[quote=BondGuy]

Iraq, go with Baker's plan to divide? After the election?

[/quote]

That's yet to be determined as "Baker's plan".

Cut and run. Somolia, Lebannon and IRAQ.



We want a trend that can motivate the enemy. Dems need to push the draft and other media friendly topics.

[quote=AirForce]Cut and run. Somolia, Lebannon and IRAQ.

We want a trend that can motivate the enemy. Dems need to push the draft and other media friendly topics. [/quote]

The current plan isn't working. So...

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=AirForce]Cut and run. Somolia, Lebannon and IRAQ.

We want a trend that can motivate the enemy. Dems need to push the draft and other media friendly topics. [/quote]

The current plan isn't working. So...

[/quote]

"Isn't working", well at any given point in a war it "isn't working" (see the Battle of the Bulge example), but be that as it may, you speak as those commanders on the ground aren't adjusting tactics on an ongoing basis.

Just as an example, look at how they changed tactics within Baghdad itself. The violence around the country began to lessen and then gather and increase in Baghdad. The commanders increased troop strength there, began a cordon and search program and isolated parts of the city with a berm system. That's allowed them to contain the violence  to smaller and smaller areas.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

[quote=AirForce]Cut and run. Somolia, Lebannon and IRAQ.

We want a trend that can motivate the enemy. Dems need to push the draft and other media friendly topics. [/quote]

The current plan isn't working. So...

[/quote]

"Isn't working", well at any given point in a war it "isn't working" (see the Battle of the Bulge example), but be that as it may, you speak as those commanders on the ground aren't adjusting tactics on an ongoing basis.

Just as an example, look at how they changed tactics within Baghdad itself. The violence around the country began to lessen and then gather and increase in Baghdad. The commanders increased troop strength there, began a cordon and search program and isolated parts of the city with a berm system. That's allowed them to contain the violence  to smaller and smaller areas. [/quote]

Here come the colors. I claim blue. Even though I'm a native Floridian I'm going with legal residence, NJ. I think blue is a good fit.

Any given point? How about not at all. Mired is the first word that comes to mind when describing our war effort to date. Mismanaged, bungled, and, debackle are suitable descriptions.

And yes, the commanders on the ground have changed tactics several times. They are bright people tasked with a difficult job. There biggest problem is that they are hamstrung by the policy makers in DC. Read policymakers to mean Rumfeld. His mismanagement and micro management has put us here. Well, that and the neocons decision to invade.

Too few troops to hold the country. That is the primary problem, combined with our total lack of understanding of tribal synergy or history. Of course, how could we be expected to understand? Non of our ancesters bones are buried in our back yard.

As for the the so called "Battle for Bagdad", already lost. That's where Baker's coming from.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

[quote=AirForce]Cut and run. Somolia, Lebannon and IRAQ.

We want a trend that can motivate the enemy. Dems need to push the draft and other media friendly topics. [/quote]

The current plan isn't working. So...

[/quote]

"Isn't working", well at any given point in a war it "isn't working" (see the Battle of the Bulge example), but be that as it may, you speak as those commanders on the ground aren't adjusting tactics on an ongoing basis.

Just as an example, look at how they changed tactics within Baghdad itself. The violence around the country began to lessen and then gather and increase in Baghdad. The commanders increased troop strength there, began a cordon and search program and isolated parts of the city with a berm system. That's allowed them to contain the violence  to smaller and smaller areas. [/quote]

Here come the colors. I claim blue. Even though I'm a native Floridian I'm going with legal residence, NJ. I think blue is a good fit.

Any given point? How about not at all. Mired is the first word that comes to mind when describing our war effort to date. Mismanaged, bungled, and, debackle are suitable descriptions.

And yes, the commanders on the ground have changed tactics several times. They are bright people tasked with a difficult job. There biggest problem is that they are hamstrung by the policy makers in DC. Read policymakers to mean Rumfeld. His mismanagement and micro management has put us here. Well, that and the neocons decision to invade.

Too few troops to hold the country. That is the primary problem, combined with our total lack of understanding of tribal synergy or history. Of course, how could we be expected to understand? Non of our ancesters bones are buried in our back yard.

As for the the so called "Battle for Bagdad", already lost. That's where Baker's coming from.

