Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

So Much for Withdrawal

Well, so much for those plans to withdraw American forces from Iraq. President Bush's big speech at the Naval Academy "did not break new ground or present a new strategy," the AP notes. So that means, despite the chatter beforehand, no new schedule for bringing troops home.

GI_point.jpgWhat Bush did say is that "as Iraqi forces become more capable the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change."

We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists.

We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.

As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political progress advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

Which says to me: kiss the "oil-spot" theory goodbye. That's the idea, which has been gaining momentum in political circles since an August Foreign Affairs article, to use our troops to set up safe havens in Iraq, and then slowly grow them out.

But to do that, you need troops -- lots of troops -- to fill a city up, and patrol virtually every corner. If I'm reading between the lines of Bush's speech right, that's not the idea here -- despite talk in the President's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" or "clear[ing]" out and "hold[ing]" insurgent epicenters.

Speaking of the "Strategy," it ain't. The document reads more like a marketing document than a focused plan for winning a war. And there are some mighty odd statements in it, as Dr. AC Wonk notes. For example, the Strategy claims that:

As of November 2005, there were more than 212,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces, compared with 96,000 in September of last year.

But "Iraq did not, however, have 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces... in September 2004," the Wonk responds.

Adam Entous with Reuters obtained internal Defense Department documents in September 2004 that revealed only 8,169 had completed the full eight-week academy training. 46,176 of what are publicly called “trained and equipped” forces were listed privately as “untrained.”

Whatever the numbers, Bush's bottom line is clear: no big changes to Iraq strategy, despite all the heavy-breathing. "Stay the course," he repeated four times at the end of his Annapolis speech. "Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working," add his plan.

Comments

The time of president Bush is over.

Posted by: Gazeteler at July 31, 2008 10:37 AM


thanks...

Posted by: mehmet ali at February 5, 2008 06:51 PM


Hi everyone my name is Amber Homolak and I'm new. does anyone want to talk to me and be my friend?

Posted by: Amber at July 5, 2007 09:16 AM


Holding up the funding this long is unthinkable. How would the Congress who just passed six pay raises for themselves in six months like going without pay. That is likely to happen to our soldiers. Without the funds they need for gas for several types of vehicles, ships, helicopters, planes, boats, tanks and ammunition, supplies etc it puts the American soldiers in a tough place and could endanger their lives. This witholding funds is a political-power play between parties before an election. Once more, it is playing chicken with our troops welfare. It is despicalble. They say we will support the troops and then not pass a funding bill. Such doubletalk. If you read DOD website news you get the positive progress in Iraq. Especially if you roll back a week or two. The take-their-time Congress tacked on hundred of millions for failed crops to farmers on a funding bill for our troops. The troops deserve a clean bill. Many of those soldiers volunteered a second time. Even the ones that were injured and could have been been sent home didn't want to give up the fight. They don't want the insurgents in the US. Ahmadinejad is speaking with Chavez. I am sure they want them as a ally in a fight with us. They also want a strategic point to luanch a nuclear missile at us. We already know that Al Qaeda has been in SA hunkering down with drug lords. Now that there are hundreds of thousands of ghost towns in Mexico they can take some of them over also. We can not afford to leave the battle in Iraq and let them bring it here to us. Every time Pelosi and Murtha and Ried made a public statement about withdrawl and stopping funding it encouraged the enemy and they stepped up the violence sending out more suicde bombers.

Posted by: Eden Carroll-Weis at April 20, 2007 09:54 AM


The time of president Bush is over.

Posted by: Forum at April 16, 2007 04:06 AM


So does anyone here happen to know just when things are going to be sufficiently settled down to magically bring our troops home? No? I thought not.

Sounds to me like the military and DoD are tieing troop withdrawal to success indicators rather than locking in to an arbitrarily chosen schedule. We all know how well *those* work.

Posted by: JSAllison at December 1, 2005 09:18 AM


There it is again - the argument, familiar from the Bushite right, that publishing a timetable is military bad news allowing AlQaida and the insurgency to make political hay from any missed deadlines or to simply wait out the occupation and then renew their violence with even greater vigor.

I want to ask - does that view really stand up?

Much of the military's resistance to publishing a timetable comes from the traditional warfare axiom that you conceal as much as possible of your plans from the enemy. However, fourth generation warfare calls into question many of the traditional military axioms (like the supremacy of technology and the concept of attrition)and this is yet another axiom that requires some "outside the box" thinking about.

