Pace: Bigger U.S. Force May Stabilize Iraq

[leftchick]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400105.html

he is so full of shit. The double speak here is just like rummy's....

MOSUL, Iraq -- Iraq could be stabilized faster if the United States increased the size of its force, but the costs would outweigh the benefits, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said Sunday.

<snip>

"More U.S. and coalition forces could get the job done quicker, but that would mean dependency much longer for the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi government," he said, speaking in a recreation room for U.S. troops as a searing summer sun set on a day that took him from Baghdad to Fallujah to Mosul.

<snip> then there is this gem....

How much more time, one Marine asked, should the Iraqi government be given to achieve the political unity necessary to stabilize the country?

"I guess they have as long as it takes _ which is not forever," Pace replied.

Pace argued that setting a deadline for the United States to withdraw its support would risk pushing the Iraqis into political decisions that are unviable. On the other hand, he said, "You do not want to leave it open ended."

:grr:

[W_HAMILTON]

1. Nice to know...

...that our young people and Iraqis are dying every day, and more of each will continue to die for the forseeable future because Republicans would rather cut, cut, cut taxes to stay in power instead of doing what it takes to come up with the money to fund this war correctly so this shit can end. :sarcasm:

Pathetic sons of bitches.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Oh yeah, that's the ticket

Let's put more troops in harms way to die for Bush's lies.

How about turning on the damn water and electric and then go home. Let the Iraq people sort out their own problems. I bet things would settle down within a few months.

[hippiechick]

3. Yes, they're not killing us fast enough ... send more Cannonfodder!

:eyes: How fucking stupid is this Administration? No, wait. Don't answer that. :mad:

[AzDar]

4. Iraq is FUBAR. Get the 'Coalition' forces out...NOW!!! n/t

[Virginia Dare]

5. I believe General Shinseki was kicked to the curb...

for suggesting as much from ghe get-go. If this isn't MIHOP, then these are the singularly most idiotic group of people in the world.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Dat wuz Rummys doing...an we all know about HIM....

[DemonFighterLives]

7. Bigger is always better, right

except when you are unwanted. More will be in harms way and more will come back in transfer tubes.
:argh:

[leveymg]

8. Pace has a well-developed sense of irony. He's perfect for this role.

He always hedges himself - he tells you the truth, but keeps the escape hatch open with a caveat, just in case the polticians try to take him to task.

It's almost like he's telling a very dry, inside joke. He could be British.

[neoblues]

9. You mean... instating a 'draft'... and spending a trillion dollars....

as in creating a two-million man army, and deploying most of it in IRAQ (at a final cost of more than a trillion dollars (who'd lend us the money?)) might actually allow us to suppress the violence (while we remain**)? But the cost would be too high (no kidding)?

**what? do we think these cultural differences and factional hatreds are going to disappear just because they go through the motions of building a national security force? Even once we've succeeded in attracting those who apparently don't fit in the more aggressive elements within the different factions into dressing up in uniform and have accomplished putting them through some training and making them follow our troops around for a while, the minute we're gone, they'll break along their "natural" factional divisions and start fighting amongst themselves. Even if they don't, as they face the same kind of factional violence in society, once enough attacks/offenses/atrocities have been experienced by "their side", they'll feel the need to desert (to go home and support family/friends against their enemies--which, it just so happens, will be other IRAQIs).

Actually, we may be suppressing "civil war" far more than we know, just by being there--in that while we're there, all sides have one primary, shared enemy, us... and that acts to keep them from going 'postal' (though, obviously, not by that much). As soon as we're gone, they'll revert to the next enemy on their list... And even that assumes that IRAN doesn't somehow manage to take over (we like puppet governments; no reason to suspect IRAN won't try the same tactic (to avoid having us "re-invade" to eject offending Iranians). Maybe IRAN will just support their favorite 'side' in the 'civil war' and then infuse their attempts to form a government with Iranians (or Iranian friendlies). One thing is sure, they want IRAQ more than we do (to spread their Muslim Theocracy (with Democratic facade***)).

***We have our own problems related to presenting a "Democratic Facade". In our case, at least in recent years, we may be susceptible to that same argument to some degree. How much is anyone's guess, but it's plain to see that "the people's" will is rarely ever very strongly correlated with what our government does (or is). We may expend a great deal of effort going through the rituals of Democracy, but in the end, our representatives think they are our rulers rather than "representatives", and, they tend to come largely from the wealthy class (and at the very top, almost exclusively from our unspoken Aristocracy). So, it's kind of hard to cast stones at other people's variations on 'Democracy' when our own house is in such order.

Go figure.


Of course, the lesson(s) the Republican's are probably going to walk away with...

-- prior to implementing U.S. Imperialism, in future... a vastly larger military is required.

-- notes to selves: start now on psy-ops/advertising/educational campaign to instill in young American's the idea that the country really ought to have a Universal Service Requirement for all Adults--and that it's a Good & Noble thing! We should all want to serve our country; sign up now. Like Israel, only a three-year commitment (initially, anyway).

--who knows what else...

[gratuitous]

10. Can anyone decipher that lede?

Iraq could be stabilized quicker, but the cost would outweigh the benefit. Apparently, Gen. Pace says that Iraq can be stabilized by the U.S. military (a dubious proposition, but I'll go with it), but that the cost of increasing the size of the U.S. force would outweigh the benefit. Cost to whom? The nation has already poured over half a trillion dollars down this rathole with no end in sight. Benefit to whom? Right now Iraq is devolving into a real life remake of Lord of the Flies with less discipline and bigger weapons.

