View Poll Results: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama

    35 54.69%
  • Romney

    29 45.31%
Page 80 of 82 FirstFirst ... 30707879808182 LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 817

Thread: For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

  1. #791
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You know I actually addressed that. If you don;t knwo or understand that, you may want to make my response larger and bolder.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Don't piss me off with disingenuous misrepresentations again cp. No one has argued the surge was just numbers. What is argued is that he thought of the awakening all by his self and the help with police recuritment was not part of the surge. The surge was not yet active in any form when he came up with it. Now you will dodge and try to pretend you don't understand what is being said. But I've linked information directely related to what was done and when it was done. You've merely spouted off at the mouth and then linked something not responsive to what is being said.
    When he came up with it is pretty much irrelevant. Without the US invasion, regime change, and subsequent surge, it would still be just an idea.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  2. #792
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    When he came up with it is pretty much irrelevant. Without the US invasion, regime change, and subsequent surge, it would still be just an idea.
    Wrong. It is not irrelevent. It means we got lucky. No awakening, and the effort looks more like Afghanistan.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #793
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Wrong. It is not irrelevent. It means we got lucky. No awakening, and the effort looks more like Afghanistan.
    That is incorrect, not least because (and I think I have told you this many, many times), counterinsurgency is local. Sattar was not a necessary specific ingredient - just a good one. Nor did he "have the idea" and then transmit it to us. He was available when we went looking for local forces to stand up. Without us, he would have had little effect, and without men like him, so would have we.



    And that is why your analogy completely fall-down-stupid fails. Because you think that "Afghanistan looks like failure", when in fact in the area's where we have put counterinsurgency doctrine into practice, it looks like the Anbar Province - dramatic turn around. We just had a team get back from Garmsir - 7 months and not a single hostile shot fired at them. "Afghanistan is a failure" largely to the extent that it is because our dreamer in chief didn't want to piss off his base, and so he sent less the minimum number of men necessary to put counterinsurgency into full effect (instead of two broad offensives to push the Taliban out of the country, we only had the manpower for one, which allows them to simply move to safer areas) and then he slapped on an artificial withdrawal date which makes counterinsurgency significantly more difficult.
    Last edited by cpwill; 06-17-12 at 12:15 AM.

  4. #794
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is incorrect, not least because (and I think I have told you this many, many times), counterinsurgency is local. Sattar was not a necessary specific ingredient - just a good one. Nor did he "have the idea" and then transmit it to us. He was available when we went looking for local forces to stand up. Without us, he would have had little effect, and without men like him, so would have we.



    And that is why your analogy completely fall-down-stupid fails. Because you think that "Afghanistan looks like failure", when in fact in the area's where we have put counterinsurgency doctrine into practice, it looks like the Anbar Province - dramatic turn around. We just had a team get back from Garmsir - 7 months and not a single hostile shot fired at them. "Afghanistan is a failure" largely to the extent that it is because our dreamer in chief didn't want to piss off his base, and so he sent less the minimum number of men necessary to put counterinsurgency into full effect (instead of two broad offensives to push the Taliban out of the country, we only had the manpower for one, which allows them to simply move to safer areas) and then he slapped on an artificial withdrawal date which makes counterinsurgency significantly more difficult.
    CP, you're wrong. If they don't act as they did, things go differently. We didn't have the idea. We didn't bring the idea to them. They started before we even considered it.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #795
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    More:

    To wit, I commend to your attention an interesting commentary by Wayne White, a former deputy director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. White argues that the security gains in Iraq were rooted in the Sunni Awakening, not the surge—and that these gains are now in serious jeopardy.

    White writes:


    The most important element in dramatically reducing violence was not the surge, but rather a deal between U.S. forces and Sunni Arab tribal and insurgent elements in late 2006 that translated the Awakening among many Sunni Arabs into stunning progress in terms of overall security and reduced U.S. casualties. Elements of the Awakening first approached U.S. forces seeking a deal two years earlier.

    Iraq, the Surge, and the Sunni Awakening: Not So Fast, Jack - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

    The Obama campaign was quick to note that the Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006, several months before President Bush even announced the troop escalation strategy, which became known as the surge. (No less an authority than Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress this spring that the Awakening “started before the surge, but then was very much enabled by the surge.”)
    (like I said, we were wise to take advantage)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us...s/24check.html

    If the Awakening or Cleansing accounts are correct, then U.S. policies had little to do with Iraq’s violence reduction, future Surges would be much more problematic, and defense planning built on Surge analogies would be ill-advised.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~jns/papers..._the_Surge.pdf
    Last edited by Boo Radley; 06-17-12 at 01:12 AM.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #796
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Wrong. It is not irrelevent. It means we got lucky. No awakening, and the effort looks more like Afghanistan.
    It doesn't mean we got lucky. Taking advantage of local "awakenings" is part of a policy that predates the Iraq invasion. Regardless, it wouldn't have happened without us support, in this case.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  7. #797
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    CP, you're wrong. If they don't act as they did, things go differently. We didn't have the idea. We didn't bring the idea to them. They started before we even considered it.
    I have demonstrated to you that not only did we have the idea, we had it years prior to implementing it. We had it decades prior to implementing it. We had it nearly a century prior to invading Iraq.

