Redstate

The last time I saw the count, one Republican voted "yea".  Who was that?

no one will claim anyone is advocating "cut and run" anymore?

We admit the crushing defeat of DailyKos, MyDD, and most especially Cindy Sheehan. We do this amidst guffaws of laughter that they are calling it a victory.

You'll note Rep. Murtha didn't vote for this resolution.  I guess he really, really wanted those "whereas's", huh?

You think he's abandoned his "cut and run" proposal? I don't think so.

All it means is that a real debate about the future of the Iraq war has begun.  No more half measures.  To fIght the war we must call for sacrifice from more than just our troops, it's time for the rest of America to stand up.

It is time to send more troops.

It is time to seriously consider reinstituting the draft.

It is time for all those who support a free Iraq and a world safe from Islamo-facism to leave the echo chamber of the internet behind and enlist in the military.  What our troops really need are more troops.  

Sometimes I wonder if the GOP is a political party or a bunch of 3rd graders

That's another dead chickenhawker. Notoriously slow about getting memos, they are.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml

From CNN: http://tinyurl.com/aa48p

It is basically a much slower version of Rep. Murtha's plan.  Brigades start leaving in December after the election.  More troops withdraw as certain  guidelines are met.

Yes, because the gentlemen and ladies from the left have been such paragons of decorum....

This was "Put up or Shut Up" time....and as the votes show, those who were really just playing politics decided not to "Put Up."

This was a brilliant move by the Republicans...essentially telling the Dems to put up or shut up.

Now when the Dems talk of withdrawal from Iraq, the Republicans can answer that the Dems had the chance to vote for it.

This also changes the topic of conversation going into the weekend from the GOP being on the defensive to the Dems being on the defensive.

Does anyone else not feel too good about what's been going on with the Republican party as of late? First it's budget cuts that they can barely get through the House, next its actually responding to an unknown Democrat who wants us to leave a country still in disarray after years of dictatorship rule. What are the Republicans going to do next? I'm losing my faith in this party and it's bothering the hell out of me. We didn't win these majorities for NOTHING!

that the DNC is not just led by cowards regarding quesitons of war and peace, but politics as well.

Now the Democrats can try to explain to the looneys in their base why they voted against it.

This won't stop them, afterall they've been running around for a year claiming they were misled.

To fix the things that cost troops lives, and spend whatever it takes. Dems used to be the Party of "Big Government done right" ala FDR but now my Party is the Party of Howard Dean and Babs Streisand, the Brie and W(h)ine Party.

Replace the M-16 and the carbine version with the M-14; troops need one-shot stops not multiple hits (particularly with a guy that has a RPG aimed at them). Troops HATE the M-16 and the puny .223 round; love the M-14 and the 7.62 NATO round.

Dump the M-9 for the 1911. Troops LOVE the 1911 and the .45 ACP and YES sadly they still use pistols in extreme close quarters combat.

Dump the SAW and give them something that works, preferably in 7.62 NATO. Currently the .223 is outranged by the AK 47 7.62X39 round; our troops need the range.

Buy as many airframes as we can, replace the worn out F-15s etc with the J-22; replace the B-52 with as many B2s and B1s as possible. Put together a thousand ship Navy.

Go Reagan on bin Laden's tuchus. Big time defense buildup. And yes improved small arms are vital in a day-to-day streetfight. It costs money. Bridges to nowhere and various bipartisan corporate pork will have to go. Shrug. That's life.

Draft? Please don't be kidding me. We need a much bigger military (undo Clinton's 40% cuts in 1993) but the military already turns away a lot of low IQ folks. They don't need people too dumb to be soldiers (Leftists consistently underestimate the amount of intelligence, training, and decision making responsibility is thrust downwards to non-coms).

This is not Hollywood. Where a few top guys run roughshod over everyone and run every detail (Hollywood projects it's own relations with the Craft Unions to Military Affairs because the only blue collar guys they know are grips and lighting guys they scream at with impunity). In reality (maybe you can understand this) MOST of the day-to-day operations are in the hands of non-coms in their early twenties. Jarhead is NOT an accurate portrayal of military life or combat. See Gunner's Palace or visit Michael Yon's Gates of Fire blog to see first hand descriptions and photos of the real guys and what they need (basically, better small arms and more support back home).

