• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

For Veterans and Military personnel only.


  • Total voters
    51
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.



And it makes little difference to you that the majority of what's going on in the VA under President Obama is little more than a continuation of President Bush's policies?

Personally, I think every President should build on the last when it comes to such agencies as the VA, but I fail to see how anything Obama has done has had a greater impact for veterans than President Bush, but rather has just built on his (and previous administrations) foundations.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Can you name some things President Obama has done for us? I haven't seen you post that as of yet. Thanks.

I'll do you one better. Go to: Veterans | The White House and read all about the veteran services and employment initiatives this President has ushered in.

On maintaining a strong national defense and facing global contingencies including but not limited to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, go to: Defense | The White House.

I'm certainly not going to sit here and tell you something you can find and read for yourself directly from the source. So, once again (because I provided links to both Presidential hopefuls before), if you really want to know what the President has done and what Mitt Romney hopes to do, just go to their respective websites (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense) and read the info for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

And it makes little difference to you that the majority of what's going on in the VA under President Obama is little more than a continuation of President Bush's policies?

Personally, I think every President should build on the last when it comes to such agencies as the VA, but I fail to see how anything Obama has done has had a greater impact for veterans than President Bush, but rather has just built on his (and previous administrations) foundations.

GW Bush didn't provide the level of medical treatment and support to our returning wounded warriors like Pres. Obama has done. Nor did GW provide tax incentives for job placement or provide a venue where veterans can convert aspects of their military training to the civilian workforce as Pres. Obama is doing. Of course, in truth how could he? Most of the wounded have just now begun to return home. But is Pres. Obama being given credit for that?

The only things he can really do for our active duty force is ensure they are promptly and properly equipment with the resources they need to carry out their mission, ensure that the mission is clear and winnable (not to mention define what "winning" truly means) and leave much of the planning and execution of said mission to the military brass which he has done broader and much more swiftly than GW Bush. But again, I will echo once again what I said earlier which apparently you agree with and that is Pres. Obama has had the benefit of hindsight to build on what his predecessor has done. But "building" on something typically means "expanding" or "improving upon" such initiative. Even the quips you provided (post #774) outline just such expansions; in some cases GW merely built upon his own successes (i.e., Increased funding for veterans' medical care by more than 115 percent since 2001;
FY 2009 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) totals more than $97 billion, nearly double the level of funding when the President took office and the highest level of support for veterans in history). To that most people simply refuse to give this President his due credit.

If we're going to have a true and meaningful dialog, can we atleast be honest about the issues in which we speak?
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

GW Bush didn't provide the level of medical treatment and support to our returning wounded warriors like Pres. Obama has done.

I don't beleive that to be true. In fact, under his administration, the treatment of TBI and other brain trauma was significantly expanded, among other things.

Nor did GW provide tax incentives for job placement

Definately a plus for Obama

or provide a venue where veterans can convert aspects of their military training to the civilian workforce as Pres. Obama is doing.

Not true, this has been in place for years and not only predates Obama, but Bush as well. Granting college credit for military schooling has been in place for at least 24 years.

Of course, in truth how could he? Most of the wounded have just now begun to return home.

That doesn't even make sense. The wars have been ongoing since 2001.

But is Pres. Obama being given credit for that?

He get's credit for what he's done, sure. But to say he's done more for vets than Bush did is simply not true.

The only things he can really do for our active duty force is ensure they are promptly and properly equipment with the resources they need to carry out their mission, ensure that the mission is clear and winnable (not to mention define what "winning" truly means) and leave much of the planning and execution of said mission to the military brass which he has done broader and much more swiftly than GW Bush.

Again, not necessarily true. In fact, all he's done is continue Bush policies in the warzone. If it makes you feel better, I approve of his handling of Libya.

But again, I will echo once again what I said earlier which apparently you agree with and that is Pres. Obama has had the benefit of hindsight to build on what his predecessor has done. But "building" on something typically means "expanding" or "improving upon" such initiative.

This is not in question, however in order to "get credit" one must come up with something new and amazing...

Even the quips you provided (post #774) outline just such expansions; in some cases GW merely built upon his own successes (i.e., Increased funding for veterans' medical care by more than 115 percent since 2001;
FY 2009 funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) totals more than $97 billion, nearly double the level of funding when the President took office and the highest level of support for veterans in history). To that most people simply refuse to give this President his due credit.

If we're going to have a true and meaningful dialog, can we atleast be honest about the issues in which we speak?

"GW merely built on his own successes"? That's pretty much what I said, and this conversation was not an accusation that Pres. Obama has done nothing for vets. I simply disagree that he has done more for vets than Bush, as Utah seems to think.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

He had the idea first, and then came to us. The argument here is whether we went to him. We did not. The idea was his and that was good fortune for us.

:doh

The New Counterinsurgency Field Manual was written in 2006

Based off of lessons we had learned from the 1880's through the 1920's and then demonstrated Proof of Concept in Vietnam. Generals Odierno and Gurganus were flying out to the Syrian border to bring back the leadership in 2006, when we began shaping efforts. Nor was this all about Sattar. Remember, Counterinsurgency is local.

He had the idea first? This has been part of Marine Corps doctrine for 90 years.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

He had the idea first, and then came to us. The argument here is whether we went to him. We did not. The idea was his and that was good fortune for us.

:doh

The New Counterinsurgency Field Manual was written in 2006

Based off of lessons we had learned from the 1880's through the 1920's and then demonstrated Proof of Concept in Vietnam. Generals Odierno and Gurganus were flying out to the Syrian border to bring back the leadership in 2006, when we began shaping efforts. Nor was this all about Sattar. Remember, Counterinsurgency is local.

