Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 02/27/2008 View Tue 02/26/2008 View Mon 02/25/2008 View Sun 02/24/2008 View Sat 02/23/2008 View Fri 02/22/2008 View Thu 02/21/2008
1
2008-02-27 Home Front: WoT
Rep Senators Call Feingold Bluff on Iraq Withdrawal
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 Frank G 2008-02-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ]  Top

#1 " a war-weary country"

The only reason its war weary is that you f**kers in the press only see fit to publicize every negative and ignore the positives.

If you feed oinly the negatives about anything for 5 years, people will get tired of it.

Lying duplicitous sons of bitches in the MSM.
Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-27 02:01||   2008-02-27 02:01|| Front Page Top

#2 The dhimocrats and the MSM are a disgrace. They are truly undermining our troops in a time of war for their own political advancement.

Traitors, every one of them.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2008-02-27 07:08||   2008-02-27 07:08|| Front Page Top

#3 However, the number of soldiers retained under the service's �stop loss� policy � which forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates � is unlikely to be reduced substantially.

Of course the reporter never did check the law. You know the law Congress wrote and enacted.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 39 > § 671a Members: service extension during war

Unless terminated at an earlier date by the Secretary concerned, the period of active service of any member of an armed force is extended for the duration of any war in which the United States may be engaged and for six months thereafter.

The fact that the vast bulk of members serving are separated at the completion of their 8 year contracts or attainment of retirement eligibility, is ignored. Another example that journalist aren't subject matter experts or even aware there's a war going on or they're just lap puppies for the unquestionable Donks.
Posted by Procopius2k 2008-02-27 08:44||   2008-02-27 08:44|| Front Page Top

#4 First off I find the Dhimicrats bill disgusting and a slap in the face to the hard work our troops have expended so far. But I think McConnell will hit a home run when the entire Donk moonbats will debates this in the Senate. Just imagine the remarks from Hillary, Obama, Kennedy et al as they try to grab defeat from the jaws of success?
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2008-02-27 08:45||   2008-02-27 08:45|| Front Page Top

#5 “We welcome a discussion about Iraq, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declared.”

Oh goody…another symbolic exercise in political dithering. The Democrats get another chance to pander to the anti-war left. And the Republicans get to clear their representational throats. Of course, just like the 41 other Senate bills to limit the militaries ability to wage a successful war, this one will not pass by a veto proof margin – if at all. Pathetically enough, both sides are fully cognizant of this inevitable conclusion. And at the end of another wasted week Feingold will pad his “Progressive” resume and the Republicans will get a sound-byte here and a headline there. But obviously no substantial accomplishments will be achieved on either side. What’s even more pathetic is there won’t even be any political gains. In other words, in lieu of a major political breakthrough in the Iraqi government, the American electorate (Of all political persuasions.) has pretty much made up their minds on the level of success that has been achieved. Here’s a suggestion to the US Senate. Instead of pretending to be productive with all these futile gestures, how about you actually do something that will be productive.
Posted by DepotGuy 2008-02-27 09:24||   2008-02-27 09:24|| Front Page Top

#6 DepotGuy, the proper role of a conservative in government is to oppose the production of more government. As such, I would think that it would be the obligation of a properly principled conservative Senator to resist productivity whenever possible.
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2008-02-27 09:46|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2008-02-27 09:46|| Front Page Top

#7 There is even more to this bill than cutting off the money. This totally stops our guys from fighting and training. From NRO:

A good staff analysis of the bill making the rounds in the Senate:

The two limitations of greatest operational significance are the restriction of combat operations to targeted strikes against Al Qaeda and the restrictions on training of Iraqi Security Forces:

Targeted operations against Al Qaeda: The bill probably does not authorize all those activities that the military thinks necessary for targeted operations against Al Qaeda. Under U.S. military doctrine that would include the entire current campaign plan in Iraq, which would entail no transition of mission. We are left to wonder what mix of strategy and tactics the bill authorizes as necessary for targeted operations against Al Qaeda. Can we supply the frontline troops fighting Al Qaeda with food and water? Probably yes. Can we clear neighborhoods where Al Qaeda are suspected to be hiding, even if we don’t know the particular house? Maybe; maybe not. Can we do intelligence-gathering and surveillance? According to current Army doctrine, intelligence-gathering requires making the population feel safe enough to expose the terrorists. No population security equals no intel for targeted operations, and population security is the essence of the Petraeus strategy.

Limitations on training Iraqi Security Forces. Two limitations are imposed on the training of Iraq security forces: training former insurgents is prohibited, and both joint combat operations and embedding U.S. forces with Iraqi forces are prohibited.

·Prohibition on reconciliation with former insurgents. It is not clear whether this provision would prohibit training of all those convicted of carrying out attacks against U.S. forces (which would include virtually nobody in the Iraqi Security Forces) or rather suspected former insurgents (e.g., former detainees, which would include many current members of the ISF who are entirely innocent of wrongdoing). If the latter, it is impossible to imagine how the bill would be implemented. Small units of the ISF are likely to contain either former insurgents or former detainees or both. Should those still train with their units, but not when the U.S. is providing them with training? If, however, the bill refers only to those known to have carried out attacks against U.S. soldiers, then the effect of the bill would probably be negligible as a limitation on training of ISF. This provision also runs counter to the U.S. policy of encouraging reconciliation among former insurgents and militia-members. And because it would disproportionately affect Sunni members of the ISF, it also contradicts the policy of encouraging national political reconciliation.

