nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 09:47 PM

ok, last one...

Per 'EastCoaster',can we all agree on this blog not to attack someone because they 'haven't been there', and then imply they are either ignorant of the 'real' situation or a coward? Everyone has a right to a reasoned opinion and the facts.
If I lost a relative would my opinion matter more? This is the kind of rationale that has ruined reasoned debate about anything these days.

Or, per 'Veteran' re Halabja-
"Signed,
A Veteran who has BEEN to the city you speak of"

Even though I've been to the Alamo, I'm not sure I know any more about it than you do.
Stick to the facts, not DIA and CIA reports.
In film and still photos as well as first-hand testimony, it is clear blistering agents were used on Kurds by Saddam...you deny that?
Read the Duelfer report my friend and go read the tape transcripts..they has no taboos about using them, it is clear.

Posted by: j house at March 2, 2007 03:28 PM

Also,

I meant no disrespect for my bad attempt to try and put into perspective the combat losses suffered in this war relative to others or peacetime.One loss is horrible, but we're in a war, and we we put our troops next to the enemy, we'll suffer losses...and we have guys not in combat risking their lives worldwide every day just making it work.My point was that the Congress and the public's threshold for combat losses seems to be at an all-time low, even though our losses are significantly lower than past major conflicts.
BT has excellent points,but if you want to define 'defeat' 50 different ways and 'winning' only one, we'll always be defeated by terrorist violence.
What were our original goals in Iraq? Go back and read the resolutions, please.

Saddam and his sons out of power...check.
(hell, on the eve of the war, Bush claimed the US would be satisfied if the family just bailed the country, if you recall).

Unfettered UN inspections for evidence of WMD...check

Baath party taken down...bonus check.

Democratic elections, including Sunni participation...check.

Stable, democratic Iraqi govt that can fend for itself without US military and financial assistance...not checked.

Don't get so down.

Look, I wasn't for the war.I thought Bush had way too much hubris after 9/11 and early success in Afghanistan and had no idea what he was getting us into.
That said, we're in it.
After 9/11 lowered the bar for hitting us directly, could we have taken Saddam's fangs away for less that 3,100 plus brave Americans and a half trillion dollars to date?
As BT says, we need better, smarter leaders who tell it straight.

Posted by: j house at March 2, 2007 02:44 PM

To be entirely accurate, yes, we were also giving Iraq 'credits' that allowed Iraq to channel funds towards arms purchases and yes, US manufactured weapons showed up in Iraq.Show me one arms deal we inked with Iraq in the 80's and make me a believer (Hughes helicopters don't count)
The devil at the time was Iran and the USG feared a Shiite takeover in Iraq (my how times change)
My general point was, the bar was never set for defining a 'win'.
BTW,
Number of embassies destroyed before 9/11? 2
After...none.
Number of US warships nearly sunk before 9/11? 1
After...none.
Number of US cities attacked on 9/11? 2
After...none.
Numbe of AQ attacks on US homeland after 9/11?
none.

We're winning.

Posted by: j house at March 2, 2007 11:07 AM

To a 'Veteran', what proof do you have the US armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war?
The only arms ever shipped to any of the 2 parties from the U.S. was Hawk SAMs and TOW missiles to Iran, by way of Israel.
PROVE that the U.S. ARMED Iraq, instead of just mouthing it..that has been a lie the media has told for years (and no, I don't watch FOX. Go read the transcript between Saddam and Ambass. April Glaspie..that will demonstrate clearly the US wasn't arming Saddam. Sure, we were giving him intel to stave off an Iranian invasion, but that falls way short of an arms deal.
Second, the notion that Iraq should be excused for the use of chemical weapons because they were fighting a war with Iran is nonsense. Yes, there was a debate in the US IC about who was responsible for Halabja, but I think the recordings of Ali Hassan majid should clear that up a bit. It was obvious Saddam had no scruples about using CW when he saw fit.
I'd enlist right now, but I'm 45. If you can help get me embedded, I'll take leave and give you a report on the ground in Iraq.I have no problem with that, or you insinuating because I'm not there I don't know what is going on.
If you can do this, I'll send you my contact details

