News Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq

[Cyrus]

No, football teams do make game plans as they go. Even his analogy is senseless!

Why are we even talking about this!? Back on topic.

 

[edward]

The disagreement here basically comes down to; so battles should be chosen wisely, or should you just make it up as you go?

We went into Iraq totally unprepared for anything that happened after the summer of 03.
In the type of military scenario we are now facing, it must be a "make it up as you go" concept, because we can't adapt our traditional tactics as fast as the insergents can change their untraditional tactics.

 

[slugcountry]

No, football teams do make game plans as they go. Even his analogy is senseless!

Why are we even talking about this!? Back on topic.

man you're demented, ask any good coach (in ANY team sport) if he goes into a game without a game plan.

edit: although of course any good plan should be dynamic enough to change to the situation - I think the main issue here is that there was no gameplan to begin with, pretty sure we can all agree on that one.

 

[Cyrus]

Buddy, I don't care about football. Stop talking about it or leave.

 

[edward]

man you're demented, ask any good coach (in ANY team sport) if he goes into a game without a game plan.

edit: although of course any good plan should be dynamic enough to change to the situation - I think the main issue here is that there was no gameplan to begin with, pretty sure we can all agree on that one.

This game plan was made up by a bunch of arm chair quarter backs who never really played the game. Watch the video while it is still available. It is a real eye opener and worth the time spent. Hint: You can clean your room while listening.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4926293608118312619&q=Thomas+Ricks

 

[kyleb]

Buddy, I don't care about football. Stop talking about it or leave.

You are just missing his point; battles should be chosen wisely rather than made up as you go along.

 

[Cyrus]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I misread what he wrote.

I am sorry buddy!

 

[Tsu]

Tonight on Charlie Rose there was an interview with Thomas Ricks, reporter for the Washington post, concerning his new book: “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.”

It was really sad to hear him tell account after account of how the US did nothing short of sell a war that was a lie to the American public. Not only was it a lie, they were not prepared for this war. The troops were not prepared, Rumsfield was not prepared.

Adding insult to injury, the people who did have competence, the Military and the CIA, were ignored when they told the Rumsfield et al. that the intelligence was NOT certain, there was NOT enough planning, we only sent in half as many troops as we needed, the list goes on and on.

I am waiting for the transcripts to come online and then I will post with actual quotes.

-A side note, he is not the only one who has openly stated the total and complete failure of the planning that went behind this war. Nearly everyone Rose interviewed has said the same thing, including the Military. Not enough planning, no plan for insurgency, no exit strategy, turmoil between Rumsfield and the Generals, congress sitting idly by and not pressuring the president.

I saw that. It was an excellent interview. I love Charlie Rose. Can't wait to read this book.

 

[Cyrus]

I saw that. It was an excellent interview. I love Charlie Rose. Can't wait to read this book.

A woman of impeccable taste

 

[WarrickF]

I'd like to take a moment to point out something that I find interesting. The majority of the people who take the time to post here are people who are willing to look beyond what the media feeds them and generate more intelligent discussion\opinion.

I think the majority of people feel that what's transpired here is terrible and that we're going to see the repercussions of this for many years to come.

If we are to make any use of our time I think there should be some form of objective in mind:
1.What is the best outcome that we could hope for at this time?
2.How could this be accomplished?

I hate to say it be I feel like the majority of people spend to much time explaining why we are were we are instead of focusing on the fact that we could save many lives if we thought about how to address the problem going forward.

It seems to me that even if the monkeys running this show acted in the perfect way, we would not know they did so because we've not decided what the correct action should be (not that I'm qualified to make this decision).

I think of the problem similar to littering – people will always tell you that dropping one piece of paper is not going to make any difference – the reality is that if everyone thinks like this, the street will be a mess. How we as individuals effect the environment around us at this point in time makes a big difference – but unless we know exactly what it is we're trying to do, we can't hope to accomplish it.

Bottom Line: Let's focus on the resolution – how do we resolve \ improve the problem?

 

[Skyhunter]

Bottom Line: Let's focus on the resolution – how do we resolve \ improve the problem?

