Clinton rips... (Page 4)

I assume that applies to any man or woman, regardless of party.

Of course. Clinton seriously jeopardized his credibility when he lied about his sex life. BUt that being said, you do have to take the nature of the lie into account. I think lying about your sex life isn't as grievous about lying about putting lives at risk. But then again, lying under oath is pretty bad.

There is another difference.

Admission of a mistake/guilt and acceptence of the consequences.

To date, the current administration doesn't want to seem to own up the fact that they gravely underestimated the situation in Iraq.

There's been some lip service sound-bites, but the word coming from the White House vs. the word coming from the troops on the ground/in country, seem to be vastly different.

-Chris

The administration's repeated claims that the insurgency is in it's last throws, that we're successfully quelling the sectarian violence, that we're winning, that things are going well, etc.

Couple that with the view of soldiers who have been and are currently there.

The "whack a mole" troop reinforcement to Bagdhad being touted as a success, which by accounts on the ground only manages to quell the violence when the troops are in a specific area.  As soon as the troops leave to go somewhere else, the violence returns to the area they just left.

I don't hear frank and brutal honesty about the situation from the administration.  I do hear it from returning soldiers and soldiers who are currently there.  Mainly via interviews and their statements, but some firsthand as well.

I think the Press *is* giving a good description.  The problem I have is that the Press doesn't decided how to pursue a resolution to the situation over there.  The gist I get from the administration is "more of the same" which doesn't seem to be working well or heading in the right direction.

From what I've heard, most places the troops are welcomed and not greeting with outright hostility.  The problem is in all the places the troops aren't/can't be.  We beefed up security in parts of Bagdhad by displacing troops from elsewhere.

I don't think the administration is being realisitic or honest about what it is really going to take to bring long-term stability to Iraq.  Until they face up to the current plan not working, I don't see how they expect us to believe that anything is going to change for the better.

The question is still, whether we're talking about US troops or UN peacekeepers, who are those troops supporting?  What sort of government?

Opus suggests it may be a matter of favoring and "propping up" a rule by the less populous sect.  But from my understanding (I'm no expert, but I try to pay attention), the least populous sect is the Kurds, who are our least problem.  They live largely in the north, can be semi-autonomous.  The internal conflict is mostly Sunni/Shiite.  Of those two, Sunnis would be the minority.  But, at least according to this article --> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12383-2004Dec19.html , those Sunnis are the ones preaching AGAINST any US-supported government, elections are a means of oppression, death to collaborators, etc. 

It's the inter-group conflict, with us "occupiers" in the middle, that makes this seem like such an impossible quandry.  On this one, I'm still looking for any proposal that looks like it could bring about stability.   It looks impossible.

Sorry for dropping out of the discussion.  I had to go train. 

I don't think Iraq is yet lost, nor am I advocating pulling all our troops home tomorrow.

Here's one example of how success can be achieved :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502586_pf.html 

The salient points of that article to me are:

    - slow and deliberate action, not fast "strikes"
    - engaging the local population and showing them respect ( even as prisoners )
    - admission of previous mistakes in operations
    - you can't fight the insurgents, you have remove their support base
    - people are more important than technology/weapons/military strength  

This approach also would require a much greater force that is currently in place.  If we want to "win" then we need to commit 100%.  We tried to do it on the cheap with a smaller force, and it's been an uphill battle from day one.  It's not working, and Rumsfeld refuses to give up his pet cause of small ground forces and overwhelming air power and technology as being able to win wars.  Air power is an area denial weapon.  It may win military engagements, but it cannot *hold* the ground.  The only thing that ever has been able to hold ground is boots on the ground.

The success that has been seen, in terms of removing insurgency operations, we've acheived through soldiers working intelligently, not from the lastest whiz-bang JDAM guided weapons striking at suspected insurgent hideouts.

Chris, thanks for coming back.  I read the article; the tactics described sound startlingly sensible.  It's really making me think about a couple of things, none of which I'm able to express very eloquently right now.  But it is the first "this might work" scenario I've been able to even halfway BELIEVE in a long time.

It's scary to me that it involves more troops.  If those troops were all re-trained as described in the article, yes maybe this might work.  It would take someone with vision to really make this happen.

The more we keep doing it wrong the worse we are making it for ourselves.

I'll mull over the rest of this awhile.  Oh, and maybe go for a run or something, what did you call it? oh yeah, "training!" - now THAT was a great idea!