Posted by: j house at March 2, 2007 10:56 AM

For this to be truely effective, on an aircraft, you have to have many thin skins to protect the critical parts. or to tub them like the A-10. Both call for massive increases in the weight of the aircraft, which are massively underpowered to start with. The weight ratios are calculated with the best "bang for the buck". Which is where it all stops. You do the right things to stop the aerial attacks, or you let a few drop. Our wise leaders said to let a few drop. Our tax dollars which are hoisted to ever higher depths, says now a few more can drop. Do you get what I'm gettin at folks. You don't do like Tsu said, you lose.

Posted by: Buck at February 24, 2007 10:19 PM

It would be stupidly naive to think that you could overfly Iraq (or any country, for that matter) for 4 years and not expect a populace that hates us to come up with something to attack them. We should have expected this.

Posted by: Patriot Scholar at February 24, 2007 03:36 PM

I think we could all go and decimate Jhouse's "Fox News talking Points" but since it has already been done, I'd like to simply focus on ONE of them...

---->"Iraq's govt won't be using chemical weapons on any of it's civilians any time soon..remember Halabja?"--j house

I think you need to step away from a talking point, and derive your TRUTH'S from...REALITY.

Hopefully, this will help you, but I doubt it.
The incident concerning Halabja (In the EIGHTIES for Christ's sakes....), was during a battle, during a WAR between Iraq and Iran.
That says all that needs to be said concerning warfare in the Middle East where they hardly had any MACHINERY to begin with, but further to my point is that after this battle in Halabja between Iraq and Iran, it was stated then (1988), that the one's that had used the particular gas that had killed the civilians was......

IRAN. (that's with an N, btw...)

The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies indicated they had been killed with a blood agent- that is, a cyanide-based gas- ” which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that IRAN was partly to blame.

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact IRAN that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's.

So, what do we have here? We have the "blaming" of IRAN concerning Halabja after it happened by Our CIA, State Dept, the DIA etc., since we were arming IRAQ and were helping them fight Iran at the time and NOW, it's very convenient to totally divert from REALITY to "blame" it on IRAQ.....

My My...how "convenient" it is to use a "friend" one day, as a "enemy" the next.

Ahhh, the ability to use "revisionist history", without even KNOWING history.
When you can do something tangible with your "talking points" j house, please, step up.....

Signed,
A Veteran who has BEEN to the city you speak of.

Posted by: A Veteran at February 24, 2007 01:40 PM

Sanctions against Iraq have ended, Iraq's economy is on the mend from decades of abuse and war brought on by Saddam (ask human rights groups how many Iraqi children HAVEN'T died from ending sanctions..had they had their way, Saddam would still be there)

You really need to do some fact checking. The food situation in Iraq is considered dire. Iraq used to be one of the top exporters of food in the Arab region now it has to depend on food imports for survival. Even then most Iraqis cannot get more then basic rations.

More children are dying in Iraq each die due to lack of medical supplies. You should read several reports done by health agencies that show tens of thousands of doctors have had to flee or be killed. The medical system is in shambles due to US contractor incompetancy. Children are dying from easily prevantable diseases. Medical personeal have to go to the black market to get supplies that prior to the invasion would have only costed pennies. Now they pay through the roof if they can actually find said supplies at the black market.

More then a million people are refugees in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands have fled to neighboring countries. Recent reports have shown that the country which had most people living at a middle class level now has most of them at the brink of poverty. Unemployment is incredibly high. Why do you think insurgents get so many willing people to plant bombs for ten bucks? Because there is no other way to make money to buy food if there is any food to be bought.

A large percentage of Iraqis admit that life under Saddam was better. The years since post invasion have killed more people then decades of Saddam rule.

That million dead figure poopooed by the US media and goverment agencies guess what other agencies have verified the reporting that went into it. So yes more then a million likely have died since the invasion.