With everyone from ex-CIA experts through military figures like General Casey or Senators like Russ Feingold to defense think-tanks agreeing that the occupation fuels the insurgency, setting milestones without a timetable is a lame and half-assed attempt at defusing this vicious circle - an attempt that fools no-one. Military types know that you always set a timetable for your objectives, as does anyone who has ever run a business or managed part of one. Otherwise, the first or second difficult goal gets pushed out into the never-never, an unattainable milestone, and your progress towards your eventual goal is over. Everyone knows this so nobody is going to trust a set of milestones if they don't come with a timetable.

On the other hand, if you publish the timetable as well as milestones then you immediately accomplish your first goal - removing much of the psychology behind the insurgency (not Al-Qaida's loons but the real indigenous Iraqi insurgency)and make it possible for the first time to negotiate a ceasefire with that insurgency. What will happen next is analogous to what happened when the IRA declared a ceasefire but the hardline "real IRA" did not. The hardliners lost all popular support, even from those who until then had been fighting alongside them. Without popular support from at least a sizeable minority a terror organisation is always on a downward spiral of disapproval, turned informers and eventual dissolution.

Even worse for Al Qaida if they try to wait out the occupation. After months of peace and reconstruction, exactly how do you think Iraqis from every side would react if Al Qaida started bombing again as soon as the Americans have left? The insurgents who are so intimate with their hiding places, still under ceasefire because their causus belli has been removed, would join with the rest of the Iraqi people and wipe them out in a popular backlash which would destroy Al Qaida's credibility across the whole moslem world.

Finally, there's the "what if we don't make a set date?" worrywarts. For them, I would suggest the D-Day Landings option is viable in this context. The Nazis knew an invasion was coming, knew roughly where and knew roughly when - but were then misdirected.

The important point is to publish a timetable, not the timetable. Publish one that has a good margin for error built in and then work to a secret but tighter timetable. That way, you get the pleasantly surprised reactions of Iraqis and those on the home front as each milestone is passed ahead of the published agenda!

Milestones and timetables go together and everyone knows it. Without one, the other loses all cerdibility with those who must believe it if the insurgency is to be defused.

Regards, Cernig

Posted by: Cernig at December 1, 2005 06:57 AM


Sorry guys never have been any good at English hated it in school and just barely got by now math I can swing a little bit but dont do me much good on this. Either way I know it was too long and I appologize, got a little well alot carried away.


Posted by: C-Low at November 30, 2005 11:59 PM


well im happy to see that our stay the course strategy will be continued. After all the blood thats been shed, to have the place turn into a terror haven that we most likely would have to re invade in a few years is not cool. And i believe that is what would happen if we so much as anounced even a 'general' timeschedule for our pull out. If we announce a date they'd just lay low till it came. Better we stay the course, and not aboandon those who have put their fiath and future in us.

Posted by: Matt Stevens at November 30, 2005 10:14 PM


Peter- I think Bryon is having a little fun with the whole "no plan + aggitation to leave + GOP inability to admit mistakes + GOP inability to allow the Dems any say + the GOP saying that leaving is losing and unpatriotic= stay the course" when we all know we gotta get out before the next election cycle (or at least GOP senators and congressmen know that).

And C-Low, you gotta edit those things. Would like to read em, but no way I am going to slog through all that.

Posted by: Max at November 30, 2005 06:59 PM


Thanks Pete

And sorry guys for the booklong rant but one thing that has just driven me crazy about this war is the misinformation and incompetent reporting on the subject. In past wars the media supported and did thier part for the nations war effort and in this war they have either been outright anit-american or at best equal to both sides american and terrrorist. What really sikens me that people dont have pride in thier nation to the point were a war effort strated by the slaughter of 3000 civilians cant be supported or at least make room for the good news to, the ohh good news dont sell line I just dont buy. Whatever happened to responsible reporting?

What scares me is the WOT wont end with Iraq and if this nation has no ability to make thier case continualy on the media front while our enemies have free reign to the point were every mistake is blown out of proportion every success is ignored or just briefed with more doom right after and what is historically minimul casualties unbearable we are doomed. If we cant make the fight on the media front we may skin by on Iraq but I dont look forward to the future especially when some major enemies on the horizon I couldnt even imagine thinking about fighting a WW2 level war agian in todays enviroment we would have no chance. War is hell war is brutal bad things happen people die that is reality and it will never be any different.

