Finally Some Great News Out Of Iraq

[Matty]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050610/ts_washpost/building_iraq_s_army__mission_improbable

Don't get discouraged by the beginning- it gets better.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally Some Great News Out Of Iraq. Don't get discouraged by the beginning- it gets better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.

[ QUOTE ]
end of article: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050610/ts_washpost/building_iraq_s_army__mission_improbable) Along dirt roads bisected by sewage canals, the men of [the Iraqi army's] Charlie Company crouched, their weapons ready. Before them was their home town, dilapidated and neglected. Cpl. Amir Omar, 19, gazed ahead.
<font color="white"> . </font>
"Look at the homes of the Iraqis," he said, a handkerchief concealing his face. "The people have been destroyed."
<font color="white"> . </font>
By whom? he was asked.
<font color="white"> . </font>
"Them," Omar said, pointing at the U.S. Humvees leading the patrol.
* * *


[/ QUOTE ]

[Matty]

Yeah I was just kidding about there being any good news.

With the current recruiting crisis, military estimates are that even if we move troops out of S. Korea and Europe to Iraq, we're going to be in serious trouble within 6 months.

This article shows Iraq will not nearly be able to govern itself in 6 mos.

So basically, in my eyes, we spent 180 billion to give Iraq a civil war when one bullet would have sufficed.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
With the current recruiting crisis, military estimates are that even if we move troops out of S. Korea and Europe to Iraq, we're going to be in serious trouble within 6 months.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't that supposed to happen six months ago?

I suppose the great thing about predicing doom for tomorrow is that if it doesn't happen you're still around to predict it for the day after tomorrow.

[ACPlayer]

when one bullet would have sufficed.

There was never any need for any bullets. Period.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't that supposed to happen six months ago?

[/ QUOTE ]I never heard any military officials say that, although there are many now complaining that we don't currently have enough troops- so I suppose they could have, and been correct although to a lesser degree than what they're predicting now.

Mind sharing your source on the 6 months ago thing?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
With the current recruiting crisis, military estimates are that even if we move troops out of S. Korea and Europe to Iraq, we're going to be in serious trouble within 6 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if we raise taxes enough to pay our troops enough so that their pay would actually match the risk and hardship they must face.

Surely the Dems wouldn't object to raising taxes for a worthy cause, now would they?

Alternatively, we could just cut the PORK and raise the military pay scale (how many think this might be a better idea?)

If troops are paid enough, we'll have plenty of troops. It's pretty simple.

[Matty]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/local/11759933.htm

"The 2006 military pay raise, which the Senate is expected to match, would be the seventh annual military raise to exceed private sector wage growth, further narrowing a perceived gap.

Other highlights of the House-passed bill include:

Hardship duty pay: The monthly $300 ceiling would rise to $750.

Bonuses: Maximum enlistment bonuses would climb from $20,000 to $30,000 for active duty and from $10,000 to $15,000 for reserve. The ceiling on active reenlistment bonuses would jump from $60,000 to $90,000."

They've also raised the maximum age allowed to enlist twice in the last year, and it now stands at somewhere around 40 (you'd have to look it up yourself).

Your posts are so insightful MMM.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get discouraged by the beginning- it gets better

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit its been discouraging hearing reports about the commitment of the Iraqis. Even more discouraging is it seems the American causalties are spiking right now. Worst of all, I don't see this insurgency subsiding anytime soon.

I do have some problems with the article though. I'm sure there have been some successes with the Iraqi army, but the article seems to have left them out. I wonder why? At the minimum it is shoddy journalism, more likely the writers have thier own agenda. Hopefully you reckognize that mr Grey.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

Well I think they deserve higher pay, Grey, especially in light of the fact that the profession is now much more hazardous (and even after the Iraq War is over, will probably continue to be, due to the War On Terror).

I don't like the idea of raising taxes to pay for increased pay; it would seem better to do it by slashing the budget elsewhere.

If there is yet still a recruitment shortfall, pay needs to be raised yet further. When an equilibrium level of risk/reward is reached in the eyes of the average recruit or soldier, we will no longer suffer serious shortfalls in recruitment or manpower.

[kurto]

I don't know why you assume its a question of pay.

People are pessimistic about where Iraq is going and how this administration is handling out. They know that the reason we were told we were going there was a crock. The American people are disillusioned about the war.

People don't want to be sent there. Throwing them a few extra dollars isn't going to change that.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
At the minimum it is shoddy journalism, more likely the writers have thier own agenda. Hopefully you reckognize that mr Grey.

[/ QUOTE ]Show us what the article left out, due to their "agenda" Mr. Stu.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Not if we raise taxes enough to pay our troops enough so that their pay would actually match the risk and hardship they must face.

Surely the Dems wouldn't object to raising taxes for a worthy cause, now would they?

Alternatively, we could just cut the PORK and raise the military pay scale (how many think this might be a better idea?)

If troops are paid enough, we'll have plenty of troops. It's pretty simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

OR...
we could stop getting in prohibitivly expensive, potentially unwinnable, morally questionable, bloody, pre-emptive wars.

just a thought.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not if we raise taxes enough to pay our troops enough so that their pay would actually match the risk and hardship they must face.

Surely the Dems wouldn't object to raising taxes for a worthy cause, now would they?

Alternatively, we could just cut the PORK and raise the military pay scale (how many think this might be a better idea?)

If troops are paid enough, we'll have plenty of troops. It's pretty simple.

