A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More Bush Administration Idiocy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 30th 04, 10:44 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 30th 04, 05:17 PM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 30th 04, 05:47 PM
Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 30th 04, 06:55 PM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #5  
Old April 30th 04, 09:58 PM
Nemo l'Ancien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...)
  #6  
Old April 30th 04, 10:44 PM
Anonymoose NoSpam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #7  
Old April 30th 04, 11:06 PM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #8  
Old April 30th 04, 11:53 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
decisions in the hands of the military.


He's in charge.

He's responsible.

So if you are going to start
pointing fingers you should start there.


See above.

Walt
  #9  
Old April 30th 04, 11:53 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #10  
Old May 1st 04, 02:32 AM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
In case you did not know, Bush is smart enough to leave the operational
decisions in the hands of the military.


He's in charge.

He's responsible.


Yes, you are right. President Bush is ultimately responsible for the war in
Iraq. And your point is? A reasonable person will understand that mistakes
are going to occur, and make judgements of the President based on his
overall perfomance. For example, Roosevelt was president when hundreds of
thousands of Americans died, quite a few as the result of mistakes, and yet
few consider him a terrrible leader. A reasonable person will understand
that subordinates are also imperfect people (unlike you, no doubt) and react
accordingly. On the other hand, someone with an agenda will not react
reasonable and will make unfair criticisms. I have good reason to believe
the alternative to President Bush is even less perfect in judgement in deed
and in fact. I think the American electorate will reach the same
conclusion.

Jarg


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:26 PM
Bu$h Jr's Iran-Contra -- The Pentagone's Reign of Terror PirateJohn Military Aviation 1 September 6th 03 10:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.