Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Sweeping policy change=Draft???

Military US Draft 2006

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#41 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 12:18 AM

Alright let me put it this way...

We as a civilization have all this technology that we have to teach and yet we have these catastrophes both military and politically in the past 15 years.

Why?

Well with the Gulf War it was our leaders.  

With this war it's still our leaders but...why isn't the technology overcoming this?  Supposedly it should.  If you have the brain power that our military leaders are 'suppose' to have.

WE are not doing so well right now-despite the technology and despite the volunteers who are being trained in exemplary ways.

But those guys who were drafted before Pearl and then right afterwards-they fought hard with great leaders and despite their supposed deficiency in brain power they won a war.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#42 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 12:57 AM

Quote

despite their supposed deficiency in brain power they won a war.

I made no comments about intellegence so I really don't see where you are getting this. Not having a skill means not having a skill. It says nothing about intelligence. Just because you haven't been trained to do something doesn't mean you can't do it.


Quote

Well with the Gulf War it was our leaders.

I'd like to know how and under what criteria you describe the 1991 Gulf War as a catastrophe?

As for today there was an article in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings that I think gets at the core of this. I really wish it was online now.
It's "The Shifting Domain of War" by Commander Mark Gorenflo and Captain Mark R. Hageroft. I can't type out 7 pages of article without compromising time I need for other things and violating copyright but thier arguement is that while the U.S. military has been emphasizing ever more capable machines the human domain of warfare has been left out of our choices.
From page 2
"The industrial-machine warriors of the United States have for the past generation continued to identify decision in war as being determined almost exclusively by the side with the better machines, machine operators, and machine doctrine. We argue that in warfare today, decision has shifted away from the machine. Our opponents choose not to participate in a mode of warfare that could lead to thier collective slaughter. One can think about armed competition as residing in one or more of three domains, where decision is determined by human-on-human competition;machine-on-human competition; or machine-on-machine competition. "
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#43 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 01:13 AM

The reason they won an we have not yet won is that no one wanted the job done fast they simply wanted it done. Today too many people want instant wins and do not accept that it took nearly a decade to rebuild Germany. In Japan it was faster because the war in Korea forced the speed up.

We have people who shrink back from a single drop of blood. They cry when a 100 die in a month when in that war you talk about just a  hundred dying in the whole of Europe in a single day would have been a day where there was no combat.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#44 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 01:16 AM

View Posttennyson, on Nov 7 2006, 11:57 PM, said:

Quote

despite their supposed deficiency in brain power they won a war.

I made no comments about intellegence so I really don't see where you are getting this. Not having a skill means not having a skill. It says nothing about intelligence. Just because you haven't been trained to do something doesn't mean you can't do it.


Quote

Well with the Gulf War it was our leaders.

I'd like to know how and under what criteria you describe the 1991 Gulf War as a catastrophe?

As for today there was an article in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings that I think gets at the core of this. I really wish it was online now.
It's "The Shifting Domain of War" by Commander Mark Gorenflo and Captain Mark R. Hageroft. I can't type out 7 pages of article without compromising time I need for other things and violating copyright but thier arguement is that while the U.S. military has been emphasizing ever more capable machines the human domain of warfare has been left out of our choices.
From page 2
"The industrial-machine warriors of the United States have for the past generation continued to identify decision in war as being determined almost exclusively by the side with the better machines, machine operators, and machine doctrine. We argue that in warfare today, decision has shifted away from the machine. Our opponents choose not to participate in a mode of warfare that could lead to thier collective slaughter. One can think about armed competition as residing in one or more of three domains, where decision is determined by human-on-human competition;machine-on-human competition; or machine-on-machine competition. "

Oh I love this.

We didn't follow through with the gulf war.  This is the very reason why we are currently in the mess we are in now.  

It's no reflection on our soldiers-they take their orders and move on.

Just like what is happening now and it's a catastrophe.  We are up against people that use homemade weapons to defeat us.  And we lose so much in many ways.

And your quote you list there-Tennyson-how sad.

No-you are saying that the difference between the guys of WWII is that it didn't take long to train them because of the degree of technology of the weaponry.  So...are our guys not being trained properly or is our weaponry faulty or are our guys just stupid (by the way they are not) but...why...why are we having such difficulties.

