This board makes me laugh (a reality check)

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh* What is this, the 3d grade?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frequently it seems more like kindergarten.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is stupid. One guy's opinions are deemed a "reality check" by himself? Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend? You have some good points, but to call this war one of national survival is embarassingly inept, but I point you to andy's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the GWOT is not a war of national survival what do you think it is? A war of convenience? What is Al Qaeda's stated mission?

You are in fact correct that this is one guy's opinion. But I guarantee you that my insight is far broader than many simply from first hand experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to matter for John Murtha, who has insight as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "GWOT" (which I assume means greater war on terror) is certainly not about national survival. On their best day, terrorists took 3,000 lives. More than that number were born that day. Terrorism is a media operation. It intends to strike fear into the population, because they cannot win a conventional war. You really think there's a legit chance of total destruction? I guess nuclear weapons could come into play, even though they would not decimate the nation. Regardless, I was referring more to the war in Iraq specifically.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is stupid. One guy's opinions are deemed a "reality check" by himself? Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend? You have some good points, but to call this war one of national survival is embarassingly inept, but I point you to andy's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the GWOT is not a war of national survival what do you think it is? A war of convenience? What is Al Qaeda's stated mission?

You are in fact correct that this is one guy's opinion. But I guarantee you that my insight is far broader than many simply from first hand experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to matter for John Murtha, who has insight as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "GWOT" (which I assume means greater war on terror) is certainly not about national survival. On their best day, terrorists took 3,000 lives. More than that number were born that day. Terrorism is a media operation. It intends to strike fear into the population, because they cannot win a conventional war. You really think there's a legit chance of total destruction? I guess nuclear weapons could come into play, even though they would not decimate the nation. Regardless, I was referring more to the war in Iraq specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its fair to say that you think you are right and I think you are wrong.

[sweetjazz]

Hey PR -- First, I want to say that I really appreciate your service and sacrifice in the military. I have a lot of respect for what you do (I'll be the first to admit I couldn't cut it in the military), and I believe strongly that our soldiers deserve to be treated well -- both by giving them the resources they need for their missions and taking care of them after they come home. I hope you are able to find your way onto Party and rake in some extra bucks in between your deployments. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion about this war, but I respect where you are coming from and I want to become better informed. My primary objection to the war in Iraq is that I fear that the presence of American troops in the Middle East is recruiting as many or more terrorists than you and other brave soldiers are killing and capturing. This is based on reading different sources regarding what is going on down there, as you are right that I obviously don't know anything first hand.

Maybe you could help answer some questions for me. To what extent is the "insurgency" in Iraq made up of Arab terrorists who were already plotting against the U.S. before the war in Iraq? How many of them are disgruntled Sunnis?

How good is our intelligence finding terrorists? We have been told that we have eliminated many of the members of al Qaeda who had leadership roles in 2001, and it looks like we have made a good deal of progress disrupting the organizational capacity of al Qaeda. In my opinion, this has been our best achievement in the "War on Terror." But is al Qaeda filling these holes with new recruits? Are other terrorist organizations being created with similar goals against America?

I too find the threat of terrorism to be very serious and worth fighting. I am just skeptical that we are on the right course to minimize the prospect of another major attack. I think we are blessed that we have not been attacked since 2001, but I am concerned that it seems like there are even more Arab terrorists with designs on killing many Americans.

Anyway, I'd love hearing more about what you have experienced, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. (I'd especially be interested in how similar or different you think the enemy is in these two locations.) You definitely have an insight that the rest of us don't, and it would be great if you could share it with us.

God bless you and thank you for what you done for me and other Americans.

"I hope you are able to find your way onto Party and rake in some extra bucks in between your deployments."

Thanks, and I do [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

"I don't necessarily agree with your opinion about this war, but I respect where you are coming from and I want to become better informed. My primary objection to the war in Iraq is that I fear that the presence of American troops in the Middle East is recruiting as many or more terrorists than you and other brave soldiers are killing and capturing. This is based on reading different sources regarding what is going on down there, as you are right that I obviously don't know anything first hand."

I think there is some merit to what you say. I think our presence clearly outrages the fundementalists, encourages the Arabs who crave democracy, and make most Arab leaders uncomfortable.

"Maybe you could help answer some questions for me. To what extent is the "insurgency" in Iraq made up of Arab terrorists who were already plotting against the U.S. before the war in Iraq? How many of them are disgruntled Sunnis?"

Now, more of the former rather than the later. I think the insurgency would've run its course by now if it hadn't been for the foriegn fighters. The vast majority of all casualties today are caused by non-Iraqi's.

