If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More Bush Administration Idiocy
From the NYT:
It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the American Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year to leave their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the occupation was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the kinds of ambushes and urban firefights these troops are now caught up in and against which tanks and armored personnel carriers afford the best protection. That costly miscalculation has left American soldiers in their thin-skinned Humvees nearly defenseless against the rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs and AK-47 rifle fire they face almost daily. While political spokesmen have played down the seriousness of the fighting that has killed 126 Americans just this month, field commanders have been pleading desperately for more armor. This week, the Pentagon finally ordered that thousands of armored vehicles be sent to Iraq, from 70-ton Abrams tanks to lighter and faster Bradley and Stryker combat vehicles, plus an armored version of the Humvee, whose production is now being accelerated. Every effort must be made to speed the movement of this badly needed equipment to minimize future American casualties. The Defense Department now tries to justify its earlier mistake of leaving the heavy armor behind by arguing that tankbound soldiers are poorly suited to engaging with the Iraqi civilian population and winning hearts and minds. True enough, but having the tanks on hand would not have prevented such efforts in more secure areas, and would have saved lives in battle zones like Falluja and Najaf. More than American troop reinforcements and heavier armor will be needed to resolve the underlying political problems in Iraq. That will take, at a minimum, a credible transfer of sovereignty to a representative Iraqi governing body backed by the legitimacy of full United Nations involvement. Meanwhile, for as long as American troops are needed, they must be properly equipped. This latest military planning fiasco seems yet another example of the Pentagon's damaging insistence that American ground forces make do with fewer troops and lighter equipment than they really need to carry out the mission they have been assigned in Iraq. This page shares the long-term goal of transforming the Army into a more mobile and agile fighting force, but not at the expense of American soldiers' lives. From the first days of the Iraqi conflict, the Pentagon's stubborn refusal to face up to the realities of the battlefield there has compounded the political and military problems of occupation and needlessly endangered American soldiers. It is past time for those lessons to be digested and for American forces to be given the reinforcements and equipment they sorely need. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message
... From the NYT: It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the American Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year to leave their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the occupation was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the kinds of In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational decisions in the hands of the military. So if you are going to start pointing fingers you should start there. Jarg |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jarg" wrote in message ... "WalterM140" wrote in message ... From the NYT: It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the American Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year to leave their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the occupation was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the kinds of In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational decisions in the hands of the military. So if you are going to start pointing fingers you should start there. No, no, no.... don't you get it yet? Anything bad that happens anywhere in the world at any time is the fault of Bush. Even stuff that happened before he was president. Anything good that happens anywhere in the world at any time has got nothing to do with Bush, ever, even if he was personally involved. Bush can do no good. Didn't you take left-wing-logic 101? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Anything good that happens anywhere in the world at any time has got nothing
to do with Bush, ever, even if he was personally involved. Bush can do no good. I can't think of any good thing he can take credit for. Walt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message
... I can't think Obviously. Jarg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
decisions in the hands of the military. So if you are going to start pointing fingers you should start there. Actually Iraq war was a small part of a very ambitious plan,if I use corporate terms,hostile take over part of the plan (Iraq) cannot go well without succesful friendly take over of another key country in the region.Unfortunately friendly take over part of the plan collapsed even before Iraq war began. So,administration should not try to realize hostile take over part of the plan with failed friendly take over part. The administrations failure in friendly take over part is the main reason of current problems. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Denyav wrote:
In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational decisions in the hands of the military. That's a stupid position... War is to serious a matter to be left only to military people (Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Nemo l'Ancien wrote:
Denyav wrote: In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational decisions in the hands of the military. That's a stupid position... War is to serious a matter to be left only to military people (Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...) Yes, and we see exactly how well that worked for the French in both World Wars. I believe the statement was Bush left the "operational decisions" in the hands of the military, as is appropriate. One of the reasons many wars go badly is the politicos try to micro-manage the war. Just as bad as any CEO trying to micro-manage their entire organization. Instead, the proper division of labour is for the politicos to set the strategic goals, and the military to implement plans to achieve them. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Nemo l'Ancien" wrote in message
... Denyav wrote: In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational decisions in the hands of the military. That's a stupid position... War is to serious a matter to be left only to military people (Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...) You are joking, right? You only need to look at LBJ's role in Vietnam to see the hazards of having a political leader micromanaging a war. Do you think the president of France was issuing orders to the troops in the recent Ivory Coast action? Jarg |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
That's a stupid position...
War is too serious a matter to be left only to military people (Clemenceau, French stateman, 1914...) Yeah, the French politicians really helped out at Verdun. If not for the idiot French politicians, Petain would have been allowed to fall back to the west side of the Meuse, or even further. The French would have given ground, including the town of Verdun, but the casulties inflicted on the Germans would have been much greater and the French much less. After the German advance ran out steam (meaning men), the French could *then* have counter attacked. Instead the French politicians pressured military to hold the ground at all cost. That "all cost" was nearly 100,000 French KIA. Doesn't sound like the politicians involvement at Verdun was very productive...... BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
Bu$h Jr's Iran-Contra -- The Pentagone's Reign of Terror | PirateJohn | Military Aviation | 1 | September 6th 03 10:05 AM |