Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well "Tom" in Iran is mistaken. We will, if necessary roll him up. It will take all of an afternoon of live fire to reduce his armed forces to well debris.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 11:51 AM

Robert, that is a simplistic statement.

In Iraq, we took 100 days of aerial bombardment to reduce the Iraqi forces to a point where we felt comfortable in moving in on the ground in the first Gulf war. Iran is very much better equipped than they were, certainly as far as the Air Force is concerned.

And second, with the Democrats in charge, or at least running Congress, don't bet on anything military happening at all.

I've seen it time and time again, ever since the early days of the Cold War, the Democratic Party always gets cold feet. The idea of American soldiers coming home in body bags just paralyzes them.

I despair at our ever being able to beat the Islamic forces at work against us until we are really with our backs to the wall.

Part of the problem is that most Americans don't know anything about other cultures. We don't take the time to study them, and when the shit hits the fan, our reactions are of the knee jerk variety. Not very helpful in the long run.

I supported Bush in going after Hussein, and I don't regret that decision. What I do regret is the fact that, typically of Americans, once the war was won, he didn't really understand enough about Iraqi or Islamic culture to win the peace.

What most Americans do not realize about Islam is that there is not a centralized authority, and that splits their religion, to where anybody with a certain amount of Islamic learning can call himself an Imam and begin making pronouncements to his followers. That system puts moderate Islamics at a severe disadvantage, since their fundamentalist opponents can spawn more Imams faster than they can. Added to that is the fact that the fundamentalist message is one that is anti-American as well as anti-dictatorship in the same breath - and very popular to the unwashed masses of illiterate Muslims. Basically, their Imams can (and do) tell them anything they want them to hear and since the masses have no way to cross check what they're being told, they have to believe it, whether it is right or wrong.

Posted by rwahrens at February 23, 2007 12:15 PM

"The perceived political weakness of the United States"

Just a quick not here to point out what should be obvious and that is that the US' perceived weakness is due ENTIRELY to the dominate liberal wing of the Democrat Party. So when you hear talk about the US abandoning this or that ally etc. what is really being said is that the Democrat Party abandoned an ally or ceded a battlefield to an enemy.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 23, 2007 03:44 PM

Posted by rwahrens at February 23, 2007 12:15 PM

Hello:

I didnt support going to Iraq. It was a fools errand done badly by people whose view of Mideast policy came from listening to the music on Lawrence of Arabia...

What we needed to do after 9/11 was kill OBL...I think you understand Islam sbout like I do...the problem is that OBL is gluing together a revolution of sorts which is a fusion of Islam with his radical idears and pushing them into a form of government. He envisions a mideast quite different from the nation states that are the product more or less of western society.

It was clear pre boots on the ground that we were going in with a very bad military and diplomatic policy, that the people who were doing that didnt have a clue what they were doing, and our situation in Iraq shows that. That we have almost completly reveresed course and fired a lot of people FINALLY says that Bush has figured it out.

We have no business attacking Iraq unless one of two conditions are met. The first is that there is almost proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are on the verge of a special. That proof is after the fiasco of WMD is going to have to be well almost with no doubt whatsover. If Bush were to come on the TV and just say it, the vast majority of the country wouldnt believe it. I dont know that I would.

The second part is if they take serious and provable offensive action in Iraq OR if they do so on the Gulf.

The latter will take the USN and USAF about half a day of live fire to delete from the order of battle. There are two Carrier battle groups in the region. That is an enormous amount of firepower.

There are no circumstances under which we should invade Iran...none. Zero...

We dont have the ground forces to do it anyway.

We are barely hanging on in Iraq.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 04:04 PM

Cecil.

the Democratic party is the party of cut and run BUT the reason that they are gaining traction is that right now the Admninistration could not convince the American people that turds smell.

This is the product of so many "things that turned out not to be true" that almost no one believes a thing that they say. The Dems didnt do that.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 04:06 PM

Rand

When Iran and Iraq were at war, do you think Iraq
engaged in a failure of will when that war ended?

Posted by anonymous at February 23, 2007 05:56 PM

Amir Tehari must be running for the post of Ahmed Chalabi of Iran.