"How good is our intelligence finding terrorists? We have been told that we have eliminated many of the members of al Qaeda who had leadership roles in 2001, and it looks like we have made a good deal of progress disrupting the organizational capacity of al Qaeda. In my opinion, this has been our best achievement in the "War on Terror." But is al Qaeda filling these holes with new recruits? Are other terrorist organizations being created with similar goals against America?"

Our Int is good, gets better over time and so does the terrorists ability to counter it. It is a constantly evolving spectrum. As we take out members, the gaps get filled by less experienced players for the most part. Much of our success has been through improved cooperation between the military and other government organizations and those organizations between each other. Hopefully, that can continue.

"I too find the threat of terrorism to be very serious and worth fighting. I am just skeptical that we are on the right course to minimize the prospect of another major attack. I think we are blessed that we have not been attacked since 2001, but I am concerned that it seems like there are even more Arab terrorists with designs on killing many Americans."

In many ways we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. We have broadened our rules somewhat but we still fight by a set of rules, which is a good thing. Our enemy have no rules which makes it difficult for us. For Example, studies show that torture is a bad method for gaining true, valuable information. Sleep deprivation is a very good tool, which is not allowed to its fullest extent.
On your second point, I think there is some merit to the thinking that fighting abroad is reducing the risk at home. I have no way to prove that but it seems to be the case.

"Anyway, I'd love hearing more about what you have experienced, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. (I'd especially be interested in how similar or different you think the enemy is in these two locations.) You definitely have an insight that the rest of us don't, and it would be great if you could share it with us."

Similar and different in many, many ways.

[sweetjazz]

PR -- Thanks for your reply and I am glad to hear you are busting the fish in addition to fighting the bad guys.

I guess I have one major question that I haven't been able to answer. What does it mean to "win" the War on Terror, and what kind of casualties (fatalities and injuries) will it realistically take to win? Does winning mean the complete elimination of all people who support killing American civilians (this would seem like a never ending task)? Does it mean weakening the terrorist organizations so that they cannnot plot an attack on American without great difficulty (and does this mean that we still have a basically never ending task)? Does it mean reducing the capabilities of terrorists so that while they might still be able to launch small scale attacks (car bombs), they cannot succeed in a large scale attack like 9/11?

Of course, I would like to see terrorists eliminated completely, but what is the cost in doing so? We have already lost several thousand American troops and seen tens of thousands more be seriously injured. Based on your post and my encounters with other people in the military, I can see that the military is made of up really special and heroic people. I value highly the sacrifice you and your fellow soldiers are making, but I also recognize how valuable it is to everyone (especially the people who know you well) to bring you back safe and sound.

I think the War on Terror is complicated, because I don't think we can just do what the Islamists are demanding (removing our troops from the Middle East) and it's not clear at this point whether they would stop attacking us even if we did. But at the same time, when I see how many American troops have been killed, how many have been injured, how many Iraqis have been killed, it's hard for me to call what's happening "winning." If this is what victory looks like, then it comes with a heavy pricetag.

I think that is something that bothers a lot of us who don't agree with the war in Iraq but do support the war on terror (though maybe not as much as you think we should). In Afghanistan, it seemed like we made a lot of progress. We really routed al Qaeda's organizational capacities and killed or captured many key operatives. (I'm including subsequent captures in Pakistan, like Kalid Sheikh-Mohammed.) At the same time, we were able to limit our casualties because our goals were rather modest. We routed the Taliban (necessary because of their support for al Qaeda) and oversaw a regime change, but we were successful it seems because Afghanistan is a small country, the Afghani people strongly wanted the American military presence to fill the leadership vacuum, and we chose a mission which had relatively well-defined objectives. Even without finding Osama bin Laden (and the fact that the Afghan government is now descending into chaos again), I think the Afghan war was largely a success.

In contrast, we have lost many more lives in Iraq, and from what I see reported, it does not look like we have made nearly as many gains. It seems like American officials are still struggling to figure out the insurgency. Despite the fact that we have the best military in the world that always completes the mission they are assigned, the insurgency has strengthened over time, not weakened. That tells me that they are winning the political battle and the battle for civilian support -- it's obvious to me that they can never win in direct military confrontations. Moreover, they have now made our policy decisions hard. Do we increase the intensity of our searches for insurgents to try to stop their progress, at the risk of alienating ordinary Iraqis? (A lot of people in Washington -- I mean policy folks not our Congressman and Senators who are too busy grandstanding on the issue -- now think we were too aggressive in pursuing the insurgents earlier and alienated too many Iraqi families.) But without increasing the intensity of our pursuit, how do we expect to weaken the insurgency?