He had the idea first? Man, this has been part of Marine Corps doctrine for 90 years.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

:doh

The New Counterinsurgency Field Manual was written in 2006

Based off of lessons we had learned from the 1880's through the 1920's and then demonstrated Proof of Concept in Vietnam. Generals Odierno and Gurganus were flying out to the Syrian border to bring back the leadership in 2006, when we began shaping efforts. Nor was this all about Sattar. Remember, Counterinsurgency is local.

He had the idea first? Man, this has been part of Marine Corps doctrine for 90 years.

Why do you think this rebutts anything? It's kind of silly for you to keep presenting it. This doesn't change that they had the idea before we did anything at all. We were nto part of it. I'm sorry CP, but you are simply off base and wrong on this.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Why do you think this rebutts anything? It's kind of silly for you to keep presenting it. This doesn't change that they had the idea before we did anything at all. We were nto part of it. I'm sorry CP, but you are simply off base and wrong on this.

:doh

The Just-So fallacy. Unsurprising.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Why do you think this rebutts anything? It's kind of silly for you to keep presenting it. This doesn't change that they had the idea before we did anything at all. We were nto part of it. I'm sorry CP, but you are simply off base and wrong on this.

Actually, your own post says he got the idea after getting initial support from Americans which enabled his popularity, which enabled him doing anything about his idea.

So, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Here's a hard-line fact, Boo, the awakening would not have happened without US support, regardless of who's friggin idea it was.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

The Anbar Awakening was largely a grassroots Iraqi initiative to replace the provincial government with an emergency government led by the Awakening leadership. Police recruitment and partnering with the United States were means to that end.

(Snip)

As Sheikh Sattar was successful in gaining U.S. support in police recruitment, his popularity and influence grew. And as the Anbar Awakening in Ramadi was successful and gained more U.S. support, his vision of the Awakening also grew. He started talking about expanding the Awakening beyond Anbar and even Iraq, envisioning it as a way of changing the Sunni world.

(snip)

If the Awakening leadership were able to tap into that power and use it to expel al Qaeda from Anbar, they would be able to claim that they had conquered an enemy the strongest military in the world could not defeat—negating the argument that they were collaborating with the Americans.

(snip)

U.S. support for the Awakening changed, though, in February 2007, when General Petraeus replaced General George Casey and first heard about tribal movement. In an effort to expand the influence of the Awakening, General Petraeus started the Sons of Iraq program for operations in Diyala and Baghdad, usually paying Sunni tribesmen in al Qaeda– infested areas to work as paramilitaries with the hope that someday they would be integrated into the Ministry of the Interior. Initially, the ethnosectarian parties in the government agreed to integrate the Anbar Awakening fighters into the ministry because they were from a homogeneous Sunni province that was a former al Qaeda sanctuary. (My note: It had already started, now we take advantage)

(Snip)

The surge did not have a role in the Anbar Awakening. Surge troops that came to Anbar in 2007 were not seen as useful, other than on the eastern border with Baghdad where the ISF acted as a sectarian militia. In fact, U.S. troops in general were not seen as useful even before the surge.

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/prism2-1/Prism_3-18_Al-Jabouri_Jensen.pdf

I bring this up again Mac because you are confused. Read it again. This was about police recuritment. This was not about the surge. The surge came sometime later. Why is it so hard for you guys to be accurate and on point?
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

I bring this up again Mac because you are confused. Read it again. This was about police recuritment. This was not about the surge. The surge came sometime later. Why is it so hard for you guys to be accurate and on point?

You are the one who is confused. What we are saying is that this article is wrong, not least because it apparently thinks that "the Surge" is defined as "having more people".
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

(Snip)

As Sheikh Sattar was successful in gaining U.S. support in police recruitment, his popularity and influence grew. And as the Anbar Awakening in Ramadi was successful and gained more U.S. support, his vision of the Awakening also grew. He started talking about expanding the Awakening beyond Anbar and even Iraq, envisioning it as a way of changing the Sunni world.

(snip)

Seriously, read.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Seriously, read.

:shrug: he'll just move the goalposts again. He's moved thus far from "The Surge Was Not A Success" to "It Was Someone Else's Idea, So Not A Success" to "Someone Else Also Had The Idea, So Not A Success". Sooner or later he's going to argue that the fact that counterinsurgency doctrine calls for local forces means that the presence of local forces means counterinsurgency doctrine is failing.


All along, I've tried to tell him: It wasn't Iraqis. It wasn't Americans. It was both of them working together. Just as the Doctrine calls for. Trying to split one off and give them the credit is like arguing which blade of scissors is doing the cutting.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Seriously, read.

You know I actually addressed that. If you don;t knwo or understand that, you may want to make my response larger and bolder.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

:shrug: he'll just move the goalposts again. He's moved thus far from "The Surge Was Not A Success" to "It Was Someone Else's Idea, So Not A Success" to "Someone Else Also Had The Idea, So Not A Success". Sooner or later he's going to argue that the fact that counterinsurgency doctrine calls for local forces means that the presence of local forces means counterinsurgency doctrine is failing.


All along, I've tried to tell him: It wasn't Iraqis. It wasn't Americans. It was both of them working together. Just as the Doctrine calls for. Trying to split one off and give them the credit is like arguing which blade of scissors is doing the cutting.

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.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

You know I actually addressed that. If you don;t knwo or understand that, you may want to make my response larger and bolder.

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.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

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.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

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:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

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.
 
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/politics/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/BFS_2012_Testing_the_Surge.pdf
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

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.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

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.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

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?
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

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"...
 
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.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us/politics/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/BFS_2012_Testing_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:
Back
Top Bottom