The guys of WWII were up against terrific odds.

And yes you come across to me as if you are saying the guys of WWII were complete neanderthals that were simply given their club to fight Hitler.

They weren't. They were magnificent.  And they, with the leadership they had back in the late 30's and 40's, could come in and learn all this technology.  But I actually believe our tough little hombres of today could do the same thing.

What I'm saying is-we don't have the leaders.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#45 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 04:02 AM

View PostCheile, on Nov 7 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

maybe the illegals should be shipped off to fight the war.  tell them they're going to fight or they're gonna be sent back to Mexico where they belong.

then they can PROVE they want to be Americans.

i have somewhere (misplaced it) a tshirt i got from the Newseum in Washington D.C. (well it used to be in Rosslyn, VA but they moved last year).  it says "Talk is cheap.  Free speech isn't."

I wish I had that T-Shirt.

The Romans would give citizenship to some outsiders if they joined and fought in their armies.  Not a new idea. ;)  Worked out quite well actually.  For both the Roman Empire, and those who wanted to become Romans.

I much rather send hardened prisoners to fight.  Those that are convicted killers and such would be great since they already have the experience.  Forget the cushy cells, free cable, and three meals a day.  This will solve our over-crowded jails problem too! :cool:

Alas, I'm dreaming again...
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#46 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 01:54 PM

Quote

Worked out quite well actually.

Not so sure about that. What about Herman the German? "Oh ja I'm real loyal to you Roman lot, let me be really high up in your army so I can lead you all into a massive ambush!! ja dass ist richtig. "

Romans weren't QUITE so happy with that one.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#47 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 02:31 PM

Myself I’m not a fan of relying on foreign mercenaries to fight our wars.  The strength (sometimes the weakness to) of the US has always been our citizen soldiers and we should do anything possible to maintain that situation.  
        

Quote

Hiblette: Actually the grunts of this war or WWII or WWI are no different in the sense that equipment goes out and things happen and they have to think quickly to survive and that's when the brain power comes in.
Even the basic infantry rifle that our troops are using today is vastly different than a M1 Garand in terms of complication.  The idea that the equipment is similar is false and even basic training for infantry gear takes more time than in World War II.   You have complex pieces of equipment like GPS navigation equipment, IFF/ other network centric warfare gear, and night vision goggles that our soldiers have to be trained to use.  The fact is that even for your basic infantryman technology is a major part of his daily life in combat.  

On top of that as Tennyson points out troops now have weeks of classroom training to familiarize themselves with the areas they’ll be fighting in.  

Quote

Hibblette: But those guys who were drafted before Pearl and then right afterwards-they fought hard with great leaders and despite their supposed deficiency in brain power they won a war.
Yeah Dugout Doug was a great general.  The US Military in World War II suffered our share of disasters during World War II.  If our current population had to see a war like World War II fought we probably would end up surrendering to Japan or giving up sometime before we actually had a victor at Coral Sea.  The US Army the first time it fought the Germans in a major engagement got its butt handed to it at Battle for Kasserine Pass in 1943.


Quote

Hibblette: We didn't follow through with the gulf war. This is the very reason why we are currently in the mess we are in now.
There was never a plan to remove Saddam from power in the Gulf War I.  Everyone knew the Coalition would have collapsed if we tried to do that.

Quote

Hibblette: So...are our guys not being trained properly or is our weaponry faulty or are our guys just stupid (by the way they are not) but...why...why are we having such difficulties.
We fought wars differently at that time.  World War II was a case of what military historians call Total War.  It is a war where you devote all the resources of your country, population, and industrial base to winning the war.  On top of that you aren’t fighting to just beat the enemy and win the peace.  Your goal is the utter and total destruction of the enemy along with their will to fight.

Vietnam, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and OIF were all cases of what is called limited wars.  These are wars that are fought to achieve limited political goals.  In the case of OIF it was to remove Saddam, put in place a new government, and have democracy in Iraq.  You are fighting for specific goals without devoting total resources or total firepower to the situation.  That makes a limited war very hard to win because there is no pacification or direct overt attack on the population or the will of the population to fight.