Honestly, is there an IQ test for becoming a general? Is this the kind of leadership our military fosters? Can we just disband the whole wasteful enterprise and use our defense budget to, I don't know, provide universal health care and fresh drinking water . . . to the entire world?

[DemonFighterLives]

12. More Dead!

:yoiks:

[jaxx]

15. Doubletalk. He said nothing.......nothing.

[leveymg]

16. You probably don't appreciate Charles Mingus, either.

It's just Pete Pace riffing. Lots of counter-point and asynchopation.

[MadHound]

11. That, and all those extra troops will be that much closer

To the Iraq/Iran border when Bushco decides to invade Iran.

[neoblues]

17. Can't Leave Yet....

We haven't finished invading Iran... and without the full ability to use IRAQ in concert with Afghanistan, well, invading Iran might be difficult (no doubt somebody told Bush we could take Iran in a conventional war with no problem; especially if we have them in a pincer movement from both sides; and if they did, the dumbya probably believed them).

Though, anybody who's looked at a map of Iran, the size and the terrain, would want to think twice or three times before 'invading'; of course, if we had a ten-million man army AND no scruples when it comes to how to make war... That said because we're kind of a brutal/gentle giant (can you say 'contradictory'), but hardly vicious enough (well, maybe vicious enough, but too concerned with ethics/morality, history and world opinion) to take on a place like Iran--since the only way to 'win' would probably be to more or less 'eliminate' most of the population. Simply because if the other side fights like berserkers on steroids and will never stop fighting, not ever...; and they never forget/forgive**, what are your options? Give up? Good idea--then they're all the more convinced you're weak and they can beat you--and they will be planning ways to bring the war to you (even if you think it's over) and get more than even with you as soon as they can--if it takes generations.

Face it, if one invades, one is going to be facing some harsh questions, the only practical answers to which, the world, the modern world, would condemn very severely. So one had better be damned serious (of course, we already have done an equivalent 'insult', we've invaded Iran--and that, on top of supporting Israel over Hizbullah and the other Muslims and Arabs who once lived where Israel proper is now (many of whom now live in Lebanon)--all clear signs of our lack of impartiality/fairness--so they basically already owe us Jihad. Convenient that--that one's religion supports any violence/war you want it to--and even instructs it's adherents to die for the cause. All the more reason to avoid war, eh?

I would predict that if Bush does invade Iran, it spells the end of America as a Superpower**, unless he resorts to a level of war resembling those of previous ages (well, WWII in it's later stages had devolved into 'total war', in part resembling what I'm referring to; but the intentional total destruction, down to every man, woman and child of an opposing culture/civilization is actually what I meant). Otherwise, the drain on our resources will be massive and ongoing for the forseeable future.

Meanwhile, mankind will continue it's pursuit of extinction (or being brought to subsistence level existence at a fraction of one percent of it's current population). Who knows, maybe mankind will suddenly 'evolve' and truly become 'civilized'; if it hasn't doomed nearly all forms of life on Earth to extinction already (Global Warming alone, run out of control, could very well could destroy all life as we know it--leaving little more than a few earthworms, nematodes, algae and bacteria (and not necessarily all of them) in the deep recesses as it poisons reduces the oxygen (we need plants to make O2; anerobic bacteria can produce enough to restore the atmosphere, but that takes many millions of years) in the atmosphere and makes the oceans acidic ("we all live in a rusting submarine, a rusting submarine... a rusting submarine...").

**Actually, with all the damage BushCo/Repubs have done in the last six years (not to mention the contributions from the pre-Clinton years by such luminaries as H.W. Bush, and Ronald Ray-gun), our time at the top is already on a rapid, unstoppable decline. Obviously no country can remain on top for very long in Historical terms, but our run could well have endured for decades more; alas... Worst of all, in a real sense, in this case at least, we're getting what we deserve. We were the bad actor here, overall. There's blame to go around, but for all practical purposes, we discarded the very values we've most believed in--our American Ideals. Justice (rule of law), fair play, honesty, human rights, freedom (including free-speech) and liberty; all went right out the window. As Bush went in, they went out. We are responsible for our leadership. We should find a way to restore power to the people--including the power to remove a sitting President/Vice-President and his Administration by means of a process that allows for calling for a national referendum (vote), and if a vote of "no-confidence" is brought, their replacement would be promptly determined by Special Election (say, a one month campaign followed by a national election with the winner taking office immediately)(who'd be interim President for a month? maybe the Speaker of the House?) .

Well, speaking of the word speaker; I've gone off like an ice-cream and coke float and spoken more than enough--I'll hush up now.

[Jacobin]

13. Yeah. That'll fix it. 550,000 troops in Viet Nam fixed that right up

:sarcasm:

These fuckwads are in a corner. Somebody just needs to give these generals a medal of freedom and bring the troops home and call it a victory.

The only smart general was Tommy Franks who retired about ten fricking minutes after the invasion. The ones who stayed for the clusterfork are not too bright.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Too bad Pete couldn't find a real job when he was young.

Something he's more skillful at..selling hair-growth products on TV, perhaps.

[lonestarnot]

18. Throw more men when the money isn't working, squander it all bastards!