Guess you forget the US military saying that to kill one insurgent they had to kill 30-40 civilians. Guess what those familes of those 30-40 civilians do they hate the US and become insurgents or support the insurgents.

Posted by: tiredofthestupidity at February 24, 2007 01:16 PM

"All of this talk about 'defeat' is nonsense.
-Iraq's govt. is no longer a threat to it's neighbors"

Iraq now has a majority Shiite government. That is a potential threat to the neighboring Sunni-dominated countries, namely Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Why do you think Saudi wants Iran neutered? Because they're great friends? Are our Arab allies Sunni or Shia? Look at a map and think about it.

"-Iraq's govt is not hosting AQ terrorists and not funding anti-U.S. sub-national groups, as was Saddam (ok...maybe Sadr, but we'll deal with him)."

Iraq the geographical entity, however, is hosting AQ terrorists, as are Pakistan and Afghanistan. In addition, Sadr is the main internal support of the Shiite government of Iraq that we support.

"-Iraq's WMD capacity for the far distant future is neutered"

As it was since the mid nineties. Good continuity there.

"-Iraq's govt won't be using chemical weapons on any of it's civilians any time soon..remember Halabja?"

What guarantee do you have of that? This is pure speculation.

"-Saddam and his boys are in boxes and the Iraqi Baath party is a shadow of it's former self and completely powerless"

They were replaced with a Shiite government allied with Iran. There is now a "Shiite crescent" running from Iran to Lebanon.

"-25 million Iraqis are now free to choose their fate and voter turnout ws higher than most western democracies , after having lived through a bloodthirsty dictatorship for 30 years..who said the transition to democracy isn't a bitch?"

Nobody.

"-Sanctions against Iraq have ended, Iraq's economy is on the mend from decades of abuse and war brought on by Saddam (ask human rights groups how many Iraqi children HAVEN'T died from ending sanctions..had they had their way, Saddam would still be there)"

Ask human rights groups how many Iraqi children now have no parents.

"-We've brought the Jihadis to Iraq and are killing them day in and day out, by the hundreds"

They'll make more. How hard is this to understand?

"-We're losing on average 2 American GI's per day, less than a thousand men and women a year (God bless and honor every one of them for their exemplary service and supreme sacrfice for the liberty of others). Compare that to peacetime accident losses in the 60's,70's and 80's or any other major conflict in the last 50 years"

You make it sound easy for these GIs to die. Please enlist, and write your next comment from Iraq.

"What defeat? You listen to our politicians and the media and believe it. Look at the big picture- How many US embassies have been leveled since 9/11?"

How many before then?

How many US warships have been nearly sunk?

How many before then?

"How many US cities have had devastating attacks happen since then?"

How many before then?

How many terrorists have been free to train, plan and carry out attacks compared to the 90's?

See U.S. and Iraqi casualties in Iraq.

Stop watching Fox News, and you will be better informed.

Posted by: East Coaster at February 24, 2007 11:43 AM

The sad thing is the Military will allocate even more money that the 400 trillion dollars in the past didnt cover in trying to come up with a solution.

It will only goto Raytheon or Northrup Grumman and some genius sitting in his basement with nothing to do and all the technical know how in the world will get 0$ because he was unproven and too risky.

Gotta love capitalism and the defense industry. It will be five years until they will even prove feasability on the very idea that these SAM's can be defeated, and another 10 trillion dollars and 10 years until we get something that "sort of" works to the soldiers in the battlefield at 100000X more then it should of cost.

Posted by: jtw at February 23, 2007 08:44 PM

j. house.

FACTS are IRRELEVENT in 4GW, perception is reality. The goal is to attack your opponets will to fight, using any means necessary. That is why the insurgents videotape and post every attack, whether successful or not. IT WORKS!

It doesn't matter what you or I think, the polls and Congress tell the story. We are leaving Iraq earlier than we otherwise would, and we will leave because the majority of Americans and Congress don't want us there anymore; the costs are too high, in their opinions.