[/quote]

I'm just not interested in listening to you repeat the talking points, asserting there aren't enough troops (when commanders on the ground say otherwise) and telling me we've lost when it's your political agenda that drives you to that position. Baker hasn’t said anything of the sort, and the exchanges between Al Qaeda leaders in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq (what are they one now, their 3rd?) and the ones hiding in caves portray an even more dire situation for them than for us. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The only way we're defeated by this group of thugs and murders who are unable to hold ground or offer the Iraqi citizens an alternative form of government is if we surrender, and the implications of that on US security, not to mention the life of the average Iraq are just too severe to accept. “It’s too hard” just isn’t going to work.

You can have the last word on this.

MikeButler222 might not believe this, but I agree with him absolutely. This war is a process- and unless you understand the incredible task of a cordon and search on basically an ENTIRE country, regionally- you will never understand this daunting task.

Al Qaeda has become the short name for every terrorist, thug, killer who I has jumped into the battlefield. I would argue that Al Qaeda is ineffective but the "brand" of Al Qaeda is very effective and others are just jumping on its band wagon.

The fight is a tough fight and every day we lose a soldier, sailor, or Marine, hurts- but its the price we pay for keeping the fight over there- think about it 5 years no serious catastrophe in the U.S. from terrorists- that is amazing.

Maybe Iraq will be divided- maybe it should and will be decently sucessful like the former USSR or not successful like the Israel/Palestine issue.

Somewhere in between the politics, the media, and the military is the truth and I think nobody here knows exactly what that is except that we will have forces in Iraq for years and years and it was always the plan to shift forces to be permanently stationed in the Middle East to help us keep a substantial reactionary force on the ground- we've always done that which is why we have substantial forces in Germany, Japan, and Korea.

[quote=haRDcorp]

MikeButler222 might not believe this, but I agree with him absolutely. This war is a process- and unless you understand the incredible task of a cordon and search on basically an ENTIRE country, regionally- you will never understand this daunting task.

You don't need to be a a member of the joint chiefs to see that we are in way over our heads. We didn't expect this and didn't plan for it. At this point it is a failed process. Regardless of why, and without pointing fingers somethings need to change.

Al Qaeda has become the short name for every terrorist, thug, killer who I has jumped into the battlefield. I would argue that Al Qaeda is ineffective but the "brand" of Al Qaeda is very effective and others are just jumping on its band wagon.

I agree that even the low cost, low quality terrorist is calling himself Al Qaeda. This really pisses off the real Al Qaeda. However, now along with the insurgency we have an all out tribal war. If we completely defeated Al Qeada today could we leave? Who would be in charge? These people are killing each other now. The insurgency is taking a back seat to the growing civil war. By staying, who are our soldiers fighting for? Is it the Sunni cab driver who thanks our troops for saving his butt from terrorist, but moonlights as a member of a Sunni Death Squad. Or is it the Shia shop owner who murders every Sunni he can find named Omar or Bakar? We don't get tribal warfare and until we do there won't be resolution.

The fight is a tough fight and every day we lose a soldier, sailor, or Marine, hurts- but its the price we pay for keeping the fight over there- think about it 5 years no serious catastrophe in the U.S. from terrorists- that is amazing.

Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here? I didn't think that post Katrina anyone really still believes our Dept of Homeland Security can protect us. At some point, as an organization, they will become effective, not there yet. This isn't a political pot shot, just a reality. The people who are working to protect us are diligent, bright and hard working. The organization unfortunately,a slow moving bureaucracy dominated by political turf fighting and infighting.

The only reason we haven't been attacked is the terrorist have chosen not to attack us. Only the most inept terrorist couldn't find his way into this country. Does anyone believe the terrorist aren't already here? Hopefully, next time around the people who can do something about a pending attack won't sit on their hands. I for one am not amazed. I'm thankful for no further attacks. Like many I accept that we don't control the when or the where.

Maybe Iraq will be divided- maybe it should and will be decently sucessful like the former USSR or not successful like the Israel/Palestine issue.

Somewhere in between the politics, the media, and the military is the truth and I think nobody here knows exactly what that is except that we will have forces in Iraq for years and years and it was always the plan to shift forces to be permanently stationed in the Middle East to help us keep a substantial reactionary force on the ground- we've always done that which is why we have substantial forces in Germany, Japan, and Korea.

Stationing U.S. forces on Arab soil is problematic as it violates the core religious beliefs of many Muslims. This is a lightning rod issue, not only for us, but also for moderate Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. Putting forces in middle east was originally put forth by Wolfowitz to protect our oil supply from the USSR. Regardless of the reason, having our troops on that ground anywhere in the region will never be the same as having forces in the other countries mentioned. This is problematic for us in that, just for the strategic reason of protecting our oil supply and allies in the area we need forces on the ground. Maybe we could build an island?