It is these kind of complexities that make it hard for me to support the decision to go to war in Iraq (though now that we are there, I do believe we must do what we can to "win" by providing the Iraqis the necessary resources -- political and military -- to maintain their new democratic system). Yes, I want to "win" the war on terrorism by making it less likely that a terrorist can pull off an attack like the one we tragically saw on 9/11. I am just not sure that the aggressive approach of looking everywhere for places to attack them is the best strategy. I think it is better to pick our spots. We reduce the losses and strain on our military; we give the enemy less recruiting propoganda to try to get new recruits; yet we still pursue them aggressively when the conditions are favorable for us.

Ultimately, I think our nation still has to accept that there is always a risk of terrorist attack and we can never completely eliminate it. If we go after Saddam Hussein, then that buys time for Kim Jong-Il. If we destroy terror training camps in Afghanistan, new ones will likely emerge in Somalia or Egypt. Like you said, it is a cat and mouse game, with both sides trying to get one step ahead of the other. Because of that, we have to make good strategic decisions about how to go after terrorists. Is it better to try to pursue their individual cells, or is it better to get after heads of rogue states who might ultimately supply the cells with weapons? Will going after a head of state create a power vacuum that will lead to the creation of many new cells? Will going after individual cells be stymied by their hiding in a state controlled by a rogue leader? Can we achieve our objectives through the threat of military force without using it? (Arguably, we were doing so in Iraq before the war started, albeit somewhat imperfectly.)

My main concerns regarding the leadership in this country is not whether they are pursuing the right goals (at least in terms of foreign policy), but whether they are doing so in the smartest and most strategic way. We all know Saddam Hussein was a bad bad man and was evil (just like Kim Jong-Il and several other heads of state are); but just because he is very bad and evil does not mean that it is necessarily in the best interest of the U.S. to remove him from power. While there were some positive consequences of the war, there have also been some negative consequences. I have my doubts as to whether President Bush can effectively weigh the two considerations and come to the right conclusion. (In fairness to him, he has to appear optomistic in his speeches even when things are obviously not going as well as he says they are in order to try to keep morale up and support for the war from eroding.)

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

Cheers,
Mike

[ QUOTE ]
PR -- Thanks for your reply and I am glad to hear you are busting the fish in addition to fighting the bad guys.

I guess I have one major question that I haven't been able to answer. What does it mean to "win" the War on Terror, and what kind of casualties (fatalities and injuries) will it realistically take to win? Does winning mean the complete elimination of all people who support killing American civilians (this would seem like a never ending task)? Does it mean weakening the terrorist organizations so that they cannnot plot an attack on American without great difficulty (and does this mean that we still have a basically never ending task)? Does it mean reducing the capabilities of terrorists so that while they might still be able to launch small scale attacks (car bombs), they cannot succeed in a large scale attack like 9/11?

Of course, I would like to see terrorists eliminated completely, but what is the cost in doing so? We have already lost several thousand American troops and seen tens of thousands more be seriously injured. Based on your post and my encounters with other people in the military, I can see that the military is made of up really special and heroic people. I value highly the sacrifice you and your fellow soldiers are making, but I also recognize how valuable it is to everyone (especially the people who know you well) to bring you back safe and sound.

I think the War on Terror is complicated, because I don't think we can just do what the Islamists are demanding (removing our troops from the Middle East) and it's not clear at this point whether they would stop attacking us even if we did. But at the same time, when I see how many American troops have been killed, how many have been injured, how many Iraqis have been killed, it's hard for me to call what's happening "winning." If this is what victory looks like, then it comes with a heavy pricetag.

I think that is something that bothers a lot of us who don't agree with the war in Iraq but do support the war on terror (though maybe not as much as you think we should). In Afghanistan, it seemed like we made a lot of progress. We really routed al Qaeda's organizational capacities and killed or captured many key operatives. (I'm including subsequent captures in Pakistan, like Kalid Sheikh-Mohammed.) At the same time, we were able to limit our casualties because our goals were rather modest. We routed the Taliban (necessary because of their support for al Qaeda) and oversaw a regime change, but we were successful it seems because Afghanistan is a small country, the Afghani people strongly wanted the American military presence to fill the leadership vacuum, and we chose a mission which had relatively well-defined objectives. Even without finding Osama bin Laden (and the fact that the Afghan government is now descending into chaos again), I think the Afghan war was largely a success.

