Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (128797)	4/9/2004 8:28:00 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"There is an old Iraqi saying -- very old," said Hussein Ali Tukmachi, a sign painter in Kadhimiya. "Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against a stranger."

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (128797)	4/9/2004 11:50:58 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Generals weary of low troop levels April 8, 2004 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement The New York Times Book Review of last Sunday received unusual attention in the Pentagon's corridors this week. The review of In the Company of Soldiers by Washington Post war correspondent Rick Atkinson reveals the ridiculously low estimate made by the Pentagon's civilian leadership of troops needed in Iraq. Those words echoed eerily amid news of open fighting in Baghdad between U.S. troops and Shiite militia. In the afterword following his brilliant account of the actual war, Atkinson wrote: ''Pentagon planners in early May had predicted that U.S. troop levels would be down to 30,000 by late summer [of 2003].'' That was the first time that prediction had been seen in print by startled readers at the Defense Department. The existing 125,000 troop level (currently at 135,000 because of replacements) is considered inadequate by the generals. Gen. John Abizaid, the regional commander-in-chief, has made clear he will ask for more troops if his subordinate commanders need them. But Afghanistan also needs more troops. So where will they come from? Nobody knows, and that connotes an overcommitment by the United States and a miscalculation at the Defense Department. The uniformed military does not speak out publicly, but the generals are outraged. A former national security official considers the relationship at the Pentagon between civilians and the military as worse than at any time in his long career. At the heart of this debate is the original belief by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's team that conquering U.S. troops would be welcomed by open arms in Iraq. In this highly political season, Democrats are replaying the debate of a year ago. Gen. Eric Shinseki, then about to leave as the Army's chief of staff, said ''several hundred thousand soldiers'' could be needed in Iraq. ''Way off the mark,'' retorted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Adhering to the principle of civilian control of the military and unvarying obedience to orders, the generals have not publicly expressed their opinion that Shinseki was much closer to the truth than Wolfowitz. However, Abizaid made clear Monday that he was not going to be the fall guy if conditions in Iraq further deteriorate. If commanders want more troops to fulfill their mission, he will ask for them. That would leave Rumsfeld with no choice. The secretary announced on Tuesday that the generals ''will get what they ask.'' The problem of where to find these troops is not easily solved. There are simply no large units available and suitable for assignment. The 3rd Infantry Division was sent home early, but is now in the midst of Rumsfeld's ''transformation'' (from three brigades to five) and so is not ready to be inserted into combat. National Guard brigades could be activated, but the need for full training before going to war means they cannot help resolve the present crisis. Democrats have demanded the use of foreign troops, but countries that previously refused to help without a U.N. mandate have not changed their minds. Britain announced Tuesday it was replacing an armored brigade, keeping its contribution at the present level of 8,700 troops but not adding any. Spain's new leftist government wants out. That leaves only Turkey willing to help, but the United States has ruled that out in the face of fierce Kurdish opposition. Although underestimating troop needs in a less political environment would mean fixing the blame at the Pentagon, every issue today becomes a test of party loyalty. Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, the top two Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are assailed by the White House for offering constructive criticism. With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy setting the Democratic line by saying that ''Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam,'' sensible dialogue is impossible. While Democrats roar, the generals are silent -- in public. Many confide that they will not cast their normal Republican votes on Nov. 2. They cannot bring themselves to vote for John Kerry, who has been a consistent Senate vote against the military. But they say they are unable to vote for Don Rumsfeld's boss, and so will not vote at all. suntimes.com

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (128797)	4/9/2004 3:27:25 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Harvey Allen; Re: "Mobilization is important. Not knowledgeable about Algeria but Vietnam had 20 years of mobilization against Japan and France before we stepped up to the plate." Compared to Vietnam or Iraq, Algeria was fairly peaceful for the 50 years before they threw the French out. Iraq has been mobilized for war for many decades. Almost everyone is trained to fight. The place is overrun with small arms. The primary religion holds martyrdom to be a great thing. They're cousins of the guys blowing themselves up in Israel. It's insane to think that they're going to be easier than Vietnam on the basis of "mobilization" comparisons. Re: "Friday prayers could give a clue about extent in Iraq." The occupation of Iraq will require many decades, if it is to succeed. Friday's prayers are just one rather unimportant day. Re: "Also, a lot has to do with quality of the forces on both sides. We are using our best and that affects the equation too." We used our best in Vietnam, as did France in Algeria. When we needed more and there were no more best to be had, we sent in our second best, and then later we lowered the bar and sent anyone who didn't possess enough self preservation instinct to eat peanut butter smeared on his butt. We're going through the same sequence in Iraq, though due to political concerns (rather than a lack of military need) a draft (other than of specialized draft like doctors and nurses) is still some time in the future. The political failure to bring back a draft is making the goal of pacifying Iraq slip faster from our hands. As you reference with mobilization, these things DO NOT become easier as time goes on. -- Carl P.S. For peanut butter stories, see: syklopps.com