Posted by Offside at February 23, 2007 06:38 PM

Who Robert, other than liberal wackos of the Democrat party and their cohorts in the mainstream media, has ever said one word about "invading" Iran?

No one, that is who.

So why do YOU use that terminology? Is it because without it you have no argument with the Bush admin so you have to invent one?

And what do you mean by "we are barely hanging on in Iraq"? That is beyond foolish. In any other era beside the one we find ourselves living in the US military' performance in Iraq would be deemed astonishingly successful.

Iraq has been a huge success in almost all ways other than the media portrayal of the situation on the ground. The Brits are bringing down their troop levels in the south NOT because they've lost confidence in the mission as the talking heads of the MSM would have us believe but because they have been SUCCESSFUL. The same is true of the car bomb attacks in the north (particularly Baghdad). These are not the signs of a enemy who is winning but instead are disparate symbolic attacks design to grab the attention of the media in order to scare those among us who are too ignorant to know the difference. And sadly that seems to describe the majority of Americans, and it certainly describes the vast majority of those affiliated with the DNC.

Back on the Brit troop reduction. Is Nancy Pelosi so ignorant as to not know the difference between the military situation in Baghdad as opposed to Basrah? Or does she make the foolish statements on the subject that she did (the Brits are reducing forces so we should too etc.) purely for public consumption via the MSM knowing that the American public is ignorant enough to buy it? I think it is a little (maybe a lot) of both.

Saddam is gone. Iraq has a democratic constitution and an democratically elected government. Iraq has a media no longer controlled by a dictator. New schools and hospitals open on an almost daily basis. Iraq is rebuilding infrastructure that has been neglected for years while Saddam built more palaces and bought more weapons and bribed UN officials.

There are hundreds of examples of the good things that are happening in the 90% of Iraq that is peaceful but you'll never hear about it. You'll only hear about the attacks that the insurgents and AQ in Iraq WANT you to know about because the media blindly follows the trail left for them by the enemy and tells the story they want told.

And the saddest part of this entire story is that due to the politically motivated character assassination of Bush carried out by the loonie left his hands are partly tied with respect to Iran. Otherwise the Iranian nuclear program would likely already be a historical footnote like Osirak.

If Bush does bring an end to the Iranian nuclear program, and in doing so quite likely save millions of lives, you can bet he will be pilloried for doing so. But then Churchill was thought by some to be a war mongering maniac prior to WWII.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 23, 2007 06:43 PM

Cecil...

you certianly get the award for the most optimistic person around. Well you and Dick Cheney.

Iran is a problem for a variety of reasons but most importantly they are on the brink of a special..how close to the bring depends on who you listen to. I dont know. My guess is that the "fizzle" in NOrth Korea set them back a pace, since they probably have as much to do with Dear Leader's (or beloved leader or which one is he?) special as he does. A Peacock air B-747F makes a flight to NOrth Korea twice a week.

The solution there is not so easy and bombing isnt a for sure solution.

I dont think that we are on the brink of invading Iran...I dont think that I ever said that.

on to Iraq.

Well gosh darn we can all hope that your view on the Brits leaving (if they actually do ) is the correct one. your view seems to be the minority of those who I ACTUALLY KNOW on the ground in southern Iraq, but heck maybe you are correct.

The more likely reason has to do with the fact that the BA is about worn out as well. They cannot keep the rotation rates going in both Afland and Iraq that they have been keeping up...as it stands right now to pay for all of this the plans are forming to more or less scrap a large part of The Royal Navy.

Our ground forces are making "good progress" particularly in Anbar where kick buns and take names has been in vogue long before Bush fired Rummy...but Anbar is nothing if we dont et hold of Baghdad...and that is not going to be easy.

In the meantime the ground army is burning through powder and equipment very hard. Remember the Ro/Ro's set for rapid deployment? Hanging around anchor on the east/west and out in Diego?

Thanks to how Rummy has fought the war, we are burning through all that equipment. One of the reasons for an "upped" DOD budget is to at least try and stop the burn down of powder of the rapid deployment stuff.

