Personally, I believe vets might have an answer to Iraq.

Perhaps I'm prejudice in assuming that Vietnam vets
might have some insight to the insurgent situation.

It's the psychology of the soldiers, insurgent and
traditional infantry that I know...victory is not a
strategy...perhaps a goal, but damned sure not a strategy
as our commander-in-chief suggests.

So...where do we go...how do we engage the people.
How do we make our effort one on the part of the
Iraqi People...which is the only righteous reason...

If victory is the goal...then we must define an Iraqi Victory.

I drove by a used car lot in Panama City, FLA today...
Victory Motors...I told my wife...I'd rather buy from
Cut and Run Motors...she laughed...

I’m conflicted now. I started out seeing the lies that drove us into the war; I was dead set against it. Flash forward and we see a completely different set of facts on the ground. It’s a freaking mess today, and there are no easy solutions. It is vastly important to remember the facts going in and to keep the memory fresh, more important is finding a reasonable way out.
I am fairly well versed on what public discussion is taking place. I’ve watched with interest what C-Span has broadcast in the way of hearings, what few there have been. I’ve corresponded with my Democratic senator on the subject; we agree that we should continue to seek quality answers to serious questions concerning the many options and possible consequences. Without concluding which option is best right now, two processes are being talked about. One; take one of the many redeployment options. Two; step back, look at it like we screwed it up, now we’re going to fix it. Go to the congress, ask for a draft, ask for taxes to pay for it all, build a large Army and approach Iraq with an American attitude similar to our WW2 mindset. Lock the place down, install a new government, run off all the unwanted factions and plan to stay for several years. I told my senator I would support either idea, just pick one and make it work now. I'm still following the ever changing situation and have yet to really make up my mind.
The Iraqi’s are going to fight for the power regardless of what we do. Should we just get out of the way, or make it possible to obtain a clean out come? My gut says, get out, cut our losses now. I came out of a war with 58,000 unjustified dead, no sympathy here. We shouldn’t be looking to justify what’s already gone down, we have to live with that. We don’t want to lose more people in the name of finding justification for the maimed and dead in a war that serves no American interests.
I'll be back>I'm giving it more thought

Thank you for this post. I'm looking forward to what you have to say after giving this more thought.

Here in the Tahoe Basin we lost a young man on October 9, 2006. He was part of the 101st Airborne Division. His tour of Iraq was to be completed within the month. While I didn't know him well, I do know his Dad and Uncle. Both long time veterans of the South Tahoe Police Force. While Brandon's death didn't make national headlines....the national drama that we see played out evolved in my small community. Phelps and gang threatened to protest at his funeral, the shell shocked pain of family, friends and community played on. We are a small community. About 20,000 residents. About 1,000 people turned out for his funeral.

Interesting enough the day after Brandon's funeral, an Army recruiter called to talk to my teen age son. My son is a senior in high school. At first I was outraged. Then as we began talking, a dialogue opened much like you describe in your post. He is going to call back next week. I think my point is that I am very conflicted as to what the solutions for our involvement in Iraq are. I look forward to your future thoughts on this.

On Edit: I would like anybody's thoughts on this for that matter.

Setting aside for the moment that we should never have started this war, it is so botched up that we can't fix it. Only the Iraqi's can fix it, and it will take a civil war for them to come to that conclusion.

I don't buy the argument that we should honor the dead by making more of them; those who have died are already honored. The disgrace is upon the civilians in power for continuing to place our men and women in Harm's Way, just for the sake of 'honor'. Whose honor? I ask. The President's? He has to be 'honored' with a victory just so he won't go down in history as the leader who a lost war he started? What kind of vanity is that?

Since it is clear that W will never be man enough to admit his mistakes, then the solution will not be the best one, which would be for him to say "I should have stayed with Afghanistan and defeated the AlQueda there."

After laying careful logistics for safely getting all the troops of ours and whatever fragments of coalition troops are still there, to safe bases in the nearest areas possible, then in advance notify the Iraqi government, "it is now up to you to secure your nation and end the feuding between factions by granting minority rights to the Sunnis."

We cannot resolve their tribal differences. It is up to the moderates to rid themselves of the fanatics.

Same here, it is our job to rid our country of the radical neocon right wing and let
moderates in the republican party work at repairing itself.We need to give them the opportunity by electing Democrats.


lenal

Irregardless of if Iraq was the right or wrong war we bought the store when we invaded Iraq.

We got the choice of setting up a successful Arab democracy in the Middle East or turning Iraq over to the radical Islamists.

Now tell me which way you want it to be.

