Precisely!

 

Well I'm 25 and people tell me that i look 40, must be the hairline that started to head north at 16! I beleive that Zinni is a wise man. The administration must have thought so when they made him the special envoy, or whatever the title was, to the Middle East. Ignoring practical good advice, (I believe a USMC general is competent to give advice on how to plan a war) b/c you don't like their politics is foolish no matter who you are. I guess we can all just hope that in 10 years Iraq will be a better place and maybe most of our troops won't be needed there. History will be the judge of this whole situation for better or worse.

 

 

I think one thing that may have gone awry in this whole thing is counting on the Iraqis to police themselves once we moved in. I believe they are coming around, but pretty slowly.

I don't think at this time ramping up the amount of military personal by drastic numbers will really solve anything. About the only benefit I can see from that is the ability to apply able bodied people to accelerate reconstruction projects. Again, there is an abundance of able bodied Iraqis that can do the work.

By putting a vast number more boots on the ground there is more potential for the men wearing those boots to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Casualty figures could grow percentage wise with greater ease of enemy fighters to come in contact with our forces. I could be wrong about that, but it's how I interprate the situation. It all kinda reminds me of the ramping up of forces in Vietnam. I don't like to use Vietnam and Iraq in the same sentence, since the two are not even comparable, but I think in Vietnam by putting more men on the ground was just an opportunity to get them killed. Now, if they would have been used on true offensive opperations they may have had a better chance.

I'm not sure wich approach is best, but I think we can be successfull as long as our troops have the support they need from the administration. That's one of the things that greatly worries me about the idea of having the likes of John Kerry running the show. I have great doubts on what kind of support, if any, he would give to Iraq and/or the war on terrorism.

 

funny

 

Uncle Grendal!

 

I think that is a valid worry. My interpretation is that more troops now would maybe help but more troops from the beginning would have allowed for better control of the country in the first place, perhaps negating some of the uprisings and bad feeling b/c of poor security (looting of antiquities anyone?, killings of iraqis who cooperate and become police forces) making it easier to get more Iraqis to get with the "clean up your own country" program. From what I hear, in the hot zones our forces can get stretched pretty thin stomping out one fire after another here and there while some terrorists take advantage of this. I just read the Zinni/ Clancy article on CNN and in it he says that he can't support voting for Bush again b/c he believes the current personel at the DoD will be caried over and that is who is ultimately to blame for the handling of the Iraq situation from day one. I'm a registered republican who admires a lot about GWB and thiks he is a good man but has gotten some bad advice and made some bad decisions (but show me one president who hasn't) who can't bring himself to vote for GWB this time if his cabinet and some of his advisers stay the same. I honestly think it would be a big time beneficial political move for either candidate to offer Zinni a position in their cabinet or high in the DoD. the more I hear from this guy, the more reasonable he sounds. In Vietnam is seemed like more troops were put on the ground but used incorrectly and that is what led to higher casualties and little or no gain. I'm sure you older and wiser fellas are sick of listening to a newbie like myself spout off so I'll shut up now. It is nice to have reasoable discussions with people of differing opinons and there are some people who argue well for both sides on here but keep it pretty civilized, thats impressive.

 

First, I would like to thank everyone for their responses so far and the manner in which all of you have approached the subject.
I have for many weeks now been struggling with my own conscience as to whether or how I support this current conflict.

General Zinni's remarks in not only that interview but several more I discovered as a result of the first one, began to clarify my thinking and what my position now is. I also followed several dozen links to speeches, interviews and writings by other people I respect as career diplomats and military officers which further helped me to take a different view of things and to feel that there is rather a good chance that this thing can get resolved at some point in time. Not in the utopian sense that by the end of this year we will see a democratic clone of our own country in Iraq, that will probably never come to pass but at least a society that is reasonably stable and maybe a fair bit democratic after a few years have gone by.

I am going to hop around a bit here but bear with me.

I support and always have supported our troops, not only in this conflict but every one that has taken place since I was old enough to form reasonably adult conclusions.

Although I only served a short hitch in the Marines in peacetime, I am the son of a Marine General and I have been involved with the military my whole life, not only my association with military friends but also doing business with the military for years. I know how it works and this conflict saddened me more than some others because in a sense the guys on the ground/in the air /and on the ships are pawns in a geo-political war they did not create.

