Iraq '08:The **** has hit the fan.

[Grahamr]

Well folks. The Iraqi army is invading Basra, the Green Zone has been attacked, a curfew is being imposed, and it appears as though the Mahdi Army has awakened.

Discuss.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4535114&page=1
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080327/D8VLVBPO0.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080328/ts_nm/iraq_dc
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/24/baghdad_imposes_daytime_curfew_as_violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/26/iraq.military

I don't predict much good coming from this. I believe the Iraqi army is firmly under the control of the coalition, but the police is heavily infilitrated by sectarian intrests. So, Basra cannot be secured as long as those conditions remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_%282008%29

[steelcobra]

It's starting to get hot there. It pisses them off to live there during the summer.

[Grahamr]

It's starting to get hot there. It pisses them off to live there during the summer.

But is that the only reason why Mahdi Army members go crazy and take over cities?

I can't believe that the media din't empathize the fact that the second-largest city in Iraq was under enemy control after the UK left....

[KN]

But is that the only reason why Mahdi Army members go crazy and take over cities?

I can't believe that the media din't empathize the fact that the second-largest city in Iraq was under enemy control after the UK left....

The media. Unreliable? Say it isn't so!

[Tollwutig]

See all of this would be much easier if we were to turn Iraq into a large glass factory.

Someone in the Pentagon needs to read Ender's Game and learn how to effectively beat an enemy.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

Well folks. The Iraqi army is invading Basra, the Green Zone has been attacked, a curfew is being imposed, and it appears as though the Mahdi Army has awakened.

Discuss.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4535114&page=1
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080327/D8VLVBPO0.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080328/ts_nm/iraq_dc
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/24/baghdad_imposes_daytime_curfew_as_violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/26/iraq.military

I don't predict much good coming from this. I believe the Iraqi army is firmly under the control of the coalition, but the police is heavily infilitrated by sectarian intrests. So, Basra cannot be secured as long as those conditions remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_%282008%29

Now seems to be a good time to collectively nuke the Middle East into the ground.

[KN]

See all of this would be much easier if we were to turn Iraq into a large glass factory.

Someone in the Pentagon needs to read Ender's Game and learn how to effectively beat an enemy.

Now seems to be a good time to collectively nuke the Middle East into the ground.

This. This now.


Somewhere I hope this is an actual plan people have once they figure out how to eliminate oil from the production process of things we need.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

This. This now.

Somewhere I hope this is an actual plan people have once they figure out how to eliminate oil from the production process of things we need.

Please, the Russians and the Yanks have had it as priority ever since '77.

[Tollwutig]

Now seems to be a good time to collectively nuke the Middle East into the ground.

We don't necessarily need to collectively nuke them into the ground, just destroy their will to fight.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

We don't necessarily need to collectively nuke them into the ground, just destroy their will to fight.

If you have a better method of doing it, i'm listening.

[Tollwutig]

If you have a better method of doing it, i'm listening.

Well even the Japanese lost their will to fight after 2 nuclear bombs. We now have conventional bombs which can do as much damage as "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" so we just need to make an example of a few Iraqi cities.. Basra at the moment seems opportune. We level Basra and let it be known that if they keep acting up we'll level another city. We rinse and repeat until a) the Shia and Sunis no longer have the will to fight, or we can just let the Kurds expand southward establishing Kurdistan.

[Conejo]

and conventional weaponry doesn't take decades to clean up fallout.

[Grahamr]

WhyTF are people talking about nuking the middle east?

For one, fallout+ other countries=death(nvm the fact that jerusalem and tel aviv would be among the victims)

and two price of arab oil+americans=america becoming a 3rd world country.

and thrid, someone like, say...Putin+huge nuclear arsenal+threatened+alaska/america/europe=DOOM!

[Tollwutig]

WhyTF are people talking about nuking the middle east?

