Fog of war - "Breaking the bank"

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnews/20041127/ts_usnews/fogofwar&cid=926&ncid=1473

Nearly two months after re-establishing an American presence in Samarra, a fortnight after launching a massive assault on insurgents in Fallujah, and a week after beating back a resistance counterattack in Mosul, U.S.-led forces last week mounted their fourth offensive against an insurgent stronghold in Iraq (news - web sites). This one took place in a collection of predominately Sunni villages south of Baghdad given the evocative name "the triangle of death."

In the weeks leading up to Iraq's first democratic election--the planned January 30 vote to select members of a national assembly--American military leaders intend to continue their drive against the insurgency. It is an offense-is-the-best-defense strategy in light of expectations that insurgents will try to stage attacks to disrupt or even derail the elections. How well American and Iraqi forces prevent or at least limit insurgent attacks, Pentagon (news - web sites) officials say, will be vital not only to the voting but also to determining how quickly America can start drawing down its military presence in Iraq. "The coming months in Iraq," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld intoned last week, "will be crucial." snip

"Breaking the bank." The Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly stated that the war is placing an extraordinary strain on U.S. troops and equipment. Desert sand has worn down trucks and guns, and the Army has been spending billions to add armor to its vehicles and supply troops with new flak vests. Says one Army officer, "I do not know how much longer we can do this without breaking the bank." Even if Rumsfeld wanted to increase the number of American troops in Iraq it would be hard to do so. Many active-duty troops have been deployed with but the shortest of breaks since 9/11. Since that date, the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade has been one of the military's busiest. Parts of the brigade have been in Afghanistan (news - web sites), Kosovo, Egypt, and Djibouti, and most of the unit is currently in the midst of a yearlong tour in Iraq. Any expansion of the force would have to come from the Reserves and the National Guard. And the National Guard has been used more than any time since World War II. Currently, 94,000 Army national guardsmen are mobilized. Since 9/11, 192,500 of the 350,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard have been mobilized. Calling up many more would mean that there would be fewer left for homeland defense, and there would be fewer ready for tours of duty two years from now. Already National Guard enlistments are way down, in part because of potential recruits' concerns about repeated deployments. "There would be a price to pay" to mobilize more units, says one Army officer. "You are dipping into the pool. You'd be betting that the end was in sight."

There is a growing call both outside and inside the Pentagon to consider placing just such a bet. The best strategy for taking on the insurgency may entail making a big push to crush the resistance and then planning for a quick pullout. A growing number of military analysts argue that America is caught in a paradox: U.S. soldiers at present are vital to Iraqi security, but it is the American presence that helps fuel the insurgency. Without U.S. troops' occupying Iraq, some contend, there would be less support for insurgents. "Our presence is a problem," says Michael Vickers, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent think tank. "I think there is broad support for withdrawing troops, but the devil is in the details."

more

[dbt]

1. "Caught in a paradox????"

Jesus Breakdancing Christ! How many more euphemisms can come out of the Spin Factory before all circuits blow out from a bullshit overload? The real paradox that "America is caught in" is the one where we let a DESERTER command our armed forces into a War For Profit.

On the other hand, this is the first hint I have seen in the "mainstream media that our presence in Iraq is the real problem: "but it is the American presence that helps fuel the insurgency."

Even the blind hog finds the occasional acorn.

:freak:
dbt

[leftchick]

2. one person's 'paradox' is another's quagmire!

You would think all of these folks had never taken a history class... :eyes:

[Carl Brennan]

3. Lest we forget: it was suppose to be a cakewalk

How does one destroy the US military, bankrupt the country, and lie about it and everything else and yet cruise along smiley face and chipper as ever? What kind of warped, mindless fool could back such a complete miserable failure.
The goddamn machinery is getting worn out and the insurgency is growing in strength and these fucking idiotic Rethugs are now faced with defeat instead of a cakewalk. If this country does not hold them accountable, by that I mean, at minimum, long prison sentences then this country deserves the results.


We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. George Orwell


Bush administration officials and their hawkish supporters now say they never promised an easy war -- but the record shows otherwise.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
March 28, 2003 |
Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:
"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

Note: DU topic lists Adelman as an assistant to Perle: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2471423#2471513
Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16:
"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
"My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN March 23:
"The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time."
"And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars March 11:
"Over and over, we hear reports of Iraqis here in the United States who manage to communicate with their friends and families in Iraq, and what they are hearing is amazing. Their friends and relatives want to know what is taking the Americans so long. When are you coming?"
"In a meeting last week at the White House, one of these Iraqi-Americans said, 'A war with Saddam Hussein would be a war for Iraq, not against Iraq.'"
"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan -- as President Bush has said -- is to 'remain as long as necessary and not a day more.'"
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breakfast meeting March 4, 2003:
"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."
Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.
"The president will give an order. will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."

salon.com


We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. George Orwell

[teryang]

5. When a ground war is planned by airdales

...and civilian geeks playing armchair general, you know you're gonna fail.

This is why Shinseki was fired and the top Army generals were passed over for Chief of Staff, Army. They knew the score.

[number6]

16. When a ground war is planned by airheads

and dimwits .........;)

[truth2power]

6. House of cards?

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support."

Richard Perle is an ass!! Why are so many of these people named "Dick"?