Nothing Rummy or Dickie or Donnie or any of those other clowns predicted has been accurate. Their war on the cheap has been completly repudiated, and probably cost us a much easier "win" in IRaq.

As it stands right now if we started fighting in say South Korea...things would not be swell at all.

Bush's polls have plumented because his administration has gone from one "untidy" misstatement to the next. We are where we are, because the clowns that said "our troops will be there as long as necessary but not a day longer" apparantly had no fracken clue how long that was.

NOw if you listen to David P. and his theories...I was right going into the thing. We are going to be in Iraq for at least the next two presidential cycles, probably in some kind of "combat" role.

I think we have to do it, but sunshine like you are selling is one reason we are where we are today.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 23, 2007 07:07 PM

It's a little thing but when Bobby Gee invokes that Rummy, Dickie crap, I tend to discount what people who do that write. So, Robert, were you against our troops going to Bosnia? We had a large presence there for years. If we have a small combat force in Iraq in 4 years and the country is functioning, is that a bad thing?

Posted by Bill Maron at February 24, 2007 07:36 AM

Bill.

your personal attack aside (grin)...

I was for going to Bosnia and have no problem with a peacekeeping force there which is keeping a peace.

We had a resolute victory there.

We neither have a resolute victory in Iraq after 4 years nor do we have a small combat force there. The combat force alone is about "all" the American armed forces can put in the field, unless we simply send everyone there and leave them permenantly.

I dont have a problem with 40-70K garrison force...but we are far from that.

And even the smallest acquaintance with the concept of coin says we are going to be "engaged" for quite sometime in Iraq with the "curent" doctrine.

We would have had to have had some garrison/combat force in iraq period, once we did "regime change"...but had it been done according to the doctrine of the time, large troop presence, holding the Iraqi army intact, etc etc, all things that folks like Cheney seemed to brush aside...we would have been a lot better off. We are essentially attempting to reform Saddams army now.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 24, 2007 07:54 AM

Robert, if "We Are Winning Cecil" and "Last Throes Cheney" are the most optimistic people around, why does Cheney continue to look like he's swallowed a gerbil these days? Or is the Cheney family cloning project (it's been rumored who the donor was...you can take a guess) not working? Or is he waiting to spit out the gerbil after Fitzmas? Seriously, the man looks like he's been stuffed with something.

Posted by Offside at February 24, 2007 08:38 AM

Cecil, please don't compare Bush to Churchill. You've obviously not read Churchill if you can make that comparison. Apart from a auperficial similarity in terms of world events, there is nothing remotely substantive to compare.

Posted by Offside at February 24, 2007 08:44 AM

cecil

the difference between bush and churchill is that churchill
had actually read a book, heck Churchill had actually
written several books.

Also, Churchill had been a war correspondent on the
front lines during the Boer War.

The most dangerous thing Bush ever did was open a beer
with his belt buckle.

Posted by anonymous at February 24, 2007 04:29 PM

Offside, Bush is certainly no Churchill, but the comparison stands. In 1935 when Churchill was warning of the dangers of an ascendant Germany most Brits thought he was a warmonger. Today when Bush warns of a nuclear armed Iran the same is claimed. The comparison isn't so much of Bush to Churchill as much as it is of the foolish Brits of 1935 and the foolish Americans/Europeans of 2007.

Anonymous, do you never tire of making an absolute fool of yourself?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 24, 2007 07:38 PM

Cecil.

Bush is no Winnie. He is having a stronger 4th quarter...but he is no Winnie. Winnie would have never lost control of the political debate to a fool like Murtha.

There are two aspects of being a "war President" and until he finally tried something "new" Bush was really failing at both.

The first is to put together a command structure for your military where competent decision making is the hallmark of the organization and the second IS TO KEEP THE PEOPLE BACK HOME IN THE FIGHT.

I emphasize the last part, because it should be self obvious that Bush has completly flopped at the latter role...no matter what one thinks of the former.