Like I said before, the American people and Congress determines the fate of the military, not the Commanders on the ground. Insurgencies and post conflict lasts 10-20 years; do you think we will be in Iraq, past Jan 20, 2009? NO! I call that a defeat, not militarily, but political. The result is the same, either way. Unfinished business.

I don't listen to the media and I am apolitical for the very reasons you outlined. It takes real leader to expalin all of this to the American people, but no one in either party is capable of that complex task. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is.

Posted by: BT at February 23, 2007 03:13 PM

As I mentioned here before, the real signficance of MANPADS is not in shooting down helicopters but in forcing them to change their tactics and making them much less effective. This was what happened in Afghanistan, and there is a risk it will happen in Baghdad.

Posted by: David Hambling at February 23, 2007 03:00 PM

"IED's, Snipers, MANPAD, TV, and time is all one needs to defeat the most powerful military in the world. The Pentagon is too slow and not creative enough to supply timely countermeasures to any of these tactics.

It is a defeat for the US, since I count the fact the majority of Americans, and Congress want us to leave Iraq before the US accomplishes its goals, and therefore we will be out of Iraq by 2008, instead of 2015+. Not finding an adequate solution to the IED's, and now having to deal with the air threats (real or perceived), just increases the strategic despair of the American people; and its not by accident they are used."

All of this talk about 'defeat' is nonsense.
-Iraq's govt. is no longer a threat to it's neighbors
-Iraq's govt is not hosting AQ terrorists and not funding anti-U.S. sub-national groups, as was Saddam (ok...maybe Sadr, but we'll deal with him)
-Iraq's WMD capacity for the far distant future is neutered
-Iraq's govt won't be using chemical weapons on any of it's civilians any time soon..remember Halabja?
-Saddam and his boys are in boxes and the Iraqi Baath party is a shadow of it's former self and completely powerless
-25 million Iraqis are now free to choose their fate and voter turnout ws higher than most western democracies , after having lived through a bloodthirsty dictatorship for 30 years..who said the transition to democracy isn't a bitch?
-Sanctions against Iraq have ended, Iraq's economy is on the mend from decades of abuse and war brought on by Saddam (ask human rights groups how many Iraqi children HAVEN'T died from ending sanctions..had they had their way, Saddam would still be there)
-We've brought the Jihadis to Iraq and are killing them day in and day out, by the hundreds
-We're losing on average 2 American GI's per day, less than a thousand men and women a year (God bless and honor every one of them for their exemplary service and supreme sacrfice for the liberty of others). Compare that to peacetime accident losses in the 60's,70's and 80's or any other major conflict in the last 50 years

What defeat? You listen to our politicians and the media and believe it.

Yes there is instability..in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Israel..the only difference is the frequency of successful terrorist attacks.

Look at the big picture-
How many US embassies have been leveled since 9/11?
How many US warships have been nearly sunk?
How many US cities have had devastating attacks happen since then?
How many terrorists have been free to train, plan and carry out attacks compared to the 90's?

We're winning, and our critics don't like it.

Posted by: j house at February 23, 2007 11:44 AM

When you do the math, you realize there are a hell of alot of rotary wing aircraft in the Sunni triangle airspace on any given day, at any given hour. What is miraculous is that there haven't been more shot down..this has been nearly a 48 month period.
Coordinated ground fire can be very effective and it does appear they are making a concerted effort to plan these attacks, and, they get lucky sometimes by being in the right place at the right time.
What you won't hear about in the press is the successes we've had killing those that failed to take one down. Surely there have been many in a 4 year period.

Posted by: j house at February 23, 2007 11:19 AM

Oh, and I should probably admit that I'm a ring knocker. BEAT ARMY! (Sorry, force of habit.)

Posted by: Ward at February 23, 2007 11:13 AM

Solomon:

Let's keep it civil, please. A couple of folks here have gone out of their way to give pretty decent explanations of the process. This is a comments forum, not the Jerry Springer show. If you have a point you want to make, please make it without insults. Ad hominem attacks aren't productive here.

Posted by: Ward at February 23, 2007 10:36 AM

Hey Mike!