As long as the US is run by the neo-cons, there is no viable solution. If the opposition cannot get control of one of the Houses, then the arrogance, secrecy, and incompetence will continue. The current Congressional leadership has shown no willingness to conduct any oversight.

This is the most important mid-term election in my lifetime.

Nice link, I read the transcript, and am now listening to the interview.

Later today I will visit my friend at the local non-chain book store and purchase the book. I only have so much time for reading, so I am selective in the books I read. This is one I feel is a must read.

With the events in Lebanon, there is an escalation of violence in the middle east. According to a plan called "Clean Break", Iraq was phase1, Lebanon is phase2, phase3 is Syria, and phase4 Iran.

My greatest fear is that the timetable is set to escalate before the midterms. What will be the effects on the Congressional races if the US military is engaged in a hot war in the ME?

 

[pcorbett]

It was really sad to hear him tell account after account of how the US did nothing short of sell a war that was a lie to the American public. Not only was it a lie, they were not prepared for this war. The troops were not prepared, Rumsfield was not prepared.

If it were universally true, then how is it we were able to deploy force to theater in the first place? You have to admit that the United States was ready and successfully deployed. Perhaps you're missing a qualification or two?

 

[Cyrus]

That was a pretty pointless post, with all due respect. Do you have any real facts to present?

What does the deployment of force have to do with what we are talking about? No one is questioning our capability to deploy force, are they? No.

Read the sources I have provided to you, they are missing no qualifications. If you have problems about qualifications with the Director of the CIA, Bob Woodward, and Thomas Ricks, stay far, far away from my thread.

 

[Cyrus]

Look, I am not trying to be rude to you pcorbett, but I do not want this post to become diluted with posts of peoples opinions. I only want facts from credible sources.

I am trying to avoid a bandwagon of people giving every opinion under the sun and this thread running off on wild tangents.

We are not going to proceed with the discussion of our military capability and deployment any longer, sorry. You are more than welcome to start a thread on it if you would like to.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I am trying to avoid a bandwagon of people giving every opinion under the sun and this thread running off on wild tangents.

OK.

We are not going to proceed with the discussion of our military capability and deployment any longer, sorry. You are more than welcome to start a thread on it if you would like to.

"Fiasco" w'out military capabilities --- not sure I see what you're after then. Politics behind the war?

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, the politics leading up to and during this war, which have all be a terrible lie to the American public.

The title of this thread is after Ricks book. That should have been clear from my first post if you have been following this thread.

I will try and dig up more good transcripts later.

 

[Bystander]

All "politics" is all lies --- you have specific lies in mind, or Rick (Ricks?) has --- you up to trying a "one at a time" approach?

 

[Cyrus]

I do not follow what you are saying, sorry.

 

[Bystander]

I'm assuming you have particular lies in mind. Do you want to try discussing them one "lie" at a time, and establishing whether they're really lies, or information gaps through which interpolations have been made based on previous history of, and experiences with the ME?

 

[Cyrus]

The infromation is in the transcrips I have provided. There is no 'information gap,' there has been a clear selectivity in the usage of facts presented to the American public.

It is clearly explained in the transcript of Ricks.

 

[Bystander]

Ricks is omniscient?

 

[Cyrus]

Respectfully, do you have anything meaningful to contribute, other than opinion? If you take issue with what Ricks has presented, the provide something tangible to argue your point.

 

[Bystander]

Respectfully, do you have anything meaningful to contribute, other than opinion?

No opinions have been offered --- I've asked a couple questions in an effort to clarify the point of this thread. You won't say what lies. You assert "no information gap." Cyrus, there's a huge amount of information that isn't publicly available --- of course Ricks isn't omniscient. So, what's the point of this thread?

If you take issue with what Ricks has presented, the provide something tangible to argue your point.

He hasn't presented anything with which to "take issue" based on the transcripts you've posted. He's a journalist chasing a Pulitzer. That's what journalists do.