If we had fought OIF like World War II we would have fully mobilized all available military resources.  We would have then started a heavy bombing campaign of Iraq that would make “Shock and Awe” look like a firecracker.  “Shock and Awe” was aimed at hitting the strong points that kept the regime in power; security forces, communications, command and control, and government agencies.  If we fought World War II style e would have lined up the B-52s wing to wing tip and carpet bombed Baghdad and every other major city in Iraq until we were bouncing rubble.  Then we would have lined up the tanks and infantry and stormed the country.  If civilians showed any signs of putting up a fight we would have lined them up and they would have been summarily executed on the spot at the discretion of the commanding officer.    

The goal in World War II was not to win the peace but rather to utterly and totally destroy the will of the country, regime, and civilian population to fight.  We probably would have pacified Iraq by now if we had fought it like World War II with much less deaths on our side.  Of course in the process we would have killed a couple hundred thousand to a million or more Iraqis.  That is the problem with Total Warfare if you have the resources to do it you will win because no one will be left standing.

Limited War will kill a lot less people but you need a very narrow set of goals to win it.  On top of that more people are likely to die in achieving the peace than will die during the war.  Total War is the exact opposite with all the deaths being during the war and very few during the occupation stage.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#48 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 07:31 PM

So those of the 30's and 40's couldn't handle our technology today-is that what you are saying?

Because I disagree-I think they could have been just as well trained maybe even better...if they had the leaders they had back in the 30's and the 40's.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#49 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 07:56 PM

View PostHibblette, on Nov 8 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

So those of the 30's and 40's couldn't handle our technology today-is that what you are saying?
Our troops today have a basic background in handling electronics and more advanced technolgy than troops from the 1940s.  Take your average teenager off the street and at least they’ve played with a laptop, Gameboy, or whatever.  They have a basic knowledge base to build off of in terms of technology.  With that base in place it would be far easier to hand them a GPS Unit and have them understand it compared to someone in the 1940s.  

I’m sure you could eventually train troops from the 1940s to handle today’s technology but it would take even longer than training troops from today.  Our troops were raised handling technology so they would have a stronger base.  This isn’t about intelligence level like you seem to think.  Its about the situation that people were raised in.  Our troops would probably have a conniption fit in terms of operating 1940s military gear.  I’m sure they could figure out some of the basic because it is less advanced but they’d never operate it as well as World War II troops unless they had equal training.      

Quote

Hiblette: Because I disagree-I think they could have been just as well trained maybe even better...if they had the leaders they had back in the 30's and the 40's.
As I said earlier the leadership during that time was not perfect either.  We had some fairly incompetent military leadership during the 1930s and in the early days of World War II.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#50 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 07:58 PM

Let me explain something here about why I'm chafing about the intelligence factor and the draft.

You guys do realize that there are kids going in now that have nothing else to do-they can't get a job and they at least see something in regards to what the military can do for them.  They are taught how to handle the weapons they are given.  They are constantly tested and retrained and all that good stuff.  But they are not necessarily in the military because they absolutely are die hard military minded.  I know this-because I know quite a few young men-I have a 19 year old son.  His friends talk.

Now before WWII-this same crap was stated about taking the dregs of the earth into the military if the draft was started.  There were countless debates among the politicians in regards to this.  

Our young men could handle going in and learning once they go in.  

But of course though I'm against the draft.  Because I just am.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#51 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 08:02 PM

View PostHibblette, on Nov 8 2006, 06:31 PM, said:

So those of the 30's and 40's couldn't handle our technology today-is that what you are saying?

Because I disagree-I think they could have been just as well trained maybe even better...if they had the leaders they had back in the 30's and the 40's.

Mark: I'm not so sure Hibblette. However let's look at the casuality rate back then compared to today. Lot's of troops were put on the front line with no more than basic training behind them, and it aided in getting them killed quicker than if they'd had a couple of years to train.
Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#52 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 08 November 2006 - 08:17 PM

Quote

Take your average teenager off the street and at least they’ve played with a laptop, Gameboy, or whatever. They have a basic knowledge base to build off of in terms of technology. With that base in place it would be far easier to hand them a GPS Unit and have them understand it compared to someone in the 1940s.