    You are correct that if they don't take part, things go differently. That's the point of the doctrine - to integrate local forces. And again, one particularly effective Sheikh was a boon, not a necessity.

  8. #798
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    It doesn't mean we got lucky. Taking advantage of local "awakenings" is part of a policy that predates the Iraq invasion. Regardless, it wouldn't have happened without us support, in this case.
    Bingo. To go from "Iraqi's didn't like AQI already" to "US Policies had little to do with Iraq's violence reduction" is ludicrous. Both Iraqi and American forces were necessary, as all of Boo's own sources have shown. He just doesn't want to admit to the implications because he unfortunately chose a foolish position, and now feels obligated to continue defending it.

    Hey Boo, here's a question, if Obama thinks that the Surge is a failure, and the doctrine doesn't work, why did he order one in Afghanistan?

  9. #799
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Bingo. To go from "Iraqi's didn't like AQI already" to "US Policies had little to do with Iraq's violence reduction" is ludicrous. Both Iraqi and American forces were necessary, as all of Boo's own sources have shown. He just doesn't want to admit to the implications because he unfortunately chose a foolish position, and now feels obligated to continue defending it.

    Hey Boo, here's a question, if Obama thinks that the Surge is a failure, and the doctrine doesn't work, why did he order one in Afghanistan?
    America bashing at it's "finest"...
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  10. #800
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    More:

    To wit, I commend to your attention an interesting commentary by Wayne White, a former deputy director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. White argues that the security gains in Iraq were rooted in the Sunni Awakening, not the surge—and that these gains are now in serious jeopardy.

    White writes:


    The most important element in dramatically reducing violence was not the surge, but rather a deal between U.S. forces and Sunni Arab tribal and insurgent elements in late 2006 that translated the Awakening among many Sunni Arabs into stunning progress in terms of overall security and reduced U.S. casualties. Elements of the Awakening first approached U.S. forces seeking a deal two years earlier.

    Iraq, the Surge, and the Sunni Awakening: Not So Fast, Jack - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

    The Obama campaign was quick to note that the Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006, several months before President Bush even announced the troop escalation strategy, which became known as the surge. (No less an authority than Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress this spring that the Awakening “started before the surge, but then was very much enabled by the surge.”)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us...s/24check.html

    If the Awakening or Cleansing accounts are correct, then U.S. policies had little to do with Iraq’s violence reduction, future Surges would be much more problematic, and defense planning built on Surge analogies would be ill-advised.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~jns/papers..._the_Surge.pdf
    Adding to this commentary, from the book, "The Gamble," by Thomas E. Ricks, page 61, last paragraph:

    All the conventional responses had been tried and none had worked, so three years into the war, MacFarland was willing to take a gamble on something different. Anbar Privince had at first been all but ignored in the planning for the 2003 invasion, then treated as an "economy of force" operation, and then saw two bruising battles for control of Fallujah in 2004.
    Page 63:

    What Gen. MacFarland wasn't seeing was that some Marine Generals had noticed that there was a quiet, almost secret war under way in Anbar between some tribes and Al Qaeda. The Marines were reaching out to some of the harder hit sheikhs, offering them help.
    It wasn't until August 21, 2006 when Sheikh Jassim was assassinated and the subsequent handling of his remains by his killers did the locals begin to turn against the insurgents.

    From page 66:

    He [MacFarland] said the local reaction to the August attacks indicated that Al Qaeda might have oerplayed its hand: They drove some fence-sitters into the American camp. One sheikh, Sittar albu-Risha, was particularly angre. "Sittar has lost enough family members that he was rady to throw away caution." This sheikh, a minor tribal leader who had a reputation for running a thriving cross-border smuggling business, called a meeting for September 9. More than 50 sheikhs and other notables showed up. They created what they proposed calling "The Awakening Counsel."
    And, thus, the seeds for the Anbar Awakening was born not of American military intervention but by the local leadership within Anbar Province itself. U.S. military leadership merely picked up on what they saw as a successful tactic ushered in by the locals taking action for themselves. They were successful, but to suggest that the U.S. military came up with this particular anti-insurancy strategy that turned the tide in Anbar Province is very much off base.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-17-12 at 02:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •