I was reading the Ron Paul/Rudy Giuliani and came across this from ConservePat. (I hope he will join this thread to bring more of his examples.)



I think he hits the nail squarely on the nail on the head.

Political correctness has crippled our once strong military. I mean we have sensitivity training in the military for God's sake, what in the hell is that?!

Question for debate:

1. Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?

Question for debate:

1. Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?
Yes, against a politically correct opponent. Since those are fairly rare these days, and it takes a flight of fancy of Gargantuan porportions to imagine the Islamofascists as PC, the picture is not good.

However, I don't believe that we can't win this war, I simply wonder how long it will take before we decide we will.

1. Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?

It has. Saddam Hussein was pushed out of power and executed. The Iraqi military was disbanded. That mission, engaging a country with a distinct military, was accomplished.

No military, PC or not, does well against insurgency. The big problem in this is not knowing who's your friend and who's your enemy. You could be unwittingly supplying information and equipment to your enemy, who looks like your friend today and the enemy tomorrow.

PC has nothing to do with the problems in Iraq. Ignoring reality does. The military could bomb all the Mosques in Iraq, and it wouldn't change a thing. Well, that might make it even worse I suppose. And maybe a little better: We'd know who the enemy was, which would be everybody else. Then there'd be no point in staying.

I see. So you are saying we won the war? Stop the presses!! A democrat has said we have won the war in Iraq!! Could you please contact the Senate Majority Leader Andy Reid?

I believe if we were bombing all those Mosques that were being used as hiding places you would see a lot less organization and attacks from the insurgency. Radical Islam only respects brute force, they have even said so in their communications.

1. Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?

There is no way to prevail without the backing (or at least compliance) of the host population. Not in the way we are trying to in Iraq or Afghanistan. There will be no more large armies meeting in the middle of the desert for a face-off. The future is urban warfare, and we have to come up with a way to deal with that. Insurgents, militias, terrorists, and death squads are killing civilians at an alarming rate and security forces are unreliable. The Iraqi government is not meeting the needs of the people, and that is the problem. Young men don't join insurgencies, or place improvised explosive devices along the roadside, or kidnap hostages for ransom enmasse if the population at large does not permit it. Now, there seem few better options available and as central government is corrupt and impotent beyond comprehension. Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong wrote, "Without a political goal, guerrilla warfare must fail, as it must if its political objectives do not coincide with the aspirations of the people and their sympathy, cooperation, and assistance cannot be gained."

The foremost goal of urban warfare (or "counterinsurgency") is to secure the support of the people. Being the good guys, specifically being seen as the good guys, is paramount for us. Killing civilians and bombing mosques undermines that effort. Just as importantly, THE IMPRESSION that we bomb mosques and kill civilians, even if not true, undermines that effort. Hard to combat in the internet/ mass media age of quarter-truths.

Michael Yon writes of this phenomenon:

I missed the news of turnover of the Maysan Province and the other three provinces...did anyone else? At any rate, he goes on to explain further of public perception and even innocent things can be interpreted badly.

I am afraid that this entire thread is based on a myth, nothing more than a questioning rumour that has no basis in reality.

The reason that US is at the same time trying to defeat the insurgency while trying to make friends with the local population (colloquially known as 'hearts and minds') is not because the US military has been subverted by the PC police, but rather because repeated historical engagements have shown that this is the ONLY way to have a chance of winning an occupation against an entrenched insurgency: I repeat, the only way.

Those armchair-generals who keep saying the US should 'take the gloves off' or prosecute the war in a more ruthless fashion quite simply have NO idea what they are talking about. You cannot beat an entrenched insurgency into submission, you just can't. Can anyone point to a SINGLE case in the last 60 years where an insurgency was beaten by force of arms alone? Even ONE example?

In fact the worst thing the US could do is 'take off the gloves', as such an act would both increase the death toll and increase the strength of the insurgency, rather than weaken it. The lessons learned in Vietnam (which these aformentioned armchair generals insist on ignoring) are simple:

How do you defeat an army that consist of men who are farmers and shopkeepers by day, and insurgents by night, that operate in small local groups not requiring heavy logistics or support, that do not use sophisticated communication and do not require resupply or reinforcement? Simple, either you kill EVERYONE in a genocidal frenzy, or you convince the shopkeepers to stop being insurgents, and you cannot do that by killing the shopkeep's friends and family.


Let us think of this another way. Starting in 1979, another country found itself in a VERY similar situation: the USSR invaded Afghanistan and though it won the war easily found itself dealing with a mounting insurgency. A lot of myths exist about the USSR in Afghanistan, but keep in mind the following:
-Soviet troops were all far more experienced than US troops at counter-insurgency warfare
-Soviet planners were very intelligent and very aware of what kind of insurency would exist, and that it would need to be dealt with.
-The Soviet Union did NOT operate with 'kid gloves' nor did they fall victim to the PC police, rather they did whatever was necessary to defeat the insurgency

And they still lost. Badly. The idea of fighting 'in a non PC manner' has ALWAYS led to total defeat for the occupying power, ALWAYS.


In fact, I highly recommend you all do some reading into the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, the parallels are staggering.

-The USSR stayed at the behest of the Afghan government, and with their permission, however this government did not have the support of its people, who all wanted the Soviets out. The Afghan government wanted the USSR to stay largely because they knew they could not govern the state without the Soviet troops present.
-The Afghan army was theroetically on the Soviet side, but was corrupt and rent by tribal factions. It was also penetrated by the Mujahadeen who learned skills there then deserted with Army equipment.
-There were multiple insurgencies, both tribal groups which fought each other as much as the Soviets, and stronger ideological religious groups, which received materiel aid from outside in terms of high-tech equipment, mines, missiles and explosives (Outside here being primarily the US).

