Article

2003-09-09 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 . 2003-09-09 1:48:12 PM|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 No, dot, I don't - cuz it's mainly lame, sophmoric, and oh so desperate to be cute. A vain attempt at mimicing something funny, say the National Lampoon of 30 yrs ago. This is IndyMedia trying to sneak in under the guise of humor. No go. It sucks. I would say that solon content sucks the big one just about any way you slice it, in fact. If you like it, why don't you go hang at salon. Click refresh a lot. They need the hits cuz they're going under. May have something to do with their not so clever editorial agenda and even less clever writing.

Posted by .com (a.k.a. Abu This!) 2003-9-9 2:15:29 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 .com

Hey! Calm down...If you don't like the article, just say so.

Posted by . 2003-9-9 2:22:17 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:22:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Too cute? Probably. However, it's clear that this is not the war the administration thought that it would be getting and they better have a plan Real Soon Now to sort it out.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-9-9 2:24:18 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:24:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 However, it's clear that this is not the war the administration thought that it would be getting and they better have a plan Real Soon Now to sort it out.

Right of the left's playbook. First, it was quagmire. Then it was Bush lied. Then they claimed Bush said the danger was imminent. Now they're claiming that it's not turning out the way Bush told us. What is it with the left's allergy to the truth?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-9-9 2:28:15 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:28:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually, this is the war they thought we would be getting. They said we would be facing guerilla tactics from the very beginning.

It was no secret that Sadaam would try to imitate Somalia.

Posted by Charles 2003-9-9 2:29:53 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:29:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 This is not news...pure opinion, and rather pathetic at that given that the troll admits to a definite lack of accuracy - being somewhat 'dstracted' at the time. This does not measure up.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-9-9 2:37:32 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:37:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 However, it's clear that this is not the war the administration thought that it would be getting and they better have a plan Real Soon Now to sort it out.

And your point is?

Wars (and just about any contest) seldom ever go exactly as planned and you cannot plan every contigency. I think it is called the 'fog of war'. You must be flexable and roll with the changes. That is what I see Bush and Co doing. Only an idiot (or Democrat) would stay the plotted course no matter what happens.

All in all I think the war is going pretty much along the lines Bush and Rummey planned it would go. The extreamists and terrorists are flocking to the Iraqi 'killing ground' to be wiped out. Better there then here in America. Iraq *IS* being rebuilt it *IS* being turned back over to the Iraqis, and our casualties are pretty low.

Now if the Iraqi's were so much against us as the Left (and the media) would like us to think then the body bag count would be at least 10 times its current number. The low number of casualties is a testiment to the training, skill, and professionalism of our troops over there in both handling the enemy and the civilians.

It seems the only news from the war which gets reported in the (american) media is the 'body bag count'.

Posted by CrazyFool 2003-9-9 2:41:29 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:41:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 It seems the only news from the war which gets reported in the (American) media is the 'body bag count'.

Considering that the rate of casualties has significantly dropped in the last few weeks, there is nothing to report, I guess.

On the other hand, the financial cost of war is staggering. 160 billion in two years! I donât understand why it costs so much money to have 150 thousand soldiers in Iraq. It is almost as much as Vietnam (if not higher), but there were more soldiers there. Is it something to do with military pay?

Posted by . 2003-9-9 2:55:55 PM|| 2003-9-9 2:55:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Hey look, it's trying to think!

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-9-9 3:02:57 PM|| 2003-9-9 3:02:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I am watching the trend on the body bag count. Things have taken an interesting turn, but no one is reporting it.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-9-9 3:12:56 PM|| 2003-9-9 3:12:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 On the other hand, the financial cost of war is staggering. 160 billion in two years! I donât understand why it costs so much money to have 150 thousand soldiers in Iraq.

The 87 Billion (now) is not only to keep our forces in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well as for the rebuilding of both countries and 'other needs' such as intelligence and other stuff (bounties, bribes, pizza and beer, etc...).

Tho I do concede that that is a rather large chunk of change and there is more to come.

Bush had said that this would not be a 'quick' war or a traditional war (this is the war on Terror which is still ongoing) but a 'different' war since the enemy is not a single country or even the 'axis of evil' but a network of secretive international organization (who just happens to be supported by the so-called 'axis of evil'...).

Posted by CrazyFool 2003-9-9 3:20:38 PM|| 2003-9-9 3:20:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 dot - go back to IndyMedia - they'll be glad to give you tons of incorrect reasons for every little thing that bothers you. As for posting obvious bullshit pieces and then pretending that they don't stink, you will have to get used to the response of people who know shit from shinola. Either you're a troll or just disingenuous. Either way, posting on Rantburg just may be a bridge too far for you.

Posted by .com (a.k.a. Abu This!) 2003-9-9 3:38:16 PM|| 2003-9-9 3:38:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I'm not going to take a shot at the poster. But I will take a shot at the author and Salon, which is little more than an Apple-funded IndyMedia.