For one, fallout+ other countries=death(nvm the fact that jerusalem and tel aviv would be among the victims)

and two price of arab oil+americans=america becoming a 3rd world country.

and thrid, someone like, say...Putin+huge nuclear arsenal+threatened+alaska/america/europe=DOOM!

thus why i don't condone use of nuclear weapons... we have conventional weapons these days to do the trick.

what's really amusing is the the United States actually gets less than 1/4 of its oil from the middle east. Most of our oil we produce or get from Mexico & Canada. So yes we could control oil prices, Europe and China would be harder hit by loss of Middle Eastern oil than the U.S.

Putin is no longer in power, although there are plenty of others like him. The problem is as many Nuclear bombs as Russia has, we have more, plus ours are more technologically advanced and we've show we can shoot things moving really fast out of the sky recently. As long as we stuck to using conventional warheads, there isn't a big enough idiot in world politics to use a nuke against the U.S.

You're young... I will point you to a little book by Orson Scott Card called Ender's Game. It is a good read and hopefully you can gain the correct concepts from it. Another good book to read is Starship Troopers by Robert Heinland and by Starship Troopers I do mean the book itself not the POS of a movie they made with the same title, as the movie loses all of the merits the book has.


One of the sad facts of war is that if you really want to defeat someone, you can't go about it half assed like we are currently doing it. To defeat someone or an ideology you must destroy the people's will to fight for it. This is a lesson Eisenhower and McArthur understood with Japan, and thus we used our newest weapon on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The utter destruction these two bombs and showing the will to use such horrific methods to stop the fighting drained the Japanese of their will to fight.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

One of the sad facts of war is that if you really want to defeat someone, you can't go about it half assed like we are currently doing it. To defeat someone or an ideology you must destroy the people's will to fight for it.

Of course, you can't actually destroy said Ideology. And you can easily just assassinate said wanker.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

We level Basra and let it be known that if they keep acting up we'll level another city. We rinse and repeat until a) the Shia and Sunis no longer have the will to fight, or we can just let the Kurds expand southward establishing Kurdistan.

Those bastards give a piss about the cities.. How?

[Tollwutig]

Of course, you can't actually destroy said Ideology. And you can easily just assassinate said wanker.

No but you can make holding said ideology intolerable position.

Those bastards give a piss about the cities.. How?

They don't, but eventually you'll run out of Suni's and Shia's capable of fighting. This is when you turn the whole country over to the Kurds, they at least seem to be able to run a government on their own.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

This is when you turn the whole country over to the Kurds, they at least seem to be able to run a government on their own.

Until they decide they hate us.

[Tollwutig]

Until they decide they hate us.

The Kurds of Northern Iraq are decidedly pro-Western, and like us, they'd like us more if we handed them an oil rich country. Now they may start a war with Turkey or Iran over traditional Kurdish territory, but I don't think they'd hate us.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

The Kurds of Northern Iraq are decidedly pro-Western, and like us, they'd like us more if we handed them an oil rich country. Now they may start a war with Turkey or Iran over traditional Kurdish territory, but I don't think they'd hate us.

You, maybe not. Me, Possibly. Someone's Grandpappy is going to remember the Afghan Wars we had.

[Grahamr]

thus why i don't condone use of nuclear weapons... we have conventional weapons these days to do the trick.

what's really amusing is the the United States actually gets less than 1/4 of its oil from the middle east. Most of our oil we produce or get from Mexico & Canada. So yes we could control oil prices, Europe and China would be harder hit by loss of Middle Eastern oil than the U.S.

Putin is no longer in power, although there are plenty of others like him. The problem is as many Nuclear bombs as Russia has, we have more, plus ours are more technologically advanced and we've show we can shoot things moving really fast out of the sky recently. As long as we stuck to using conventional warheads, there isn't a big enough idiot in world politics to use a nuke against the U.S.

You're young... I will point you to a little book by Orson Scott Card called Ender's Game. It is a good read and hopefully you can gain the correct concepts from it. Another good book to read is Starship Troopers by Robert Heinland and by Starship Troopers I do mean the book itself not the POS of a movie they made with the same title, as the movie loses all of the merits the book has.