If our armed forces must participate in this type of war, they deserve the best leadership that this country has to offer. More about that later.

I also support our country, it's ideals and it's goals. But...... I do not put us on a pedestal as the model that every other country in the world should strive to copy. I am fortunate to have lived in 4 other countries with widely varying types of societies and to have visited extensively another 20 or so. If I were in a position to fashion a "Camelot" new USA, there are many best practices things that I might consider to use based on my experiences that would be different than what we have here today and still leave us with the freedom and opportunity that we enjoy.

I do not agree with those who have adopted the attitude that it is our way or the highway or however you wish to state it. We cannot live alone in the world with no friends/allies/trade partners etc. We may not always be totally in agreement with our neighbors but we must attempt to steer a path that does not antagonize pretty much the entire world. In Iraq at the present, that is just about what we are doing and what we are presently doing in Iraq is not worth that in my opinion.

I also support both our President, as the Commander in Chief, and George W as the guy that happens to wear that hat for the moment. That may surprise some, but I try to be pragmatic about the issue. He is the President and will be for a while so I try to understand the man.

I will gladly stand corrected but I believe it is fair to describe Pres. Bush in the socially accepted sense as a Born Again Christian. I may be a bit off the mark but not far. That type of person typically migrates from a "don't give a damn about anything" sort of mind set to one where they develop a certain set of values and they see those values in a very black and white sense.

I truly hope I am never proven wrong but I try to view GW as being totally sincere in his goals, what he believes in and that they will in the end bring us and others in the world to a better life.

The problem with this is that, sorry, it starts to get a bit personal here, he ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer and probably realizes this. He chose, therefore, to rely on his staff to carry out his dream or whatever you wish to call it.

Herein lies the problem according to not only Zinni but a host of other very well educated, very professional experts in the field of military strategy, military tactics, the middle east in it's totality and the very intricate dance we must do with the rest of the countries in the world to reach our own personal goal.

What I think Zinni captures is that GW installed a bunch of political hacks who had been advancing the agenda of democracy for the Middle East for decades, mostly to a deaf audience. They did not, in my opinion and that of many much smarter than I, wish to do this in the name of democracy as a higher ideal that the world should adopt but to protect our interests in the region. Those interests were basically oil supplies and the continuation of Israel as a state and as an ally.

I further think that was what Zinni was alluding to when he said that group hijacked our Middle East policy. Gw probably thought that we really did need to rescue Iraq from Saddam and he was not to picky about what his "council" provided as sound reasons to do so such as WMD, Al Quaeda connections etc.

Too long here. Bottom line is I think Zinni is advocating a change of the guard in the Defense Dept., a new commander in Iraq and a new head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that will do what is necessary to get us back on the original course of cleaning up the country both from a military and from an infrastructure point of view and then to work on doing the best we can to allow the Iraqi people to try democracy as a way of bettering there lives.
Bill

 

A good read Bill, I know you put a lot of effort into it.

If Bush would take a flea bath I would consider him in November but, he is too loyal. Loyal or stubborn, I don't know which but, either will lead to his undoing.

I am hard pressed to think of one cabinet member who should stay. Even Powell is jaded now and his effectiveness as Sec of State is suspect.

Bush needs a new VP too.
With VPs like that who needs enemies?

Maybe Cheney could help Bush out by forming a search committee to find a replacement for himself.

Cheney: " Mr President, I have looked over every possible choice for your running mate in 2004 and the most sincere recommendation I can make is....ME!....ME!"

 

To echo Raoul, nice post Bill, Had to read it twice to get it all in.


What have we evolved to, another lackluster Presidential campaign with mediocre candidates?
Not crazy about the Bush ticket because of his entourage, but also not jumping up and down for the Kerry Krowd because he might make Jane Fonda Sec. of State. Another year of voting for the lesser of two evils. Kinda like gambling isn't it? Better the devil you know than.......

Hell, let's all use Zinni as a write-in candidate!

 

One good thing about Virginia is the Governor is one term only. He/she can't run for re-election. The first four years aren't spent trying to get a second four years.
You know up front that whatever is going on, it isn't being driven by poll numbers.

Term limits for Congress would be a good thing too.