Posted by: C-Low at November 30, 2005 03:50 PM


"...If we lose the WOT it wont be over we maybe able to hide in our little isolationist cacoon for a time but at some point the terrorist will get the WMD and they will make the Big Satan really pay and on that day that hundreds of thousands US civilians die and the people demand retribution, maybe they even dont at first but then the second attack, then they do, the war that will follow be that war of civilizations and the tatics that will be required are insane ugly, time will not be a advantage like we have today with WMD out of the bottle every attack will have to be stopped at all cost thier will be real police state patriot act nessecary, the muslim religion will be either heavily restricted or outright outlawed, mulsims here will be in concentration camps, thier cities will be burning across from Indonesia to Morroco that will be a war that will make WW2 look like a freekin creampuff in its brutality on both sides."

Whew.

I'll take the Mother of All Run-On Sentences for 500, Alex.

It's all good Low... I promise we'll all still be here to read the finished product.

Now, could you go back and slice and dice that bad boy a little shorter, tighten up the spelling and throw in a little punctuation. I'm sure there was a good point in there somewhere.

Posted by: Smolinsky at November 30, 2005 03:35 PM


Thanks for posting that C-Low. What you said in the beginning about freeing up troops to do constant disruption ops is absolutely true. My very good friend just returned from the region and he was vey excited at the progress made against the insurgency.
The media never reports a house that is not burning.

Posted by: pete at November 30, 2005 02:44 PM


WOW! Maybe you could be a little more vague or incoherent in your bush Bashing diatribe Byron.
Methinks it is you who have a problem with the truth sir.
I am not GWB's numero uno fan but I am sick and tired of the constant childish attacks and would appreciate it if folks would stay on topic at least. You know, perhaps add some insightful observation in a coherent manner? If you can't pull that one off then why not go back to Democratic underground or move-on.org and spew your clap-trappery.

Posted by: pete at November 30, 2005 02:39 PM


This is not the death of the oil spot theory it is in full effect. However you are correct our US forces will not grow in size the extra troops are the Iraqi forces. We are running the oil spot theory using the Iraqi's and US forces both on thier strong points. The US forces as the main clearing force then the Iraqi come in to do what they do better than US hold patrol and get into the civil pop all the time US forces still present as a rapid reaction force as needed. Letting our people do what we do best engage and kill enemy while the Iraqi forces do the policing and work somewhat like the dog flushing the prey.

I dont know how much you follow things but with the full turn over of many southern and areas around baghdad to Iraqi forces freed US forces to start continous interference and disruption strikes in the Anbar region (I remember the critisism then was ohh we clear a town then leave the terrrorist come back we have to go clear again if I am correct that idea is were the oil spot first started getting heavy play well here at least). Now with more Iraqi units coming online our operations in Anbar have shifted to hold we now clear the towns and place Iraqi forces in theater to hold the territory with US as backup forces. This is the same thing we had done previously in the south and baghdad areas we cleared then finanly put Iraqi's into holding then after time they fully took over we then shifted to Anbar and well now I'm repeating myself after some time those Iraqi forces now holding with US backing them up will steadily be reinforced until the point were our US backup is no longer needed then we will again turn full over like previously in the south and Baghdad. This is the oil spot in full effect and it is spreading when the Iraqis move to take over our current positions we will have forces freed up for either more spreading which I am not sure were in Iraq that would be or some good old R&R back home.

Now dont get me wrong we will have a contengent in country for sometime to come as a backup force if needed also to keep the neighbors in check that by the way with the amount of pressure being put on the ME today and the signs of it increasing not shrinking a couple of divisions sitting in Iraq with large air assets in country will go along way to help those Iran, and Syrian active negotiations (to negotiate from a position of power and strength is always desired).

I think in years to come Bush and the "neocons" will be proven right as visionaries who dared throw the big dice. I believe years from now (if we stay on mission and dont allow the LLL's to waver our will to fight the fight) we will look back and see Iraq as a daring gamble that worked and literally changed the course of history like all international gambles do.

