Latest Military Operation Fizzles - All Hype, No Results (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

To hear it from the Bush administration, Operation Swarmer was a huge success. However, the facts speak for themselves:

1) Not a single shot fired.

2) Not a single leader nabbed.

3) Of the 48 so called terrorists nabbed, 17 have already been released, and more are being released every hour.

I have some question. Is this to be construed as a victory against the insurgents? How many of our tax dollars went into this fizzled attack? What was the conversation between Bush and Rumsfeld like when they came up with this cockamamie scheme to spin the war?

Bush: My poll numbers are way down. What do I do?

Rummy: Lets launch a new assault, and call it the biggest one since the war began. We will call our embedded mediawhores and get them to play along too. Lets call it....... um..... ahhhhhhhhh - operation SWARMER.

Bush: OK, so we send 50 choppers out with 1500 troops, and make it look good to the American people. Now what about any insurgents we find?

Rummy: We have a war game we have been practicing just for this occasion. Its called Patty Cake.

Bush: Brilliant!!!! Now gimme another Guiness **burp**.

Article is here.

 

[oldreliable67]

dana,

Don't look now, but your BDS is showing again. The article you cited provides the following quotes:

But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.[emphasis added]

but evidence that insurgents had been using the area were plentiful...

With the Interior Ministry's Samarra commando battalion, the soldiers had found some 300 individual pieces of weaponry like mortars, rockets and plastic explosives in six different locations inside the sparsely populated farming community of over 50 square miles and about 1,500 residents. The raids also uncovered high-powered cordless telephones used as detonators in homemade bombs, medical supplies and insurgent training manuals.

...but it wasn't a total loss:

Before loading up into the helicopters for a return trip to Baghdad, Iraqi and American soldiers and some reporters helped themselves to the woman’s freshly baked bread, tearing bits off and chewing it as they wandered among the cows. For most of them, it was the only thing worthwhile they’d found all day.

dana, strikes me that you have fabricated quite a spin on an article that suggests nothing remotely resembling your extrapolation.

 

[cherokee]

And about this? You forgot to post that...

The operation, they said, has yielded various weapons caches including 350 mortar rounds, 49 rocket-propelled grenades, 14 rockets, and six artillery rounds...............

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11857580/

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And about this? You forgot to post that...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11857580/

So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.

 

[danarhea]

So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.

You got it nailed dead on.

Actually, this operation does have a name. Its called..........

Shameless self promotion of adminisration using the troops as the bait.

 

[cherokee]

So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.

NO
it’s called taking away 350 mortar rounds, 49 rocket-propelled grenades, 14 rockets, and six artillery rounds that could have been used against our troops or the Iraqi people.

Ok let’s look at it this way...
With the 350 mortar and 6 artillery rounds I'm thinking you could make around 100 roadside bombs easy...

But chit why stop there…..
350 mortars = 350 mortars dropped in a crowded market
49 RPG’s = 49 buses you could blow up.
6 artillery rounds = 6 easy roadside bombs.

Now is that good enough for you or do you need more examples?

 

[cherokee]

You got it nailed dead on.

Actually, this operation does have a name. Its called..........

Shameless self promotion of adminisration using the troops as the bait.

Two words slick...

Prove it.

 

[Nephtis]

To hear it from the Bush administration, Operation Swarmer was a huge success. However, the facts speak for themselves:

1) Not a single shot fired.

2) Not a single leader nabbed.

3) Of the 48 so called terrorists nabbed, 17 have already been released, and more are being released every hour.

I have some question. Is this to be construed as a victory against the insurgents? How many of our tax dollars went into this fizzled attack? What was the conversation between Bush and Rumsfeld like when they came up with this cockamamie scheme to spin the war?

Bush: My poll numbers are way down. What do I do?

Rummy: Lets launch a new assault, and call it the biggest one since the war began. We will call our embedded mediawhores and get them to play along too. Lets call it....... um..... ahhhhhhhhh - operation SWARMER.

Bush: OK, so we send 50 choppers out with 1500 troops, and make it look good to the American people. Now what about any insurgents we find?

Rummy: We have a war game we have been practicing just for this occasion. Its called Patty Cake.

Bush: Brilliant!!!! Now gimme another Guiness **burp**.

Article is here.

The First thing you have to remember is that Bush being the Commander in Chief doesnt mean that he actually comes up with the battle strategys for Iraq. If your going to gripe about how actuall war is, then go gripe to the commanders. Im sure they would love to explain how uneducated you are in the Art of War. I myself admit im not an expert in warfare but I do fully acknowledge that i havent been trained in this therefore I respect those who are leading us in Combat.

 

[danarhea]

The First thing you have to remember is that Bush being the Commander in Chief doesnt mean that he actually comes up with the battle strategys for Iraq. If your going to gripe about how actuall war is, then go gripe to the commanders. Im sure they would love to explain how uneducated you are in the Art of War. I myself admit im not an expert in warfare but I do fully acknowledge that i havent been trained in this therefore I respect those who are leading us in Combat.