The left,and this writer's, agenda is clear: hope that the US wobbles and loses in Iraq. It's plain and clear that this is their greatest hope. They are, pretty much to a man, defeatist, submissive, cowards with no new ideas or solutions.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-9-9 4:04:11 PM|| 2003-9-9 4:04:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I'd like to comment on all this "post-war planning was terrible" bullshit. The post-war planning was to avoid 1) the anticipated humanitarian crisis that everyone was crying about and 2)a scorched-earth retreat by Saddam, including destruction of all the oil wells, the subsequent ecological disaster and chemical weapons finale. The post-war planning was to feed and shelter masses, put out oil fires, contend with bio/chem disaster. Sorry it didn't happen but don't blame the planners for expecting the worst.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-9-9 4:10:37 PM|| 2003-9-9 4:10:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 A little more perspective:
--The coalition forces have overcome enormous physical and logistical challenges, for example, providing payroll for the army, pensioners, and government workers despite problems like looted banks and lost records (Russia didn't have a payments system for YEARS after the Soviet Union fell)
--Standing up 55,000 Iraqis (from ZERO) as police, border guards and civil defense forces in less than five months
--New currency is being introduced; trade bank established; moratorium on collection efforts aimed at defaulted foreign debt negotiated with the Russians and the French
--evidence of cement producers (for example) responding to price signals (deciding whether to import generators and detach from the national grid in order to compete with importers and take advantage of 10-fold price increase)(Compare this to massive payment arrears in Russia as communist producers kept right on making and shipping things despite lack of payment)
--low level of combat deaths compared to prior American conflicts covered elsewhere in Rantburg
--municipal councils established in 90% of cities and towns

Of course, more needs to be done, but this is a phenomenal record compared to other totalitarian transitions

Posted by Sharon in NYC 2003-9-9 4:41:55 PM|| 2003-9-9 4:41:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 On the other hand, the financial cost of war is staggering. 160 billion in two years! I donât understand why it costs so much money to have 150 thousand soldiers in Iraq.

A lot of this is probably related to reconstruction. Here are some sample numbers, completely out of the blue:

(1) assuming the fully loaded cost of each soldier at $100K per year, 150,000 soldiers comes to $15B a year.
(2) the air force contingent usually costs more than the army, but the operating tempo is basically non-existent right now, so assume parity with the army - $15B a year.
(3) assume Iraqi pensioners are being paid $50 a month, or $600 a year - if there are 2 million such pensioners, that comes to $1.2B a year.
(4) assume a security force of 300,000 Iraqis, each making $200 a month, or $2400 a year. Annual cost comes to $720M a year. Doubling the dollars to account for security infrastructure and training brings the total to $1.4B.
(5) cost of construction materials - say, $10B - most Iraqis have housing that wasn't bombed, etc.

After doing this back of the envelope calculation, I still get $30B+ still unaccounted for. I suspect a big chunk of it may relate to non-Iraq expenses - i.e. the military may be using this as an opportunity to appropriate the amounts necessary to deal with all the maintenance gaps that opened up during the massive defense spending cuts of the Clinton administration era.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-9-9 5:37:32 PM|| 2003-9-9 5:37:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 It was no secret that Sadaam would try to imitate Somalia.

One problem: Somalia wasn't exactly a defeat. There was a battle that inflicted a large number of casualties on U.S. forces, but that's about it. It only looked like a defeat because the media spun it that way. See here.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-9 5:46:42 PM|| 2003-9-9 5:46:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 My point can be summed up in one phrase: Strategic Overstretch.

Let us hope Pyongyang is tractable.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-9-9 5:48:34 PM|| 2003-9-9 5:48:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Zhang Fei

After doing this back of the envelope calculation, I still get $30B+ still unaccounted for. I suspect a big chunk of it may relate to non-Iraq expenses

It seems to me that the administration is asking for more money that it needs for Iraq - just in case... It won't look good if they need to make another request next summer just before the elections... For now they will get criticized by the congress, but it will be forgotton by the end of the year. IMO, good political move.

Posted by . 2003-9-9 6:17:35 PM|| 2003-9-9 6:17:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Hiryu - you like many of your fellow small minded friends seem to forget the South Korean Armed Forces. They not only did the bulk of the fighting and dying in the first conflict 1950-53, they'll do it in any second run. Except this time unlike the first, it is well equipped, trained and lead. Other than taking down demonstrators in the streets or opponents who've been denied military material support, do you know of a victorious Soviet modelled army since 1980?

Posted by Don 2003-9-9 6:22:49 PM|| 2003-9-9 6:22:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 OK 'dot' welcome to Rantburg! Let's not forget what the president said...this is going to take awhile. Don't be surprised when further funding is needed. In terms of real dollars spent, this is much less than the Marshall Plan, but I agree with you on the contigency aspect of this package. This should get them through the 'O4 elections. I withdraw my troll accusation.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-9-9 6:42:50 PM|| 2003-9-9 6:42:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 On the other hand, the financial cost of war is staggering. 160 billion in two years!

Funny how it's 'staggering' when it's not being spent on some social program...

Posted by Pappy 2003-9-9 7:07:02 PM|| 2003-9-9 7:07:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Time for some perspective:

The Marshall plan cost 13 billion and most of the money was spent in the first 18 months. In today's dollars that is 98 billion dollars.

More important however is that the size of the US economy is enormously larger than it was in 1948.

As the Marshall Foundation notes:

Over its four-year life, the Marshall Plan cost the U.S. 2.5 to 5 times the percent of national income as current foreign aid programs. One would need to multiply the program's $13.3 billion cost by 10 or perhaps even 20 times to have the same impact on the U.S. economy now as the Marshall Plan had between 1948 and 1952. (Most of the money was spend between 1948 and the beginning of the Korean War (June 25, 1950); after June 30, 1951, the remaining aid was folded into the Mutual Defense Assistance Program.)

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-9-10 3:06:34 AM|| 2003-9-10 3:06:34 AM|| Front Page Top

03:06 R. McLeod
00:42 Not Mike Moore
00:41 Bomb-a-rama
00:23 Baba Yaga
23:48 Valentine
23:43 CrazyFool
23:19 anonon
22:57 rg117
22:53 Baba Yaga
22:42 mojo
22:37 Baba Yaga
22:36 Rafael
22:30 mojo
22:30 Super Hose
22:29 Jabba the Nutt
22:26 Baba Yaga
22:25 Super Hose
22:22 Super Hose
22:15 Alaska Paul
22:13 Super Hose
22:13 Rafael
22:12 (lowercase) matt
22:11 Alaska Paul
22:05 Alaska Paul