...and so on.

In the end the USSR was forced to withdraw, and sure enough the Afghan government survived a little longer then collapsed. The similarities between these two wars are incredible, and yet there are always some people who do not understand the basics of counter-insurgency who call for MORE brutality, MORE destruction, and FEWER atempts to win the hearts and minds, in an effort to make the US occupying troops just like the 1980's Soviet ones...

I agree with Vermillion above. Historical parallels are important here. I would never equate US forces with Soviets, nor would I equate them with Nazi forces, but we can even look at the Nazi occupation of France for guidance on this issue of "PR" and how bad conduct can effect the course of a war too.

When the Germans first occupied France, they were actually on their best behavior (for them). The Vichy government was established, and its leader was very popular (Petain was regarded as the "Hero of Verdun") by comparison to the unknown but vocal de Gaulle. Things turned south as harsher and harsher measures were used over the entire population to combat resistance. Then the labor draft was set up, and the Milice police forces created...and they were the most corrupt and ruthless. I'm somewhat reminded of the Milice when I think of the Iraqi police today. Here is an airforce times article that I intended to open a thread on a while back. I think it's pertinent here.



It's a mess.

The difference with Iraq and France is that France was not ruled by a dictator before being invaded by Nazi Germany. The problem we have in Iraq is that a large portion of the population feels liberated from a brutal dictator, while we are "losing" to a small insurgency.

From what I have seen by most who are opposed to any action in the first place, they say let the dictators rule by oppression because if we defeat that dictator militarily, we will not be able to defeat the insurgency that will soon follow. Tell me if I am not reading this right?

I agree with much of what you say, but I think that here you overstate your case. There is the German occupation of the parts of Europe hostile to them during 1939-45, for example. With the exception of Yugoslavia and parts of Russia, the Germans were pretty effective at suppressing insurgency. I believe that history shows that machine-gunning 200 innocent people for every one of your own deaths does tend to have a very discouraging effect on insurgencies, and successfully induces people stop giving support to them. This level of brutality was not, I believe, open to the Soviets in Afghanistan, nor is it open to us in Iraq. In each case, the penalty in terms of world and domestic opinion is, or was, too severe.

The differences are legion, not just in that respect but others. Still, the analogy is accurate as it pertains to this topic...specifically the PR war and how it applies to occupational forces.



It seems to me a large portion of the population feels liberated, but also longs for the old security and simultaneously hates us.



We usually do let dictators rule by oppression, unless that dictator invades another country and then we might come to their aid if they ask us. Otherwise, intervention is justified if there is an imminent security threat. The administration was pretty much convinced that we would be heralded by the population as liberators, had they believed otherwise I think they would have gone about things differently.

True, but I think beside the point. I'm sure if you poll iraqis with the question 'Are you Glad saddam Hussein is no longer in power', you would get an overwhelming yes, yet they still massively want the US to leave. There has been this bizarre assumption on the far right that because the Iraqis were grateful to be freed from saddam (which most of them were) they should therefore sit there and accept whatever happens next, even if it is an extended US occupation.

So yes, you are correct: A large portion of the the population feels liberated from a brutal dictator, and yes the US is losing to a significant insurgency. There is no automatic connection between the two.



Well, thats bordering on strawman territory, as I haven't seen anyone make that argument, but for the sake of debate: There is nothing inherently wrong with removing a brutal murderous dictator, but keep in mind everyone and their dog was telling the US that there would be an insurgency and how to minimise it, and the US literally did the exact opposite of all the advice on the topic, with predictable results.

Also, I personally find a lot of hypocricy in the 'removing an evil dictator' argument, when you consider that this same dictator had been in power, and murderous for almost 30 years. What, did the US just notice?


However all that is an aside. The reality is the situation that exists now is the situation that exists now, and 'taking off the gloves' is the surest way to make things worse and kill lots of people for nothing.




Well, no. In fact there were insurgencies in every part of occupied Eastern Europe. You already mentioned Russia and Yugoslavia, add Greece, the Czech half of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Serbia... the states of Romania, Hungary and Croatia were allies and so had no real insurgencies, but every non allied state had insurgencies of some form, some very effective. let us not forget that the Germans massacred Lidice in Chechoslovakia because Czech partisans killed Heydrich, the man who designed and implemented the final solution. Now not every insurgency was as loud and bloody as the Partisans in Rusia, but then there was a huge population with airlifted supplies and bolstered by actual Soviet military forces trapped beind the lines.


Regardless, even the most brutal actions could not destroy an insurgency, at best it crippled an individual pocket, whle compelling more people into active opposition to their opressors. And the Germans did not care to make a distinction between partisans and civilians, they simply didn't care. Do you think that would work in Iraq, even if the US COULD try it? It would just make things 100x worse...