One of the sad facts of war is that if you really want to defeat someone, you can't go about it half assed like we are currently doing it. To defeat someone or an ideology you must destroy the people's will to fight for it. This is a lesson Eisenhower and McArthur understood with Japan, and thus we used our newest weapon on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The utter destruction these two bombs and showing the will to use such horrific methods to stop the fighting drained the Japanese of their will to fight.

I've already read starship troopers. It was an okay read.

Anyway, I doubt genociding the iraqi people is desirable, necesarry, or tolerable.

[steelcobra]

I've already read starship troopers. It was an okay read.


When you actually analyze the sociopolitical theory within the book you really come to understand the genius that was Robert Anson Heinlein.

[Garbage Pail Kid]

Anyway, I doubt genociding the iraqi people is desirable, necesarry, or tolerable.

Thank God someone around here has some sense. This thread brings back memories (http://forums.theeca.com/showthread.php?t=1862).

[KN]

Thank God someone around here has some sense. This thread brings back memories (http://forums.theeca.com/showthread.php?t=1862).

I remember those days. Those were hilarious days

[Grahamr]

So, mass-murdering Arabs and Persians is a good idea as long as Bayu isn't suggesting it?


You little punks had better be joking...even the mods have gone nuts, I can't believe it.

Thank God someone around here has some sense. This thread brings back memories (http://forums.theeca.com/showthread.php?t=1862).

:)

[KN]

yhbt


_________

[BlackIce, British Commie]

So, mass-murdering Arabs and Persians is a good idea as long as Bayu isn't suggesting it?

You little punks had better be joking...even the mods have gone nuts, I can't believe it.
:)

I'm sorry, has your town been bombed? No? Didn't think so.

[Weagle05]

I'm sorry, has your town been bombed? No? Didn't think so.

I live in New York, so I get to advocate genocide more than you!

So... do you want to kill the many Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants to England, Germany, and the rest of the world too? Should they just have to wear arm bands? Maybe you would like to shoot a little girl for being from that evil culture? Or would you prefer gas chambers, starvation, or being buried alive? And how Muslim or Middle Eastern must someone be to warrant death 1/4, 1/8, 1/16?

What about those Christian Identity guys, E.L.F. and A.L.F.? They're mostly white Europeans or Americans, so lets get whitey!

I'm reading Mein Kampf, I bet you would like it.

[KN]

I liek this guy

[steelcobra]

What about those Christian Identity guys, E.L.F. and A.L.F.? They're mostly white Europeans or Americans, so lets get whitey!


Definitely get those assholes.

[KN]

Not enough people hate christian supremacists/extremists, and often insist they do not exist.

It is these people that must be weeded out first. THEY have a gigantic powerbase, whereas muslim extremists really just are well-armed emo faggots.

(In the west of course. The east is a different matter)

[MUTANT SPUD]

If you have a better method of doing it, i'm listening. There's a theory that if you exterminate 25% of a given population then the survivors go into shock and lose the will to resist, it came out of the famines in Ireland in the 19th century. Surely a better solution to the Iraq issue would be just to seize the oilfields and refineries, put a five kilometre free fire zone around them and let the rest of the country take its own path. The oil will just stay in the ground if the coalition leaves anyway, we might as well have it. What's done is done, we can't take back our mistakes, the Arabs will never, ever forgive us for this, we might as well take our spoils of war given that oil was the whole point of invasion in the first place. Iraq is destroyed, there's no argument for saving the country now, the foreign troops should retire to Cantons and let the Iraqis get on with their civil war.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

There's a theory that if you exterminate 25% of a given population then the survivors go into shock and lose the will to resist, it came out of the famines in Ireland in the 19th century. Surely a better solution to the Iraq issue would be just to seize the oilfields and refineries, put a five kilometre free fire zone around them and let the rest of the country take its own path. The oil will just stay in the ground if the coalition leaves anyway, we might as well have it. What's done is done, we can't take back our mistakes, the Arabs will never, ever forgive us for this, we might as well take our spoils of war given that oil was the whole point of invasion in the first place. Iraq is destroyed, there's no argument for saving the country now, the foreign troops should retire to Cantons and let the Iraqis get on with their civil war.