I could respect Murtha if he stood up and said "dump the M-16 and go back to the M-14 whatever it takes." As it is now he's a fool.

A positive is that the troops will see the vote count and feel that we support their efforts even though the rhetoric has gone to far from the DEMS.

The President will be able to use this vote whenever the press starts talking about withdraw and throws meaningless polls at him.

The Senate GOP should take a lesson from the House and start calling the DEMS out on their attacks.

If the public was really asking for the troops to come home today then the vote would have been easy for the Dems to vote in favor. The fact that the Dems basically voted against immediate withdraw shows that most of these polls are worthless.

The DEMS have gone out too far on the anti-war branch.  It is time for the GOP to make sure the public sees them for what they really are. There against the war but they dare not vote that way.  

December is practicable.

little bit 3rd grade, but when murtha stands in front of a bunch of flags, gets a lot of press coverage and apparently some live CNN coverage to take more shots at the war effort and administration going into a 2 week break, it was great for the house GOP members to seize the opportunity with murtha's call for withdrawal and make the house dems say who they really are.

it seems they just like to sling mud and handcuff the war effort every chance they get.

there has been great progress in less than 3 years ! everyone should be proud of these great troops !

The vanquished by 3rd graders control NYC parking tickets thru 3rd grade imposter

Guess the Dems should be careful what they wish for. First Reid's little closed-Senate stunt finally gets Bush to take the gloves off and pushback, and now Murtha's blowhard speech backfires in their faces.

You want us out of Iraq Democrats? You had your chance to make your stand known.

Now your gutlessness will be flung back in your faces every time you open your mouth.

Wish the GOP Senators could learn a thing or 2 from this play.

This reminds of when Charles Rangel introduced legislation to reinstitute the military draft, and he voted against his own legislation.

Democrats are like children throwing a tantrum.

From the CNN article:

The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn.

Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country's political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.

From Murtha's Congressional web page:

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.  IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

So if you consider remaining until the objectives are accomplished and then gradually withdrawing a limited number of troops over the course of the next year to be the same as claiming the troops can do nothing and need to be withdrawn immediately, then yes, it's basically the same plan.  

I think most rational people will be able to tell the difference, though.

don't bring it up again.

or Alito-Bush"

That was planned a long time ago.

They would be coming back after the election, jus tlike every other election so far over there and in Afghanistan.

That is not anything like Murtha's poltroonery.

Rangel's draft vote wasn't brought up by Republicans either.

On the floor of the house he said we are the enemy in Iraq. Whose enemy? We were the Nazis enemy in Germany and the Japanese's enemy on Iwo Jima.

But seeing him live did disabuse me of one misconception. He's not senile.

And therefore has no excuse.

What would we have called a Pa. congressman that called the US the enemy in Europe in 1943?

not you.

His point was that our troops are being treated like the enemy. A recent UK poll conducted in Iraq reveals that millions of Iraqis support suicide attacks against our troops:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

Guess we shoulda packed up and left Normandy after the first shot proved we were "the enemy in Europe" and "fueling" insurgency

Wonder if these sadaam leftovers and zarqawi would stop trying to overthrow the elected government of the 95% purple fingers folks they terrorized for 35 years if we leave

may be some other fuel over there

maybe they made some enemies with all that mass murder and limb choppin

get up off the floor and answer that

and mail it to the millions murdered after we murtha-ed the vietnamese and to the folks murthas army wants to abandop now...when practicable

Iraqi civilians weren't supposed to be the enemy-- we weren't supposed to be the occupiers but the liberators

To suggest that the Iraqi civilians all think the same thing. They aren't all enemies or all allies. Clearly there will be some Iraqi "civilians" that are going to be our enemies. And many more that aren't.

that I made earlier tonight with a Dem friend.  If GOP gains seats in the Senate and the House in 2006, he owes me dinner; vice versa should the Dems gain.

After this vote, after the pushback from the White House, after the failed Fitzmas... I'd hate to be a Democrat right now.  Try running a consistent message after this:

"I stand for making verrry tough speeches!"

Not a winning slogan.

Great move by the House GOP leadership on this one.

-TS

That makes perfect sense. This is why I was concerned to see this poll suggesting that not all, but the majority of Iraqis (80%) want us to leave and think that suicide attacks on our troops are justified! (The link is in the comment above-- I posted it in another story as well). I find this very worrisome.

sees 2 massive purple finger elections with his eyes but worries about a poll that directly contradicts same

or who pretends to

and I worry about the mental state of people that truly cant separate fact from fiction but are able to register to vote and about how those that lie sleep at night

Gamecock, I'm confused.

