The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[Xavier_Onassis]

The surge, it seems, is not a surge at all. A surge would be the following: fewer troops, MORE TROOPS, fewer troops.

What we have is fewer troops, MORE TROOPS,, MORE TROOPS.

This is an "escalation", a word that they would not resurrect because it sounded too much like Vietnam,
where the colors that do not run, ran.

[hnumpah]

Oh , I missed it where you posted that attacking in Afganistan would never have been enough , because there were large elements of Al Queda outside of Afganistan in the first place.

No, you missed the part where I said "...our beloved something-or-other-in chief didn't leave enough of them there long enough to finish the job properly." You didn't even ask for clarification as to what I thought finishing the job properly might mean before you jumped in asking what would be the point in chasing them entirely out of Afghanistan.

[BT]

What we have is fewer troops, MORE TROOPS,, MORE TROOPS.

Not so. According to the NYT we peaked at 170k and are currently at 140k. Observe that 140<170.

Thus the term surge by your definition is correct.

[Cynthia]

Well, at least Cynthia is clear that this is a war

Sirs, with all due respect, before I continue with this very interesting topic, (and it is one at that)......was this statement directed at me, or toward someone else, like the other posters on this board/thread? It seems as if you are "whispering" this comment into the ear of BT or someone. It rings of a tiny bit of patronizing. Just wanted to point that out.
It sorta sets things up as "We know better than she"..instead of typing in ..."Hey, at least you are clear that this is a war." tapped off with an Oy. 

 I would appreciate it if you would just have a conversation with me. when we are in discussion on any issue.
I am still learning about the politics of war and such, but I am capable of forming my own opinions, and receiving clear and present facts and figure along with opinions.

Makes me want to follow Zoso's style of posting..and find a pic of a Pirate with a Parrot sittin' on his shoulder whispering these sort of statements in his ear.

[Cynthia]

Well, at least Cynthia is clear that this is a war

Oh boy....can't seem to get away here.  Ok....I am clear that it is a war, but Sirs, it could have been planned a hell of a lot better.

Show me a war that's been run perfectly......or even well.  A point that's been made thru the ages of warfare

Sirs,

I will do my darndest to show you a war that is/was run perfectly....but, of course, I aint gunna find one.

My thoughts on this issue center around the planning of THIS PARTICULAR war in IRaq. I suppose I could call it a robbery of Iraq, a take over of Iraq, an EXTREME MAKE-OVER of Iraq

This is not your average warfare of the ages. This was Bush deciding to fight the wrong enemy.

[Cynthia]

LOL...slip....I have advocated thatwe invade Afghanistan from the getgo. Not invade Iraq.My points with regard to this issue have been clear from the getgo, as well, BT.

Actually you aren't being clear. Should we go into Pakistan in pursuit of Osama or not? That being the justification for going in Afghanistan in the first place.

So again, are you advocating that we finish the mission by whatever means necessary?

BT,

When you ask me if we should go into Pakistan, or finishing the BUSH Mission" at all costs, I answered clearly that we should.

 I realize that Obama is not in favor of taking this war into such a direction, but you never know. He might have no other choice but to change his mind after he's elected. (if he's elected). I would suppose that he would have to hear all the facts and realities of the situation before taking the world into a chaotic turn for the worse.

I advocate that we make changes in our efforts to find the right enemy, and to do our best to put the pressure on Iraq to secure their own nation. I  can't imagine that Obama would be so stupid as to say no to his military advisors.

 If he is our next president, I have a feeling that he will be blamed any fall-out of this war...a war that Bush started.  The pulling out of troops all together is not a good idea. . . and I don't think that Obama will be able to do that.

But, I dont' think it's fair to start putting Obama in as a scapegoat of sorts if he does pull out troops. No matter, this war was not well planned out. Like Xavier posted earlier..and it's a good point.

What we have is fewer troops, MORE TROOPS,, MORE TROOPS.

[sirs]

Ok....I am clear that it is a war, but Sirs, it could have been planned a hell of a lot better.

Show me a war that's been run perfectly......or even well.  A point that's been made thru the ages of warfare

Sirs,  I will do my darndest to show you a war that is/was run perfectly....but, of course, I aint gunna find one.

So, then the arguement about how terrible this war was fought doesn't hold as much validity, since pretty much no war is run as its desgined to.  Too many variables are encountered.  The closest we could say to a well run war was Gulf War I, and the Pre-Saddam component of the current war.  Point being, as you've conceded, no war is run like clockwork, and to the levels of how bad its run, become largely subjective

This is not your average warfare of the ages. This was Bush deciding to fight the wrong enemy.

And you are most certainly entitled to that opinion

[Cynthia]

I don't think this war was that was wisely 'called'...so, in that way I do not concede that this war is like any other way. It should never have been called, as is.

[sirs]

But it is a war.....you've conceded that point.  Or are you taking that back, as well, now?  Just because you don't agree with it, nor think it should have been fought, it is a war, and as such, is going to have episodes of poor planning and performing, like all wars do

[Amianthus]

Like Xavier posted earlier..and it's a good point.

What we have is fewer troops, MORE TROOPS,, MORE TROOPS.

It may be a good point, however, it's incorrect.

Prior to the "surge" we had 150,000. During the surge, we had 170,000. At the end of July, they are predicting a force of 140,000. So, it's more like "fewer troops, more troops, even fewer troops."

[Plane]

Oh , I missed it where you posted that attacking in Afganistan would never have been enough , because there were large elements of Al Queda outside of Afganistan in the first place.

No, you missed the part where I said "...our beloved something-or-other-in chief didn't leave enough of them there long enough to finish the job properly." You didn't even ask for clarification as to what I thought finishing the job properly might mean before you jumped in asking what would be the point in chasing them entirely out of Afghanistan.

What is the right number?

Whatever number of troops you choose imagine placeing ten times that many in Afganistan only , for whatever length of time , they would never destroy Al Queda in Afganistan be cause a large portion of it isn't in Afganistan to begin with , and what is in Afganistan runs across the border to get a rest.

[hnumpah]

Okay, Plane, here you go...

Rather than cutting back in Afghanistan to waste our time invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us, we should have kept after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush should have kept his promise to keep after Bin Laden, who was responsible for 9-11, rather than wasting time on Saddam, who wasn't. We could have put many more troops into Afghanistan and pursued Al Qaeda there to the gates of hell if need be. If they ran across the border to Pakistan, we could have given Musharraf X amount of time to catch them and turn them over to us, or kill them, or we would go in after them. Why worry about upsetting Musharraf, our 'great ally in the war against terror', if he is so ineffective he can't control his own border anyway?

Ah, you ask, what about Al Qaeda in Iraq...

Here's the answer to that one - Al Qaeda wasn't active in Iraq under Saddam. They weren't active there until we removed Saddam from power and screwed up our invasion enough to leave a power vacuum for them to become active in. The only reason we're fighting them there is because we gave them the wide open opportunity to come in there.

Now if any of that is unclear to you or you have a question, just ask. Quit trying to play Sirs and tell me what I'm thinking.

[Cynthia]

But it is a war.....you've conceded that point.  Or are you taking that back, as well, now?  Just because you don't agree with it, nor think it should have been fought, it is a war, and as such, is going to have episodes of poor planning and performing, like all wars do

Yes, dear it is a war. OF course that isn't my point. My point is that it wasn't suppose to be. We spread ourselves too thin and wide. The planning was horrible. I can't even imagine how you could compare a couple of ill planned battles in WW2, for example to this entire ILL PLANNED "war".

[Plane]

Okay, Plane, here you go...

Rather than cutting back in Afghanistan to waste our time invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us, we should have kept after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush should have kept his promise to keep after Bin Laden, who was responsible for 9-11, rather than wasting time on Saddam, who wasn't. We could have put many more troops into Afghanistan and pursued Al Qaeda there to the gates of hell if need be. If they ran across the border to Pakistan, we could have given Musharraf X amount of time to catch them and turn them over to us, or kill them, or we would go in after them. Why worry about upsetting Musharraf, our 'great ally in the war against terror', if he is so ineffective he can't control his own border anyway?

Ah, you ask, what about Al Qaeda in Iraq...

Here's the answer to that one - Al Qaeda wasn't active in Iraq under Saddam. They weren't active there until we removed Saddam from power and screwed up our invasion enough to leave a power vacuum for them to become active in. The only reason we're fighting them there is because we gave them the wide open opportunity to come in there.

Now if any of that is unclear to you or you have a question, just ask. Quit trying to play Sirs and tell me what I'm thinking.

There was good reason to remove Saddam from power without consideration of Al Queda at all it was a good thing to do when compared with the other choices availible. If you ever stopped a burgulary would you disarm the Burgular and send him home? We stopped Saddam from his takover of Kuait , but Saddam would have come back and taken it again in the future as soon as he had built himself up to the point he could defy us .

I consider it most likely that Saddam would get into more fights and spend his money on causeing trouble as long as he lasted  so it is good that he is gone. Should we have known that we would have troubble with Al Quieda in Iraq once Saddam was gone? How should we have guessed?

[hnumpah]

There was good reason to remove Saddam from power without consideration of Al Queda at all it was a good thing to do when compared with the other choices availible. If you ever stopped a burgulary would you disarm the Burgular and send him home?

Bushdaddy did just that when he stopped short of toppling Saddam in GW1. Even wrote a book detailing why he did so, and why it was a bad idea to invade Iraq for that purpose. He has turned out to be the wiser member of the Bush family.

We stopped Saddam from his takover of Kuait , but Saddam would have come back and taken it again in the future as soon as he had built himself up to the point he could defy us .

I consider it most likely that Saddam would get into more fights and spend his money on causeing trouble as long as he lasted...

 

I keep seeing that used as a justification for the invasion, and I still believe it is wrong.

...so it is good that he is gone.

True, but it was not our place to do so at the time, especially when doing so took resources away from what should have been our primary objective, which was properly finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Should we have known that we would have troubble with Al Quieda in Iraq once Saddam was gone? How should we have guessed?

We already had trouble with Al Qaeda before we ever went into Iraq, and were in the process of correcting that situation. We did not have trouble with Al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded, toppled Saddam, and didn't wrap up the loose ends in time to keep them from moving in and taking advantage of the situation. How should we have guessed? Bush could have used the same crystal ball his people used to conjure up images of WMD, mushroom clouds, mobile chemical weapons labs, etc, etc, etc. Apparently it was not only flawed at coming up with reasons to invade, it was also flawed in projecting the hazards we would face once we did. It wasn't the cakewalk the administration thought it would be.