·Prohibition on joint combat operations and on embedding with Iraq Security Forces. This provision would close the door on the most vital element of the military’s exit strategy for Iraq. Almost all operations in Iraq now – from neighborhood patrols, to targeted strikes against Al Qaeda – are conducted jointly with Iraqi Security Forces. There are many benefits:

o The ISF takes heavy casualties that would otherwise be borne by U.S. forces targeting Al Qaeda on their own;

o Joint operations are the most effective way to train local forces;

o Iraqi troops help us interact with the population; we help them by providing logistics, tactical surge capability, and long-range mobility;

o The Iraqi population has become friendly to us because they see our soldiers working side-by-side with theirs to provide security

o The influence of the American military on Iraqi military culture will pay dividends for decades. The ISF are becoming the most capable – and most committed— military ally of the U.S. in the Arab world. And that relationship-building would be impossible if U.S. and Iraqi soldiers were not sharing the same bases and outpost facilities.

Moreover, the prohibition on “embedding” U.S. forces is presumably meant to prevent U.S. and Iraqi soldiers sharing the same base facilities. But this would in effect prohibit the over-lapping of Iraqi and U.S. soldiers at the same base, which is the basic modality by which U.S. bases and outposts are “transitioned” to the Iraqi Security Forces.
Posted by Sherry">Sherry  2008-02-27 11:28||   2008-02-27 11:28|| Front Page Top

#8 Mitch H, in a word, NO.

Better productivity in government means its more efficient, means we can cut the size of it.

What conservatives want is to limit the scope and reach of government, and promote individualism.

We realize there are legitimate functions for a government, and we woudl prefer those to be highly productive and thus very efficient in terms of smaller better faster and cheaper (and less intrusive).
Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-27 11:44||   2008-02-27 11:44|| Front Page Top

#9 Sherry, the "interlacing" of US and ISF is vital. Deeds are far louder than words. And anyone that knows basic military leadership, especially at the squad level, knows that your actions teach far more than your words.

And our soldiers' and marines' actions, their professionalism, their attitude, and their bearing as warriors, not bandits, is really rubbing off.

This is especially true of the Iraqi SpecOps guys who picked it up first - warrior to warrior has always been easy. But the Iraqi Army has picked it up now that we have done more weeding of the typical hereditary "Officer class" (damn the Brits for installing that across the ME and reinforcing the Caliph/peasant pattern) and gotten rpoper officers and NCOs stood up - and the academies that are producing more of them. The place where the next wave of improvements are starting to pick up in the Iraqi Police now that they are getting sufficient attention and time on patrol with US forces. And the local militias, who are learning what their brothers in the police and army have learned.

To pull us out now would be a disaster and would collapse their system. They need 5-7 more years of exposure to and support from US forces.

Fight-wise, they are getting there in terms of command and control and intel. Now we have to teach them troop sustainment: medical, food, logistics, etc. Something almost unheard of in the Middle East, who typically use their line troops and enlisted for cannon fodder.

Give these guys a few years to develop and learn, get more USMA grads in there, get them time to form a true professional NCO corps (and the schools to develop them), these guys will be feared and respected across the region.
Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-27 12:22||   2008-02-27 12:22|| Front Page Top

#10 these guys will be feared and respected across the region.

At which point we will have to explain to their politicians exactly why it's unwise to talk smack about Israel.
Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2008-02-27 13:20||   2008-02-27 13:20|| Front Page Top

#11 OldSpook and that is the heart of Iraq that will be ripped away with the bill.

I love when the milblogs write of how the Iraqi's emulate them! Even to developing that Marine swagger.

Should be some good sound bits coming from the floor of the Senate as the Dems are forced to voice how and why they should micromanage our wars.
Posted by Sherry">Sherry  2008-02-27 14:54||   2008-02-27 14:54|| Front Page Top

#12 The congressional dems and lefty moonbats don't get the whole "the Iraqis emulate our soldiers and Marines" thing. They think our fighting men are dumb, losers, sadists, murderers, psychopaths, etc, etc. I see their comments daily on the SF Chronicle comments section. Lots of them really hate our troops and can see no good that the troops could ever do.
Posted by remoteman 2008-02-27 15:38||   2008-02-27 15:38|| Front Page Top

#13 I sure hope Hill and Hussein can make it back in time to participate in this important debate.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-02-27 15:56||   2008-02-27 15:56|| Front Page Top

23:54 RD
23:26 Rex Mundi
23:05 Clem Sheck9754
23:02 charger
22:53 Clem Sheck9754
22:49 CB
22:29 Pholugum Stalin1270
22:29 Pholugum Stalin1270
22:20 Silentbrick
22:11 Procopius2k
22:10 Redneck Jim
22:04 OldSpook
21:55 Frank G
21:54 trailing wife
21:40 Eric Jablow
21:21 JosephMendiola
21:19 Abdominal Snowman
21:13 OldSpook
21:12 Pappy
21:11 OldSpook
21:06 trailing wife
21:04 Pappy
21:03 Anonymoose
21:02 trailing wife









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com