Are you suggesting that it's not possible that Iraqis could both value and exercise their right to vote (the aforementioned purple fingers) AND at the same time not like or appreciate or wish ill upon the American forces present in their country?

You suggest that the turnout results of the election(s), and the poll results revealing that 45% of Iraqis feel it justified to attack US forces is a contradiction.

Is it not entirely possible that those 45% of Iraqis also valued and exercised their right to vote?

Or do you somehow know for a fact that those two points are mutually exclusive?

And how is it that you know that one of these points is fact and the other is fiction?

How do you know this? Explain.

of the SAT - the analogy would be to Congressman Hunter introducing this legislation and then voting against it.  Now if they had brought up Murtha's resolution, you would have the right to crow.  But as it is, your analogy is hopelessly dumb and gave me a good laugh as you just insulted your own party.  Nice work

**GLEE** I will take from this house vote, I disagree that this will change anything for the house in 2006.

The threat against Republican-held seats 2006 comes from anti-war crazy people who are not elected yet, and they were not part of the house vote.

This vote really didn't do anything, except shut the Democratic Party up as a whole.

"The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn."

If there are a host of milestones which have to be hit before withdrawal, and those milestones deal with events over which we don't have total control, it isn't logical to atttach a date to withdrawal, especially a date of 2006.  Those kinds of deadlines are fine for business, where you can put in overtime if it looks like milestone AB isn't going to be achieved on time, but in Iraq the Islamo-fascists, Syria, and Iran are a big part of the mix.

Note:  We are now leaving Germany.  They are now stable (and a single country again, I might add).  It only took sixty years and the fall of the Soviet Union, and they already basically knew how to play by the same rules we do.

The point of your comment, however, is quite logical.

I know that the Iraqis are human and so that the 85-90% of shiites, Kurds and outside the loop sunnis did not appreciate 30 years of tyrannical facist mass murderous rue by the 5-190% minority.

I am an informed citizen, ie am not under the illusion that the msm is the real world, since, I can watch live events and then watch the coverages by the msm and compare that coverage first to Rush for many years and then to Fox and then to the many internet sites available.

I was in denial about it till 2001, but I knew...

I see the msm lie about live events I watched in toto.

I see the formerly oppressed bravely voting and enlisting in the rubble of the dead bodies of former voters and enlisters to the police and army.

And some pollster would have us beleive that 90% of the 90% rejoice at the deaths of the men that removed the dictator and that fight side by side with the enlisters to kill the remnants of the former oppressor and the islamo-facists that blow up nursery schools

cognitive dissonence

or racism

or pure moronic, youthful naivete

balfour, I cant tell where you are coming from, as you at times appear sweetly naive or a pox on all their houses non-thinking scoffer or as a no-life pest, but I appologize if you are the former and stand ready to help educate you given your frequent admissions of misunderstanding or ignorance on many subjects on which i am neither

I understand

the wise learn from the smart

make it so

put yourself in their shoes

and quit taking the hate america arguments of the left seriously

all people hate murdersous dictators more than liberating foreigners

the goodness of america in those soldiers is evident and appreciated by the brave Iraqi people

i stand in awe of them and us

the American people

at least 51%

and anyopne that can find red state can find the truth about Iraq

find it and be happy

outside of your own echo chamber, as you point out to Joe and Jane Sixpack how the Murtha and Hunter Resolutions are truly night and day.

They're not, of course.  But, that's your case to make.

Strength and honor!

This vote really didn't do anything, except shut the Democratic Party up as a whole.

All in all, not a bad day's work for the GOP House team.  

Now, on to Thanksgiving!

he's talking about the extra brigades deployed in September to increase strenght during the constitution vote and the December election, right?

So you do realize you're comparing grapes to pumpkins?

That's what is left when moby's are rendered.

 I read one of Yon's dispatches from Mosul where some guy stopped three M-9 rounds at less than 10 feet, and was still breathing - the old .45 ACP would've put him through a wall, even if it was tough to hit anything with it. The M-14's a great rifle, but heavy, especially the ammo, although the extra weight shouldn't matter on short patrols. But even so, anything hit by it stays down. Don't know if it's really suitable for urban theaters but absolutely perfect for Afghanistan. You gave some solid, practical advice.

the fine nuance of the poltroon party is lost on reasnoable people.

