermeasures, and especially in politics.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-16 14:52|| 2006-06-16 14:52|| Front Page Top

#30 Jarhead (Broadhead6?)

Yes. The first was his pre-deployment nym (nic? Somebody needs to tell me the correct terminology!!), the second what he became when he and his people became the tip of the arrow (much faster moving than a spear, and with less of a tail, I s'pose).

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-16 15:30|| 2006-06-16 15:30|| Front Page Top

#31 #10 .com, is that you? If not, you sure do know his style.

"After making a semi-laborious point about available troops required..."

Sure, sure...laborious (semi or otherwise) but quite thorough and accurate.

"...he takes a swipe at Rummy."

Rummy is a big boy, I doubt LH's swipe is going to worry him. LH's disdain for Rummy is well known, I don't pay any attention to it.

"Now what purpose did that little quotation make?"

You'll have to ask him. Sounds like you've already decided what you want it to mean.

"Fact is, he's had a chubby for Rummy...from Day One. It's old, lame, and dishonest."

Well, you know this though! Dog crap stinks, I know that, you know that! So why bitch everytime the dog craps? LH is predictable, same as Aris or any of a bunch of folks that pass through here.

"The army we have is damned good,..."

No argument from me on this one!

"That was his real point,..."

That is your perception, I couldn't care less what his real point was or whether it was disguised in several layers of dried camel dung. I don't worry about the hidden points or agendas of the LH's of the world. I know they're there and proceed accordingly.

He did give a pretty good summation of the logistics of securing 30 miles of bad road though. And isn't that what 2b was asking?

"You haven't been paying attention if you missed the endless Rummy Shots..."

I haven't missed them. Like I said, Rummy is a big boy.

"BTW, what's with the pretentious signature bit?"

Huh? My, you are critical. No pretension, just laziness.

-Manolo (is that better?)

Posted by Manolo 2006-06-16 16:01|| 2006-06-16 16:01|| Front Page Top

#32 He did give a pretty good summation of the logistics of securing 30 miles of bad road though

Only if you think that bodies are the only thing we bring to that effort. As others have noted, we do have a FEW other resources to use.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-16 16:07|| 2006-06-16 16:07|| Front Page Top

#33 im not going to argue this any further. Y'all know that plenty of people more knowledgeable than me share my concerns. That you get so bent out of shape about a one line quote, is a sign to me that you are quite aware of how widespread that concern is.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 16:09|| 2006-06-16 16:09|| Front Page Top

#34 "Only if you think that bodies are the only thing we bring to that effort. As others have noted, we do have a FEW other resources to use."

what do YOU think is the constraining factor in controlling roads in Iraq?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 16:10|| 2006-06-16 16:10|| Front Page Top

#35 This debate is a quagmire! The debate on Iraq can't be won! Fire Fred!

Posted by Mike N. 2006-06-16 16:32|| 2006-06-16 16:32|| Front Page Top

#36 I voted for the debate, before I voted against it.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-06-16 16:48|| 2006-06-16 16:48|| Front Page Top

#37
"Only if you think that bodies are the only thing we bring to that effort. As others have noted, we do have a FEW other resources to use."

Then why are we NOT using them? Sometimes, "bodies" and the eyeballs they come with are what is needed.

IED's are a widespread problem, obviously we do not have enough of the "other resources" to go around. If bodies are what you have, then LH's description, is pretty much how it's done.

-M

Posted by Manolo 2006-06-16 16:56|| 2006-06-16 16:56|| Front Page Top

#38 of course old spook is right - if you have intel to know WHERE theyre gonna lay IEDs, you dont need as many troops. If you can achieve a political process to get less of them doing it, that helps. and you dont have to stop EVERY attack. Again, i was responding to someone who seemed to think it was simple to secure a road.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 17:11|| 2006-06-16 17:11|| Front Page Top

#39 This thread is just like the threads we had back in 'Nam.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-06-16 17:15|| 2006-06-16 17:15|| Front Page Top

#40 35. 36. 39

:)

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-16 17:20|| 2006-06-16 17:20|| Front Page Top

#41 And it's seared, seared into my mind...

Posted by Pappy 2006-06-16 18:24|| 2006-06-16 18:24|| Front Page Top

#42 What's the quote again?

Oh yeah...

I was there when the shit hit the fan in Vietnam. I was there, man. We ran ops deep into Canada. We were elite, man. We knew how to kill Charlie even when he was disguised as an evil Quebecer. We were that good.

Posted by Phil 2006-06-16 19:22|| 2006-06-16 19:22|| Front Page Top

#43 I defer to OS and others who've been there. LH and I fundamentally disagree and I believe he's no hawk. My 2 cents

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-06-16 19:46|| 2006-06-16 19:46|| Front Page Top

#44 He's a hawk relative to his fellow liberals.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-16 20:08|| 2006-06-16 20:08|| Front Page Top

#45 Been a lot of thunderstorms (plus some much-needed rain) in my area today, so I'm just getting started with Rantburg. This discussion is a lot like the one in the Senate yesterday - a lot of words, few concrete ideas, and even most of the faint at heart agreed to "keep on keeping on" in the end. It's about all we can do at this point, other than surrender, which is a non-starter.

