nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 14, 2008 12:48 AM

Good Morning Folks,

To cherp in on this I will start by refering to the WSJ's editorial page today regarding President Bush's speach of last. To believe have confidence in what is being purposed one has to have a great deal of faith and hope. Since I'm of no faith and little hope, I'm not sure if any of this even belong at Disneyland which does exost in the real world.

President Bush's surge of 21K troops into Baghdad by the White House's own extimate will take six months and that is assuming everything goes well, yea right. The there is the small question of numbers.

According to the new Army Manual on insurgenicy the rato of combat troops to population for pacification is 20:10K or for a city of 6million such as Baghdad that would be 120K combat troops. Assuming that the Iraqis can produce half of these troops, I'm dreaming now that is still 60K combat troops for Baghdad alone. Using a conservative ratio of 5:1 support to cpmbat troops this says that at least 300K U.S. troops to secure Baghdad.

Oh, did I forget to mention the officer who supervised the Army's new Field Manual on Insurgenicy is Lt. Gen. David Petraeus,the new guy in Baghdad.

I just lost the little hope that I might have had that this ill concieved scheme of President Bush's will do any thing other then generate more body bags.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at January 11, 2007 01:43 PM

Driving out of Disneyland?....sorry, ain't so. when his military commanders balk at achieving "success" via this latest escalation, no, you cannot say that Bush is truely trying to make good. he is only grasping at straws.

going to pull forces out of Afganistan in order to prop up work in Bagdad? hey fellas (and ladies).....anybody got any idea what happened to catchin' n killen ol Bin Laden?.....the guy who actually, really attacked us?

y'all must remember him, surely?

Posted by: campbell at January 11, 2007 11:17 AM

I think there are still some people worried more about insurgents and militia members escaping, not by leaving the city, but simply by going home, putting their AK-47 back above the mantlepiece, and sitting down to dinner with their family. This isn't Falluja, a city awash in insurgents from all over the country. This is Baghdad. Even if you kick out all the non-natives and send them to jail, you probably won't find even a quarter of the ones who actually live and work in the city. Not even local troops will help much - you can't expect them to know much about people in a different neighborhood than theirs.

That's why Clear and Hold is so important. If you can force the militias and such to go back to normal civilian life, restore order (a strong, non-partisan and uncorrupt police force), give them a job, and generally treat them well, chances are that when you leave they won't rise up the moment your back is turned. But this takes time - possibly several years, during which time we have to secure essentially the entire city. It also depends on the Iraqi government cleaning up their act and improving both security and quality of life.

I think that when it comes to Clear and Hold, doing a half-assed job is worse than not doing it at all. I haven't seen any indication that this much strength is enough to hold Baghdad, and is capable of holding the city for however long it takes the Iraqi government to get their act together. If they can't, then all we're doing is putting more targets on the street for no discernable benefit.

Posted by: danAlwyn at January 11, 2007 10:22 AM

@Pedestrian
No, number of troops has nothing to do with low intensity warfare. It is the exact opposite. Whether you bash in doors by the dozen or by the hundred, it doesn't make the slightest difference. And if you were capable of searching every single house in Baghdad on a single day, that is totally meaningless if in doing so, you created as many new insurgents with your conduct as you took out.

20,000 new troops is merely "same ol' same ol'". It's "I admit I made mistakes so you can't accuse me of not doing so, but I haven't learned a thing, I don't really see any mistakes and I won't change anything significant either."

20,000 new walking body bags who have no idea how to behave in a foreign city are just more meat to the slaughter. It's a cheap shot attempt at trying to save himself to the bell and let someone else dig the US out of the mud he ran them into, much like his father did with Somalia. He is totally incapable of self-skepticism and self-criticism. He knows what's right and the entire rest of the world, including the armed forces, is a bunch of brainless idiots who have no idea what they're talking about.

No, more troops is not "low intensity warfare", it's only one thing: More targets for the insurgents. To suggest that with sealing off quarters, one could solve the issue, is to state pretty clearly one doesn't have the slightest idea why the operation is failing. It doesn't have anything to do with the number of M-16s on the ground.

Posted by: Kraut at January 11, 2007 08:09 AM

"Almost every time I've heard President Bush talk over most of the last six years, I felt like the guy was speaking to me from a parallel dimension. "

Wow-when I was reading some your posts from BIAP.... from a computer at Biap I thought you guys were in a parallel dimension! Some times I think you still are.

Posted by: Max at January 11, 2007 06:05 AM

The problem with the "new" solution is that it is based on a "fuzzy" analysis. There isn't just one conflict going on in Iraq, there are several. Some we can affect, some we can't.

There is the sectarian struggle amongst Iraqi ethnic and tribal groups for power and resources - Sunni vs. Shite vs. Kurd - we cannot impact that struggle. It is as musch political and social as military. There is a large Bathist element involved here, but it is as much tribal as political.

There is the "insurgent" struggle... or the war against the occupying forces (meaning the coalition). This struggle includes not only conflict against coalition forces, but also against anyone that is percieved as a sympathizer. This struggle is largely Sunni dominated, but also includes militia elements from among the Shites. Tw can only hope to tamp this down, but we won't "win" it anymore that Isreal won in the Bekka Valley. We can hope to exert some control, only.