Yes, and to clarify what I said, it is trully, as Vermillion said, it is impossible to win support from a host population while being ruthless and amoral. My point is that there are times when tiptoeing is appropriate and necessary and times when it is not. I still stand by my example of insurgents held up in a mosque. In such a situation, alerting the surrounding neighborhood and bombing the mosque would not be "ruthless" it would be logical...If the enemy is in a building and won't come out, eliminate the building. I think the term "politically correct" war was probably not the best wording on my part, perhaps the correct term was "apprehensive". I think that we can crank up our level of intensity without necessarily throwing what little support we have in the Iraqi people away.
That's fair Vermillion, as I said, to prosecute the war in a completely ruthless manner is just as ineffective as not being in anyway ruthless. What I'm saying is we need to reach a happy medium between killing everything and trying to fight the war in a Barney suit. So I do agree with what you're saying. I would like to know, though, how many historical examples are there of an insurgency's heart and minds being won over by an occupying power [I'm really asking, I don't know.]?
Funny you should mention that, I just picked up The Hidden War: A Russian Journalist's Account of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, yesterday. Again, Vermillion, I don't disagree with what you're saying, fighting a war with our gloves completely off is a terrible idea and as you mention, has never worked in the history of warfare. My point is that I think we can afford to get a little tougher while still attempting to win the hearts and minds.

CP

One of us is mistaken about the scale and importance of the insurgencies in most of German-occupied Europe. Poland? Really? My impression was that the Germans without much trouble ran what they regarded as the former Poland like a big slave labor camp. Generalgouvernement, and so forth. I propose that French resistance, for another example, was hardly as costly to the Germans as the Iraqi resistance is to us, and likewise the Czech. Heydrich's death was a mere incident, as I had thought.

Of course I am not saying that there was no insurgency, only that in most places, it was something that the Germans could pretty easily live with, and would likely have come to an end had the Germans settled the war on favorable terms. And an important reason for that, I maintain, is their very brutal methods. Otherwise we are left with what seems to me to be the very doubtful proposition that it's impossible for one country to conquer and subjugate another. Japan's experience in Korea and Manchuria, Britain's in India, or Rome's in Britain for that matter, would seem to supply counterexamples.

And no, as I think I made clear in my original post, the brutal methods necessary to really subjugate a hostile people would not be expedient for the U.S. in Iraq, any more than they would have been for the Russians in Afghanistan.

Vietnam all over again. "If only we could kill more people....". Typically American. Of course I could be wrong, but I will guess those who say "untie our army's hands" are not in the military or in Iraq. Hilarious.

This of course will become part of the mythology of the Iraq war after the U.S. has been defeated. That it didn't fight hard enough due to weakness of the political will, I mean. As if dropping a 500-pound bomb on a house because it just might contain some insurgents is an unduly gentle way of fighting. Have you seen photographs from Faluja? But no matter. With the full collaboration of the "liberal" media, in thirty years a great many Americans will believe that it was a noble cause that failed only due to insufficient use of force, brought on by political interference with the generals. And then it will all be repeated somewhere else, with a similar blaring of martial music and a similar display of billowing U.S. flags behind the heads of cheer-leading "news" commentators.

I've always said this. The Republicans insist on calling the aftermath of the real war a continuing war, specifically, the Global War on Terror. That's hyperbole. And wrong. What's going on in Iraq is not a war, unless one wants to talk about civil war.

Anyway, the question posed is if we can win any more wars. Sure we can, when they are true wars -- one military fighting another military. We've never been able to win abstract wars, like on poverty, on drugs and now, on terrorism. Let's call it the Global War on Crime. Yep, been doing that one for a while, since civilization began I do believe.

You believe the GWoT can be won by bombing Mosques. I don't, and so there you go. CP once argued for carpet bombing. Yes, that worked real well in Vietnam, the Rolling Thunder mission, what the vets from that war call their Memorial Day gathering in Washington, D. C. I remember attempts at framing the Vietnam war for what it really was, a civil war. The leaders of this country rejected that idea right up to the fall of Saigon. Now Vietnam is one country that carries out trade with the US.

I think we eventually want Iraq to become one country that carries out trade with the US. Bombing Mosques will work about as well as carpet bombing did in Vietnam. If you have evidence to the contrary, then bring it up. Otherwise, it's just your belief and nothing more.

1. Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?

The issue is not whether a war against insurgents can be won by brutal means, but whether any country with even a semblance of human empathy should engage in such activities. The insurgents in the Philippines were eventually brutally suppressed as were American Indian uprisings,

See Here.

However, as Vladimir makes clear its not as if the insurgencies in Iraq have been treated with kid gloves either. Wholesale air assaults, the destruction of Fallujah and other cities, and the torture of prisoners all speak to the brutal steps the occupiers were willing to take. A million troops with similar brutality might "succeed" in the unnecessary war in Iraq at the expense of success in confronting terrorism generally and of almost every value and goal we have exposed.

Another flaw with much of the discussion here is the implicit assumption that we invaded and remain in Iraq and the Middle East for the benefit of Iraqis and their neighbors. Nothing could be farther from the truth as Tom Engelhardt makes clear in his discussion of the new American embassy in Bagdad,

See Here.

I disagree. Imagine it was all reversed - that insurgents in America were fighting an occupying power. While it may be "logical" for them to bomb the local churches because insurgents have taken sanctuary in them, and perhaps the more intellect-driven among us would say, "well, it was logical to bomb the church, after all, that's where the insurgents were hiding." But what would most people feel in their gut? Think about it - what would the general populace think about the occupying forces bombing a church - no matter who was inside it. Would it endear them to us? Would we calmly and objectively acknowledge the "logic?" I think not. I think there are few more symbolic statements then bombing a place of worship. Religion is irrational, and thus attacking symbols of religion - no matter how logical such an action may seem - is an action bound to elicit irrational responses that are based on emotion, not intellect.

Based on the forum title I came in here expecting to here some more nonsense about who is to blame for this or that, but you made a good point and I couldn't agree more with you, this has become like Ive put it once before, a political slugfest between democrats and republicans. America today sits on top the fence so to speak twiddling our thumbs wondering what way to go and in the meantime as we play politics we fight a weak war, with little conviction. Anyone who thinks we are losing because we lack recources or man power doesnt know much about how much military might the U.S. has stored away.