That the dim party has not the conviction or even the strength of its poses of conviciotn is plain to see.

The DNC does in fact have a plan, which it implements at every level and every way:

Stab in the back those who are working hard, combined with run away from every stand, and every conflict which may require ingegrity and character to maintain.

The DNC is the party of the Dr. chairman who ducks and runs from debating his RNC counterpart, of the Presidential candidate who voted for it before he voted against it, and now of the paty that cheers the call for immediate withdrawal and then the next day votes overwhlemingly against it.

What entertainment value.

God Bless us everyone! Now pass the turkey!

Your comment alone proves that the MSM is able to distort the message coming from Iraq that the entire  population of Iraq views us as "occupiers".  

Iraq has a population of 26,074,906 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html and out of that less than .5% are insurgents and of that, a majority aren't even Iraqi.

Your point on the assumption of homogeneity of Iraqis is a good one. It's silly to assume that all Iraqis think a like. Just as it's probably silly to assume that all Republicans or Democrats think alike.

With respect to the poll results from on the ground in Iraq, I guess what you're saying, in short, is that you simply don't believe those two polls.

I was just trying to get a sense of whether you had specific insight into the veracity of those polls, how the results were derived, and perhaps which types of Iraqis were or were not polled.

To answer your question about myself, I would say that I am firmly in the middle on the Iraq war, and am generally highly distrustful of partisan talking points from either the Left or the Right.

I find them to be unhelpful and often misleading. Your description of me as a "pox on both your houses" is relatively accurate.

So I ask questions, concede that I am perhaps less informed on some issues than I'd like to be, and always caveat the answers with where the information is coming from.

you are a good man who I expect to teach me a thing or to as well, as maybe you just did...

humility!

thanks guy

From: spectre-association@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:43 PM

To: spectre-association@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Iraq Insight.

Great info from Iraq

Howdy,

This was sent to me by a USAF friend.

Note the mention of Spectre Gunships.

Cheers - - - Charlie :-)

-----------------

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested

guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son Jordan, who

was on his first leave since returning from Iraq. He is well (a little

thin), and already bored. He will be returning to Iraq for a second tour in

early 06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4 more years. He loves the

Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to returning to Iraq.

Jordan spent 7 months at Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache. He

saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me 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 birds eye views 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 its 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 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 .45s 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 700s. 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 Hathcocks 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 IEDs 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

Surefires, and the troops love em. Invaluable for night urban operations.

Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I can't 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 AK47s . 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 Jordans

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 IEDs 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 Jordans NCOs lost a leg

to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage inside the wire. Jordans 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 at line which is the trail

of towns along the Euphrates River that weve 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., the police forces and the Army.

The have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq

war in the early 80s. 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 Aks and RPGs

directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like

grass every time. ( see the M2 and M240 above). Jordans 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 thats the end of that more often than not. These hole-ups are

referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeos (Allahs Waiting Room). We have the laser

guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine

F-18s, 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 were 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 Iraqis 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 Zarqawis use of suicide bombers, en

masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many

Iraqis 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 Iraqis 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 can't stand the thought of

Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).

Anyway guys, thats it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.

*    Visit your group "spectre-association

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spectre-association "

It sounds good and is a real morale booster, but its origins are murky, and some of the statements about weaponry are apparently in dispute.

The next time you cut and paste something, check it for profanity. We're very serious about the no profanity thing.

First of all, there isn't a "J-22".  There's the JSF, or Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) or the F-22, both of which are just coming out of the starting gate.  Langley's only had the F-22 for what, a year?  And I think it was only in the operational test phase.  The JSF isn't even that far.  It takes a decade or two (or more) to get all the bugs worked out to make the new aircraft become as useful as the "legacy" aircraft.  You are talking long-term goals, which we are already working toward, not short-term ones.

The B-1 is an general purpose albatross.  It was designed for only one thing, supersonic low level penetration of air defences for nuclear bombing.  Maybe the B-2 can replace the B-52, but to make it affordable, maintainable, and not a security nightmare, it would have to dump it's stealth capability and go through a series of modifications.  These two jets (well, the B-52 as well) were designed to take on the USSR and we had to scramble throughout the 90s and even now to modify them for any kind of conventional role.

