SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (189169)12/9/2006 9:43:40 PM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793954
 
Didn't get to see it before, and maybe I'll be home for the 2nd show that day (this Monday).... I'm program speaker for a group that day....drive about 50+ miles away, have lunch with them, then the presentation, then back home in the horrible rush hour traffic....

If 3 EST is 6pm PST, hopefully I'll make it in time... Will let you know.... I'd LOVE to say I know a REAL movie star....<ggg>

Most of the others in Follywood, I wouldn't give anyone a penny to see....



To: unclewest who wrote (189169)12/9/2006 10:14:47 PM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793954
 
Donald Rumsfeld on Farewell Tour of Iraq
Outgoing Defense Secretary Makes Final Trip After Stepping Down Amid Criticism of War


abcnews.go.com

This makes me teary eyed. Rumsfeld is indeed a class act.

By JOHN HENDREN

Dec. 9, 2006 — - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq today on his 13th unannounced visit since the war started in 2003, ABC News has learned. It was an unusually secretive farewell tour of the nation that will almost certainly define his legacy.

The trip, laden with symbolism, is among the last stops in Rumsfeld's farewell tour, with just nine days left before former CIA Director Robert Gates assumes Rumsfeld's third-floor office in the Pentagon.

Reporters usually agree to keep Rumsfeld's trips to Iraq secret until he arrives on the ground, under standard Pentagon rules designed to avoid alerting insurgents. But this visit has remained undisclosed even after his arrival.

The trip comes weeks after President Bush announced a day after Election Day that he would replace Rumsfeld. In the election, public concern over the course of the Iraq war led voters to hand both houses of Congress to Democrats, who had remained in the minority for the vast majority of the president's tenure.

Rumsfeld's visit also comes just days after the bipartisan Iraq Study Group declared the situation in Iraq to be "grave and deteriorating" and recommended major changes in the war policies that Rumsfeld oversaw.

Rumsfeld addressed Pentagon employees with a catch in his throat this week. He said Americans would be mistaken to withdraw from Iraq immediately and that his worst day on the job was when he learned of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal that tarnished the war effort.

"I wish I could say that everything we've done here has gone perfectly, but that's not how life works, regrettably," Rumsfeld told Defense Department employees.

At that meeting, a sometimes emotional Rumsfeld quoted a wounded service member he had met in a military hospital.

"He looked up and he said, 'If only the American people will give us the time, we can do this,'" Rumsfeld said. "We're getting it done. And it is a fact, it will take patience and it will take understanding."

Rumsfeld has been a polarizing figure in the United States and Iraq. One Iraqi told ABC News that "Rumsfeld failed in Iraq," but another said, "If his visit benefits Iraq, I welcome him."

Residents of a village north of Baghdad expressed their anger one day after an American air strike killed 17 people, including six women and five children. U.S. military officials said they were targeting al Qaeda militants who had fired on American troops.

Despite continued violence that included car bombs in the northern city of Mosul and the Iraqi Shiite holy city of Karbala, Rumsfeld could point to one hopeful sign today: Iraqi politicians are said to be close to a deal to share oil revenues among the nation's ethnic and religious groups, an agreement that could ease tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and Iraqi Kurds.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures



To: unclewest who wrote (189169)12/10/2006 4:49:32 AM
From: ig  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793954
 
A brilliant report from a trooper in Iraq.

I don't get the Military Channel, so I Googled around a bit to see what I could find out the Tank Battle program. That led to this very interesting report from a trooper in Iraq.

One of the things that strikes me in this report is the matter-of-fact way he identifies Iran as being the source of many weapons that Americans are facing over there.

Another great thing about this report is the way he makes clear that, unlike our domestic "war critics" who wonder aloud just who the enemy is, "the guys" don't seem to have any problem at all knowing who the bad guys are.

This is fascinating reading. The report starts about halfway down the page, just below the pix from Ben Het.

---

614arty.org

Every now and then we get a little update from our men and women who are bravely serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We received the following observations from an old army buddy of one of our Warbonnets, who cannot verify the information, but it sure sounds about right in the light of Vietnam and Lebanon. The trooper who sends this spent 7 months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache. He saw and did a lot and the following is what he has to say about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions:

* 1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

* 2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

* 3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

* 4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.

* 5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.

* 6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

* 7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.

* 8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

* 9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.

* 10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

* 11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.

* 12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.

* 13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefire's, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it. I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:

* 1) Mostly AK47's The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined "spray and pray" type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again) Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.

* 2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dogshit. The enemy responded to our up-armored humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.

* 3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordan's area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank.

Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor.

Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The soviet era 122mm rockets (with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of Jordan's NCO's lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire". Jordan's base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of seconds.

5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS units for navigation and "Google earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.

Who are the bad guys?: Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly "foreigners", non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.) , and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide bombers or in "sacrifice squads". Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local govt.'s, the police forces and the Army. The have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.

Bad Guy Tactics: When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice 8-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing Ak's and RPG's directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time. ( see the M2 and M240 above). Jordan's base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeo's (Allah's Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast mover's, mostly Marine F-18's, are taking an ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all.

Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber shit. The new strategy is simple: attrition. The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cant reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.).

The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a shit about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqi's are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a shit. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many Iraqi's were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi's are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

According to Jordan, morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership.

Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cant stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).



To: unclewest who wrote (189169)12/10/2006 12:11:33 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793954
 
Oops, looks like I won't be back in time to see the afternoon program...

Don't know what I was thinking yesterday - more tired than I thought?- but seems I mixed up the time zones (John was nice enough to remind me)..

SO,if they run it again, please let us know.



To: unclewest who wrote (189169)12/11/2006 7:00:07 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793954
 
Great essay by Bing.

Atlantic Unbound | December 8, 2006

Debating Iraq | by Bing West

Blind to Choice

Bing West, a Marine officer in Vietnam and a former assistant secretary of defense, comments on the military's reaction to the Iraq Study Group Report

W hat a tale of woe we are told by the Iraq Study Group. The situation is deteriorating, the ISG has concluded, meaning we are losing. They then put forward 79 recommendations to rectify the problem, most prominently urging that we do less unless the Iraqi government does more. The problem is that President Bush has embraced the Prime Minister as a man of courage who will do the right things. Maliki, in turn, has demanded full control over the Iraqi security forces, while protecting the Shiite radical Moktada Sadr, his militia and death squads.

The report was most useful as a barometer of sentiment among the American political elite. Regardless of how things eventually turn out, Iraq has been judged a colossal geopolitical failure. Regardless of how President Bush responds to the report, no Republican will run for president by promising to maintain anywhere near 140,000 American troops in Iraq.

But how does the military view the report? "We're inundated out here," Army Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, our corps commander in Iraq who is just finishing up his tour, told me in a telephone interview. "I haven't had a chance to read all the recommendations carefully."

Chiarelli went on to stress two points. First, he liked the ISG recommendation that the number of advisers be increased by shifting soldiers from our combat battalions. "That has a lot of merit," he said. "We're all looking closely at that option." Inside military circles, Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, overall commander of the Marines in Iraq, has been the prime voice urging this shift.

When I was visiting advisory units in Anbar Province in October, I was repeatedly told that without more advisers, the Iraqi army would pull out of tough Sunni areas as soon as U.S. combat units are thinned out. Chiarelli and Mattis, among others, are taking steps to bulk up the advisers. So that recommendation by the ISG has been favorably received.

Second, Chiarelli strongly endorsed the ISG recommendations for projects that increase Iraqi employment. "Look, a 50% level of unemployment in Anbar and parts of Baghdad provides foot soldiers for the insurgency," Chiarelli said.

He went on to point out that the rest of the U.S. government never showed up for the fight. It's the U.S. military that's been carrying the load—fighting the insurgents, jump-starting projects in hopes of providing basic services, and so on.

Our military also says that the Shiite government must reach out to reconcile with the Sunnis. In fact, General George W. Casey, our overall commander in Iraq, is more concerned with addressing the politics of Iraq than the military situation.

And how are the politics going? Our military, to put it mildly, is exasperated. When I spoked with Chiarelli, he was insistent that the armed Shiite militia must be dealt with. Prime Minister Maliki protests that he must take a political course to resolve the matter, especially with the radical Moktada Sadr and his Mahdi army. But the issue of Sadr is going to come to a head. Our military is not going to back off.

Also building is a show-down over authority to fire Iraqi military or police officers for malfeasance. In Jordan in late November President Bush praised Maliki (who lives in the Green Zone) for his courage: "One of [Maliki's] frustrations with me," the president said, "is that he believes we've been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people. And today we had a meeting that will accelerate (the transfer of military authority)."

Our military commanders in Iraq thus having received their operational orders from the President, hastened to obey. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the military spokesman in Iraq, said "We should see the complete transfer of command and control of all Iraqi army divisions by late spring, early summer."

Left unsaid was whether Maliki would agree to a joint U.S.-Iraqi board to approve key Iraqi military and police leadership. Given Maliki's track record, left to his own devices he will pack the security forces with personal loyalists, destroying unit effectiveness and morale.

But with more advisers to provide confidence and to approve key positions, the army—Shiite and Sunni—may hold the country together. General John P. Abizaid, who has commanded the Central Command throughout the insurgency, has assured the Congress that Prime Minister Maliki will move against the Shiite militias by February, and will emerge as a real leader, backing his army. Currently, the army has more allegiance to their advisers than to their government. The advisers are the ones who drive to Baghdad and wrest pay and food provisions from recalcitrant government ministries.

So where are we headed? Down two tracks: the one is the development under American advisers of the Iraqi security forces; the other is the emergence of a responsible Iraqi government. It may be that Abizaid is correct that Maliki is on the verge of a character-altering epiphany. But if Maliki is incapable of moving against the militias or offering reasonable terms for reconciliation, President Bush will face the choice of sticking with a failed democracy the U.S. created, or tolerating a behind-the-scenes power play by a fed-up Iraqi military.

Four years ago, al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist. But it does now, and it's damn dangerous. Due to our own fecklessness, Zarqawi took over Fallujah in the summer of 2004, and it took a bloody battle to expel him. His successor cannot be allowed to set up a sanctuary in another city and impose Taliban-like rule.

We must be prepared to let Maliki fail and not fail with him. We are training Iraqi troops to be the cement holding Iraq together in place of Americans. We should not be blind to the choice that opens.

The URL for this page is theatlantic.com.