Bush has completly lost the debate to the other side. He runs around making speeches, some good, one or two near brilliant and then thats it...he retreats back to teh White House and we are left with non stop "anti groups". Bush's speech at the Marine Museum opening was splendid, just what a leader should do...and then end of sentence.

Winnie knew that his armed forces were powerless if they lost the support and the courage of the folks back home. I believe that he "spoke" to the people on the war about every week...FDR did the same thing. He managed to connect the American people to the fight constantly.

On that fact alone Bush is no Churchill....as for the military command structure...well a different topic.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 24, 2007 08:38 PM

Bob, why did you waste all that space writing "Bush is no Winnie" multiple times, directed to me personally, when I began my previous post I with "Bush is certainly no Churchill"?

Do you even read anyone else's post before you start pontificating?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 25, 2007 06:30 AM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 25, 2007 06

I read your post...you said to paraphrase ... he isnt a Churchill but the (and this is a quote) "the comparison stands".

My point is that it doesnt.

It doesnt "stand" in any way shape or form. Winnie was able to articulate a threat so that when the threat became obvious, he was the obvious leader.

But is not articulating a threat in any form or fashion that is obvious.

I BELIEVE that Iran is a serious threat. I dont believe a word his administration is saying on the issue... almost no one does.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 25, 2007 09:19 AM

So you read but cannot comprehend?

"The comparison isn't so much of Bush to Churchill as much as it is of the foolish Brits of 1935 and the foolish Americans/Europeans of 2007."

You believe Iran is a threat, the Bush admin SAYS that Iran is a threat but you don't believe what the Bush admin says about Iran being a threat..... ????

Are you sure you're not John Kerry posing as Bob Oler?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 25, 2007 11:25 AM

In January 1942, Winston Churchill was prepared to walk onto the floor of Parliament and DEMAND a vote of Confidence/No Confidence in his leadership. News of the fall of Singapore was about to become public. As I recall, two capital ships had been sunk by the Japanese.

But Winston Churchill did not mew that "criticism would embolden the enemy" -- no way, he was too strong a leader for that.

Boinked link:

http://www.(i)biblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420127a.html

remove the ( )

We have had a great deal of bad news lately from the Far East, and I think it highly probable, for reasons which I shall presently explain, that we shall have a great deal more. Wrapped up in this bad news will be many tales of blunders and shortcomings, both in foresight and action. No one will pretend for a moment that disasters like these occur without there having been faults and shortcomings. I see all this rolling towards us like the waves in a storm, and that is another reason why I require a formal, solemn Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons, which hitherto in this struggle has never flinched. The House would fail in its duty if it did not insist upon two things, first, freedom of debate, and, secondly, a clear, honest, blunt Vote thereafter. Then we shall all know where we are, and all those with whom we have to deal, at home and abroad, friend or foe, will know where we are and where they are. It is because we are to have a free Debate, in which perhaps 20 to 30 Members can take part, that I demand an expression of opinion from the 300 or 400 Members who will have sat silent.
It is because things have gone badly and worse is to come that I demand a Vote of Confidence. This will be placed on the Paper to-day, to be moved at a later stage. I do not see why this should hamper anyone. If a Member has helpful criticisms to make, or even severe corrections to administer, that may be perfectly consistent with thinking that in respect of the Administration, such as it is, he might go farther and fare worse. But if an hon. Gentleman dislikes the Government very much and feels it in the public interest that it should be broken up, he ought to have the manhood to testify his convictions in the Lobby. There is no need to be mealy-mouthed in debate. There is no objection to anything being said, plain, or even plainer, and the Government will do their utmost to conform to any standard which may be set in the course of the Debate. But no one need be mealy-mouthed in debate, and no one should be chicken-hearted in voting. I have voted against Governments I have been elected to support, and, looking back, I have sometimes felt very glad that I did so. Everyone in these rough times must do what he thinks is his duty.

If George W. Bush would gather both Houses of Congress and take them on in head-to-head debate about WHY his policies are vital for the interest of our nation, it would be far easier to respect him as a leader.

= = =

Anyway, read what Sir Winston said on January 27, 1942. THAT is true leadership.

