Bush's speech

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:50 pm

The point of all this is that Bush told America last night that he's as delusional as ever on this thing. We can't even get the proper fighting equipment (the Humvees suck) in place for our troops, but Halliburton seems to have them for their soon-to-be millionaire employees. And our military hasn't re-thought its fighting strategy. We're still almost as conventional as we were in Vietnam and back then it was out of date.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:51 pm

And where are all the Bush supporters telling us how great his speech was? I guess they're just happy he's elected and they show up again in three years. This post was started with you in mind I do believe.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:57 pm

iaafan wrote: And our military hasn't re-thought its fighting strategy. We're still almost as conventional as we were in Vietnam and back then it was out of date.

If you listen to most of the press yes, but most soldiers I've seen interviewed would not agrre with that assessment at all.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:59 pm

If I were a soldier, I wouldn't agree either. Who knows? I still see these guys all loaded down with gear and clanking up and down the streets, while the insurgents (like Charley) skulks around and picks his spots.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:05 pm

Good time for another plug of a good movie that's coming out soon on this topic. Everybody should see "Gunner Palace" for a very independent and fascinating perspective from the troops on the ground in Iraq.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:18 pm

I'm not sure what to think on this. I'm sure it's not as bad as the press makes it out to be and I know its not a rosey as W. makes it out to be. I guess the big unknown is how willing the Iraqi's are to have democracy. The voter turnout said yes, but other things point no. It will be interesting to see what happens after a generation of educated kids, both boys and girls grows up educated without Saddam's spin.

I know waht your going to say iaafan and yes U.S. spin is better than Saddam's spin.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:24 pm

iaafan wrote:If I were a soldier, I wouldn't agree either. Who knows? I still see these guys all loaded down with gear and clanking up and down the streets, while the insurgents (like Charley) skulks around and picks his spots.

What's your better idea again?

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:41 pm

Ponycat wrote:
iaafan wrote: And our military hasn't re-thought its fighting strategy. We're still almost as conventional as we were in Vietnam and back then it was out of date.
If you listen to most of the press yes, but most soldiers I've seen interviewed would not agrre with that assessment at all.

As I mentioned in a previous post, my baby 'sis' is in Germany at the hospital where all casualties are taken as an RN/Officer with a Reserve Med Unit from Helena. This is her second activation ( 1st was 15 mo's.- this one 18).

She tells me all the time that every soldier they get in just wants to get back to his his/her unit as soon as possible.

Yes, war is hell, but the fighting forces firmly believe in what they're doing and they are the best equipped fighting force in the world. It's just very difficult to deal with "car bombs" and the rest of the crap the insurgents come up with.

We will prevail!

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:26 pm

iaafan wrote:And where are all the Bush supporters telling us how great his speech was? I guess they're just happy he's elected and they show up again in three years. This post was started with you in mind I do believe.

1. I was disappointed in the speech; it seemed a bit defensive in nature.
2. I am happy he was re-elected.

Sorry you folks had such a head start on me...out here in the middle of the Pacific, I was still at work when the speech came on.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:30 pm

I certainly don't have an idea, but then again I'm not in a position to have one that matters. I guess I'll leave that to the military experts in the Pentagon and West Point, etc. Maybe this is the best thing to do. I remember during my stint it the training seemed OK, but I was 18 years old and just "wanted to be with my unit." I do recall exercises where we'd be out all night and part of the deal was to be very quiet. We did a lot of things to keep our gear from rattling around, but eventually someone stepped in a gopher hole or what have you and would make enough noise to set off sensors miles away (exagg, but you get the point).
My guess-idea would be something along the lines of more civilian looking, acting units that infiltrated communities, gained trust and got info about where these sneaky bastadges were hiding. Beat them at there own game, of course that may be impossible re: The Geneva Convention, but maybe they need to re-write that thing so freedom fighters can fight fire with fire.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:40 am

iaafan wrote:I certainly don't have an idea, but then again I'm not in a position to have one that matters. I guess I'll leave that to the military experts in the Pentagon and West Point, etc. Maybe this is the best thing to do. I remember during my stint it the training seemed OK, but I was 18 years old and just "wanted to be with my unit." I do recall exercises where we'd be out all night and part of the deal was to be very quiet. We did a lot of things to keep our gear from rattling around, but eventually someone stepped in a gopher hole or what have you and would make enough noise to set off sensors miles away (exagg, but you get the point).
My guess-idea would be something along the lines of more civilian looking, acting units that infiltrated communities, gained trust and got info about where these sneaky bastadges were hiding. Beat them at there own game, of course that may be impossible re: The Geneva Convention, but maybe they need to re-write that thing so freedom fighters can fight fire with fire.

We may be starting another thread here, but I think our SOF (Special Operations Forces) do a pretty good job when it comes to asymmetrical warfare.

Requisite disclaimer: I'm a member of the Air Force, and my only knowledge of Army operations and tactics is based on joint doctrine (how the services fight synergistically) and personal interest/eduction.

You're right, a standard infantry unit is too bulky and too rigid in their tactics to make an effective force in the assymetric battlespace. That's why the Navy SEALS, Army Green Berets and Rangers, and USMC Force Recon are used so widely in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the successful missions are rarely, if ever, publicized or discussed in public.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:47 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:More importantly, [the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing] was a "Bush as hero" photo op. I think that's what upset a lot of people. If it would have been a subtle memo congratulating those going home, I don't think anybody would have said anything. But when Bush arrives via fighter and they have a big made-for-television ceremony announcing "Mission Accomplished," it is worthy of debate as to what message the PR people were trying to send to the American people.

The military person in me still thinks it was pretty cool, but the conservative in me thinks it was a bit "over the top."

But I still find the focus on "Mission Accomplished" by the pundits as irritating--see my original post on the matter.