It's never get through the UN. Although I do believe the Security Council COULD pass it.

[KN]

What if we just started adding mood stabilizers to the water supply? That would work.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

What if we just started adding mood stabilizers to the water supply? That would work.

They'd get too pissy about it being against their religion. I'd rather just poison the bloody water supply.

[KN]

They'd get too pissy about it being against their religion. I'd rather just poison the bloody water supply.

No, they won't because they will have already had the mood stabilizers. It's perfect!

[Grahamr]

ITT we are all murderous neocons.


Funny thing is, I'm about to go to a chapel and listen to one right now (Mike Huckabee).

[KN]

it's called fakeposting nub

[MUTANT SPUD]

They'd get too pissy about it being against their religion. I'd rather just poison the bloody water supply.
What water supply? That's broken as well. Let em fight I say, settle their sectarian grievances its been going on since 680 AD its not going to stop now.

[Grahamr]

You know, it's entirely possible that America had a part in creating the Sunni-Shia divide as of late. If you ask Iraqis on the street what denomination their part of, you might get an answer like "We're Muslim. Why ask?".

However, I heard that after the invasion, a U.S officer was adressing a village, and told the denizens to line up, Sunni on one side, Shia on the other.

Also, John Negroponte formed deathsqauds in Iraq. Pass it on.

[MUTANT SPUD]

You know, it's entirely possible that America had a part in creating the Sunni-Shia divide as of late. If you ask Iraqis on the street what denomination their part of, you might get an answer like "We're Muslim. Why ask?".

However, I heard that after the invasion, a U.S officer was adressing a village, and told the denizens to line up, Sunni on one side, Shia on the other.

Also, John Negroponte formed deathsqauds in Iraq. Pass it on. Really? Or are you pulling our legs? Like the neo cons I don't rule anything in nor do I rule anything out. BTW I'm not serious about letting em slaughter each other, It'd spill over into the wider Arab world as well as Turkey and Iran, then Israel would be targeted, they have the bomb .... so the consequences don't bear thinking about. Then where would we be? Paying 10 bucks a litre for fuel and constantly looking over our shoulders for young men with suspicious bulges in their clothing...hehe.."bulges" I just realised what I typed then. And before anyone asks "what about the Iraqi's" I'd like to point out that the Iraqis will take care of their own problems in their own way whatever form of government or international body is running their country, they've done it before and they'll do it again.

[Crowskie]

ITT we are all murderous neocons.


Funny thing is, I'm about to go to a chapel and listen to one right now (Mike Huckabee).

What would you do that to yourself?

[Grahamr]

What would you do that to yourself?

Well, he's your governor. lol.


No, maybe he would not have gotten my vote, but in person, he's a great guy. He had an amazing speech...It wasn't that religious, or even politically conservative.

I'll have pix up soon.

[Grahamr]

Really? Or are you pulling our legs? Like the neo cons I don't rule anything in nor do I rule anything out. BTW I'm not serious about letting em slaughter each other, It'd spill over into the wider Arab world as well as Turkey and Iran, then Israel would be targeted, they have the bomb .... so the consequences don't bear thinking about. Then where would we be? Paying 10 bucks a litre for fuel and constantly looking over our shoulders for young men with suspicious bulges in their clothing...hehe.."bulges" I just realised what I typed then. And before anyone asks "what about the Iraqi's" I'd like to point out that the Iraqis will take care of their own problems in their own way whatever form of government or international body is running their country, they've done it before and they'll do it again.

There IS actully fears that a Sunni-Shia war could break out on a regional scale.

Sunnis/Saudi Arabia and their allies on one side, and Shiites/Iran and their allies on the other. It wouldn't be preety.

[Crowskie]

Well, he's your governor. lol.


No, maybe he would not have gotten my vote, but in person, he's a great guy. He had an amazing speech...It wasn't that religious, or even politically conservative.

I'll have pix up soon.

See, I have met him twice. My Sis has met him several times, as has my dad. None of us are exactly fond of the man. The person who ran for president is not the same person who has been the Governor.

[Tollwutig]

There IS actully fears that a Sunni-Shia war could break out on a regional scale.

Sunnis/Saudi Arabia and their allies on one side, and Shiites/Iran and their allies on the other. It wouldn't be preety.

And this is likely to happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too soon, without settling the conflict. Unfortunately as long as we remain there the locals are going to maintain we are invaders and will fight to free their land.
The only means of winning any armed conflict is to destroy your enemy's will to fight back. This has been known to all of the great generals and commanders through out history. Unless you destroy the will to fight you will never conquer your enemy.

[KN]

There IS actully fears that a Sunni-Shia war could break out on a regional scale.

Sunnis/Saudi Arabia and their allies on one side, and Shiites/Iran and their allies on the other. It wouldn't be preety.

*popcorn*

__________

[BlackIce, British Commie]

*popcorn*

__________

You do realise that it's 19 year old Dutch Boys that are called up to fight when WW3 breaks out, right?

[Crowskie]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I thought it was relevant and worth sharing.

http://dmiessler.com/blog/what-every-american-should-know-about-the-middle-east

[MUTANT SPUD]

And this is likely to happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too soon, without settling the conflict. Unfortunately as long as we remain there the locals are going to maintain we are invaders and will fight to free their land.
The only means of winning any armed conflict is to destroy your enemy's will to fight back. This has been known to all of the great generals and commanders through out history. Unless you destroy the will to fight you will never conquer your enemy. Ah yes but do we still have the stomach for total war, could we "do a Dresden" on Baghdad? And more importantly is this even a war against Iraq? Bush et al say no. Can we demand of our troops that they carry out the acts necessary in a total war, bearing in mind that they are volunteers. Is it a matter of destroying the will or removing the motivation to fight? Will the politicians ever learn form the mistakes of the past is probably the more pertinent question, "for he who cannot appreciate history is doomed to repeat it". We should never forgive nor forget New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid or London but whom do we hold to account? A war against Islam is winnable whatever the odds, if you are prepared for a slaughter unseen in human history, a war against terror is not only unwinnable but impossible to fight in the first place. At any rate the recent offensive by the Iraqi government has failed by all accounts, both sides are about back where they began it seems.

[i.roll.20s]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I thought it was relevant and worth sharing.

http://dmiessler.com/blog/what-every-american-should-know-about-the-middle-east

That's a decent crash course, but even that seems pretty oversimplified given the complex nature of a situation wrought from centuries of political and cultural unrest. There is no mention of tribal or clan systems which are so important throughout much of the middle-east, particularly in Iraq, particularly now. But as I said, the basic information is accurate, if a bit generalized.

The one issue I take with it is the assertion that people in the Pentagon do not understand middle eastern affairs. The media, perhaps, though there are certainly region specialists who are exceptions to that "rule." The House of Representatives, probably, but their job is to understand and best serve the people of their district, and I'm pretty sure no US representative has a district anywhere near the Persian Gulf. I'm surprised the author failed to mention other portions of the US government, naming only the House and the Defense Department, but that's not the point. The point is that unlike politicians, military personnel are required to be very familiar with the middle-east. Military intelligence, civil affairs and the like are expected to be experts in the all aspects of the region, from culture to language, geography to history. Those who are experts ensure that the information is dispersed from the highest offices in the Pentagon down to the smallest units in garrison or in theater. Besides, it almost goes without saying that many of the people who work in the Pentagon, like just about all military personnel these days, have been there, worked on the street level in countries such as Iraq, and spoken and worked with the people. Such first hand knowledge cannot be lightly discounted. So to write that the men and women who work in the Pentagon are ignorant regarding middle-eastern affairs after penning a blog entry that makes the Wikipedia entry look like a scholarly essay seems a bit presumptuous.

What the hell, did I really type all that nonsense? I'm sorry, that happens when it gets late.

Edit:
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to say that there are no important American decision-makers who are incompetent about the middle-east, because there definitely are quite a few. Nor do I fault the author for trying to educate people; few goals are more noble. I just think maybe the author is barking up a wrong tree or two.

[Crowskie]

That's a decent crash course, but even that seems pretty oversimplified given the complex nature of a situation wrought from centuries of political and cultural unrest. There is no mention of tribal or clan systems which are so important throughout much of the middle-east, particularly in Iraq, particularly now. But as I said, the basic information is accurate, if a bit generalized.

The one issue I take with it is the assertion that people in the Pentagon do not understand middle eastern affairs. The media, perhaps, though there are certainly region specialists who are exceptions to that "rule." The House of Representatives, probably, but their job is to understand and best serve the people of their district, and I'm pretty sure no US representative has a district anywhere near the Persian Gulf. I'm surprised the author failed to mention other portions of the US government, naming only the House and the Defense Department, but that's not the point. The point is that unlike politicians, military personnel are required to be very familiar with the middle-east. Military intelligence, civil affairs and the like are expected to be experts in the all aspects of the region, from culture to language, geography to history. Those who are experts ensure that the information is dispersed from the highest offices in the Pentagon down to the smallest units in garrison or in theater. Besides, it almost goes without saying that many of the people who work in the Pentagon, like just about all military personnel these days, have been there, worked on the street level in countries such as Iraq, and spoken and worked with the people. Such first hand knowledge cannot be lightly discounted. So to write that the men and women who work in the Pentagon are ignorant regarding middle-eastern affairs after penning a blog entry that makes the Wikipedia entry look like a scholarly essay seems a bit presumptuous.

What the hell, did I really type all that nonsense? I'm sorry, that happens when it gets late.

Edit:
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to say that there are no important American decision-makers who are incompetent about the middle-east, because there definitely are quite a few. Nor do I fault the author for trying to educate people; few goals are more noble. I just think maybe the author is barking up a wrong tree or two.

I pretty much agree with you, but someone important in the DoD obviously didn't know enough about the Middle east to realize that the only hint of WMDs in Iraq (along with fighting weapons inspectors) was purely posturing on Saddam's part towards Iran. The impression I have gained over the last few years (based on news here and there, and handling of other events such as Katrina) is that Bush has just done a ****ty, ****ty job of appointing people who are best for their jobs. It seems like the lead up to the Iraq war was full of people looking for information in order to support action, instead action based on information. I would hope this would not be the case with most presidents(but probably isn't), as I would want someone who is willing to take every measure possible to insure that information that is the basis of an assault is accurate. As more information has come out, I am increasingly sure that that was not the case in Iraq, and I do question the competency of those who currently lead the DoD and such.

[MUTANT SPUD]

I pretty much agree with you, but someone important in the DoD obviously didn't know enough about the Middle east to realize that the only hint of WMDs in Iraq (along with fighting weapons inspectors) was purely posturing on Saddam's part towards Iran. The impression I have gained over the last few years (based on news here and there, and handling of other events such as Katrina) is that Bush has just done a ****ty, ****ty job of appointing people who are best for their jobs. It seems like the lead up to the Iraq war was full of people looking for information in order to support action, instead action based on information. I would hope this would not be the case with most presidents(but probably isn't), as I would want someone who is willing to take every measure possible to insure that information that is the basis of an assault is accurate. As more information has come out, I am increasingly sure that that was not the case in Iraq, and I do question the competency of those who currently lead the DoD and such. Yeah but do you believe that the Iraq Invasion was the result of inaccurate information? I think the information presented to the public and the coalition partners was inaccurate in the sense that it was probably put out without being corrected. I know the Australian government just followed the advice of the U.S. and British governments when they decided to participate in the war. I'm not saying there's a massive conspiracy its just that once the push for invasion gained terminal velocity, if you will, it would have been politically more problematic to back down than to go forward. What I mean is I don't think they had a good plan to start with, poor intelligence and the wrong people in the defence department calling the shot's. I heard a report of Rumsfeld being told by the Army that to do the job properly they'd need half a million troops and two years to prepare..he gave them what?..100,000 or so and months to prepare. Rumsfeld was described by Kissinger as the most ruthless man he'd ever met, it's possible that given the advice of the generals and the public's grudging approval of the invasion that a degree of face saving was needed when the uncomfortable facts about WMD started to come to the surface.

[i.roll.20s]

I pretty much agree with you, but someone important in the DoD obviously didn't know enough about the Middle east to realize that the only hint of WMDs in Iraq (along with fighting weapons inspectors) was purely posturing on Saddam's part towards Iran. The impression I have gained over the last few years (based on news here and there, and handling of other events such as Katrina) is that Bush has just done a ****ty, ****ty job of appointing people who are best for their jobs. It seems like the lead up to the Iraq war was full of people looking for information in order to support action, instead action based on information. I would hope this would not be the case with most presidents(but probably isn't), as I would want someone who is willing to take every measure possible to insure that information that is the basis of an assault is accurate. As more information has come out, I am increasingly sure that that was not the case in Iraq, and I do question the competency of those who currently lead the DoD and such.

I'm not going to deny that there are idiots in the highest echelons of the military. It's a microcosm of the whole American population, and there are idiots everywhere, so it's only natural.

However, much of what you mention relates to intelligence matters, and while DIA did have a hand in the whole fiasco leading to war, it was just as much CIA and other intelligence agencies looking for information that the civilian administration wanted to hear (Curveball) and the administration's utter inability or unwillingness to heed military recommendations (as Mutant Spud mentioned about Secretary Rumsfeld), probably out of a desire to prove the effectiveness of a new light response doctrine that is ill-suited to invasion and occupation. This seems to be reflected by the sheer volume of general officers who have retired then immediately started jumping up and down on the head of the administration.

Given all this, it seems strange that the author of the article mentioned the Pentagon specifically while leaving out Langley or the White House. As I said before, his choice of targets simply seems bizarre, especially when you consider all the targets he could have chosen.

[Tollwutig]

Ah yes but do we still have the stomach for total war, could we "do a Dresden" on Baghdad? And more importantly is this even a war against Iraq? Bush et al say no. Can we demand of our troops that they carry out the acts necessary in a total war, bearing in mind that they are volunteers. Is it a matter of destroying the will or removing the motivation to fight? Will the politicians ever learn form the mistakes of the past is probably the more pertinent question, "for he who cannot appreciate history is doomed to repeat it". We should never forgive nor forget New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid or London but whom do we hold to account? A war against Islam is winnable whatever the odds, if you are prepared for a slaughter unseen in human history, a war against terror is not only unwinnable but impossible to fight in the first place. At any rate the recent offensive by the Iraqi government has failed by all accounts, both sides are about back where they began it seems.

Doubtful that we would have the stomach for total war. Also it shouldn't be about a war against Iraq, but our bumbling administration has made it into one. The true war should be against religious extremism but that doesn't sit well considering how many religious extremists control our government. Ideally though since they are prone to be more violent at this moment in time we should make Islamic Extremism an intolerable position to maintain.

[Grahamr]

The only way to win is by nuking the Iraqis!

APRILLLL FOOOOLLLLS :)

[Tollwutig]

The only way we could get away with that is with nuclear bombs. So long, America.

Again as I mentioned before we have conventional weapons capable of doing the trick these days, just no stomach to use them.