More Members For "The Cheney Wing Of The GOP"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in War — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Andrew Sullivan might want to take note. Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have returned from Iraq with a report brimming with optimism:
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated -- many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services -- electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation -- to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began -- though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks -- all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups -- who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
The conclusion?
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Of course, this presupposes that the pundit class and Congress won't immediately trash the Petraeus report. And it may be optimistic to think that they won't. Sensing that a positive report may emanate from both Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, large swaths of the pundit class and the Congressional majority have been busy deriding Petraeus and Crocker and announcing in advance that they will not believe any optimistic report issued in September, come what may.
One hopes that O'Hanlon's and Pollack's words reach these utterly determined skeptics. But it is logical to fear that the utterly determined skeptics are in no mood whatsoever to have their minds changed, no matter what salutary effects the surge--all of a month and a half old--might be having.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Week #4: Ten Weeks To Testimony — Comments (4) »
More Members For "The Cheney Wing Of The GOP" 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Sorry I was out running. I'll try to dig up the recruiting gap information. Suffice it to say that when we're deploying our troops for 15 months instead of the usual 12, then recruiting is sub-optimal and we could use more good men and women in uniform.
Periods of deployment in Iraq pertain more to the end strength of the Army than their recruiting. It is not a simple matter of recruiting to reduce deployment periods. They recruit
against quotas which are determined by their authorized end strength and budget, and how many recruits can be trained in a given time.
The Army is the only service with 15 month tours. The Marine Corps and other branches have decided on other arrangements. But, the frequent rotations are because of the size of armed forces. They cannot recruit their way out of this problem. Clinton cut nearly 200,000
slots from the Army.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,77951,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
If you google it, you will get a thousand links from Washington Post, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc etc. But in good taste I was trying to avoid such sources.
From what I hear, 2006 recovered slightly from this shortfall, at least with the "active" component of the army, albeit by way of pulling up more National Guardsmen and extending deployments.
Also, as mchick reported, only the Army is suffering from extended deployments. One troubling result of the shortfall is sailors and airmen being asked to take a very brief training regimen and then being deployed with ground forces to help cover the Army's stretched numbers.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/21/MNGI3R4EI01....
(sorry for the lib link, I was a bit lazier on sourcing this one because it took me so long to find the first link)
as so easily demonstrated by rbdwiggins below. Perhaps you should continue searching for a real core competency that you can then comeback and demonstrate to us so we can turn our pity and disdain to rejoicing.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Hey neighbor was that necessary? I am merely trying to qualify the subject as a legitimate topic of discussion, not present some kind of opinion one way or the other. Denial is never an instrument of honest debate.
"Denial is never an instrument of honest debate." Poop is poop, no more no less. When you wander in here with a proven false liberal talking point stuck to your shoe like a strip of toilet paper, it is obvious where you have been. Honest debate requires a legitimate question. You didn't have one. Go get one and then I may regard you as worthy of something more than disdain and/or pity.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Tbone your analogy is sharp and holding up well over multiple posts. I got a good chuckle.
That said, do you have something more substantive to say than ad hominem attacks against me? You seem to take it for granted that my points are 'disproven' and 'liberal'. I am far from a liberal sir, and you have done none of the work to disprove anything I've said.. I think the question is completely legitimate. How do we keep up this surge without keeping Army units deployed for 15 months or more? Without sending sailors and airmen to front lines duty (those who don't volunteer to)?
I may have made the erroneous link between this goal and a recruitment situation, I apologize for the non sequitur fallacy if indeed there was one. If we opened up another 50k slots in the Army, would we be able to fill all those shoes?
"Without sending sailors and airmen to front lines duty (those who don't volunteer to)?"
So, you think the Navy and Air Force draft people for "support" roles? ROFLMAO
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Ok, haha, wait a second. If you thought that was what I was saying then I can understand why you would be asinine to me.
What I'm saying is, they're asking if anyone ALREADY in the service wants to sign up for "augmented" training and deployment (aka helmet and rifle), and in some/many cases when too few step forward, then they are ordered into augmented service.
The quote I would take away from this report is:
"Technically, these combat-related assignments do not violate service members' contracts," said Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan administration official who handled manpower as assistant secretary of defense.
"But many airmen and sailors are not volunteering for these jobs -- they're being told to do them, and that could cut down re-enlistments and complicate recruitment for both services down the road," he said.
Anyway, like I said, I merely meant to qualify this as a legitimate topic of debate. I don't really like to dwell on this topic too long, but its something to keep in the back of your mind and help whenever you can.
