Thread: What I don't like about Bush.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Well, I'd love to see Synikul's prediction come true. We've got to get control of the borders SOON, and if it takes a GOP civil war to get us moving, FINE, I'll fire on Fort Sumter meself.

In all likelihood a lot of Americans are going to have to die before there will be the political will to seal the border. I mean I'll keep fighting with you for it to happen, but I think we're on the losing side until reality slaps the moron pols in the face when some terrorists walks across the border and blows himself up. As I’ve said before there’s really no excuse for it not being secure. It’s a national boundary. The first step in defending this country should be ensuring the integrity of our borders. We're not fighting an enemy that uses tanks and infantry divisions that we can see coming from five thousand miles away. He is a lone individual intent on killing Americans with in our borders. Not allowing him entry is the first step in defeating him.

To Bluesman’s original question, I generally think that GWB has done a pretty good job, particularly where taking the fight to the terrorists is concerned. Many are upset at the recent news of the death of the 2000th soldier in the war on terror. I agree that this is a tragedy, but there is a “what if” scenario that never seems to get mentioned. Our troops have died fighting a very shadowy enemy in Iraq. Everything I have seen suggests to me that the “insurgents” we are fighting in Iraq are, for the most part, not Iraqis, but rather are Muslims from every other corner of the Islamic world. Frankly, we have to fight them, and the only wise course of action is to take the fight to them, rather than sit back and wait for them to come to us. Just for a moment, consider the number of casualties, both military and civilian, we would have endured by now had we not invaded Iraq. Rather than trying to fight us there, I suggest that many of these “insurgents” would have been in the US and Great Britain.

For all that, I don’t think the administration has been perfect at all. There have been missteps and mistakes, both in the war on terror, and on the domestic front. First, the war on terror:

I think GWB declared victory and brought home a majority of our troops from Iraq entirely too early. Politically at the time, it was a great move, but it has proven to be a tactical and strategic mistake. Had we left the invasion force intact and in place, the Iraqi border could have much more effectively been sealed off, preventing the entry of many of the insurgents we now have to fight. That would have allowed more time for the Iraqis themselves to form a new government without the distractions they currently face. It also would have allowed a great deal more time for the Iraqis to train their own forces to deal with the eventual arrival of the terrorists, whom I believe would have come eventually, no matter what.

Most disturbing to me is the almost Johnson-esque manner in which the war is often being run from the White House situation room. Vietnam taught us a valuable lesson about war. While war is simply the use of force to back up political will, once a president has made the decision to go to war, he/she must leave the actual nuts and bolts of the war to the professionals. The job of the president is to give the military a mission, then let the military figure out how best to accomplish that goal. Logistics, strategy, and tactics are best left to the professionals.

On the domestic front, I believe the president’s biggest failure has been on the issue of borders. We are at war, but not a conventional war with an enemy that wears uniforms. The enemy we face prefers to remain incognito, attacking from a hidden position, killing civilians, and returning to hiding. They can and have used our porous borders against us. Its high time to shut the borders, regardless of how certain voting demographics feel about it. It isn’t a matter of racism or prejudice. It’s a matter of national security.

Finally, I am very uncomfortable with the voice that the current administration has given to the ultra-religious right in our nation. When I tell people that I am conservative, they automatically assume that I must also be a fundamentalist Christian, so closely allied have these two terms become. I’ve also had fundamentalists tell me that I am hellbound, and a liberal to boot because I don’t march in step to their particular brand of Christianity.

While I believe faith on the part of our Chief Executive is a good thing, I don’t believe that Chief should impose his version of faith on the rest of us. As it happens, while I consider myself a Christian, I am not a fundamentalist. I do not believe that Christians in this nation have the right to dictate law. They do not have the right to give their beliefs force of law, because not everyone agrees with their narrow interpretation of the bible. I don’t want my children taught that “Creation Science” is every bit as valid a theory as evolution, with just as much supporting evidence, because that simply isn’t true. In fact, teaching mythology as scientifically sound theory just takes us further down the path of dumbing down our education system. If you want your kids to believe it, fine. Teaching your children religion is your responsibility. Accept that and move out smartly. But leave my kids out of it, thank you.

Kevin McHugh

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Well, I'd love to see Synikul's prediction come true. We've got to get control of the borders SOON, and if it takes a GOP civil war to get us moving, FINE, I'll fire on Fort Sumter meself.

Bluesman,

Are you still in uniform or retired?

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I am currently reviewing my positions on Iraq. I will honestly attempt to find as much information as I can (short of going there for now).