So in other words our teenagers would do fine if they were drafted?

The point being that the times are in conjunction with what is appropo...is this not so?

As I stated there were people of the 30's that had the same fears about the draft and the intelligence factor.

It all turned out okay then and would be okay now-as far as training.

But then again I don't want the draft.  Except of course that's when people would start protesting.

Edited by Hibblette, 08 November 2006 - 08:17 PM.

"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#53 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 10:16 PM

View PostHibblette, on Nov 7 2006, 10:16 PM, said:

We didn't follow through with the gulf war.  This is the very reason why we are currently in the mess we are in now.

I disagree. It's clear from the historical records that Bush Senior was advised of and well aware of the complications involved in taking over Iraq and deposing Saddam and he very wisely decided not to. Had his son had the same intelligence we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Middle East experts were very clear that an American occupation of Iraq could only go badly. Bush Senior did what he meant to do and got out.

I'm with you on the draft, though. I saw too many of my contemporaries step off a plane and die in Viet Nam (one lasted two whole days) to be sanguine about the desperation involved in reinstituting the draft and the rush to put poorly trained troops into combat. I far prefer a volunteer army.

Edited by Rhea, 10 November 2006 - 12:01 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#54 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 11:54 PM

I believe it has been established that Schwartzkopf (sp?) wanted to continue on.  We should have in my opinion.  It's just my opinion.  And yes the official word was that Ol' man Bush was advised not to-but I think in retrospect they realized that it hurt his campaign for reelection.  When it comes to retrospect and campaign losses it doesn't matter that the advisors said go for it-you look at the fact you lost the campaign.

My stand on the draft is that it shouldn't be reinstated because this war for one thing is a mess and not one that should throw our young into the forefront just to be the pawns.

Because you see they don't see them as intelligent thinking beings.  They see the draftees as these neanderthal poor class kids that couldn't get themselves out of the draft.  

But-this volunteer army-okay...there are those that go in because they are promised an education.  Guess what-there's a huge surprise for those that suddenly find themselves in the middle of a war when they went in just to get an education.

And if they go in for just glory reasons or those romantic advertisements that shows the knight in armor and then he turns into a marine-well there's a rude awakening to come.

To me the volunteer military should be made up of guys that are fully aware of what it is they are volunteering for.  And the evidence, dating back to the Gulf War-says otherwise.  I've seen it and heard of it and it makes me sick that it goes on.

And again there is a relative factor to our times and how we live.  CJ mentioned about how kids today are involved with computers and the games they play so when they are introduced to the high technology of our weaponry...most can comprehend it.

The draft is just about getting those that don't want to fight this war that ... well to me it is suspect of how it got started (WMD's) and the leadership that we have out there.  

But I truly believe that our young men and women are truly trainable in this day and age for all the weaponry that we have.  As I mentioned there were those that were afraid in the 30's about the draft and the youth and their mental capabilities in a mass situation.  But guess what they did just fine.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#55 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 10 November 2006 - 09:25 AM

View PostHibblette, on Nov 9 2006, 11:54 PM, said:

I believe it has been established that Schwartzkopf (sp?) wanted to continue on.  We should have in my opinion.  It's just my opinion.

Why do you think we should have continued?  Bush 41's reasons for NOT going to Baghdad were not only sound -- Every single one of those reasons has materialized now, and then some (at least back then, we were responding to Iraqi aggression--though not against us--, rather than diverting attention/resources from someone else's aggression).  

Quote

And yes the official word was that Ol' man Bush was advised not to-but I think in retrospect they realized that it hurt his campaign for reelection.  When it comes to retrospect and campaign losses it doesn't matter that the advisors said go for it-you look at the fact you lost the campaign.

I don't think much of Bush41, but at least he had the integrity NOT to seize on reelection as a reason to invade Baghdad.  His son, of course, had no such compunctions.  And it worked for him, but history will not be kind.  

Quote

My stand on the draft is that it shouldn't be reinstated because this war for one thing is a mess and not one that should throw our young into the forefront just to be the pawns.