In contrast, we have lost many more lives in Iraq, and from what I see reported, it does not look like we have made nearly as many gains. It seems like American officials are still struggling to figure out the insurgency. Despite the fact that we have the best military in the world that always completes the mission they are assigned, the insurgency has strengthened over time, not weakened. That tells me that they are winning the political battle and the battle for civilian support -- it's obvious to me that they can never win in direct military confrontations. Moreover, they have now made our policy decisions hard. Do we increase the intensity of our searches for insurgents to try to stop their progress, at the risk of alienating ordinary Iraqis? (A lot of people in Washington -- I mean policy folks not our Congressman and Senators who are too busy grandstanding on the issue -- now think we were too aggressive in pursuing the insurgents earlier and alienated too many Iraqi families.) But without increasing the intensity of our pursuit, how do we expect to weaken the insurgency?

It is these kind of complexities that make it hard for me to support the decision to go to war in Iraq (though now that we are there, I do believe we must do what we can to "win" by providing the Iraqis the necessary resources -- political and military -- to maintain their new democratic system). Yes, I want to "win" the war on terrorism by making it less likely that a terrorist can pull off an attack like the one we tragically saw on 9/11. I am just not sure that the aggressive approach of looking everywhere for places to attack them is the best strategy. I think it is better to pick our spots. We reduce the losses and strain on our military; we give the enemy less recruiting propoganda to try to get new recruits; yet we still pursue them aggressively when the conditions are favorable for us.

Ultimately, I think our nation still has to accept that there is always a risk of terrorist attack and we can never completely eliminate it. If we go after Saddam Hussein, then that buys time for Kim Jong-Il. If we destroy terror training camps in Afghanistan, new ones will likely emerge in Somalia or Egypt. Like you said, it is a cat and mouse game, with both sides trying to get one step ahead of the other. Because of that, we have to make good strategic decisions about how to go after terrorists. Is it better to try to pursue their individual cells, or is it better to get after heads of rogue states who might ultimately supply the cells with weapons? Will going after a head of state create a power vacuum that will lead to the creation of many new cells? Will going after individual cells be stymied by their hiding in a state controlled by a rogue leader? Can we achieve our objectives through the threat of military force without using it? (Arguably, we were doing so in Iraq before the war started, albeit somewhat imperfectly.)

My main concerns regarding the leadership in this country is not whether they are pursuing the right goals (at least in terms of foreign policy), but whether they are doing so in the smartest and most strategic way. We all know Saddam Hussein was a bad bad man and was evil (just like Kim Jong-Il and several other heads of state are); but just because he is very bad and evil does not mean that it is necessarily in the best interest of the U.S. to remove him from power. While there were some positive consequences of the war, there have also been some negative consequences. I have my doubts as to whether President Bush can effectively weigh the two considerations and come to the right conclusion. (In fairness to him, he has to appear optomistic in his speeches even when things are obviously not going as well as he says they are in order to try to keep morale up and support for the war from eroding.)

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

Cheers,
Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post. You are 100% correct about the complexity of this war. We as Americans have developed a kind of Burger King mentality. We want it our way and we want it now. Unfortunately, the way this war is going to play out, our second biggest enemy could become perseverance.

What does winning mean/when will we win? I honestly don't know. I don't know if we'll ever know we've won in terms we historically understand. This is a war unlike any other we've ever fought and it challenges us in many different ways.

Iraq compared to Afghanistan is much more complex. The media doesn't tell the whole story because they don't have or desire access to it. In otherwords, very few of them want to put their lives on the line to tell it.

Someone, maybe it was you, but someone in this thread wrote that the war was being fought in the media. Beyond what I said in my OP I won't comment about the President and my comments in the OP were meant to be neutral. That being said, everytime someone important says "Bush lied about prewar intel," or "we should withdraw immediately," or "the CIA has secret prisons in Batswana," the enemy is emboldened. They feed off of that. They don't understand our culture of political debate. Does that mean we stop political debate in our country? Of course not. The only way to change their lack of understanding about political debate or free speech is to let them experience it.

[Cyrus]

"Most of you are completely out of touch with reality."

Them's fighting words, fit for an infantryman. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

"Wiretap/civil liberties/Patriot Act, etc. I think it’s questionable, but I see why the President ordered it. It would be virtually impossible to go to the court 1000s of times a day."

Well, that is what is actually happening right now! (And your number is wrong. It is way more than 1000s of times a day!) This is how criminals are getting caught daily. The system seems to be in relatively good shape, unless you choose to believe the cop show writers.

But one should make a note of the easiness with which you are willing to sacrifice a lot of your basic freedoms, because "the president must know what he's doing"...