 

[vanesch]

I guess that, of the transcript, the gist is:

TOM RICKS: Exactly. It was a war of choice. It wasn`t necessary to do. It wasn`t necessary to do in the way it was done, and the occupation didn`t need to be bungled in the way it was bungled. So that`s -- it`s profligate, is the word I use.

It is amazing that the above text, full of evident truths clear to a lot of people since a long time, comes out as a kind of revelation at this point.
How come that, in most of Europe, say, this was about clear from the start to most people ?

I don't say this in a rhethorical way, but just: were we, in Europe, deluded by self-realising propaganda somehow, or was/is the American people deluded by (a huge dose) of propaganda so that now, they are surprised somehow by all these evident statements ?

 

[pcorbett]

That was a pretty pointless post, with all due respect. Do you have any real facts to present?

What does the deployment of force have to do with what we are talking about? No one is questioning our capability to deploy force, are they? No.

You are, by arguing that US general purpose forces were universally unprepared to execute this mission. Seems to me the obvious presence of a deployment schedule belies that claim.

Read the sources I have provided to you, they are missing no qualifications.

What sources? Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I have no intentions of doing so.

If you have problems about qualifications with the Director of the CIA, Bob Woodward, and Thomas Ricks, stay far, far away from my thread.

I have problems with the fact you present none of the qualifications surrounding Ricks' judgements. You've not evaluated anything pertinent by Woodward or whatever mystery DCI you're talking about.

 

[pcorbett]

Look, I am not trying to be rude to you pcorbett, but I do not want this post to become diluted with posts of peoples opinions. I only want facts from credible sources.

Then you might start by actually addressing the planning and preparation process actually in place, separating judgement (that is, assessment from performance) from empirical facts.

We are not going to proceed with the discussion of our military capability and deployment any longer, sorry.

So you're going to discuss the alleged unpreparedness of the US military in waging this mission without actually discussing the state of the force at the start and during the mission? So I guess we're going by anecdote now?

Also be mindful that not everyone here has read Ricks' book or intends to. On the other hand, if you feel free to present his arguments you should, at the very minimum, present his defense (if you abhor presenting your own). You know...common courtesy.

 

[Cyrus]

No opinions have been offered --- I've asked a couple questions in an effort to clarify the point of this thread. You won't say what lies. You assert "no information gap." Cyrus, there's a huge amount of information that isn't publicly available --- of course Ricks isn't omniscient. So, what's the point of this thread?



He hasn't presented anything with which to "take issue" based on the transcripts you've posted. He's a journalist chasing a Pulitzer. That's what journalists do.

He already has a Pulitzer prize.

 

[Cyrus]

I guess that, of the transcript, the gist is:


It is amazing that the above text, full of evident truths clear to a lot of people since a long time, comes out as a kind of revelation at this point.
How come that, in most of Europe, say, this was about clear from the start to most people ?

I don't say this in a rhethorical way, but just: were we, in Europe, deluded by self-realising propaganda somehow, or was/is the American people deluded by (a huge dose) of propaganda so that now, they are surprised somehow by all these evident statements ?

My dear vanesch, we were given a big shovel of propganda.

 

[Cyrus]

You are, by arguing that US general purpose forces were universally unprepared to execute this mission. Seems to me the obvious presence of a deployment schedule belies that claim.

Unprepared for an insurgency. Prehaps you should have read all of my posts. This is NOT a topic of debate, it is a *fact.* Read the transcripts.

[/quote]What sources? Forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but I have no intentions of doing so.[/quote]

If you do not wish to take the time to read the thread, then please leave.

 

[Bystander]

He already has a Pulitzer prize.

--- and, chasing another.

NYT catches hell for blowing an intelligence project tracking terrorist finances, and Ricks blows strategy, tactics, and planning for a whole war and gets ignored? He's got fairytale information from fairytale sources --- the war's still on, Cyrus --- disinformation is the name of the game --- the American press is the most efficient means of transmitting disinformation to the opposition. This isn't the Johnson administration w' R. Strange McN. passing plans to Hanoi so they can redeploy AA for maximum effect, or Kissinger or Nixon spouting plans in public.