Go here to find out just how little we are putting into this effort considering what we have.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military


Here are some interesting facts......

Military personnel.......

Active personnel: 1,426,713 (Ranked 2nd) """To China I believe"""
Reserve personnel: 858,500

Annual Military expenditures............

1 United States......... 532,800,000,000 / 2007
2 United Kingdom....... 66,100,000,000 / 2007
3 France....... 64,611,000,000 / 2007
4 Germany....... 57,500,000,000 / 2007

And I shouldnt even have to post stats on the abilities of our air force in comparison to other nations, this is where we are generations ahead of anyone. So in short we have the 2nd largest amount of ground troops at our disposal, we spend 10 times as much as the U.K. who ranks 2nd in military expenditures, and our airforce?? where do I begin?? Yet we cant defeat a bunch of idiots running around in sheets and why is that?? Well I think this post makes a good point and I agree. So if we are defeated in this one, we got defeated from within and thats ashame.

Can we win a politically correct war? I don't know, but it sure does complicate things at the very least.

Though of course I don't fault you, as you technically posted accurate numbers, I always dislike it when people throw these numbers out as they are extremely misleading. Yes, the United states has almost 1.5 million men in the military. Yet they are absolutely stretched to the limit with current deployments, having to drastically lower entrance standards to meet recruitment quotas, compel men to stay past their tours of service (stop loss) and other desperation moves just to meet the basic requirements of military duty. So how can that be?

Simply, while the US has the second largest military force in terms of men, it also has the world's largest ratio of noncombatants for every combatant soldier. Lawyers, medical staff, electronics, flight engineers, prison guards, communications, analysts, reporters, mechanics, transport, accountants, cooks, clerks, administration... not to mention a very top heavy senior staff. All this means that out of almost 1.5 million men just over a tenth of those of those are actual combat troops.

Then let us not forget that in the last 4 years, in Iraq alone, the US has suffered almost 55,000 total in-theatre casualties, from combat, non combat and illness, predominantly among combat troops (note, of those 55,000 casualties, just over 10,000 were returned to duty, reducing total depletions to about 45,000)

Then lets subtract the US forces already deployed in Afghanistan, and what you have left is a paltry figure, and if you add in national guard, you have...well, about the same number as are currently on rotation in Iraq (on rotation= In iraq, elsewhere heading to Iraq, or elsewhere just having left Iraq)

Those numbers are CLEARLY insufficient. So going on about the millions of men in uniform is pointless unless you intend to send typists and lawyers into the front lines.


As to your other stats, yes the US air force is numouous and fairly advanced, there are a couple other nations with better aircraft, but only very few, and none in the numbers the US has and (far more importantly) none with the huge C&C advantages the US has. To which the response is... so what? How does air power help you against an insurency? The Us had massive air superiority in Vietnam too, as did the USSR in Afghanistan. Irrelevant.




That's clearly disingenuous. Guys are not 'idiots running around in sheets', rather intelligent, canny, dedicated guys in sheets are sniping from prepared positions, laying traps involving local knowledge of the ground, excellent support and explosive devices. Guys in sheets mining the roads, setting ambushes along convoy routes and then dissapearing when heavily engaged. In other words, smart men using guerrilla tactics and in depth local knowledge to hit and fade. The US 'can lose' because they are fighting an entrenched insurgency, and the reality is occupying powers almost ALWAYS lose despite their technical superiority. Perhaps you should forget about learning about WWII for now and concentrate on learning about Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan.

So you have really fast aircraft. Shiny, but completely irrelevant in this type of conflict.

1. Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?

This is a very good question and there really isn't a good answer to it. Over the past century or so, the common soldier has been forced into a position that forces large responsibility upon them, that of the statesman. No longer can the likes of Patton serve in the US Military because our soldiers have to be both culturally sensitive and hardened warriors. Tis the nature of modern warfare.

When it comes to Iraq, a politically correct military has hurt our cause, because the policy has been cloudy from the onset of the war. The soldiers were unsure of their role and how they should act in guerilla engagement. This is because they were not properly prepared for what Iraq would turn into. They thought it was going to be a quick and easy conflict, not affected by a vast insurgency. So from the very beginning, the US military policy was flawed and contributed to many of the problems that we see today. Thinking about a PC military fighting an insurgency, one is left with a decision of utility. Early on in the post-war campaign, there were numerous insurgent hotbeds, including Fallujah and Sadr City. Now we went the PC path at first and tried to pacify those areas without strong military force. This proved to be a failure. Fallujah required a full invasion, and we are still dealing with Sadr's militia. If we took the chains off the Marines and let them clean up both areas right away, there would have been some backlash, but it might have been less severe than the prolonged attempts to quell the violence. The longer we allowed the insurgents to group and launch attacks, the worse it was in the long run because instead of one big instance of fighting, it was a monotonous daily occurrence. Furthermore, the fighting was on the insurgent terms, not on our terms. That is IMO the most important problem with a PC army. Historical parallels between WWII insurgencies and that of Vietnam/Iraq do no good becuase of the type of civilizations that were being dealt with. Europe was a civilized continent while the nations we have dealt with recently are third world and backwards in comparison.