Hit a little close to the mark with the "ring knocker" comment did I???? Want to talk do you cowboy??? Hang on --I hope this hurts. I was not aiming at the the officer doing patrols numbnuts...I stated in my earlier post that people that never leave the "fob" you idiot. That leaves out most Lt's, Capt's, some Maj's etc...Now what does that leave us with you sorry excuse for human skinage? That leaves us with the so called brain trust guys, the strategic thinkers planners etc...some MORON like you probably. On these same pages when I first suggested that Iranian SF and SA-18s were not knocking our guys down, people like you said no...now the truth comes out and people like you talk adapting enemy. I'm talking about a lack of MORAL COURAGE in the MILITARY OFFICER CORPS! Its easy to do the physical thing. Most guys relish the physical courage stuff...the Moral Courage thing is the hard stuff. Moral courage is whats needed now. Either this fight is for the very survival of our nation or we need to walk away. The tactics of it, NOPE I DON"T KNOW- but someone should have....THATS MY POINT SOMEONE DIDN"T DO THERE JOB AND NOW PEOPLE HAVE DIED. Little piss ant flag waivers like you make me sick.

Posted by: Solomon at February 23, 2007 10:02 AM

Jason: Great question regarding the Osprey. Stay tuned. In a few days I'm going to post an "insiders" overview of the V-22, including an assessment of its tactical implications. (I worked on the V-22 program at NAVAIR for three years ('02-'05).)

Posted by: Ward at February 23, 2007 09:32 AM

Man you don't even know how long I've waited for this since disabling my own Movable Type widget (that doesn't work since Haloscan bypasses that code).

Posted by: Rasel at February 23, 2007 07:50 AM

Being non-military, but very interested in keeping our boys safe, can someone with more knowledge give me some insight on how effective these MANPADS are on planes? I'm guessing not as much on the fast movers, but more so on the A-10s, C130 gunships, etc. Is that accurate? I remember watching the History Channel and seeing clips of the Muj down some Soviet jets with Stingers...but that might have been due to the Stingers severely outclassing the Soviet countermeasures of the time. Also, what impact would increased use of Ospreys have in place of the normal rotary winged helis since they are much faster? Thanks in advance!

Posted by: Jason at February 23, 2007 01:39 AM

Well said Mike. Its amazing how low the casualties are in this conflict. Look at how many helicopters were shot down durring vietnam. Look at all the hundreds of thousands of planes lost durring WWII. Its amazing how fortunate we have been yet nothing is good enough for anyone. 3 helicopters get shot down and everyone thinks the world is coming to an end. This is a war zone. Shit happens.

Posted by: Mike1 at February 22, 2007 11:22 PM

Soloman,
Based on your Ring Knocker comment, I'm going to guess you don't have the first idea how many West Pointers are serving in the actual front lines. So here's a pop quiz for you genius, since you've got it all figured out back here 4,000 miles from the nearest FOB.

How does one build a helicopter countermeasure system capable of detecting the visible or IR signature of a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile from a rear aspect shot, and deploy effective countermeasures to defeat said missile at short range/low altitude? Current IR countermeasures, assuming they are properly employed, can add a measure of protection, but a MANPAD is easily hidden, and deployed once an aircraft has passed over head. A point blank rear aspect missile shot is damned hard to defeat. Flight tactics (diverse routes, proper NOE flight) are your best bet.

Second, how do you build a helicopter capable of withstanding large caliber small arms fire, and returning point effect fire while discriminating hostile from civilian targets at ranges in excess of 1000 meters?

Ok, you're right, the answers are easy. It's just that our current 'batch' of officers, with actual experience leading these missions don't know what the hell they're doing, and can't figure out the easy answers you've put together back here.

By the way, did you realize that those same enema-needing ring knockers are actually out leading patrols, flying combat missions, and fighting and dying? Maybe you need a little more perspective on the role of combat arms officers than watching the lieutenant in "Aliens" a few dozen times.

