quote:

What I meant about communication was giving the American people as close to the truth as possible when things are going well or going badly.

Like FDR suppressing casualty numbers for the first 2 years of WWII; or the suppression of any pictures showing wounded Americans?

We’ve had more of a suppression by the mainstream media of good news. This recently came to the fore when a talk show host being interviewed on TV mentioned it, and they all went into a tizzy about how objective they really are.

The NYTimes’ guy in Baghdad actually admitted to giving shortshrift to the good news that happens, and focusing on the bad news, but he summed it up to business. Schools being built, and sewers being laid just aren’t headline news.

As for the “made no mistakes” attitude. Which one would you have them fess up to?

Exactly. Much of it is a matter of opinion, and most of what you would probably call a mistake, I would not.

No WMD? Was that a mistake? No. We know for certain that at one time Saddam had these WMD. He was supposed to produce them for UN inspectors in the 90s, and then they were supposed to be destroyed. He said he destroyed them, and then asked the world to take his word for it.

The UN didn’t even pretend to question the existence of WMD until the US (and a conservative US president) were on war footing.

So your likely mistake, is simply the failure of our multilateral efforts to stop Saddam from shipping his weaponry to Syria and Iran.

quote:

And as for my comments about the GANGS in Washington – I was referring to the two political parties that do their work there. You know, the bickering, back bighting, do nothing people who represent us (not all mind you). They are so out of touch with the American people that it scares me.

Again, name me a time when this was not the case.

I can see that you are looking for things to poke holes in my criticisms which is fine but not necessary because it is my opinion (I see no reason to change it and I do know about FDR and Wilson and Lincoln for that matter) and becomes a moot point under those circumstances.

As for the press – conservative people think it is too liberal and liberal people think it is too conservative and neither whish to hear what the other side has to say. A balanced reporting system is almost impossible to achieve. It is beyond arguing about because most people see problems.

As for the war in Iraq and good news – get real man – there is little of it because services are still not adequate, there is not much of an economy and the government cannot find their bottom with both hands. I know about the school building and soccer games, etc. but there is a lot of bad news. There is a great deal to still do and it will take years to achieve it. I hope it is done faster and better and by the Iraqi people.

quote:

I can see that you are looking for things to poke holes in my criticisms

Well, this is something of a debate, but no, I'm not looking for things, I'm making note of flaws in your logic.

No offense. But you've fallen into a common misconception that some other "good ol' days" held better things, people, circumstances, etc. All in all, things are much better, in many ways. Covering two of your topics at once, think if the irony that supposed jouralistic excellence is awarded with a Pulitzer; the grandfather of Yellow journalism.

quote:

As for the war in Iraq and good news – get real man – there is little of it because services are still not adequate,

Yes, indeed, get real man. Iraq is flourishing outside of certain areas, but all you hear in the mainstream media is about what goes on in selectively small areas of Iraq.

"Flourshing" of course is a relative term; I don't think Starbucks has any marketing designs there yet, but compared to where they've come from, yes, there's plenty of good news, as the NYTimes admited in not reporting.

For a look at what ' really happened ' in Iraq, you might want to check out this tome at amazon.com or the local library..
from the authors of " The General's War " a book on the First Gulf War, which was praised by Dead Eye Dick Cheney himself, comes:
CobraII: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq - Random House [ up here, anyway ] by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor

Gordon is the senior military correspondent for the New York Times and Trainor is a former Marine Corps General.. trust me on this one...they aren't going to get a glowing review from Dick this time out...

CobraII was the codename for the invasion of Iraq - conjures up the original Cobra battleplan which was Gen. Patton's breakout from Normandy.. good choice if you're after symbolism about all that would go right with the ' spreed 'of the attack and all that could go wrong with the conception of the war. As these guys put it the US was planning to fight an illusionary war based on a wholly mistaken conception of the enemy.

Some of this stuff is pretty familiar, having been bandied about the press from the start.. US speed and precision weaponry a ' revolution in military affairs ' The Rumsfeld Plan ' [ who gets ripped to shreds in the book - and, not without cause ]

Rummy wanted a quick war, minimal deployment of troops and a rapid exit. - lots of claims from within and without that he shot down cooler heads, overruled and ground down opposition [ seems a lot more mucky muck milbrass have been taking him to task lately in the press - from both left and right on this one but Dubya has been mounting a vigourous defence of his ' friend ' ]

book claims that a 21st century ' blitzkrieg ' should have been tempered with a realistic assessment of the enemy and that the US looksee at the Iraqi forces was so far off the scale as to make even more of a joke of the term ' military intelligence '.

The battle plan figured that Saddam's Republican Guard divisions would be the formidable foe and that they would have to be taken out by aerial assault and armoured punch, the worst moment of the war would come when the allies got to ' street fighting' in Baghdad. The plan was to focus on preventing the Guard from retreating into Baghdad and deploying last ditch methods[ including the feared gas/chemical arsenal ]..

In reality [ and hindsight - but, again, where was intel ? ] The Guard weren't the opposition. Their soldiers and oommand were demoralized and couldn't withstand the punishment from the US Air supreriority... when the US engaged the Al Nida Dvision guarding the city they found that the 13,000 troops and 500 vehicles were in fact 2000 and 50.. most of the boys had voted with their feet.
The real threat that emerged was not conventional but the Guerrilla forces; Saddam's fedayeen- the black pyjama boys armed with the universal AK-47 and RPG's and led by Saddam's nutbar son, Uday...The US never scoped the threat from this section and points to a lack of intel, again, and a failure to understand the nature of Saddam's regime.