Oh and Noah I sure am glad Bush didnt cower down to the LLL cry babying like the word was. Although I would like to make one point about Bush that I think is a very sereous problem for the WOT. That simply is Bush's inability or unwillingness to talk to the people. By that I mean we were forced into this war by 3000 dead civilians on home turf and Bush should be out thier continuously rallying the people and keeping them rallied. The fact that Bush trys to have his resluts speak for themselves is just not cutting it I blame the morale problems in this nation on his non-rallying of the people. Bush from the begining should be out thier rallying the people telling them we are in a war that cant be lost Iraq is just but one phase like Afghanistan in the WOT and the WOT terrror will last years and years and will have very high cost both in civilians and soldgiers and treasure that we are winning and we will not surrender or faulter. Bush should compare historical wars to this one so everyone understands the amazing ability of our soldgiers and the insanley low casualties we are taking compared to history I mean we lost more men when we lost guadelcanal and then still more again when we retook that same little island in WW2, and these examples everywere you look thier is battles many upon many were we lost more men than we have so far in the WOT hell man after all we lost more civilians on 9-11, to just sit back and allow the media to play those numbers as failure is insane and damaging to the WOT. In WW2 the media could be counted on to keep the people rallied in a war if for no other reason than they wanted their nation to suceed but today the media no longer even see themselves as Americans but instead see their obligation as to be fair to both america and of course her enemies (can you imagine if in WW2 the media would have tried to be fair and show the enemies point of view showed every atrocity the US soldgiers did to the Japs or germans every wrong can you imagine we would be either shinning japaneese boots or in some mass grave of with the rest of the "unwanted classes".) Bush is the pres the media cant ignore him they must give him air time he should be taking full advantage at least weekly on TV not giving a speech but at his desk at washington talking to the camera telling the good things the captured enemy leaders the victories the new schools the political acheivments pounding into the people the threat the senerio's of if we lose this is a presidents job to keep the people rallied and if he cant do it he needs to maybe make a presidential order for the media to cover someone who can, like Swartzkoff and his daily briefings with footage clips and all on yesterdays achievments setbacks and enemy. We are winning if you doubt that think back to when the enemy was taking over whole towns and at random overrunning police stations and Iraqi army bases I remember the film of terrorist ransaking and taking the weapons of a overran police station that is choas that is in danger of loseing control when was the last time we heard about a police station being overran? The fact the terrrorist fist attacked US forces then we adapted they changed to Iraqi forces and police then they adapted and they have now shifted to civilian targets and the media picture. I mean when the terrorist kill 50 hell 100 innocent civilians makes great media powder for we are losing but it doesnt stop the elections the police still make their patrols the military still at will makes raids anywere the terrorist can do nothing more than kill some civilians here and thier that in the long run will only piss the "arab street" off and force those 80% good muslims sitting on the fence to choose maybe not fall in love with the big satan but decide the terrorist are more of a threat than the big satan. (remember those people the arab street, were is the stories about that now about Jordan sacking thier cabinet and openly declaring war on Radicals yeah they said Radicals, Saudi Arabia starting to wake up, Lebanon being freed from Syria and working to get enough strength to get control of thier nation from the radicals things are going good the 80% of good muslims are waking up to the fact that the terrrorist are not the holy roller Jihadi's they have been portrayed but just slaughters of innocents (amazing how when someone kills your people and not just some evil infedels that happens) that is what they do well our strength is major combat what brilliance was it to force a enemy into a possition were his only succesfull weapon is in the long run shooting his ownself in the foot by killing his own people and eroding his own base this kind of stuff needs to be told to the people and explained and pounded into people's heads. If we lose the WOT it wont be over we maybe able to hide in our little isolationist cacoon for a time but at some point the terrorist will get the WMD and they will make the Big Satan really pay and on that day that hundreds of thousands US civilians die and the people demand retribution, maybe they even dont at first but then the second attack, then they do, the war that will follow be that war of civilizations and the tatics that will be required are insane ugly, time will not be a advantage like we have today with WMD out of the bottle every attack will have to be stopped at all cost thier will be real police state patriot act nessecary, the muslim religion will be either heavily restricted or outright outlawed, mulsims here will be in concentration camps, thier cities will be burning across from Indonesia to Morroco that will be a war that will make WW2 look like a freekin creampuff in its brutality on both sides.

Posted by: C-Low at November 30, 2005 02:35 PM


Good Morning Folks,

Don't be so down. We all knows President Bush has problems with the truth and quite often he ends up doing the exact opposite of what he says he will never do. The bigger the issue the bigger the "flop" and this is a "Super Sized" issue.

Remember "...we will rebuild New Orleans and pay what ever it takes. I can't imagine an America with out a New Orleans." or an Iraqi War classic "...al Sar has killed Americans and we will do all that is necessary to bring him to justice." or the all time classic "I'm a uniter not a divider."

On that theory, the troops in Iraq should be packing their bags. The "Freedom Birds" are gassing up as I write.

ALLONS,
Byrob Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 30, 2005 01:51 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.