FinnMacCool said:I must admit it is rather redundant to ask why we are in Iraq because we already are in Iraq and we are commited to this task now even though I don't think we should be there at all or at least not at this state. However, yeah I do think the war was mismanaged.
JOHNYJ said:The question peoploe always ask or are asked.
" Do You Support The War " is the wrong question !
It should be, " Do You Think The War Is,Missmanaged "
The Answer would be Hell Yes !
AK_Conservative said:I think that is a very good interpretation Johnyj! I believe the war could be going better, but this is a new enemy we are facing, one we havent delt this highly in reguard before! Kissinger would be a great additive to Bush's cabnit and in my opinion would be going better with him in it! Many of you would differ your opinion about Kissinger since it was mainly Him and Nixon who drove the NSC during his presidency, but they got alot accomplished and did amazing things internationally!
Canuck said:no it's the same one you have been fighting since the declaration of independance
the Elite's puppet
that why election after election the elephants and the asses are at each others throats and blaming each other for each others failures
one failure after another
like a drunken harlot
admin to admin
is it hopeless and forlorn !
Canuck said:no it's the same one you have been fighting since the declaration of independance
the Elite's puppet
that why election after election the elephants and the asses are at each others throats and blaming each other for each others failures
one failure after another
like a drunken harlot
admin to admin
is it hopeless and forlorn !
cnredd said:And the cheese stands alone...
JOHNYJ said:Troop strength and equipment.Two points the administration has bungled incredibly. Colin Powel in his Book said that you needed,'overwhelming strength ! to defeat an enemy,139,000 troops is not overwhelming.The chief of staff of the army said 300,000 and was fired for his opinion. No body armour ,no armoured humvees. To this day,still not enough.Remember this was a war of choice,the administration picked the starting date.
AK_Conservative said:Ahh see, youre twisting my words! This is a different enemy in the means:
Desert warfare, civilian insugents, terrorism, and not to mention, some of the top terrorist leaders believe this is a religious war, as well as some of the citizens which makes it even harder to deal with! They will go to ANY means to make sure they win, even blowing themselves up and killing hundreds of the FELLOW citizens
An example. The US military training exercises (war games) usually consist of two elements... a US force vs. a conventional opposition force. The new 4GW conflicts render such scenarios obsolete and a throwback to Cold War military tactics. War games should in fact reflect current realities... US forces vs. a myriad of asymmetrical forces. War games should also encompass all elements of force... military, diplomatic, economic, et. al. With the advent of the Information Age, the Pentagon could also host war games on the Internet which would accept the input of American civilians. This would throw curves at the military that would be unexpected... ergo asymmetrical warfare. American ingenuity would thus be applied to help prepare the military for unforeseen circumstances.
I could go on for days, but what is articulated in this post should provide some food for thought. An additional tidbit... the officer corps of the US military has not been reorganized in over one hundred years. The same ranks and responsibilities are the same now as they were when a young Einstein penned his Nobel Award winning paper on the Photoelectric-effect. In other words, the US military officer corps is still structured to wage World War I.
is unfair.the US military is also ill-structured for the looming new battlefields of the 21st century. The US military is trained and equipped to wage conventional warfare
Bush left his last management job, as i recallJOHNYJ said:The question peoploe always ask or are asked.
" Do You Support The War " is the wrong question !
It should be, " Do You Think The War Is,Missmanaged "
The Answer would be Hell Yes !
scottyz said:Things have definitely gone much differently than what the American people were sold. Two years there and the only thing we really occupy is the green zone and we're still launching offensives. This was suppose to be a quick in and out war. Maybe Jr. now realizes why Sr. didn't take Baghdad?
Back in '92 Cheney said...
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
JOHNYJ said:The question peoploe always ask or are asked.
" Do You Support The War " is the wrong question !
It should be, " Do You Think The War Is,Missmanaged "
The Answer would be Hell Yes !
Or just stopping people from thinking at all.Bergslagstroll said:Well I think the Iraq war have been sucessful with one thing, stop people from thinking about Afganisthan and the really bad situation there.
Sadly when you have a war things don't always go as planned.......
In the landing on Omaha beach at the end of WW2 we lost 6,000 men in one day.......I am sure that was not as planned.......
Tashah said:The Iraq War has been mismanaged in the extreme. Despite US military doctrine, Rumsfeld has tried to wage war on the cheap.
The US military is structured to win battles, but not necessarily win wars. To win the war in Iraq requires the same allocation of US resources that were expended in Germany and Japan after WWII. The Bush administration is ignoring this truism... ergo US forces in Iraq win isolated battles but cannot establish the peace using this methodology.
The US military is also ill-structured for the looming new battlefields of the 21st century. The US military is trained and equipped to wage conventional warfare. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the equation has changed. New antagonists are well aware that they cannot defeat US military forces in a conventional theater of war. Warfare against the US in the new century will encompass what is termed '4GW' which is shorthand for Fourth Generation Warfare. In essence, this is asymmetrical warfare in the mode of Al-Qa'ida, Hamas, Hizb'allah, etcetera. The US military must undergo critical restructuring from the Pentagon on down to platoon level to properly address 4GW.
An example. The US military training exercises (war games) usually consist of two elements... a US force vs. a conventional opposition force. The new 4GW conflicts render such scenarios obsolete and a throwback to Cold War military tactics. War games should in fact reflect current realities... US forces vs. a myriad of asymmetrical forces. War games should also encompass all elements of force... military, diplomatic, economic, et. al. With the advent of the Information Age, the Pentagon could also host war games on the Internet which would accept the input of American civilians. This would throw curves at the military that would be unexpected... ergo asymmetrical warfare. American ingenuity would thus be applied to help prepare the military for unforeseen circumstances.
I could go on for days, but what is articulated in this post should provide some food for thought. An additional tidbit... the officer corps of the US military has not been reorganized in over one hundred years. The same ranks and responsibilities are the same now as they were when a young Einstein penned his Nobel Award winning paper on the Photoelectric-effect. In other words, the US military officer corps is still structured to wage World War I.
JOHNYJ said:The question peoploe always ask or are asked.
" Do You Support The War " is the wrong question !
It should be, " Do You Think The War Is,Missmanaged "
The Answer would be Hell Yes !