I'm not a fan, but say this about a draft: it makes the American people full partners in the process.  They have to worry about *their* sons and daughters being compelled to go fight, and that tends to make a President more careful about making the decision.  If we had to have a draft, there would be no "elective wars."  Only necessary ones.  And that would be good.  

Quote

Because you see they don't see them as intelligent thinking beings.  They see the draftees as these neanderthal poor class kids that couldn't get themselves out of the draft.

But-this volunteer army-okay...there are those that go in because they are promised an education.  Guess what-there's a huge surprise for those that suddenly find themselves in the middle of a war when they went in just to get an education.

Of course, those who join for that purpose are pretty much the same population that would get drafted, so the end result is pretty close to a wash, no?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#56 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 10 November 2006 - 09:41 AM

Right before the Iraq War, Schwarzkopf was interviewed in the Washington Post. He was distrustful of Rumsfeld, thought we shouldn't rush into Iraq, warned that the post-war occupation would possibly be a mess because of the sectarian animosities, and said that his mission in the Gulf War was solely to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. He doesn't sound regretful at all that we didn't go all the way to Baghdad in the Gulf War. But maybe he's said so elsewhere.

http://www.washingto...anguage=printer
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#57 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 10 November 2006 - 09:55 AM

After the Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said this in regard to why we didn't push Saddam out of power:

http://www.slate.com/id/2072609/

Quote

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?

That was his public statement, given to the media. We know now that privately, he and Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives thought we should have continued the war until Saddam was overthrown, so they spent the next decade pushing for that (even while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton).

So, they finally had the opportunity to do what they thought should have been done in the Gulf War. And now we have the answers to the questions Cheney asked in his public statements in 1991--questions that led the Bush Administration to limit the Gulf War to removing Saddam from Kuwait and containing him with sanctions and inspections.

If we had pushed through to Baghdad and toppled Saddam, we'd be in the same mess we're in now, just earlier.

This is very scenario that people like James Baker warned Bush I might happen in 1991. Baker and others were roundly ignored prior to the Iraq War in 2003, and I am much relieved that Bush II is finally listening to him and other pragmatists again. It's a helluva mess. I don't know how they can solve it, but I have much more confidence in their ability to do so because they, unlike Cheney and Rummy, are not ideologues but realists. They can see Iraq as it is, not as they wish would be.  And maybe they can plot a course of action that stands some chance of succeeding. We can all only hope so.

Edited by Spectacles, 10 November 2006 - 09:56 AM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#58 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 10 November 2006 - 12:03 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Nov 10 2006, 06:55 AM, said:

After the Gulf War, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said this in regard to why we didn't push Saddam out of power:

http://www.slate.com/id/2072609/

Quote

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?

That was his public statement, given to the media. We know now that privately, he and Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives thought we should have continued the war until Saddam was overthrown, so they spent the next decade pushing for that (even while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton).

So, they finally had the opportunity to do what they thought should have been done in the Gulf War. And now we have the answers to the questions Cheney asked in his public statements in 1991--questions that led the Bush Administration to limit the Gulf War to removing Saddam from Kuwait and containing him with sanctions and inspections.

If we had pushed through to Baghdad and toppled Saddam, we'd be in the same mess we're in now, just earlier.

This is very scenario that people like James Baker warned Bush I might happen in 1991. Baker and others were roundly ignored prior to the Iraq War in 2003, and I am much relieved that Bush II is finally listening to him and other pragmatists again. It's a helluva mess. I don't know how they can solve it, but I have much more confidence in their ability to do so because they, unlike Cheney and Rummy, are not ideologues but realists. They can see Iraq as it is, not as they wish would be.  And maybe they can plot a course of action that stands some chance of succeeding. We can all only hope so.


Agreed. Absolutely. The fundamental dynamics - the three-way conflict between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - would still have been in place. The distrust of American motives, the stirring up of Iran - all of that would still have happened. We'd have just been in a mess earlier.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#59 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 10 November 2006 - 04:26 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Nov 10 2006, 08:25 AM, said:

Of course, those who join for that purpose are pretty much the same population that would get drafted, so the end result is pretty close to a wash, no?

Yep, actually this is a true statement.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, US Draft, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users