A heapload of people, infantrymen and others, have died for Habeas Corpus. It is a sign of the times that people are willing to part with it so blithely.

"The NSA isn’t listening to you talk to your wife about picking up a loaf of bread on the way home."

But they are! The NSA are also listen in on you talk to your lover - or your boss - or whomever. They are supposed to listen to most everything and then filter out the noise and stick to the juice. And with PATRIOT, it only gets worse. So if you think that there is not enormous room for abuse here, you are mistaken.

And, by the way: The NSA kind of technology is mostly useless against the low-tech threat that is Qaeda and its branches. Bear that in mind.

"Over 80% of people like me agree that he’s doing a pretty good job based on the military vote in the last election."

If you want only professional soldiers to have the right to vote, just say so. In the meantime, this kind of percentage is as meaningful as the voting proclivities of Blonde American Women.

"Do you think 80% of the people like me are just too stupid to know better?"

You are not stupid. (I mean, I don't know you!) And it does not mean that you are not informed, either. It's just that the American military, more than any other sector of society, has been placed by the administration's actions and policies in a must-win/must-prevail situation. It would be unthinkable for the American military personnel to be "voting" against its own objectives!

"Irag, Afghanistan ... Been there (both places), things are going great, thank you very much."

Uh, from what kind of perspective, soldier?

It's not just that there are casualties (the dead thank you very much). The whole war is WRONG. Even if no soldiers were getting killed (as they are, daily), you think this alone would make the war in Iraq a just war? If America invades another country, e.g. Grenada, without any casualties, this makes it a just war? Sorry, but no.

"When you (we) sit down and really think about what we are doing and why, its pretty clear we are making a huge difference and it matters a lot."

I agree about the "difference" - but I think it is going in the wrong direction! The War Against Terror has not been promoted one iota by the effort in Iraq. On the contrary, and as prominent hawks in America keep saying, the war in Iraq is both distracting from and weakening the War Against Terror.

"Western Europe will be right after us, those poor idiots are really in a state of denial."

Even if the threat from muslim fundamentalists is as great as you insinuate, America is going the wrong way about it. It's comforting to believe that the whole world except the United States (sorry, I forget, the United States plus Albania, Macedonia, El Salvador... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) are right and the others are in denial..

Denial is the right word, alright!

"This is a war for National Survival, all the bs “background noise” is political fluff on both sides."

If this were truly about America's survival, nukes would have been out already. They have not and it is not. Ease up. Your Commander-in-Chief has not f*cked it all up THAT badly.

Not yet anyway.

"You really don’t know anything more than what you read or hear about second hand instead of seeing or touching or feeling it first hand, so keep that in mind when you state your opinion."

No-nonsense Americans, people who are siding with the military first and looking at the question second, experts such as Melvin Laird, ex-Sec of Defense during Vietnam's most ferocious phase, or Zbigniew Brzezinky, ex-NSC chief and extreme anti-Soviet, or Henry Kissinger, a known war criminal, are not exactly saying kind things about the war that Bush is conduting! From one perspective or others, it is being suggested, with very delicate words, that the war is a huge SNAFU. And these are folks who are genuinely interested in America advanncing its interests in the world and strengthening its security. These guys are all enthusiastic imperialists!

You choose to discount such input, and others' like them, that's your prerogative. I'd say you're perhaps too close to the action to see the big picture but then perhaps you'd flame me. (Perhaps literally. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The NSA isn’t listening to you talk to your wife about picking up a loaf of bread on the way home."

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are! The NSA are also listen in on you talk to your lover - or your boss - or whomever. They are supposed to listen to most everything and then filter out the noise and stick to the juice. And with PATRIOT, it only gets worse. So if you think that there is not enormous room for abuse here, you are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, I'm just now starting to read about these eavesdroppings, but weren't the electronic eavesdroppings by the NSA on FOREIGN communications, including foreign communications on U.S. soil? Example: Call originates from foreign destination to U.S. (or vice versa) and may get listened to by NSA. You call to order a local pizza = call does not get listened to by NSA. Plus, there may be list of specific names of suspected terrorists/associates which may get listened to.

As regards some of your other points, the situation in Iraq has improved DRAMATICALLY of late, and may well continue to get better. Time to pout away the negative for a while and open your eyes to the positive.

[BluffTHIS!]

MMMMMM, I just want to comment that I think this last response of yours is just right in length. By that I mean nothing denigrating about the actual substance or length of some of your other responses, but just that by keeping them shorter, when Cyrus feels compelled to parse them line by line and word by word and rebut to each minute part, then his overall reply post won't have to be 3 monitor screens high.