I think they are considering replacing the Buff (B-52) (replacing the capability; not necessarily with another bomber); if they are (and aren't secretly working it already), that is many years (at least a few) off.  Otherwise, the B-52 is slated to be our long-range workhorse until 2040 (last I heard.)  It's an airborne version of a dump truck.  She's a bear to maintain, but she's a fearsome beast.  Not sure the DoD isn't being a little optimistic that the frames will last that long but...

We've already done (and are still doing) a lot with conventional munitions (I'm not talking small arms, I'm talking bombs and missiles) to increase range, increase lethality, decrease size, increase accuracy, etc.  I'm a little biased (worked in both munitions and aircraft maintenance) but I don't think we're as bad off as you think we are.  These things take a lot of time, not just because of bureaucracy, but also because of funding, safety, testing, and so on.  I don't agree with the downsizing that's currently going on, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed by lawmakers to change laws overseeing personnel caps (we oversized in the late 90s to fill in the middle managers and the first couple years of the 00s due to the war and now are "right sizing".  Again the pendulum swings.  They are doing it a more sanely this time, but I still think it's crazy to do it at all when there's a war on.  They had hardly any takers for their "Blue to Green" programs and so on.  We're on the edge of another RIF-like program which will again hit the lower-ranking Airmen, enlisted and officer alike.)

Never the draft.  Never, never, never, never the draft.  I'm a reservist and was active duty for seven years (just left AD).  I don't think you'd find too many leaders--at ANY level--who'd think it was a good thing to reinstate the draft.  That would be the very last resort of a dying American military, IMHO.  I don't want Airmen (regardless of rank) working for me who didn't make the choice to enlist of their own free will. It's not my father's AF any longer--wall to wall counseling is no longer "in".  That's trouble in a force that's not all volunteer (it's bad enough when it IS all volunteer, but that's another story.)  

the first time I've seen this, but earlier I responded to a post on another thread concerning the .45 ACP and M-14; I don't know the other weapons, but what exactly is in dispute? The original M-14 had a wooden stock to absorb a pretty bad kick and replacing it with a Kevlar stock instead of a plastic one like the M-16 reads sensible and accurate to me. To me, the e-mail looks legit with the one proviso that the M-14's harder to clean than an M-16.

Maybe the B-2 can replace the B-52, but to make it affordable, maintainable, and not a security nightmare, it would have to dump it's stealth capability and go through a series of modifications.

As much as I love the B-2, that ship has sailed.

1. The B-2 is already eminently maintainable (except for LO) and would have been lots more affordable at the scale of the originally planned buy (132 aircraft) than it was for the 21 actually delivered.
   
2. Northrup-Grumman is in no way prepared to begin production of B-2s again after all this time. In fact, I'm pretty sure they sold their Pico Rivera facility back in the late 90's. Also, the "series of modifications" you call for would remove it from the realm of "build to spec" to "full-scale development" requiring an entirely new cycle of developmental and operational testing.
   
3. Dumping the stealth capability gives you a slow, unmaneuverable platform that carries less payload than the B-52. Without LO technology, they could add a picture of the B-2 to this dictionary definition.

If we need to replace the B-52 now (and I'm not sure we do), then we need a brand new design using current technology. That effort may already have begun as a black program -- the first 10 years of the B-2's development was under wraps, wasn't it?

now would be a good time. This thread is about a GOP tactical success in the media.  Which is the party who has not lost "faith" in the troops & the troops' mission?  

Perhaps it's time to find another faithless generation to hang with?

?

you already left left GOP 6 weeks ago over the Miers nomination on 6 Oct 05.  Why didn't you stay away?  Bored with the Kossacks?

http://punkstar.redstate.org/comments/2005/9/18/173626/767/180#180

ah, you did leave (and with a parting shot in endorsing Hillary, to boot...http://punkstar.redstate.org/story/2005/10/6/10574/7082).  I'm in Boston, too, serving in the military.  

Do you box, by chance?  We could teach each other things:  you could demonstrate how to take a defeat gracefully while I demonstrate how to win.  You are, after all, experienced in taking defeats, as defeat is the ever-present North PunkStar in your 4 comments + diary.  

The stakes will be, if I win, you remain defeated & stay away (or join the Dems to battle...then you can threaten them with the deprivation of your support--truly a fearsome threat). I feel deprived only of a gauntlet and frustrated by the anti-dueling laws of the 19th century.  