Actually, we MUST ask Bush, since he is ignoring the career experts on this issue. See what the following experts which Bush has ignored have to say:

Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba

Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly

General Richard Myers

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]General John Abizaid[/SIZE][/FONT]

Gen. Eric Shinseki

Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni

General William Odom (ret.)

Aylwin-Foster, whose rank equates to a one-star U.S. general

A senior general at the Pentagon

Former Army secretary Thomas White

They, along with many other experts, state the case against Bush quite succinctly.

 

[cherokee]

Actually, we MUST ask Bush, since he is ignoring the career experts on this issue. See what the following experts which Bush has ignored have to say:

Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba

Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly

General Richard Myers

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]General John Abizaid[/SIZE][/FONT]

Gen. Eric Shinseki

Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni

General William Odom (ret.)

Aylwin-Foster, whose rank equates to a one-star U.S. general

A senior general at the Pentagon

Former Army secretary Thomas White

They, along with many other experts, state the case against Bush quite succinctly.

I admit I only looked at the first link but what the hell does this have to do with the operation?

Originally published May 12, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Army general whose report on mistreatment of Iraqi detainees helped ignite an international firestorm clashed yesterday with a top civilian Pentagon official over whether guards at Abu Ghraib prison should have assisted military intelligence officers with interrogations.

Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba told Congress yesterday that "a failure in leadership" at the prison led military police to collaborate with intelligence officers and civilian contractors to abuse and humiliate prisoners there.

 

[millsy]

I have some question. Is this to be construed as a victory against the insurgents? How many of our tax dollars went into this fizzled attack?

fizzled attack? what on earth are you talking about?You are forgetting what made this a successful attack.

HALF THE TROOPS WERE IRAQI!!!!

Sure, the Iraq army doesn't have 50 working vehicles, let alone troop moving choppers, but still. THIS WAS AN IRAQI OPERATION.

Sure, it was based on American intelligence, and the 800 Iraqi troops had to be escorted to the middle of no where by 700 American soldiers, because the Iraqi's aren't really trained well enough to go into a real combat zone, and if you lose these 800 soldiers, well, then you pretty much decimate the entire army, BUT

IT WAS AN IRAQI MISSION!

 

[oldreliable67]

Actually, we MUST ask Bush, since he is ignoring the career experts on this issue. See what the following experts which Bush has ignored have to say:

1) The links you posted have nothing to do with the specific operation about which you made the subject of this thread.

2) It would be strange indeed if all current and former military types were in complete agreement with any single topic about Iraq that you might care to choose. If one were to make the effort, I'm positive that one could come with an equally long list of ex-military types who, while acknowledging that mistakes have been made, endorse the overall strategy decisions. But that wouldn't be news; its only worthy of the MSM when there is dissension, blood or bullets.

3) Unlike Johnson/McNamara and Nixon, from all accounts that I have read, Bush has not shown a tendency to 'micromanage' our effort in Iraq. To the contrary, he has left the day-to-day running of the war to the military. Of course he has been consulted on the issues involving policy and the larger operations, but to his credit, he delegated responsibility appropriately, IMO.

4) According the cite you provided, this specific operation was turned into a photo op by the media and was exagerrated by the media as to its characteristics.

dana, in this instance, you succumbed to the media hype and exagerrated and extrapolated a straightforward operation into a BDS rant. And in doing so, you got it wrong.

 

[danarhea]

1) The links you posted have nothing to do with the specific operation about which you made the subject of this thread.

2) It would be strange indeed if all current and former military types were in complete agreement with any single topic about Iraq that you might care to choose. If one were to make the effort, I'm positive that one could come with an equally long list of ex-military types who, while acknowledging that mistakes have been made, endorse the overall strategy decisions. But that wouldn't be news; its only worthy of the MSM when there is dissension, blood or bullets.

3) Unlike Johnson/McNamara and Nixon, from all accounts that I have read, Bush has not shown a tendency to 'micromanage' our effort in Iraq. To the contrary, he has left the day-to-day running of the war to the military. Of course he has been consulted on the issues involving policy and the larger operations, but to his credit, he delegated responsibility appropriately, IMO.

4) According the cite you provided, this specific operation was turned into a photo op by the media and was exagerrated by the media as to its characteristics.

dana, in this instance, you succumbed to the media hype and exagerrated and extrapolated a straightforward operation into a BDS rant. And in doing so, you got it wrong.

I was responding to a previous post, in which someone said I need to ask the commanders, because Bush doesnt make those decisions. Those Generals are examples of experts Bush never listened to. My point was not to use them to illustrate this instance, but of Bush's history for ignoring the experts.

As for this operation, the news is directly from a reliable source (which I posted a link to in my first post).

Now when you respond to something I post, you might want to use the proper context instead of purposefully trying to distort the meaning.

 

[KCConservative]

Now when you respond to something I post, you might want to use the proper context instead of purposefully trying to distort the meaning.

It didn;t appear that he was trying to "purposefully distort" your post. You arrived at that all on your own. Dana, relax. People can disagree if they want. The world isn't against you.

 

[Iriemon]

Two words slick...

Prove it.