Fighting to win the hearts and minds of a populace will require a certain level of cultural sensitivity. However, the hearts and minds cannot be won without first securing the peace. If we go in saying that we liberated these people to free them from tyranny and make them safe from Saddam, then we have to actually make them MORE safe than before. You can hand out all the chocolate bars you want, but if insurgents are still able to walk into a crowded market and blow up 100 people, you aren't going to win any hearts or minds. This is why it is my opinion that securing the peace should have been the number one priority of the military from the onset of the war with nothing coming before it. There would have been some backlash and some injury if we went all in, but those wounds would have healed over time. Our current policy has us bleeding to death with no end in sight. To put it simply, the military victory MUST come first. Only then can a political victory be possible.

Thats misleading if you ask me because there is little you can do where you are not cross trained for combat and also used for combat, thats always been the case. Sure the medics, or military journalist will see less on field combat, but what you just said is true of every military in the world, making the point moot, all militaries divide their men into subcategories, so whats your point? We are not stretched to the limit, no ifs and or buts about it. However we are stretched with the percentage of the forces we are actually using, we are fighting a politically correct war and holding back because this county is so divided its not helping. There should be some careful consideration of how much in forces you deploy in any war, but lets assume we used everything at our disposal apart from our nukes to win, that would be no doubt, over doing it, leaving us vulnerable to attacks from other nations, but lets just suppose we did use everything our military has at its disposal but nukes. This war would be over in a month! A month, if not sooner. Thats obviously not a good idea considering the civilian casualties would be monstrous and the public backlash from such a decision would be high as well, but the point is we have a lot at our disposal we are not using, and I think its time we stepped it up a notch so we can come home sooner, rather than doing what we have been. Lets not forget we are not the only ones at war, we have other support, the idea that we are stretched to the limit only holds water if you consider the fact we are not flexing our military muscle so to speak.

Are you under the impression that those "other militaries" would be able to contribute anywhere near as many soldiers as we have in Iraq at this moment...what you seem to consider a limited half-hearted effort? So...what is YOUR point? We have commitments around the globe. We have forces in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Europe, Africa....You are right, if we totally abandon all of our other security commitments and take every available troop to Iraq, we would probably be able to take over that country for so long as our troops stay in position. It would sort of betray the governments of Japan, Germany, Italy, Djibouti and all the other countries that offer SFTs to keep us there...not to mention create an overnight destabilizing dearth in defense capability in areas that depend on our force presence in lieu of spending on their own military.

To place some perspective on this, right now the army is so overtasked they are trying to figure out how to use the non-flying portion of the airforce. We have Airforce personnel serving in Iraq as legal advisors, drivers, policemen, ect...filling army slots in which they are, incertain cases, entirely unqualified to fill, so that the army can fill the actual combat positions. And that is WITH civilian contractors filling thousands of positions that the army personel hisorically filled in past wars. You do realize that they have extended tours of duty to 15 months in Iraq instead of 12? Why do you think they did that exactly, to fill this (according to you) insignificant number of boots on the ground, if we have so many forces to work with? Why are some soldiers on their THIRD tour since this started only four years ago?

To follow this reasoning to a ridiculous and logical extreme....If we actually "took the gloves off", we wouldn't need very many forces at all. We could probably just use a large nuclear bomb. That would require one person to hit a button. Or, perhaps some mass firebombing raids in the big cities. Yes, that would certainly satisfy goals for a peaceful Middle East and world.

Yes I even said myself that using all our forces would be over doing it, but nothing you said has convinced me we are stripped of resources here and unable to pull in any more troops or put up a greater effort. Its also a matter of tactics, many things can be done better with what we have. I may not be a brainiac but I know enough about history to know how this effort measures up in comparison, we have fought tougher fights than this before but with the right leadership and a little conviction emerged victorious despite the fact. Its not a matter of low recources here, its bad politics, and weak conviction. No one can agree if Iraq is important, many cant even agree whether or not this entire war is important enough to stay. We are divided today more than ever, I don't even think the war at Vietnam compares to this situation. We have lost our will as a nation to take one stance and go with it, and this war effort is suffering as a result.

You really dodged Mrs P's question there, and I think that considering your assertion, it is worth an answer. You assert that US is not stretched, and can pull in more troops if it wants to.

Yet the facts show exactly the opposite. As Mrs P said, the US military is using desperation tactics to keep its troops in the field: extending tours by months, forcing troops into battle rotation before their required R&R period is up, processing stop-loss orders to keep troops in the military past their terms, Compelling walking wounded back into the field before medical discharge.

And thats not all, in order to increase troop recruitment the US army has been forced to dranatically lower entry standards, offer massive bonuses for enlistment and even larger ones for re-enlistment. Every measurable, quantifiable statistic shows that the US military is stretched to the breaking point and only barely gather the troops it needs to meet its operational requirements.

But thats not all. Why take my word for it:

-According to a 2006 study by the Pentagon:
"the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w133017S88.DTL

Every US general including Pace and Petraeus admits the US military is stretched, one of the reasons Abazaid was 'let go' was his comment that any troop surge would be unsustainable past 6 or 8 months.

The reason for this is obvious, do you know what this 'surge' is? It's not new troops being committed to the battle: its an artificial increase in total troop numbers obtained by extending the tours of troops due to go off rotation and hurrying into the field new troops that were not due to be deployed until September. This tactic does create a 'surge', but it is, to use the old turn of phrase, 'robbing peter to pay paul'. By extending existing tours, and using up future replacements the US military has ensured that this surge cannot be maintained for very long

I'm sorry Net2007, if you do not think the US military is sretched thin, then you are quite literally the only one who thinks that, and even the Pentagon and the US military commanders in the field disagree with you.