There is the Jihad struggle... and this is the one the President really wants to win. We could win this, if we could clearly distinguish the combatants (but they are intermixed with the combatants from the other struggles). This includes the "foreign" fighters and the al Queda elements.

The problem with the "new" strategy is that it treats all of these struggles the same and assumes we can impact them the same. We can't. We cannot resolve the struggle for political (or military) dominence, between sects. Nor can we ultimately determine which group will control or share resources. That is an internal struggle which can only be decided, violently or politically, by the Iraquis. We can have some impact on the insurgency if we focus on it and we can definitely have some impact on the jihad struggle and the influx of outside fighters.

But ultimately, we cannot "win" any of these struggles unless and until the populace has faith and trust in our ability to do so and our fairness and humanity. Pouring force into a situation where the population is already traumatized by excessive uses of force won't win it! And I don't think that after 4 years of conflict and casualties the American public wants to fight a five year version of the Battle for Algeria. If we are to have any real hope for an exit short of total disaster, we had better get serious about getting the regional neighbors involved and making it clear that we do not intend permenant occupation of Iraq or the region.

Posted by: plainbrown1 at January 11, 2007 12:50 AM

Some people have mentioned about the possibilities of enemy sneaking out. This is where the plan for sealing Baghdad plays a role. Since months ago, there was a plan to build a barrier around the capitol, either concrete barricades or dig holes around. The main concern is the Iraqi security force at checkpoints, vulnerable to be bribed or members of the enemy. Yes, there is still methods to notice if those leaving the city from checkpoint are part of terrorist groups. I will not discuss this issue for the sensitivity of the subject, but if there is enough equipments for each checkpoint, it is very likely that most will fail to fool (but I will mention there are at least 3 techniques which terrorist elements will be detected at the checkpoint). It is stronlgy recommended for US troops, with alternatives of MNF troops, PMF/PMC, and Kurdish force for checkpoints at last. Arab Iraqi force are more suitable for house to house search teamed up with US troops, but even better just to be ready for support in combat where there is less chance to secretly support the enemy as at checkpoints and house to house search.

Posted by: pedestrian at January 11, 2007 12:36 AM

I mentioned "Quality was not everything" but I meant "Quantity was not everything". Sorry.

Posted by: pedestrian at January 11, 2007 12:17 AM

Number of troops IS a matter of low intensity conflict. This is not a traditional warfare with a frontline. Low intensity conflict involving guerilla tactics is spacial versus tradtional warfare being line oriented where frontlines are visual. Low intensity conflict is more about short range combat versus traditional warfare being more about long range (out range) combat. What does this all mean? It is very rare to be able to destroy mass chunks of enemy in low intensity conflict as traditional warfare where there is a frontline, where enemies wearing battle dressed uniforms with ranks and in military vehicles. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is spread out, and stealthy in terms of difficulties to determine the difference with civilians. Enemies do not often keep strongholds. If they are under attack, they attempt to escape from the surrounding enemy. In low intensity conflict, the enemy is offensive-centered, or say more concentrated in ambush. What is the solution to this low intensity conflict? Cordon and search. Surround, raid, and seal. QUANTITY of troops. It is very difficult to detect enemy until visual contact. No chunks of enemy at one spot, just like the state of osmosis, and that makes high explosive weapons more useless, and even more where civilians are concentrated in urban warfare. This state makes the low intensity conflict spacial oriented rather than lines of frontlines. Spacial oriented operations requires quantity. If there is not enough troops, the enemy will easily escape or outnumber the troops silently sneaking up and surround. Tell me what happened in the two battles of Fallujah? There were more troops involved in the second. Quality was not everything, but it may have contributed to the victory of the second. It will be the same for the next in Baghdad. There are thousands of houses and buildings to search in Baghdad. If the factor of quality is something like a stupid idea, just try to do it on your own and tell us if you can seal the area just by your own. There is a need of more troops, much as possible, for speediness to counter counter operations around the capitol, and to engage in spacial search inch by inch for every terrrorist and weapons. The troops will need to "squeeze" into the capitol from around, where there will be no room to escape. You need quantity for that. Is it possible to do it with preventing terrorists from sneaking out? Yes, there are plenty of "methods" using IT to determine rather a terrorist or not. More troops is the solution in low intensity conflict. It is spacial where no frontiles exists, and where you could just drop a high tech bomb from a stealth bomber to kill a chunk.

P.S. The hummers needed to be uparmored for the current trends of Iraq due to the state of conflict being low intensity conflict and spacial, and where the concept of "frontline" in traditional warfare gone. This is a spacial conflict where quantity matters.

Posted by: pedestrian at January 11, 2007 12:13 AM

I played this game in Nam! ( It SUCKS )
Pull everyone out that is worth a shit (forgive my language)
NUKE the PLACE! And take some of the neighbors with it.
Take the oil we ((( WON ))) the war.
Then get rid of Bush and his buddy!
We need a GOOD Marine or War Vet in this office. Of the President of the US That thinks more of our troops!
And I was not a Marine! (Army)

Posted by: JIMMYGEE at January 10, 2007 11:43 PM

i find it real interesting to see the comment about baiting Shias by blowing up the Golden Mosque of Samarra. Very similar to the baiting of America by blowing up the WTC.

Posted by: dt-lurker at January 10, 2007 10:48 PM