Try these milblogs on for size:

www.blackfive.net (he's no longer in Iraq, but posts extensively based off other milblogs and feedback sent to him from Iraq)

www.michaelyon.blogspot.com (not a milblog, but a former SF soldier who is running cirlces around the MSM reporting)

Check out this think tank:

www.csis.org

Cordesman is on the pessimistic side, but he's solid in his analysis and thorough in his information gathering.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

To both Bluesman and Dale, I am currently reviewing my positions on Iraq. I apologize if my replies come slowly. This is because I am trying to gather as much information as possible, so I am no longer at an informational disadvantage.


I will not call the American performance exemplary. I will say that our troops have been brave. Also, in a straight firefight, American forces will win. Unfortunately, American troops are under attack from a foe they cannot competently deal with.

You will want more evidence to support my claim. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on one area that needs improvement.

"10/27 - Sectarian tensions flared Thursday as Shiite militiamen and the police clashed with Sunni Arab kidnappers southeast of Baghdad, leaving at least 21 dead and 17 wounded, said a Shiite leader and an Interior Ministry official. The fighting began when members of the Mahdi Army, a militia led by Moktada al-Sadr, the rebellious Shiite cleric, raided a village called Nehrawan to free a hostage taken by insurgents, said Sheik Abdul-Zahra al-Suweidi, a senior Sadr official. Policemen joined the militia in the attack, he added."

This was reported in the New York Times. I know you dislike that source, but I think that this report is very lean and factual. There is no analysis, only facts.

This militia attack does not exist in a vacuum. In fact, the private militias of Iraq have been out of control for some time. The United States has been unable to curtail their presence, much less keep the Iraqi police from joining in the action.

Also, the presence of roadside bombs. I will agree that guerilla warfare does create a slight drain on troop levels. However, the nature of the attacks illustrate a problem. A prevalence of roadside bombs insicates that the U.S. does not have control over much of Iraq's road system. This is not a good indicator of success.

Read up on insurgency warfare. Check out the following books:

Hearts and Minds in Guerilla Warfare (Stubbs). It's about British success in Malaya. Analogies are tough when comparing insurgencies - the best you can do is look at principles and then try to apply them knowing that a full analogy is flawed. However, you'll see a lot of similarities from Malaya (that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of differences, though).

A Better War (Sorely). This explores the American experience from '68-'72 in depth and provides information that demonstrates that the US was on the verge of succeeding in Vietnam. It does focus on the positive, but ends up with similar conclusions as other Vietnam histories and does avoid the American buildup to Tet only history that casts a huge shadow on the later successes.

When I read your "fact," I see the Iraqi police fighting this outlaw with some police whose loyalty isn't where it should be. This isn't surprising when you have a country that 2 1/2 years ago didn't even have anything between traffic police and secret police. Did you know that Darth Sadr was exempted by Zarqawi from the the Shia directed violence? Darth Sadr has been marginalized for the most part and can only offer violence, a far cry from his hey day in 2004 when he symbolized resistance against the occupier.

As far as roadside bombs, they are a problem. However, you once again cannot look at the "facts" and pronounce we are failing. You need to analyze these "facts" and then develop a cogent analysis that takes into account where are they going off, what are their frequency, size, method of employment, etc. to determine what they really indicate. Furthermore, don't get bogged down and confuse tactical and strategic accomplishments and objectives.

For example, AQ has killed a bunch of Shia. If you look at the tactical level, they are successes. One suicide bomber killed for dozens of lives. However, once you jump to the strategic level, you'll find that AQ has alienated Iraqis from all walks of life and sects (minus the Sunni extremists; however, the general Sunni population has condemned AQ for these attacks), it has alienated many fellow Arabs, and it has been getting crushed in northern Iraq, Baghdad, and is starting to slip in Anbar.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

To be honest, I'll have to read more about Zarqawi. I'm going to get back to you on this one. It is true that he was unable to influence the election very much. However, at this point, I will still maintain that he has been responsible for a majority of the devastating attacks recently.


The Iraqi government faces considerable strain and pressure and I disagree with your basic assertion that it gets stronger with each action it takes. Ali al-Sistani is not supporting the government in the next round of Parliamentary decisions. Many Shiite leaders are frustrated by what they see as a lack of progress. Reconstruction has been relatively slow, and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq has yet to offer a solution to the insurgency.


I will amend my earlier statements. Geographically, most of Iraq is not a war zone. However, I will still say that some of the most important parts of Iraq in turmoil. This is a situation that must be corrected.