Like what? I'm sorry, I mean no offense, but this kind of comment has been made often here, by you and others, that 'the US military has not done all it should have done', or its 'tactics were wrong'. Well, enlighten us. What tactics do you think they SHOULD have used but have not? What actions have they NOT taken which have hampered their chances? I am referring to military decisions here, not the asinine Republican political decisions which created the mess, like debathification, disbanding the Iraqi military and making no attempt to protect infrastructure after the Fall of Hussein.

So please tell us, 'as a matter of tactics' what things should have been done better? Please be specific...




What fights, exactly? When has the US been engaged in this kind of counter-insurgency warfare before? I can think of one case, Vietnam, thats about it. And the US lost there too. This is NOT WWII, where one is trying to destroy a state, or defeat a political foe, there is no single leadership to kill, now industrial base to destroy, no communications to disrupt, no transportation grid to deny, this is not a stand up fight, it is an entirely different kind of war: the kind of war the US lost in Vietnam and the USSR lost in Afghanistan.

And how can it be lack of conviction? The Republicans held control of both of the houses and the presidency for the duration of the war. Yes, near the end even the Republicans revolted against the bad decisions and idiotic lack of planning of their leadership, but the country still had about THREE years of a united solid unchallengable Republican leadership with total control.

You are correct, it IS also a matter of bad politics, bad political leadership and bad decisions, but it is ALSO a matter of very low resources. Why do you think Bush Jr has been withdrawing troops from bases around the world, and closing bases over the past four years? Why haas the US presence in the Korean DMZ been reduced to just over 150 men? Bases in Germany and Okinawa closed? Because the US military is desperate for combat troops to serve in Iraq, and are pulling them from all over.




Well, based on what you just said, I would say Vietnam EXACTLY compares to this situation, as exactly the same situation applied in Vietnam. faced with a growing counter-insurgency the US could NOT control, and a political Vietnamese leadership alienated from the population and completely unable to govern, as well as mounting costs and casualties, there was a collapse of political will as people realised this war was being fouht for No really good reason in a distant land with no connection to the US or US security. The Vietnam war effort suffered as a result of that crisis, but that was overplayed by the right wing who pushed for more deaths and more escalation, and chose to focus on the recent crisis of faith and not on the years of defeat and loss for no solid or obtainable objective.

Question for debate:

1. Can a politically correct military prevail in future engagements?
[/quote]


Many of you have made lots of good points.

I wanted to answer the question with a blueprint, if you will:

As someone posted in another thread, Machiavelli postulated that a war won too easily meant an aftermath of disaster, and vice-versa; his point was in the former situation, the civilians were too strong and well to be governed, and in the latter, both the military and the civilians were beaten. This is really the answer to the question, IMHO.

Let's look at WWII, as many of you have done. The Western Allies governed W. Ger and Japan after the war with minimal resistance. Why? Both of these nations were well and truly beaten--militarily, economically, agriculturally, politically. Their civilians had been beaten to a point of utter prostration throughout the entire nation--no area was spared, no one was unaffected. Even the most ardent nationalist was well and truly beaten.

For this to occur, a conquering nation needs a mandate. Such a mandate will only arise when a cause is perceived as so right, so just, and one's opponent so evil and decadent, that this kind of total solution is accepted by the population of the conquering nation.

In the current Iraq war, which was supported at most in lukewarm fashion even at the start, no such mandate existed. In fact, the US's pre-Iraq war policy of creating in the minds of our population that we were only going to war to topple Saddam and his evil regime, but we were not fighting the Iraqi people, was exactly contradictory to the mandate concept described above. Obviously, since we defined--WE defined--the battle as the toppling of Saddam and his evil regime, with minimal damage to the Iraqi people, what we had to do to be consistent was to vacate the nation as soon as practical after the military victory was won. Indeed, staying there as we have was exactly contradictory to our own prewar propganda and the longer we have stayed, the worse we and our military are perceived, both by our own people, third parties, and the Iraqis.

If Bush had defined the war as a war against radical Islam (which it is, and not a war on the concept of terror) and defined victory as the complete remaking of Iraq, he may--I repeat MAY--have been able to create in the minds of the US populace the need for total victory, at least in the wake of the 9/11 anger and frustration. This would have necessiated a war fought more like the one Sherman fought in the Civil War South, with lots of soldiers and complete destruction of means of ordinary life, rather than the "economy war" of Rumsfeld. This would also have required careful manipulation of the media so our own populace and the world was with us--fired up and angry before it started, and shocked at what we uncovered as the war unfolded. Indeed, Bush should have stolen some Soviet-era nukes and had them "discovered" in Iraq during the war to feed the fire. In WWII, the attack at Pearl, the torture and brutal killing by the Japanese of captured US troops, the German killing of Soviet partisans, and Germany's death camps, when disclosed to the citizens of Western nations, kept the anger at a very high level--no one was calling for compromise, saving money, coming home, etc.

If one cannot feed and fuel this machine, one cannot fight a war with the total victory mandate.

Can this kind of war be fought again? Perhaps, but a president or leader of any nation must KNOW that his prewar propoganda has fueled the correct kind of anger and mandate, and the leader must fuel the propoganda machine correctly to keep the anger coming during the war. If the opponent really is evil--and I submit to you the radical Islamists indeed are that--then this kind of perception should not be too difficult to create. Film of Islamic beheadings, evisceration, circumcision of women, etc., shown during presidential speeches, could affect an interesting transformation of the spirit our football watching, pizza eating populace.