Posted by: Mike at February 22, 2007 10:07 PM

Our military will never respond quickly with new weapons as long as it continues to pay contractors more to screw up than it does for them to meet their contractual obligations. Let's face it, if you have a billion dollar development contract and you screw up enough, it turns into a 2 billion dollar contract. Instead of making 10% on one, they make 10% on two billion. Where's the down side in that? When our defense industry was at its peak, they didn't get paid anything for development. They only got paid for hardware. It either worked better than anyone else's, or it didn't. The US taxpayer didn't pay anyone to screw around and build garbage. Coincidence?

Posted by: Dfens at February 22, 2007 09:11 PM

This is so predictable it's sad it happens. It seems the US military in Iraq is always getting caught with its pants down. My stance on these things is known, so I won't add more specifics to this conversation.

IED's, Snipers, MANPAD, TV, and time is all one needs to defeat the most powerful military in the world. The Pentagon is too slow and not creative enough to supply timely countermeasures to any of these tactics.

It is a defeat for the US, since I count the fact the majority of Americans, and Congress want us to leave Iraq before the US accomplishes its goals, and therefore we will be out of Iraq by 2008, instead of 2015+. Not finding an adequate solution to the IED's, and now having to deal with the air threats (real or perceived), just increases the strategic despair of the American people; and its not by accident they are used.

Let this be a lesson to the Iran, and China warmongers. The US military needs to create a "5GW" strategy to defeat our current 4GW situation. A F22/F35, or DDX (pick any program) doesn't help us for that type of warfare.

Posted by: BT at February 22, 2007 06:24 PM

I have recently seen new technology that will defeat an rpg in land vehicles. I believe it was originally developed by the israelis. why not utilize such technology on aircraft. the united states navy employs the phalanx system on its warships. the us army has developed a land based laser system to defeat morters and incomming artillery. why not utilize these systems to help aircraft defeat simple heat and radar seeking missles. these systems have been around for quite some time. lets use what the russians learned in afghanistan and implement a new defense against an aging threat. I know that america has powerful resources to combat this threat. the only question is if the beaurocracy can get out of its own way and implemet some new systems that dont cost ten of billions of dollars.
sincerely one very concerned and patriotic american.

Posted by: erik at February 22, 2007 05:44 PM

I followed your link and find you credible. With that out of the way, and with the communication going on between Aviators and such, why the delay in implementing these new measures??? Once again someone in command is dropping the ball in not being able to quickly devise countermeasures (active or passive) to these threats. I'm sitting on my butt over 4,000 miles away and can piece these things together, why can't some Ring Knocker sitting in some FOB do the same damn thing??? The failures in leadership that have taken place during this conflict are astonishing. To talk about what MAWTS or the guys down at FT Rucker are doing to fix this is to ignore the main issue. This is happening in real time to our people in theater and to explain it away as a thinking adapting enemy is to diminish the culpability of the current crop of military officer. Our officer corps need an enema.

Posted by: Solomon at February 22, 2007 05:29 PM

Not useless, Juan. !Mucho importante! I'll fix it. After all, who ever heard of scratching your boxes?

Posted by: Ward at February 22, 2007 04:43 PM

just a language question:

* In Spanish, "cajones" means "boxes", mainly of furniture.
* "Cojones" means "balls", or testicles.
* In fact, street language actually covers hundreds of uses of cojones out of the literal meaning.
* In the context you are trying to use, tener cojones (to have cojones) is a spiritual state of extreme valor, possibly against rationality.
* Indeed, first recorded use of "cojones" in English Language related to war histories was during Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). A militiamen was asked by a journalist how he had destroyed 6 tanks in 3 hours. Actually he threw a gas can to the belly of the tank (that light nazi or italian tanks of the time) with a grenade attached on it. Well, that pal just answered "Echandole cojones" (something like "having cojones" or maybe "increasing cojones", sort of). The journalist was in a hurry, so he directly sent the article "as that", with a title like "Destroy tank with cojones. Is that a new device...?".

My 2 useless (but maybe interesting) 2 cents.

Posted by: Juan at February 22, 2007 04:38 PM