There are several dozen things that can be done to secure a highway other than put people every so far apart. The problem is both time and resources. Some resources are stretched to the limit, and can best be employed elsewhere (UAV's, primarily). Discussing them would violate operations security (Opsec), as Old Spook pointed out. I know some of the things I would do, based on my 26 years' experience in imagery intelligence. Whether they would be effective or not will require they be tried, much like most of what is being done in Iraq. War is a constantly-changing environment, with both sides learning from mistakes, modifying their operations, and trying to stay one step ahead of the opposition. We're normally better at that than our enemies, which is why we usually win.

Personally, I think Clinton cut too deeply, too quickly, and without careful thought for what might happen in the near future. We're now in a race to catch up. As I've mentioned before, troop strength is slowly climbing. New troops cannot replace the years of experience held by mid-level officers and senior NCOs that were lost in the 90's. Replacing that will take time, and we'll lose people in the process.

We ARE moving forward. Recent events in both Afghanistan (the Taliban "summer offensive" that's getting thorougly whacked) and Iraq (Zark buying it, rolling up his network, a stable government, and the current offensive in Baghdad) show that Coalition forces are on the offensive, not the defensive. The enemy is dying in far greater number than we are. Yes, there are 1.2 billion Muslims, but only a small percentage is going to fight, and even fewer have any training or innate capabilities.

Everyone in the chain of command, from the team leader to the SecDef, are working as hard as they can to adjust to realities on the ground, and doing what's necessary to accomplish the mission with as few casualties as possible. You're not always going to succeed, and some of the things you're going to try will fail. Still, we're moving forward. The only way we can lose is if we lose the support of a majority of the American people. That, in my personal opinion, is the biggest mistake this administration has made - failing to keep focused on what's happening, and failing to keep the American people informed of what's happening. The administration relied too much on the MSM, which is acting more as an enemy than a part of our nation.

BTW, OS, I'd be right beside you, if Uncle Sam would allow it.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-06-16 20:51|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-16 20:51|| Front Page Top

#46 Old Pat:

Try this recipe for a solid IED killer meal given your no reported operations experience

take small clandestine remote acoustic sensors, and on them mix in peer-to-peer digital RF mesh networking and bake each into a node for a distributed grid computing array with signature disciminators and pattern analysis built into the firmware. Cheap, disposable, and on a single chip.

Now, emplace them like FASCAM, from air breathing assets over an AO

top with simplex uplink from "elected" (redundant) control nodes (just a few mixed in slightly more expensive members of the grid)

Then serve array product via overhead elements (JSTARS or "other" assets).

As a side dish, a UAV for local QR visual acq of tgt

And as dessert: Nearby OP/LP and mobile teams with direct strike capability via air supt (with proper optics).

Now you know why I love my job.

Just give me the budget for the latest thing named after Robert Byrd being built in WVa, and I'm all set.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-16 21:38|| 2006-06-16 21:38|| Front Page Top

#47 We have a couple of our boys in the Darkhorse. Our Minnesota Support Troops website has a couple of videos of these Marine while in Fallujah.

Brave kids, God Bless them!

Posted by Minnesota Troops 2006-06-16 21:41|| http://coonlakebeach.com/Darkhorse_Marines_Secure_Road_to_Ramadi.htm]">[http://coonlakebeach.com/Darkhorse_Marines_Secure_Road_to_Ramadi.htm] 2006-06-16 21:41|| Front Page Top

#48 it enter too soon...

... And I'm all set to secure 10 or more miles of road with a squad in a Stryker, in multiple locations all over Iraq.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-16 21:45|| 2006-06-16 21:45|| Front Page Top

#49 Bless them indeed! Oldspook, it sounds lovely, whatever it is you said. No OpSec risk here! ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-06-16 22:05|| 2006-06-16 22:05|| Front Page Top

#50 And it's seared, seared into my mind...

I'll go ya one better, Pappy. This debate reminds me of one I read while riding in a boat into Cambodia right before Christmas to drop off Spec Ops. I tell ya's, I was there and read that debate on that boat.

Posted by BA 2006-06-16 23:36|| 2006-06-16 23:36|| Front Page Top

23:37 Azad
23:36 BA
23:32 RD
23:30 Azad
23:28 Anonymoose
23:24 Frank G
23:23 Frank G
23:23 BA
23:23 RD
23:14 Captain America
23:12 DarthVader
23:08 Captain America
22:48 john
22:47 Frank G
22:45 Frank G
22:44 Frank G
22:43 Frank G
22:39 trailing wife
22:36 Captain America
22:34 Captain America
22:33 Glaiper Crinetch6336
22:31 trailing wife
22:28 trailing wife
22:26 ryuge