If one must fight a lesser war, then one must define victory and stick to that definition. We defined victoryin the Iraq War, as I said above, but then abandoned our own definition, at our peril.

ohh i like it, good example to back the point being made in this post, thanks for the supporting link. Lets look at this, first off what does this quote say..... """"the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon.""""

Without even looking at the link you can see that this clearly suggest ""unless relief comes soon"" note that this was all written in early 2006 before the recent decision for a troop surge of 20,000 to help the situation, but ohh my goodness where did these extra troops come from?? What a mystery right?? You make it sound like we are stretched to the limit because we had put fourth everything we could within reason, but this artical does nothing but state that our troops are being stretched to the limit because there were not enough deployed, and note that any critisism suggesting that our military is weaker overall at that link, didn't come without criticisms saying just the opposite concluding that it was in fact a matter of opinion. Sorry, I will need a little more than that.

Lets look at where you said """troop recruitment the US army has been forced to dramatically lower entry standards"""

Your for one trying to compare a volunteer war enlistment program, to many other wars where people were drafted. Sure you have to offer more for people to willingly volunteer their lives. I also hear from many that our military targets the poor and minorities to easily enlist, but my cousin James who is in Iraq right now could tell you thats not entirely true either. He told me last month while on leave for a month that there is a good mix of soldiers but most he knows are middle class. Not only that, he says while things are of course very tough, they are treated well. I'll believe him before some bureaucrat suit in Washington with a fountain pen and a political agenda, Amen to that.



If the democrats take the 2008 presidency then yes sir, its true the surge wont be maintained for very long. Where is documentation stating that all new troops being deployed have been cycled so to speak from previous combatants who are now worn out?? I don't doubt they do cycle their men to relieve pressure then recall them, but this doesn't mean we are not getting new troops as well. Sure this is tough on them but 99% of our troops are proud to be doing what they are and like I said war is a time of sacrifice, but I know from both personal testimonies of people I know and from research that our men take honor in the challenges they face, you want to talk about a war where we put all our heart into winning look at WW2, over 60 million Americans died in that war and it was in a shorter time frame than this one!! 60 million!! and your telling me that today with a death toll of just over 3000 that we are putting fourth all we have?? Give me a break. I'm not saying 60 million American deaths in any war is a good thing, but just look at the battles we have fought in our history and compare the numbers, what are you saying? We are now weaker than we were in the 1950's?? Vietnam saw 60 thousand Americans killed what are we weaker now than we were in the 60's?? Its obvious we maintained much higher troop levels in the past to reach such horrific death tolls. I want to see us win this war so we can come home and if that means deploying more troops and ending up losing 10,000 Americans or more when all is said and done we have to accept that as a sacrifice of war. Whats important is that I believe in our intentions and our cause. Its by far not only increased man power we need, we also need to focus our forces as efficiently as possible where required, and make sure we stay on the offensive. In conclusion draft or no draft I don't believe we have exhausted our resources.



The politics are very similar indeed, but the similarities end there. This war "The War On Terror as a Whole" was provoked by an attack on our own soil, Vietnam was not. This war is being fought for our national security as well as mid eastern stability, In Vietnam there was very little concern for homeland security. This war also has a substantially lower casualtie rate than Vietnam.

It isn't a mystery. Troops were being rotated out every 12 months prior, to prevent something called battle fatique. In the case of the surge, tours of duty were extended as reenforcements, which had been intended to replace those troops during prior months, were brought in. Soon those troops extended tours of duty will expire. What will they do then? Extend them more? Extend them indefinitely? What kind of an impact do you suppose that would have on moral, not to mention military effectiveness?

Edited to add:

I thought you said you had studied history? Less than half a million US deaths resulted from world war II. You are thinking of the entirety of the planet, I believe. Interesting that you "know things" based on "personal testimonies" and "research" and stuff. You are aware that many posters here are in the service, have been in the service, are very closely related to people in military service? Are our observations irrelevant somehow? I personally spoke to a battalion commander (next year he is on the list for brigade), two weeks ago, who told me precisely what I wrote the above.

It's a pity you didn't look at the link, as in their case 'relief' included such last ditch measures as extending tours and dramatically lowering entrance standards to the military. Both of those have now been done, which extended the capacity of the United States military for a while.

Seriously net2007, I can't believe you are actually trying to claim the US military in Iraq is not overstretched. NOBODY thinks that, everyone admits the US military is stretched to the limit, including the Pentagon, and the Top generals in the Arms.

The US military (Army and marines) has 44 active combat Brigades in existence. All 44 of them are in combat rotation in Iraq, except one stationed in South Korea, and it has been stripped to the bone of men and equipment. 21 are currently deployed, while the remainder are either preparing for deployment or recovering after deployment, replacement and refit. Colonel Charles Hardy of the Army Forces Command recently reported that his forces “are fully committed right now, and that there is no fully-trained brigade prepared to deploy to the combat zone." This was end of May 2007.

Look at this list of realities about the US military:

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cf...ame=fs-110-1-54

Highlights include:
Military leaders have been forced to compress training time to meet the pace of deployment. The 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division faced such a short time between deployments that it was forced to fit a year-long training regimen into four months. Troops were left to train on outdated equipment and some only had a few days to learn how to use their new rifles before they were deployed.

But apparently that is not enough for you. OK, how about the commentary of the Generals on the ground in Iraq themselves?

Last May, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the military to a point where it runs a higher risk of not being able to quickly and easily defeat potential enemies.