I'm 6 & 1, so you have a chance, but only if you uncharacteristically refrain from giving up before we get started.  Propose the stakes if you win.  Of course, you could only win on points given your evident display of the killer instinct.  

Garand M-1.

...I recommend my blog post earlier today: http://neoconcentral.blogdrive.com/archive/6.html

...who's recently finished up all his obligations.  He was over today: knew about the email, nodded along with the main gist, agreed vehemently about the 7.62 thing.

So I guess that I'm agreeing with you.  :)

Didn't vote.  I would have assumed he'd vote yes.

What concerns me is the age of the airframes. My own view is that the B-52 is at the end of it's life; we need something to dump a LOT of munitions on bad guys in close air support, we saw directly how effective that was in Afghanistan.

I think with national industrial mobilization and directly outside the usual procurement cycles a new bomber to perform the B-52 role is doable. It's my considered opinion that the airmen of the USAF deserve the best and we should spend the money to give it to them. If that means forgoing Ag supports, bridges to nowhere, and other stuff, so be it.

I'm also concerned with the age of the current airframes, you are right the JSF and F-22 are different; supposedly to those flying the F-22 that airframe is an order of magnitude more efficient than the current fighters. Our pilots also IMHO deserve the very best and latest.

I'd be more than happy to kill the Osprey to pay for this.

Agreed on the Draft; what stands out is the tremendous amount of skill, leadership, and intelligence required at all levels of the military. A draft I'm convinced would clog up the military with people too stupid to be soldiers.

But I think we've seen a common thread from Mogadishu onwards that in the hostile, often urban, desert environment the troops want a more effective round than the .223; and a different design than the M-16 which is direct blowback and thus subject by design to carbon buildup on the firing pin. Embarrassing when the weapon jams in combat to say the least. Troops deserve the best and the argument that NATO standardization requires the .223 and 9 mm is to me a non-starter now; given NATO's complete uselessness in our current situation.

I would prefer our troops be able to outrange their enemies and kill them before the bad guys have the range. I don't think the .223 does that now.

Which brings my larger point ... this is a subject Murtha could press, without undermining the war effort. It would offer Democrats an avenue to provide an alternative to the President without being merely the Cindy Sheehan joke that they are becoming.

It is a sad thing we don't have a realistic opposition party.

I don't know beans about guns(weird for a southern boy, huh?)but some of the commenters at Ace's blog, who passed themselves off as authorities, disputed several items beyond the point of nit-picking.  Ace even directed readers to these comments for a dose of "healthy skepticism", but that caveat no longer appears below the story, and the comments are apparently gone.  Someone at Tim Worstall thought part of it was recycled Vietnam-era stuff, but offered no proof. I seem to recall seeing something similar early in the Iraq war. I like this kind of thing, but I prefer to "trust but verify".  Almost all of the comments I read about it were positive, and if y'all here vouch for it, I'll just shut up.

Arrrggghhh.

You are an Iraqi citizen. You, or someone you know, has suffered the loss or injury of a family member.  You are tired of this war, but you are patient.  Many things are better now than before the war, but some are worse. Then some rosy-cheeked guy from the Telegraph pops in the door of your shop with his interpreter, and he wants YOUR opinion on some things!  This is interesting to you.  The jihadi fighting the Americans have never asked what you think, so you've never had the chance to pour cold rage on these murderous thugs who are the ones keeping the Americans here.  Then again, you'd probably be killed if you did.

But this Telegraph guy certainly doesn't look threatening, and you can see that he is writing down what you say, so you vent a little bit.  It's safe venting that won't get you in trouble with the savages who would harm you for your words.  Yes, you tell them, you would like to see the Americans gone from Iraq.  What you don't tell them, and you weren't asked anyway, is that you would like to see the Jihadis gone yesterday, and you just want to be left in peace. In fact, you take this opportunity to jab at the people represented by this pollster, and you tell him that the Jihadis cause is just. The Americans won't like this, but they'll sit up and take notice for once.  And they won't come knocking down your door to jail you for it, either.

Presently, the pollster takes his leave, and you decide to give your opinion to the insurgents, even though they haven't asked, or maybe because they haven't asked.  You will drop the dime on the car-bomb factory down the street and then you will vote in December.