[/ QUOTE ]



OR...
we could stop getting in prohibitivly expensive, potentially unwinnable, morally questionable, bloody, pre-emptive wars.

just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

That thought (or a similar one) occurred to me too.

The problem, however, is greater than Iraq, greater than Afghanistan, and greater than "getting into wars".

The terrorists took the war of terror to us in a big way on 9/11. The world has since become a more dangerous place in many ways, including but not limited to: a more clear-cut "war" between the forces of terror and the West, increased nuclear proliferation dangers, and some other things.

Therefore U.S. military personnel can expect a higher personal risk to themselves, than during the Cold War. U.S. soldiers will likely be involved overseas fighting terror (amd trying to control the chaos in Iraq) even if we don't get into any new wars. And of course Iran and North Korea are wild cards, too.

So I agree that without the Iraq war, at present there probably wouldn't have been a shortfall. That however does not mean that recruitment shortfalls wouldn't have become an issue in the future, though--even if we were to avoid getting into another (perhaps ill-advised) war. All in all I think more hazardous duty or greater chance of seeing fighting -------&gt; greater pay scale.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Show us what the article left out, due to their "agenda" Mr. Stu.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall anything in the article concerning the successes or failures of Iraqi Special Forces. I'm not going to spoon feed you Mr Grey. If you want a well rounded assessment of the going ons in Iraq, you're going to have do you own leg work.

Stu

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit its been discouraging hearing reports about the commitment of the Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember the American soldiers explaining to a journalist the South Vietnamese flag (three red, thin horizontal lines over a yellow background):

"Yellow, sir, is for the courage displayed in battle and red is for the blood unshed."

Plus ca change...

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember the American soldiers explaining to a journalist the South Vietnamese flag (three red, thin horizontal lines over a yellow background):

"Yellow, sir, is for the courage displayed in battle and red is for the blood unshed."

Plus ca change

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of the problems with courage and commitment of Iraqi soilders would be solved if the Iraqi government would start prosecuting deserters. This insurgency isn't going to be put down without getting our hands dirty. Its time to bring back the fireing squad.

Stu

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Its time to bring back the fireing squad.

[/ QUOTE ]More killing! Brilliant!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
The terrorists took the war of terror to us in a big way on 9/11...


[/ QUOTE ]

There it is again. 9/11 and the war on terror really had nothing to do with Iraq. If anything, Iraq has been a great recruitment for anti-US terrorism.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

More killing! Brilliant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Its an accepted form of punishment for deserters.

Stu

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Its an accepted form of punishment for deserters.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]I am so thankful you will never be in a position to make any important decisions like these.

I'll leave it to the military brass to look for real solutions.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1118638276289660.xml&amp;coll=1

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
There it is again. 9/11 and the war on terror really had nothing to do with Iraq. If anything, Iraq has been a great recruitment for anti-US terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall terrorist having any problems recruiting prior to 911. If anything they seem to be blowing themselves up in substantial numbers over there instead of here.

Stu

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall terrorist having any problems recruiting prior to 911. If anything they seem to be blowing themselves up in substantial numbers over there instead of here.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]"Over there"?

Terrorist attacks have tripled worldwide (either in the last year or since 9/11, I forget) discounting Iraq.

And you "don't recall"? A hundred dollars says you didn't know who Osama Bin Laden was before 9/11.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
And you "don't recall"? A hundred dollars says you didn't know who Osama Bin Laden was before 9/11.


[/ QUOTE ]

You owe me a $100.

You don't have to send it to me though. Just donate it to the GOP in name unless of course, your going to welch.

Stu Pidasso

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall terrorist having any problems recruiting prior to 911. If anything they seem to be blowing themselves up in substantial numbers over there instead of here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I watch the occasional "Meet the Press" and other such shows. I read Time Magazine, various AP news feeds, articles, etc. Everytime one of our intelligence experts speaks about Terrorism, they constantly reassert that Terrorism is on the rise and that recruitment has increased.

All that aside... the point of this thread was the problems with Iraq. When someone says that this is just part of the problem with the war on terror and tying it into 9/11 is faulty. As we all know now, contrary to the constant attempts in the drive to war to associate the two, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorist attacks have tripled worldwide (either in the last year or since 9/11, I forget) discounting Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

You ignored the important part of his post.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You ignored the important part of his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disputing it. I even said they seem to be blowing themselves up in substantial numbers over there.

Stu

edit for accuracy

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

I am so thankful you will never be in a position to make any important decisions like these.

I'll leave it to the military brass to look for real solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet any US soldier could tell you the maximum penalty they could face if they deserted during war time. Why am I so confident? Because they hear it from the military brass.

That was a good article you linked, nevertheless it was woefully lacking in supporting your point.

Stu

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of the problems with courage and commitment of Iraqi soilders would be solved if the Iraqi government would start prosecuting deserters. This insurgency isn't going to be put down without getting our hands dirty. Its time to bring back the fireing squad.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, invade their country, kill (tens of?) thousands of civilians, level a city, turn the country into a breeding ground for western culture haters, then threaten to shoot people who don't want to fight your war for you?

Jesus.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
then threaten to shoot people who don't want to fight your war for you?


[/ QUOTE ]


Just the ones that voluntarily sign on to the Iraqi army. If they did not want to fight the war, they should have not joined the Iraqi army.

FWIW, if we started to have serious desertion problems amoung our own troops, I would suggest the same solution.

Stu