In December 2006, Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that badly overstretched American forces in Iraq were losing the war there, and that “There really are no additional troops” to send, General Powell said, adding that he agreed with those who say that the United States Army is “about broken.” (...) Political, training and recruiting obstacles mean that an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive. The increase would probably be accomplished largely by accelerating scheduled deployments while keeping some units in Iraq longer than had been planned. General Powell said this meant it would be “a surge that you’d have to pay for later,” as replacement troops became even harder to find.

Those too long ago for you? Then how about Today?
The commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. "Randy" Mixon, said Friday that he did not have enough troops to deal with the escalating violence in Iraq's Diyala province Mixon's public request was being viewed as an attempt to pressure the new commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, into sending more troops to Diyala from Baghdad, since the overstretched Army is unable to send substantial numbers of reinforcements from the U.S.

A year ago, The commander of multinational forces in Iraq, General George Casey, acknowledged Thursday that US military strength around the world is stretched: "The forces are stretched. I don't think there is any question about that," he said in response to questions about two reports to that effect.

How about the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee? Chairman Ike Skelton called the policy of extending tours of serving soldier “an additional burden to an already overstretched Army.”

Is THAT enough for you? It is almost all the senior staff involved in Iraq and top political leaders. Need more? How about Robert gates the Secretary of Defence, who during his confirmation hearings admitted that the US military capacity is badly overstretched and that measures will need to be taken to ensure its capacity to perform the necessary tasks and responsibilities of a national military service?

How's that?




Firstly, you completely dodged the point. Yes, this is a volunteer enlistment program. Are you seriously suggesting the Draft? Have fun with that bit of political suicide. And recruitment numbers, though low, were being almost met for the first couple years of the war, its end 2005 and 206 that they started to drop alarmingly, with many months not even meeting 50% of recruitment quotas. So the US military lowered entry standards and massively increased bonuses to try and entice people, and even WITH that reserve and national guard units are STILL not meeting recruitment targets.

Secondly, you are falling back on a worthless (and really irritating) habit, the total straw-man argument: creating an argument that nobody here has ever actually said, then 'defeating' it. Well good for you I suppose, but as nobody here has made the argument you just defeated, perhaps you could restrict yourself to the points actually being made?



Right here.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=3027796

and here.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...breaking_point/

The men and women in the Army and Marine Corps today -- many of whom have already served for a year or more in Iraq or Afghanistan -- will bear the brunt, because the Army and Marine Corps cannot grow new troops or units overnight. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says it would take two years just to recruit, train, and equip 10,000 new troops. Thus to accomplish a surge, the armed forces must look to existing units. Virtually all the nation's active-duty ground-force units, and many from the Guard and Reserve, have already spent a year or more in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are only two ways to get more brigades into Iraq: Extend the deployment of units that are already there, or accelerate the return of units that have been there recently. Temporarily increasing the force in Iraq by 20,000 is likely to require a combination of both. The Bush administration's surge could stress the Army and Marines to the breaking point.



Really? Once again it seems your assertions are in direct contradiction to the facts. In fact active service troops in Iraq polled overwhelmingly in FAVOUR of a withdrawal from the country, either immediately or on a short timetable.
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 (Note the Poll is a year old)
It's all well and good to list pleasantries about how troops 'take honour in challenges' and other comments straight from recruiting posters, but the reality is different. The US military wants out of Iraq, if you listen to its membership. If you have 'research' that contradicts this, please post it.




Riiiiiight...

Remember when we were talking a few posts ago about you not posting about the second World war, because you don't seem to know anything about it?
60 million US dead eh? Impressive, considering the total population of the US in 1939 was only 125 million. Half the country died in WWII? Wow!

Actually, the US suffered 407,000 dead in WWII. But beside that, PLEASE stop comparing this counter-insurgency conflict to World War II. Firstly, every comparison you make is factually wrong, but more importantly there IS NO comparison. It was a world war where the US went on total war footing: drafts, war bonds, rationing, compelled war industry, etc. Compare the Vietnam or Soviet Afghanistan if you must, they are almost exactly the same as the current situation.



This is getting unfortunate. You should really stop making comments to historical periods unless you know anything about the periods in question.
Firstly: Iraq is not part of the war on terror, there were no links between Iraq and AQ, Iraq was a war of choice completely unrelated to 9/11.
Secondly: The Iraq war is NOT being fought for national security (please explain to me the threat to US national security posed by Iraq in 2002), though it IS being fought for mid-eastern stability (though it has managed to further DE-stabilize the middle East instead). Just as Vietnam was fought for East-Asian Stability. The parallels are literally almost identical.

And actually the casualty rate in Vietnam was almost EXACTLY THE SAME as the Casualty rate in Iraq currently. Of course there were five times as many US troops deployed in Vietnam, and the kill/injured rate was higher, and this war has only gone 4 years while Vietnam went 8... but the casualty rates per capita troops deployed are almost identical, only marginally higher in Vietnam than in Iraq.




Reality is: the fact that the US military is stretched to capacity is utterly undeniable. Yes, dramatic measured like the Draft could change that, but this is a political impossibility. The war is following almost exactly the same trends as in Vietnam, both in terms of the nature of the war, the local situation, and the rhetoric of the far-right wing in their attempts to prolong the war and force escalation.

Ree-ee-aally? 99% of the troops are proud to be doing what they're doing? What magicians hat are you pulling that out of? And exactly what research have you conducted besides perusing right wing blogs?
Since you bring up the 'fact' that we are not engaging the enemy with the correct tactics, what do you specifically recommend? Given your stated research, I'm sure you have some ideas that will bring about a rapid conclusion to our adventure in Iraq.


Already addressed, but wow! By your math we would have lost well over a hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq by now.....