[Inland]

11. HItchins was half right---occasionally, there is the ruthless part

alternating with ceasefires and building elementary schools. Brief, no.

[amber dog democrat]

4. "Our presence is a problem,"

is putting it mildly. Our presence is - was flat wrong. So, lets throw all we have into a final futile " Ardennes Offensive " to win the war in Iraq. and then retreat back to Berlin. Next stop: Stalingrad.

[teryang]

7. "You are dipping into the (manpower reserve) pool"

It may be that the officer quoted left these words out knowing that they are implicitly understood. Could be a typo. I'll put them in because that's what he means.

Media military consultant LTC Cordesman (USA Ret.) calls it running out of food and eating the seed corn. Not an especially prudent course of action.

[cliss]

8. "Breaking the bank"

Yes, that's certainly an apt description. No one can accuse the Planners at the Pentagon of being Accountants, or even financially astute. Their attitude seems to be, "Carte Blanche", or "The sky's the limit" on military spending. Or, "how dare you consider the costs, when something so important is at stake".

Now, I believe we were in VietNam about 10 years. We lost 55,000 servicemen, so we still have a ways to go. I don't know how much we spent on that foray, but Mr. Goff writes that we were close to bankrupt on that one.

At this juncture, we've lost 1,233 servicemen/women, and have spent $270 billion (including request coming in January). I joke with friends and say that for that sum, we could have bought Iraq, and everyone would have been friends.

My humble prediction: I believe we will declare victory and go home when we run out of money. Not before. The Maniacs In Charge are so out of their minds, that they can only see victory on the horizon. "Just a few more months, please. I know we can do it!!! We're SO CLOSE TO WINNING". As they plead for more money & soldiers, the country starts to spin out of control and teeters on the brink of collapse.

The "masterminds" of this war are much, much closer to the Guy down at the Greyhound race track, betting his mortgage money, sweating, trying to make up his losses, than anyone can imagine.

[reprobate]

9. "go home when we run out of money." The problem with that, Cliss....

....is that by that time we will be so broke we won't be able to supply the troops with ammunition. I think we are looking at a massacre of our people as we leave. Everyone in iraq will be shooting at them.

Plus, by that time the world petro dollar will be the petro euro. How will we buy the fuel to get them home when the dollar is worthless and the euro is the only thing that will buy oil?

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Go home when we run out of money?

Like the Russians did with Afghanistan? The Neocons like to crow about how St. Ronald of Reagan singlehandedly brought down the "Evil Empire" because he simply caused the Soviets to spend more on "defense" than they could afford. And now the US is spending more on "defense" than the next 20 countries combined, and throwing much of that down into a quagmire. What is the breaking point?

[lawladyprof]

14. Well, we coulda given every Iraqi (except for Saddam) $10,000

That would be $250,000,000,000 divided 25,000,000 Iraqis. Wow!!! There is the happy Iraqi scenario. Gosh, we'd still have 1200 people who died + X thousand maimed and injured. The Iraqis would have their 100,000 people. Little Ali would have his family and arms and legs.

Everyone would think we were great and be clamoring for a similar American "invasion."

[kineneb]

10. deep in hole

Molly Ivins wrote something to the effect of "when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging." Not only is BushCo in a hole, the top edges are falling in on them - the deficit of spending all the money on Iraq is driving down the dollar. And we are sending folks my age (over 40) to fight in an arena in which even the young have difficulty.
Something somewhere will give, it is only matter of time. Unfortunately, it will be ugly when it does.

[AndyTiedye]

12. They Are Wrecking the Volunteer System ON PURPOSE

They want to creat a situation where we "have" to have a draft.

How else is the dominion going to militarize and indoctrinate
all of us blue state people into good Xtian soldiers?

For some reason, all those freedoms they talk about in the Constition
go out the window when you're drafted, and that's considered OK, because
it usually happens to young people, who barely have rights anyway.
This time, they are talking about drafting up to the mid 30s or 40s.

Part of being forced to fight a war is being forcibly indoctrinated
that the warmongers are always right. The indoctrination doesn't
always work, but it works enough of the time to be very significant
electorally.

[bhikkhu]

13. Let it break

If we can't afford to destroy any countries other than Iraq during *'s second term, so much the better. If we have to do without some luxuries, and perhaps some necessities as the economy folds around us, my family is willing to pay the price. In any case, we will be better off than the Fallujans.

[daleo]

15. I thought the sand was hard on equipment

There must be a lot of stuff nearing breakdown. Obviously lots of troops must be nearing their psychological breaking point, too. If there is no withdrawal, then there will have to be a draft and huge tax increases in store. The world won't happily bankroll invasions forever.

This must indicate that they aren't getting much money out of the oilfields as well.

[VegasWolf]

19. That was my thought exactly, we must be nearing the bend in

the exponential curve where machinery, endurance, and morale
all go to hell in a handbasket in a hurry.

[Hosnon]

17. I can tell you right now what the supporters of this war will say to these

quotes. All of them deal with Saddam's regime. They will conveniently look at the exact linguistic definitions in the quote and ignore the subtle implications regarding the ENTIRE conflict. Spin, spin, spin...

However, I'd like to see one of them actually claim that the people quoted really meant that the conflict against Saddam would be quick but the post-war conflict would have no definite end.