You contended that recruitment targets were not being met. This is a totally debunked liberal talking point as you can see below. As a fallacy, it can not qualified be a legitimate topic of debate or even discussion. However, I have come to admire your density.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Here are the Recruiting and Retention Stats for FY 2006.
U.S. Military Recruiting Statistics
The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the FY 2006 recruiting year.
Active duty recruiting. All services have met or exceeded their recruiting goals for fiscal 2006.
Active duty retention. Overall, the active duty services exceeded retention goals across the board. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded fiscal 2006 retention goals in every category. The Navy retained in high numbers at the outset of the year, but a focus on physical fitness test performance led to an increase in disqualification among first-term sailors.
Reserve forces recruiting. Two of six Reserve components met or exceeded their accession goals for fiscal 2006, while two other Reserve components, the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard were close to making their end of year goals. Although the Army Reserve fell short of its annual accession goal, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command achieved 99+percent of its annual recruiting goal.
Reserve forces retention. Losses in all Reserve components were within acceptable limits. However, enlisted attrition through August 2006 is higher than the same period reported last year, but lower than the same period in the base year of fiscal 2000. The U.S. Naval Reserve presents a concern with its increasing attrition rates. We expect September 2006 to continue the current trend. (Note: This indicator lags by one month.)
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
"The U.S. Naval Reserve presents a concern with its increasing attrition rates."
During the Clinton Era, the size of the Naval Reserve was cut by 50 percent for budgetary reasons. Senior and experienced persons dating back to the Vietnam Era were all forced to retire to save money. They started trying to recruit off the street as well as taking active duty veterans. I'll bet it hurt morale and readiness over the years.
"As an aside, Petraeus is an awesome name too"
Can't say this is definitive but the vast majority of Petraeus surnames on the lds.org family search site (sorry, can't link it, that right is reserved) show them to be from Finland, Sweden and Denmark with a smattering from Germany.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
I heard (part of) a brief interview with O'Hanlon on the radio this afternoon and he said if the Iraqi government doesn't deliver then there can be no hope of success. Therefore, the overall picture may not be nearly as positive as the Op-Ed implies.
It's also worth noting that O'Hanlon and Pollack have been major supporters of the war in Iraq. Their current claims should be considered along with all the times they've been wrong.
I'm reading across the political spectrum and my response to the O'Hanlon/Pollack Op-Ed is one of skepticism.* That doesn't mean I don't think gains have been made. However, if I'd bet on them in the past, I'd be a poor man today.
Who wants to bet on the Iraqi government?
* At this point, my response to everyone is skepticism.
While O'Hanlon and Pollack were supporters of removing Saddam Hussein, they've been very critical of the efforts and tactics employed up until recently.
The Iraqi government has to get on the ball but they need two things to help them along:
1) A relatively secure Iraq which now seems to be happening.
2) The US Congress not threatening to pull out every other month.
At this point you have to wonder if even a glowing report in Sept would have any influence on Congress.
If it doesn't, then I can only hope the public will see through their stubborn attempt to save face at the expense of the Iraqi people.
Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
(snip...)
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
Apparently, the Blue Dogs are unwilling to follow the liberals lemmings over the cliff.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
also said the NY Times title for their op-ed overstated their case and that while there has been some progress in the areas they saw on this trip, the situation must be monitored closely. He also noted as background that after each prior trip to Iraq he left more depressed than before he went and that this was the first time he returned less so. While its good that they think the security situation has improved, we have seen the same thing happen before - a couple of months when things look like they are getting better - 'the corner is about to turn' moments - only to see it again fall apart. No stats on it handy, but wouldn't be surprised if attacks always slow up in the hot summer months.
But even this improved security seems not to have translated into any progress on the political side - if anything, things seem to be falling apart politically as the parliament goes into recess.
Rant Street! www.rant.st
The war has had its ups and downs, this is one of the biggest ups we've had in a long time and let's hope it isn't followed by a down like some of the others. However it sounds General Petraeus is well prepared and has learned a lot from where his predecessors struggled on previous offensives. As an aside, Petraeus is an awesome name too, I wonder from what culture it comes because I've never heard of it before this great general. Back on topic, unfortunately we're fighting on 3 fronts right now (at least, by my count)
A) The actual military combat front
B) The public sentiment / politics front
C) The recruitment front (how to sustain the force?)
Looks like (A) is starting to come around. (B) follows (A). And (C) follows (B).
How can we speed up the transition from (A) to (B) to (C)? MSM isn't doing us any favors. Maybe (C) can be obtained without (B) by raising soldiers' pay or other benefits. Now I don't know if that gets you the type of soldiers you really WANT, but it seems our choices are bad vs. worse when it comes to the recruiting gap.