Your comment describes the systemic catastrophe taking place in the whitehouse, and the pentagon. The thinking is so narrowly defined that answers are few and far between. Critical situations require creative solutions and we will not find resolve until the thoughts towards remedies are expanded to include creative thinking. You describe two narrow options, over the past year I’ve heard several differing opinions that would lead to solutions you are not considering. We have a “C” average person a the top of the process, he has surrounded himself with like thinkers, out of which we are to hope for conclusions to these problems. Mr marine has equaled the whitehouse in ideas, nothing new, nothing fresh or thoughtful, how sad is it that these are the best ideas generated to date. Mr marine, wouldn’t you like to see a few people smarter than you or I putting their focus on these problems.

The same justification was used in Vietnam, Winston. I bought in to it when I was younger and fresh back from there, but I'm older and a little wiser now.

It is no longer a military end game in Iraq, but a political one. We should get out of the way and allow them to decide their destiny.

Well Vaughn, the democrats don't offer an alternative. That is unless you want to accept as an alternative more of the same of what we did prior to 9/11.

Who's the "C" average person you are refering to?

“Bush also took his lumps for being a lousy student at Yale, where he graduated with a gentleman's C”

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles...week.lede_2.htm

So that story says Bush had a slightly better GPA than Kerry did, or did you not read that far?

I've got a pretty good GPA with a 3.8; does that mean I'm all that much better qualified than Bush or Kerry to be president?

Oh my God, I just realized, my wife had a 4.0GPA all the way through undergrad and grad school. You think this country is ready for a woman native American president? She's likely to put all us pale faces on a reservation.

I know I’ve been hearing several ideas coming from some of the Democrats, some bold, some thoughtful and some that have no chance of being successful. The point being; Bush’s Iraq policies have failed on almost every level, suggestions from both the right and the left offering a winning strategy are falling on deaf ears. Most Democrats understand, we are in this like it or not, now we need a “Plan” to get out with some dignity.
IMHO at this point in time we have a couple of years now where our enemies have taken advantage of Iraq. They are sending their soldiers into the fray with the great American military. Many are becoming battle hardened combatants who are now dispersing around the world to carry on their fight. The best training a combatant can receive is to confront the Americans, and there’s been plenty of that. The numbers of foreign fighters in Iraq has been consistently around 1 ½ to 2 percent of all combatants in the fight. Since the war began the enemy has been rotating their people in and out of the war zone, primarily through the neighboring countries. By now they could have a Cadre of significant size are resource, as well as being battle hardened.

That doesn't work on me Vaughn, remember the Marines are working in al Anbar province and virtually all the enemy combatants the Marines tote off to the morgue are being claimed by someone who is not an Iraqi. I guess that could be the rotation out of the country you would be referring to.

That’s because you’re a closed “book” marine, you look at the news and you hear what you want to hear. Dems know there are many quality ideas floating around out there, and we are confident that the changes you are about to see will be for the better.
Of course you can always “Blame Clinton”

No Vaughn, it's because I talk to people recently coming out of or still in Iraq and unlike you don't depend upon what the propagandist from the MSM or some liberal blogger wants to feed me.

I bet you won't hear it on the news but Baghdad is quite today.

Again, your wrong marine. I have two family members in Iraq now. I also blog at a couple of different military blogs, mostly to keep in touch of my cousin, ( Army Sgt E-5 11 bravo) and my nephew, ( E-3 in the Corp), I try to keep abreast of the current situation. The difference is our perspective, mine is real and yours, well it’s coming from somewhere far to the right.

So tell us what they say Vaughn.

they say the same thing you or I would say; life sucks in a combat zone, bring me home soon please.
One says go home now, and one says finsih the job first.

Ya know that Democracy in the Middle East... is well be careful what you wish for (e.g. Lebanon, Palistine). I don't think that part of the world and specifically Iraq were or are ready for Democracy. They're current Government can not move without Sadr pulling strings. Do we give up and let the country fracture?

I don't think so not yet. So here is my idea... cruel but consider the source. I've seen it work on a smaller scale in our AO.

Cut off the funding for projects in his neighborhood. Or the neighborhoods controled by the what ever trouble makers giving the grief. Pump the prosperity into the areas that can keep civility. Squeeze the funds, if that doesn't do it squeeze the electricity, if that doesn't do it squeeze the irrigation water, ....squeeze the oil supply.

Apply the pressure where it is needed. Call it cruel, I call it tough love. Mediation is weekness, the more we try and appease these nuts the more they see us as week. Thats the way it is there.

I don't reward my kid for bad behavior why are we doing it here?

With the exception of Kurdistan the place is not ready for Democracy; they need another dictator, leader with an iron fist. Find one and let him have at it.

You are probabley on to something 1st Sgt. If you look at the early days of communism the reason Stalin worked out so well with the mind set of the average Russian was because they had only known life under the Czar. The had to have the iron fist to feel normal. The Germans are another such phenomenon, they only knew life under the Kaiser so Hitler was a shoe-in.

Germany had democracy forced upon it by the iron fist of Allied occupation.

Russia? I fear Russia has yet to become comfortable with democracy.