Posted by Bill White at February 25, 2007 11:25 AM

Cecil, Iran is a genuine theat more (IMHO) due to their support for Hezbollah than uranium enrichment which is many years away from fruition. Besides, uranium bombs are difficult to get to work right.

The IDF should have cleared out Hezbollah with combat engineers last summer. Satchel charges and flamethrowers. "Go Okinawa" on 'em was my advice.

Hakim's son being close to the Tehran government is another problem.

So, I agree 100% that Iran is a very real and serious threat. I also believe that Bush strategery will make matters worse, not better.

Posted by Bill White at February 25, 2007 11:30 AM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 25, 2007 11:25 AM

No. I dont believe anything that this administration says without proof. Not a fracken thing.

After there "misstatements" over Iraq (near lies) if they said a special was on a Shahab or whatever ready to fly I would need to see the pictures.

The american people of today are in a completly different place then the British people of 1930's.

They have been "misstated" to on so many things by this admnistration and seen a level of incompetence that is so stunning that they have every right in the world to say "crying chicken" when the administration says a thing.

Churchill was trying to raise the alarm level, a level that clearly corresponded to events that were happening.

Did you see the farce of a brief by "unnamed" people in Baghdad about Iranian involvement? Not even the JCS could stand that one.

This administration, unlike Winnie has yelled "be afraid" so many fracken times, they couldnt convince the American people that dogs had fleas.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at February 25, 2007 12:59 PM

cecil

was churchill in favor of raising taxes to pay for a war or cutting
taxes to pay for a war?

Posted by anonymous at February 25, 2007 03:15 PM

I see you've not changed Bob, have fun arguing with yourself.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at February 26, 2007 04:15 AM

Often, the argument is made that war on Iran is needed to protect Israel. This was also an argument in the lead up to the war with Iraq by at least some neo-conservatives. So whose interests do AIPAC and other pro-war Jewish groups represent if one considers this?

Posted by Offside at February 26, 2007 06:13 AM

> was churchill in favor of raising taxes to pay for a war or cutting
taxes to pay for a war?

Churchill cut social spending to pay for the war.

What? That's not a sacrifice you're willing to make?

Posted by Andy Freeman at February 26, 2007 08:59 AM

This Administration shouts "be afraid" when Winston and FDR said "be brave"

Defeating Germany and Japan required total mobilization of our economy. A "conventional" defeat of Iran could be accomplished with minimal casualties.

But then both with Iran and Iraq it is the follow on nation-building that is the real challenge.

And this Administration has NOT shown that they have a clue on how to nation build. And remember that before the 2000 election George W. Bush firmly declared that America should not be in the nation building business.

Posted by Bill White at February 26, 2007 09:32 AM

Our problem is not "weakness of will" it is our continuing efforts to set the screws of nation building by using a hammer. Ever try to drive a screw into wood using a hammer?

People like Amir Tehari shout that we only need to pound harder, pound harder.

And anyone who proposes setting down the hammer and picking up a screwdriver is accused of being an appease-nik.

Posted by Bill White at February 26, 2007 09:50 AM

Andy

I'm all in favor of making sacrifice for a war.

How about we cut all the agriculture aid in the farm bill,
how about we cut all the incentives to oil companies,
how about we cut all the rural highway projects.

we could cut $100 billion off social security, but,
i'd like to see Simberg's family surrender their
medicare and SSA right now.

Posted by anonymous at February 26, 2007 06:23 PM

How about we cut all the agriculture aid in the farm bill, how about we cut all the incentives to oil companies, how about we cut all the rural highway projects.

we could cut $100 billion off social security, but, i'd like to see Simberg's family surrender their medicare and SSA right now.

Ignoring your illiteracy and inability to find the shift key, Anonymous Moron (one of the many reasons that we understand that you're a moron), I've no objection to cutting any of those things. They could all be eliminated, as far as my family is concerned. None of my family is dependent on a government program, including SSA and Medicare. That's because none of my family is a moron like you, Anonymous Moron.

Sorry that your family is. Maybe if they weren't morons like you, they wouldn't have to be.

Posted by Rand SImberg at February 26, 2007 06:52 PM

Post a comment