Someone sure hit the nitro button on the PR machine on this one. For two days all I heard, saw and read about was this major operation against the insurgents, how it was the biggest airstrike since 2003, a major combined US/Iraqi offensive against the insurgents.

You think the press just decided spontaneously to spin this one?

 

[BWG]

Quote from Time article
Four Black Hawk helicopters landed in a wheat field and dropped off a television crew, three photographers, three print reporters and three Iraqi government officials right into the middle of Operation Swarmer. Iraqi soldiers in newly painted humvees, green and red Iraqi flags stenciled on the tailgates, had just finished searching the farm populated by a half-dozen skinny cows and a woman kneading freshly risen dough and slapping it to the walls of a mud oven.

Iriemon

I'm in the same boat as you. Things were just a little too coincidental.

OK, I'm listening. What was the purpose of this operation (weapons cache and insurgents are discovered quite frequently) and why all the publicity and if you want to blame it all on the media, why did the government plant TV crews and reporters right in the middle of this particular mission and not others? :shrug:

IMO, the red highlighted part had a whole lot to do with it.

Before all you pit bulls go rabid, I would dearly LOVE to see the Iraqs take over. That would mean we would be that much closer to bringing our young men and women home.

 

[oldreliable67]

purposefully trying to distort the meaning.

In this instance, you distorted the meaning of the article that you cited all by yourself, without any help from anyone.

 

[Stinger]

So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.

And your cite for the "few billion taxpayer dollars". This was an Iraqi led operation and it was successful.

You just can't stand it can you.

 

[Stinger]

I admit I only looked at the first link but what the hell does this have to do with the operation?

You simply do not understand, the anti-war side will NEVER admit successes and try to denigrate any that are obvious. They just can't stand it.

 

[cherokee]

You simply do not understand, the anti-war side will NEVER admit successes and try to denigrate any that are obvious. They just can't stand it.

I guess not..I didnt get a reply...

 

[millsy]

And your cite for the "few billion taxpayer dollars". This was an Iraqi led operation and it was successful.

You just can't stand it can you.

There ya go, now you're towing the right line.

Go Iraqi military GO


Successful in what way? I'm not saying it was unsuccessful, because I don't know what the aim of the mission was. But TIME is reporting that the community they landed in might have as few as 1500 residents. For 1500 troops to be unsuccessful, that would be a little embarassing.

Not knowing what the goal of the mission was, it is impossible for those on the right to give a knee jerk reaction of "it was successful" or us on the left to give the equivalent "it was unsuccessful".

I just think that it's funny that the talking point "Iraqi led", gets repeated so often when clearly, even though the Iraqis were tagged along, it was an American operation.

 

[Stinger]

There ya go, now you're towing the right line.

No more or less than you tow the left line.

Successful in what way? I'm not saying it was unsuccessful, because I don't know what the aim of the mission was.

Then that proves you are in no position to critique it doesn't it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And your cite for the "few billion taxpayer dollars". This was an Iraqi led operation and it was successful.

You just can't stand it can you.

What did we accomplish by it? From all the reporting, it would seem that we confiscated some small arms caches. This operation may have been "Iraqi led", but you can bet your *** it was American taxpayer funded.

Look, I wish I was wrong, I wish that you guys on the partisan right were right and everything was going just great in Iraq. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. I wish it was, but anyone can pick a newspaper up and tell that i just isn't going that well. You can spin it, but in the end, your just spinning it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1)....Bush has not shown a tendency to 'micromanage' our effort in Iraq. To the contrary, he has left the day-to-day running of the war to the military. Of course he has been consulted on the issues involving policy and the larger operations, but to his credit, he delegated responsibility appropriately, IMO.....

Ha ha ha. That’s funny. Not that I don’t agree with you, because I do, but its still funny as it would be quite remarkable for this intellectually un-curious president to ever attempt to “micro-manage anything”.

Typical Bush cabinet meeting:

Every expert on anything talks for some time. Bush says nothing. Not a single question…. at times seems either bored or not to be fully comprehending everything that is said. At the end, President Bush simply says: “Let me know if you need anything”.

Not that he is stupid, but rather it’s just that he has time and time again shown himself to lack any intellectual curiosity at all. Of course, intellectual curiosity is usually one of those qualities that a president (or a good manager for that matter) ought to possess.

Then again that’s probably why in a recent poll, when the respondents were asked what one word they felt best described the Bush Administration, the number one word was “incompetent”.

 

[cherokee]

This is a post (#6) I made yesterday.
You still want to tell me it wasnt worth it?

NO
it’s called taking away 350 mortar rounds, 49 rocket-propelled grenades, 14 rockets, and six artillery rounds that could have been used against our troops or the Iraqi people.

Ok let’s look at it this way...
With the 350 mortar and 6 artillery rounds I'm thinking you could make around 100 roadside bombs easy...

But chit why stop there…..
350 mortars = 350 mortars dropped in a crowded market
49 RPG’s = 49 buses you could blow up.
6 artillery rounds = 6 easy roadside bombs.

Now is that good enough for you or do you need more examples?