Had we done Iraq right from the start, in my humble opinion, we'd be much further along the road than we actually are. I think we should have looked at the lessons we learned fron occupying Germany after WW2. The die hards there tried to stir up trouble there too, but we had enough troops on hand to keep them in their place and when we caught one of them, we'd tie them to a post and shoot them. We had enough troops for a swift defeat of the Iraqi Army but too few for a sucessful occupation

Can you imagine the howls from the anti-war movement about American war criminals if we put a few of those SOBs trying to kill American troops up against a wall and shot them?

We are in agreement on life in a combat zone Vaughn.

I only got shot at on one occassion, probably didn't last for more than 15 or 20 minutes but to me I thought it wasn't ever going to stop. After the first few minutes of being scared shitless you kind of accept the fact you're probably going to die so what's the use to worry about it.

At least that's how I felt about it.

The biggest appeasement in history is being perpetuated in Iraq right now by this administration's "we'll stay as long as it takes".

Anyone with two eyes open can understand that the claimed number of Iraqi police and soldiers trained, using more time to do so than the time needed or given to our volunteer army to train and be sent to the theater - should have resulted in security enforced by them and withdrawal of American presence, if removal of SH was the primary goal and all the rest was to follow by the desires of the Iraqi people, however that is not the case, instead homegrown militia are fighting over the past history instead of creating a future for their nation.



lenal
:bat:

I have deleted a personal attack and the response which replied to it.
Please keep discussion to the issues. Thanks- Pie

We're tied Marine, and I was a non-combatant!

Iraq is fine example of why not to let civilian run a war

I thought I was too until the shooting started. Loaded down with radio equipment and nothing but a .45 acp to shoot back with; I'll never ever bad talk the Army, those Rangers saved my hide.

And how heavy was that radio equipment? Seems as if I've read about this elsewhere!

One of the toughest accomplishments I achieved in the Army was to qualify with a .45 cal. First thing I noticed was my issued .45 was a 1921 Ithaca, an antique from an earlier time. I had to practiced several times before I figured it out, then I qualified with the minimum requirements. As an MP I always had my sidearm with me, but I rarely used it for anything other than target pratice.
In the infinite wisdom of the Army, they made me the NCOIC of the MP shooting team. We spent a month going all over Vietnam in shooting competitions against many different units who also supported the sport of target shooting. My team did very well, I did horribly, yet it was cool getting out of work so we could travel. Only the Army could have such a thing going on in a theater of war.
So marine, were you any good with that .45? For chuckles we would load up a Thompson magazine with .45cal tracers, then we would fire them off at night just to watch the spinning patterns of the rounds as they shot off into the distance. The Thompson would spin the round in a pattern that would widen to about 2 foot when the round got out to 75 yards or more, I don’t know how we ever hit anything with those old guns do you?

One of the toughest accomplishments I achieved in the Army was to qualify with a .45 cal. First thing I noticed was my issued .45 was a 1921 Ithaca, an antique from an earlier time. I had to practiced several times before I figured it out, then I qualified with the minimum requirements. As an MP I always had my sidearm with me, but I rarely used it for anything other than target pratice.
In the infinite wisdom of the Army, they made me the NCOIC of the MP shooting team. We spent a month going all over Vietnam in shooting competitions against many different units who also supported the sport of target shooting. My team did very well, I did horribly, yet it was cool getting out of work so we could travel. Only the Army could have such a thing going on in a theater of war.
So marine, were you any good with that .45? For chuckles we would load up a Thompson magazine with .45cal tracers, then we would fire them off at night just to watch the spinning patterns of the rounds as they shot off into the distance. The Thompson would spin the round in a pattern that would widen to about 2 foot when the round got out to 75 yards or more, I don’t know how we ever hit anything with those old guns do you?

My first .45 was a Remminton Rand contract pistol, I bet it would have really hurt someone if I'd managed to hit them considering most the bullets from it went through the target sideways. The slide also wobble at least a quarter of an inch from side to side Hopefully Remmington Rand made better typewritters than they did pistols.

After Grenada I swore if I ever was sent to a spot where they'd be shooting at me I'd take my personal .45; it was a military contract pistol model 1927A1 built for the Argentine Army.

Apparently the Argentines paid attention to the complaints they heard from the US Army about the 1911A1. For all intent purposes the pistols were virtually identical in appearance, outwardly the difference were the 1927 model had a right hand trigger where as the 1911 is omnidextrous. Insides were a world of differences though. The 1911 had the world famous plain old steel barrel which invariedly was shot out to be a smoothbore by the time it was issued to an enlisted man. The 1927 had a chromium steel barrel which kept it's rifling forever and tolerances on everything else were tight.

Shortly thereafter the dilema of using a personal pistol was solved when I got this cute little Beretta 9mm automatic.

I quailified with that old Remmington Rand piece of junk as a Marksman but I shot Expert with my Argentine pistole'.

The only folks with a .45 submachine gun were tankers, they had those old grease gun monstrousities.

Brings back memories (bad)