Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

This is a message board UG. You are not a cold war spy.

UG has a problem differentiating a 'gap' from his 'core'.

[classicman]

Hey - UG - I was being facetious - get it? a joke, ya know humor.... Oh nevermind.

[TheMercenary]

June 12, 2008
Losing the Information War with Amendment 56
By Lance Fairchok
The Democrats are angry. Despite investing enormous effort undermining the military, things are going fairly well in Iraq. General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse. The anti-Bush themes of an "Iraqi quagmire" and "surge failure" were premature, and all the congressional show hearings, the choreographed Code Pink performance art and the MoveOn.org smears were for naught. The president and the military did it right, and the Democrats got it wrong.


Now it's time for Democrats to change the subject, to distract the public, to pretend the dire predictions and the hysterics were about something else entirely, and hope the short memory of the electorate kills the issue by November.


It's also time for a little vengeance on the Pentagon.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...war_wit_1.html

[xoxoxoBruce]

Petraeus got it right, but his predecessors did not.
Iraq's "freedom fighters" have used us to help rid themselves of the violent, oppressive, bastards, that call themselves AlQuida, but still are a long way from finding common ground with each other. A lengthy, and bloody, civil war is still a good possibility.

None of this changes the fact that Bush was wrong to leave Afghanistan twisting in the wind, to run off and start another war, especially under false pretenses.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse.

If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.

These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.

If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.

Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.

Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.

Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.

Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.

These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.

If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.

Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.

Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.

Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.

Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.

What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks? you are slipping... no "TheMercenary this bla, bla, bla..., no "TheMercenary that bla, bla, bla..., you really should go back to making mail bombs Ted, Tom, or whatever your name is...

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks?

Again TheMercenary posts mockery to avoid reality. No strategic objective means no victory. Deja vue Nam. The US won most every battle - tactical victories. But lost the war. Why? As the Pentagon Papers and a long list of other sources make so obvious - no strategic victory means an unwinnable war. "A Bright and Shining Lie" should one choose to learn from history.

Military operation must move the conflict to a negotiating table. When the US went to that Paris negotiating table, Le Duc Tho even provided Kissinger with N Vietnam's secret assessments of the future. US had no strategic objective. The Vietnamese objective was clear, obvious, and (we now know) took less time than even the North estimated. Vietnamese objective was reunification of their nation. America's were body counts, 'search and destroy', etc - nothing that creates a strategic victory.

Too complex for TheMercenary is Petraeus's statements. He can achieve tactical victory. America cannot achieve a strategic victory. Worse, Iraq's government wants to reassess their entire American agreement. Not negotiations with various insurgents - the many parties in that civil war. Instead, Maliki's government wants to limit the Americans. America's objectives are not consistent with an Iraqi solution. No viable strategic objective? So where is this light at the end of a tunnel? From the NY Times of 13 Jun 2008:

... talks with the United States on a new long-term security pact were deadlocked because of U.S. demands that infringed Iraq's sovereignty.

"... we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept," Maliki said ...

The United States and Iraq are negotiating a new agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations mandate expires, as well as a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties between the two countries.

Not discussed is a fundamental definition of victory in "Mission Accomplished". Not discussed in those negotiations and completely ignored by TheMercenary. Well published facts that TheMercenary has difficulty grasping. TheMercenary confuses tactical victory with military victory. That difference why armies have officers who better understand the difference.

As one Captain said (quoted in network news broadcasts), "I can win every battle but cannot win this war". He is officer material; understands why an army can win every battle and still lose the war. No strategic objectives, means no strategic victory, means "no light at the end of the tunnel". Deja vue Nam - or why TheMercenary cannot challenge let alone understand the concept. But then TheMercenary always attacks the messenger when reality contradicts his political agenda. No wonder he loves the mental midget president. Birds of a feather ...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

TheMercenary ...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla, bla ...TheMercenary...TheMercenary ....TheMercenary ....TheMercenary......bla, bla

I knew you couldn't resist. Way to go. Did you actually say something of importance?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

June 12, 2008
Losing the Information War with Amendment 56
By Lance Fairchok
The Democrats are angry. Despite investing enormous effort undermining the military, things are going fairly well in Iraq. General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse. The anti-Bush themes of an "Iraqi quagmire" and "surge failure" were premature, and all the congressional show hearings, the choreographed Code Pink performance art and the MoveOn.org smears were for naught. The president and the military did it right, and the Democrats got it wrong.


Now it's time for Democrats to change the subject, to distract the public, to pretend the dire predictions and the hysterics were about something else entirely, and hope the short memory of the electorate kills the issue by November.


It's also time for a little vengeance on the Pentagon.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...war_wit_1.html

"It seems predictable that the Democrat controlled Congress would pass legislation to further hamstring our military while passing other legislation providing yet another layer of insulation for media who might use anonymous sources to betray our country with publication of classified material. Perhaps we should force legislation to prevent Congress from engaging in propaganda, which could be roughly defined as whatever you might hear when Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth." madmax

[Flint]

...

[Clodfobble]

nice!

[richlevy]

TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.

Merc, for his part actually took an earlier post and quoted himself, which seems odd. Also a bit high on the rant-o-meter.

All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.

It's a nice warmup for the fall elections.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.

Merc, for his part actually took an earlier post and quoted himself, which seems odd. Also a bit high on the rant-o-meter.

All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.

It's a nice warmup for the fall elections.

The only reason I quoted myself is that I felt is was a continuation of a chain of related thoughts which may stimulate some conversation with individuals who were interested in the subject. There was no other intent.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.

Which ones do you have doubts about?

tw long and accurate claims about the myths and lies justifying "Mission Accomplshed" also appears to be rants. Today we know it was all true. Which part is unconfirmed?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Flint

...

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

nice!

I'll be here all week. Try the veal!