Comments on: Commentary On The Speech http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: kevin http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-195920 kevin Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:53:48 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-195920 mark -I misread the article, I confused the total number of troops currently in Iraq with the Congressional committee's "Go Big" suggestion. josh I hope you don't think I somehow undervalue human life by tring to put this war in historical perspective. I certainly don't want to lose 50K like we did in Vietnam, and I'm glad we've been able to keep casualties at historical low figures. mark
-I misread the article, I confused the total number of troops currently in Iraq with the Congressional committee’s “Go Big” suggestion.

josh
I hope you don’t think I somehow undervalue human life by tring to put this war in historical perspective. I certainly don’t want to lose 50K like we did in Vietnam, and I’m glad we’ve been able to keep casualties at historical low figures.

]]> By: too many steves http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-195169 too many steves Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:18:57 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-195169 My fear and suspicion is that 20,000 troops is not enough. The biggest mistake of the campaign in Iraq, following the deposing of Saddam's regime, is the politicization of the military action. IMO, a big contributor to our current position is our willingness to subsume military tactics and strategy to political consideration: we stand at the outside of Sadr city because going in might anger someone, we refuse, initially, to enter any mosques for similar reasons, and on and on. The first objective in any war is to end it as quickly as possible. To do so requires that you convince your enemy that they have lost, whether you do this through direct or indirect strategy depends on the relative strength of your forces. Josh is right about "untying the American force's hand's". I just don't see that an additional 20,000 troops positions us to accomplish our objectives. That number is a compromise and insufficient. My fear and suspicion is that 20,000 troops is not enough. The biggest mistake of the campaign in Iraq, following the deposing of Saddam’s regime, is the politicization of the military action. IMO, a big contributor to our current position is our willingness to subsume military tactics and strategy to political consideration: we stand at the outside of Sadr city because going in might anger someone, we refuse, initially, to enter any mosques for similar reasons, and on and on. The first objective in any war is to end it as quickly as possible. To do so requires that you convince your enemy that they have lost, whether you do this through direct or indirect strategy depends on the relative strength of your forces. Josh is right about “untying the American force’s hand’s”. I just don’t see that an additional 20,000 troops positions us to accomplish our objectives. That number is a compromise and insufficient.

]]> By: Josh http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194823 Josh Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:52:02 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194823 YA! Back to school tomorrow... YA! Back to school tomorrow…

]]> By: Josh http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194822 Josh Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:51:32 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194822 I guess that is the million dollar question. Sadr Dead= Martyrdom>?I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assassination. I should clarify. My main area of operations was mainly Baghdad (Sadr City, actually) and Iskandriyah. Having operated in Sadr's own enclave I guess it may have been possible that the extreme support for Sadr could have mainly existed in and around the Baghdad area that I operated, but I really don't believe that is the case. I guess that is the million dollar question. Sadr Dead= Martyrdom>?I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assassination.

I should clarify. My main area of operations was mainly Baghdad (Sadr City, actually) and Iskandriyah. Having operated in Sadr’s own enclave I guess it may have been possible that the extreme support for Sadr could have mainly existed in and around the Baghdad area that I operated, but I really don’t believe that is the case.

]]> By: jpe http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194774 jpe Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:10:41 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194774 <blockquote>I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assasination.</blockquote> Really? Honest Injun, I have proceeded on the theory that his presence is an accelerant; there would be a brief-ish surge once he was gone, but that would quiet down. Was I being too hopeful, then?

I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assasination.

Really? Honest Injun, I have proceeded on the theory that his presence is an accelerant; there would be a brief-ish surge once he was gone, but that would quiet down.

Was I being too hopeful, then?

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194767 Mark Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:05:14 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194767 Josh, you make some good points, as always; it's always refreshing to get input from one who served (and of course, we all appreciate your service to our country and are glad you made it out safe and sound)... Josh, you make some good points, as always; it’s always refreshing to get input from one who served (and of course, we all appreciate your service to our country and are glad you made it out safe and sound)…

]]> By: Scrapiron http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194757 Scrapiron Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:53:39 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194757 It is comical watching the liberal anti-americans scream. Last month we needed more troops. This month the president should be impeached for sending more troops. Screaming we didn't send enough troops at the beginning is laughable. Where were we going to get the troops after Slick gutted the military. In 1991 we were able to field 575,000 in the middle east (first Gulf war). What was the total U.S. military manpower in 1991? Look it up and compare to what it was in 2001. You'll find something over 40% less. We are lucky to field what we do. Dumb a** liberals had this country set up for a takeover by some of their friends in the socialist/communist countries. Put the Clintons/Kennedys/Kerry's on a water board and see who their friends were and are. You'd get a shock. It is comical watching the liberal anti-americans scream. Last month we needed more troops. This month the president should be impeached for sending more troops.

Screaming we didn’t send enough troops at the beginning is laughable. Where were we going to get the troops after Slick gutted the military.
In 1991 we were able to field 575,000 in the middle east (first Gulf war). What was the total U.S. military manpower in 1991? Look it up and compare to what it was in 2001. You’ll find something over 40% less. We are lucky to field what we do. Dumb a** liberals had this country set up for a takeover by some of their friends in the socialist/communist countries. Put the Clintons/Kennedys/Kerry’s on a water board and see who their friends were and are. You’d get a shock.

]]> By: Josh http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194736 Josh Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:39:02 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194736 The problem with "taking out" Al-Sadr is his inherited position. Sadr's father was killed by Saddam and was a martyr to the Shia's. Muqtada, whom some of our interpreters called "playstation" because he did nothing to avenge his father's death by defying Saddam in any way, by virtue of being his son is revered by the Shia's, and his death at the hands of the US would cause a serious uproar in Iraq's Shia community. I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assasination. The problem with “taking out” Al-Sadr is his inherited position. Sadr’s father was killed by Saddam and was a martyr to the Shia’s. Muqtada, whom some of our interpreters called “playstation” because he did nothing to avenge his father’s death by defying Saddam in any way, by virtue of being his son is revered by the Shia’s, and his death at the hands of the US would cause a serious uproar in Iraq’s Shia community. I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assasination.

]]> By: jpe http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194722 jpe Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:30:28 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194722 <blockquote>untying the American forces hand’s</blockquote> That's for sure. As Bush himself noted, though, that'll turn on Maliki. Sadr et al are the exact opposite of what we want (my liberal brethren object to taking him out on the grounds of unanticipated consequence, not on shared values). I say nuts to that, though; if we can take him out, so much the better. Whatever happened to Sistani? He's taking his quietism awfully literally.

untying the American forces hand’s

That’s for sure. As Bush himself noted, though, that’ll turn on Maliki. Sadr et al are the exact opposite of what we want (my liberal brethren object to taking him out on the grounds of unanticipated consequence, not on shared values).

I say nuts to that, though; if we can take him out, so much the better.

Whatever happened to Sistani? He’s taking his quietism awfully literally.

]]> By: Josh http://informedspeculation.com/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-194715 Josh Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:21:08 +0000 http://decision08.net/2007/01/10/commentary-on-the-speech/#comment-194715 Oops sorry Mark a little late Oops sorry Mark a little late

]]>