Once again, don't get stuck on tactical achievements and automatically equate them to strategic achievements. Facts need to be analyzed and taken into context. You don't seem to be doing this, falling into the trap that the MSM has taken through either deliberate commission or ignorant omission.

As far as the government, you are incorrect about Sistani. He is still calling for all Shia to vote, he just isn't going to support the UIA slate. Next, look to the December elections and analyze what the potentials are. With the Sunni participating and the religious Shia losing the backing of Sistani, I'd say look for a resurgence of secular parties and a much better fueled reconciliation process. Keep your eye on Allawi and whether the Sunni vote for "their parties" or continue the trend from the January elections where they voted secular. Time will tell.

Great post, McHugh

Still in for a few more days, sir. I formally retire on 1 March, but I have 21 working days left.

shek, terrific post.

Wish I'd said that. Wish I'd said it that way, too.

A Better War (Sorely). This explores the American experience from '68-'72 in depth and provides information that demonstrates that the US was on the verge of succeeding in Vietnam. It does focus on the positive, but ends up with similar conclusions as other Vietnam histories and does avoid the American buildup to Tet only history that casts a huge shadow on the later successes.

shek,

excellent choice, that book is truly informing as well as a good read. i think he does over-emphasize the positive, though. the book's focus was that, if only the US had given south vietnam continued material support then south vietnam would have survived. i believe it mentions how the ARVN in the final days, the soldiers actually had to BUY their own bullets and grenades? i remember asking lcol yu regarding this, and he mentioned that any country that couldn't produce small-arms ammo was in deep trouble. but nevertheless, an excellent read, because the US -did- beat the insurgency that was the vietcong there.

regarding iraqi police and army, though, i'm troubled by the infiltration of militia units into especially the former. from what i've read, the police down in southern iraq (especially basra) are riddled with plants from the various militia groups. (their complicity with some of the militia and insurgents could be seen in the whole undercover UK soldiers situation, right?)

any comments? i'd be interested in hearing.

Did you know that Darth Sadr was exempted by Zarqawi from the the Shia directed violence? Darth Sadr has been marginalized for the most part and can only offer violence, a far cry from his hey day in 2004 when he symbolized resistance against the occupier.

interestingly enough, sadr rejected this "clemency" from zarqawi, saying that if zarqawi ever fell into his hands he'd literally rip him to pieces. sadr was hurt bad in 2004, but he's still a nuisance. i suppose the one good thing is that he's largely been co-opted into the political process, but that was primarily the result of sistani forcing his hand, rather than the pressures put on him by the US army. sadr had been crushed repeatedly by US forces, only to spring back up.

Okey, Lettermen's ten(I hate the guy anyway)

10)Rampant Cronyism

9)Sub Par war effort

8)Hijacking Conservative movement( by Neo-Cons), heck even Grand Dragon William Buckley is guilty of these high misdemeanors!

7)Phoney patriots, chicken hawk administration!

6)Economic Mismanagement

5)Sweeping govt powers to snoop on your lives

4)Foreign policy snafus

3)Personal incompetence

2)Red Neck circle

drumrrrroll, 1)Choking on pretzels, twice, and making Hillary look good in the process.

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Okey, Lettermen's ten(I hate the guy anyway)

Then this thread isn't for you.

Didn't you read the OP?

Quit butting in; we're talking amongst ourselves.

"2)Red Neck circle"

Yeah, that's offensive.

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Okey, Lettermen's ten(I hate the guy anyway)

10)Rampant Cronyism

9)Sub Par war effort

8)Hijacking Conservative movement( by Neo-Cons), heck even Grand Dragon William Buckley is guilty of these high misdemeanors!

7)Phoney patriots, chicken hawk administration!

6)Economic Mismanagement

5)Sweeping govt powers to snoop on your lives

4)Foreign policy snafus

3)Personal incompetence

2)Red Neck circle

drumrrrroll, 1)Choking on pretzels, twice, and making Hillary look good in the process.

You seem to have left out that he owns a gun...

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Didn't you read the OP?

Quit butting in; we're talking amongst ourselves.

"Okey, Lettermen's ten(I hate the guy anyway) Then this thread isn't for you."

Ie I dislike Letterman anyway.


"Quit butting in; we're talking amongst ourselves"

Then you should be specific. only neo-cons need apply

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

You seem to have left out that he owns a gun...

No worries, he will choke on a pretzel and shoot his at his own feet