Seems no one at the Pentagon played the devil's advocate and came up with the usual/unusual counter measures to test plans against. The book suggests that Saddam figured that the US threat was non-existent and that America would never risk body bags from Iraq.. but he had to fight a war with a military he didn't trust [ what dictator ever trusts his own generals ? ]and a people he couldn't count on.. Saddam was intent on keeping the guard out of Baghdad [ military coup, anyone? ] and he wanted the fedayeen close by [ not to fight the US but to keep the Shi'ites in place and a recurrence of what happened in the first gulf war ]..

Saddam was the instigator of his own defeat, but at the same time sowed the seeds for the mess - a low intensity prolongued conflict of insurgency and rebellion poised on the brink of civil war. The secret weapon against his own people are now the single biggest threat against the coalition- an international armed resistance, augmnented by ' foreign national idealists ' the resistance has spread to include political, religious, ethnic factios, criminal elements, opporunists and Al-Quaeda inspired jihadists...

The Wizard of Oz scenario never took place.. The wicked queen gets overcome, the munchkins rise up and cheer, big song-and-dance number and then Dorothy clicks her heels and poof- there's no place like home ' everyone comes back from a bad dream..

Never happened.. and when that collapsed, the US had no back -up plan instead there's a middle-east country on the verge of break-up civil war, and a superpower with a growing reputation as a global incompetent.. not a welcome outcome..

Enough sh*t has come out of government, news, investigative reports and bad-mouthing from insiders to suggest that all that this book [ and others ] are saying is pretty close to reality and the blame for the muckers in Iraq [ Afghanistan is completely different but problems there, too ]..falls mainly on Dubya as a numnil as President for not knowing what's going on [ as much as any one president could ] and relying too much on drinkin' buddy, Rumsfeld and his back room cronies, to know ' whut's good fer America' instead of trusting to the professionals; the boys with the fruit salad on their chests and shiny bits on their hats.. [ some blaming Bush Jr. lack of military ' experience' for not knowing who to listen to.. gee Generals with years of experience or Dick Cheney of the dud heart and multiple deferments ?


Sadly, Even if Dubya came to his senses at this point its too late and the whole mess will have to be sorted out by the next shmoe who wants the Oval Office.. Hillary or Condoleeza to the ' rescue '?

anyway.. great read if you've got an afternoon, some bicarb and a headache tab or two - better yet, some Kentucky bourbon to deaden the rage after reading this...hell of a bedtime story...

Airwinger:

When I hear conservatives criticize the war and the administration for their lack of communication (along with the liberals and everyone in-between) I start thinking that there is a problem. Since I am not in Washington, it is difficult for me to tell what is going on so I have to believe someone. There are more than two sides to every story.

Let us just say that the communication does not meet my standards.

As for Iraq, maybe I am just a cynic and do not see enough improvement to match the administrations rhetoric. They were all pie in the sky and everything is going well for far too long.

As far a congress goes it has been better because they did get things done and were not excluded from the governing of the country because of mere political reasons. Yes, I know that they have always fought with each other but there are times, and I have witnessed a few, where they got their act together and made legislation and corrected flaws in the country. I do not think I am the cynic on this one.

As for my poking holes comment, I did plumbing all day and then had to do someone’s taxes who decided to start the process on Sunday, it did not put me in a good mood and made me somewhat petulant. I could have used better phrasing because I do respect everyone’s opinion but sometimes am not in the mood to debate and should keep my mouth shut.

I browsed the new book Rocket is talking about.

Their first book, The General's War is on my nightstand shelf, and it was okay.

The thing I know about Trainor, and this is why I even picked up the new book to begin with, is that he's been battling the maneuver warfare crowd all the way back in the 80s. And Rumsfeld has been part of that crowd since before then.

I'm curious enough I might get through a couple of cups of coffee with at the store, but I probably won't buy it.

I don't think Trainor has anything political up his sleeve, though he might, but he's been personally fingered for the ruination of fellow Marine officers when they got on the wrong side of him on this issue.

Not sure why so many people get so religiously zealous over attrition versus maneuver warfare, but there's already enough in print on Trainor's views, and actions on the subject to prove his lack of objectivity.

The bio Boyd in particular spells out in detail how he was instrumental in dead ending a Marine major who was spear heading the maneuver warfare concept in the late 80s, early 90s. The most popular of the Marine Corps' Warfighting books (the only one I know of that is widely available in most book stores) was largely written by this major, and thus it's focus on maneuver warfare concepts.

And with that said, I'll start another thread for Rummy.

quote:

Originally posted by CavScout19D30:
If we give the Kurds a Kurdistan, and a Sunnistan, and a Shitistan (hee hee),

Giving any religious sect it's very own state sounds like a bad idea. I'm sure it's been tried, with less than encouraging results...

The people of the Middle East have been fighting each other for hundreds of years and I am skeptical if the bad blood will ever be resolved. I believe that only through understanding and acceptance of each others culture can they achieve stability. Its my pipe dream and i'm sticking to it.