 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 21, 2005 Unspinning the Troop RotationsBy GreyhawkLast week's congressional shenanigans regarding American troops in Iraq successfully obscured the real news about that topic. In an under-reported story earlier this month the DoD announced the units designated to deploy in the next rotation for Operation Iraqi Freedom. DoD Press Release, 7 November 2005: DoD Announces Units for Next Operation Iraqi Freedom RotationThere's a key number in the above quote; "92,000 service members" - that's down significantly from this year's figure, approximately 140,000 with boosts to 160,000 for election periods (created by overlapping deployments). But don't start thinking "drawdown" just yet. Because there's another key phrase that follows that number: "92,000 service members as presently envisioned". Here's what's happening. The DoD says they want to see how things go through December's elections in Iraq, then give commanders on the ground an opportunity to make deisions on who's needed where. It's the obvious strategy, although it opens Don Rumsfeld to accusations of "passing the buck" from the same folks who accuse him of being a "micromanager". And if additional numbers are added later they will likely be labeled as an increase in the number of troops due to initial requirements being set too low - and the "no end in sight" argument will be invoked. Likewise there's always the possibility that if things go wrong the troop strength levels (Too high! Too low! Too late!) will be cited as primary cause. But conversely, if things go right they'll be declared wrong anyway - so the above arguments are essentially moot. And besides, torture is wrong! Now back to the grown-up discussion. These numbers could result in a "drawdown". But the SecDef is cautioning any who will listen that that's not the correct interpretation. In fact, he chastised the AP reporting of the story, as they themselves noted here: The number of troops in future rotations will depend on conditions, including the severity of the insurgency and the strength of Iraqi security forces, as well as the recommendations of U.S. commanders, Rumsfeld said.On one level that can be labeled Pentagon doublespeak, but I'm inclined to take the report at face value - there might be less troops in Iraq next year, it's situationally dependent. Not very satisfying to those who want instant answers to tough problems, but this isn't a TV drama with neat solutions at the end of the hour. There are good reason to be optimistic though. In the same AP article linked above, General David Patraeus cites indicators of progress in the development of the Iraq security forces - and expectations for the future. Separately, a senior Army general said there is a growing momentum in the training of Iraqi security forces, which now total about 100,000 army soldiers and about 111,000 police forces. In a detailed briefing before a group organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus said the goal is to have a combined total of 230,00 army and police by the December election.Iraq's civilian leaders are expressing optimism too. You might have missed this recent quote from Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi: The United States and coalition forces will likely reduce the number of troops in Iraq next year, Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Saturday.He was speaking in Detroit, Michigan at the time, but his words went mostly unreported in major media. Likewise President of Iraq Jalal Talabani's comments in Britain received scant notice: British troops could leave Iraq by the end of next year, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Sunday. “We don’t want British forces forever in Iraq. Within one year – I think at the end of 2006 – Iraqi troops will be ready to replace British forces in the South,” Talabani told ITV’s Jonathan Dimbleby program.The Pentagon numbers and the AP report were released on November 7, Mahdi's remarks were quoted on the 12th and Talabani's on the 15th. So there you have it, the background situation against which last week's political drama was played. Given these developments it's not entirely surprising (although it is entirely disappointing) that there are those in congress who are in a bit of a panic over the possibility of upward trends in the situation in Iraq. Success there is far from assured, but that success is unfortunately political doom (or perhaps just a minor setback, if they're from the right district) for those who've chosen to oppose the effort. Seeing the possibility of light at the end of the tunnel has forced them to act. We can each make our own determination as to exactly what they are acting like. Related: Graphic Violence Posted by Greyhawk / November 21, 2005 8:54 PM | Permalink 8 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
"Success there is far from assured, but that success is unfortunately political doom (or perhaps just a minor setback, if they're from the right district) for those who've chosen to oppose the effort."
I'm a bit confused, is this a reference to terrorists or to Democrats?
So what we have here is a carefully crafted but admittedly fragile possibility for a better future for Iraq - courtesy of OIF. That will be something to see - the cost of the result is already high and will continue to grow. It is sad indeed that the Dems can't get on board - "better late than never" certainly applies.
But it's definitely inexcusable that barring that option they don't just get the hell out of the way.
As I said, that's a fragile opportunity, and they're certainly taking a sledge hammer to it these days.
The only reason they came out with this plan is because they knew the Democrats were about to insist on troop withdrawals. Now watch the freedom fighters in Iraq turn up the heat, and the fools back here claim it's because of the support they're getting from the anti-war crowd. Then we'll increase the numbers of troops yet again - as planned.
So, what Anon is saying is that in order to avoid having to cut back troops like the Democrats want, the Republicans are going to cut back the troops like the Democrats want, in order to sabotage them?
Now there's pretzel logic for ya..
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
As noted on several blogs, the 92,000 number is premature and does not include the Marines - which I doubt that we are going to do without, especially in Anbar.
When the Marines are added in later, it will inevitably lead to charges of an "increase in troop levels" as Greyhawk predicts.
Can anyone tell me what the 150000+ troops are actually doing right now in Iraq?
I understand the direct combat operations in Anbar Province and the continued operations in the Mosul area, but where are the rest of the forces and what are they really doing? For example the figures for US forces in Operation Steel Curtain were I believe 2500 Marines. What is everyone else doing and is what they are doing important enough that it justifies the daily IED losses? Is there another way to keep the lid on things until Iraqi Units hit some sort of critical mass?
Is it the constant IED attacks which are the most discouraging ? Everyone understands when Marines are casualties in Offensive Operations, but is there no better way to use forces than expose them to bomb blasts while patrolling the same areas again and again? I just have the feeling that this is not very useful or at least not useful enough to warrant the negative side effects.
Just asking as I am a complete illiterate when it comes to counter-insurgency tactics.
Good queastion Doug. The quick answer is that the combat elements require a very large number of support units. Any military installation can be looked at as a city, with police, fireman, bank, construction crews, communications infrastructure and folks to repair it - on and on. Essentially most of the larger outposts in Iraq can be looked at in that manner.
Also there are civil affairs troops - those who are rebuilding Iraq. They are combat capable, but clearing the ville isn't their primary task.
And then you have the various levels of headquarters and requisite functionaries.
Add in the Air Force with the massive task of airlifting everything from point A to B. Several AF camps over there contain all the elements of the "small city" supporting lots of folks handling cargo and passengers. Air traffic controllers, base operations managers, weather forecasters, aircraft maintainers, fire crews, security forces...
An army of personnel specialists is there to make sure all the paperwork is done. Annoying but essential.
Doctors and nurses. Chaplains. Supply folks. Heating and Air Conditioning repair guys. Computer repair guys. On and on and on.
I can see the troops you talk about but what I think the question is is just how many of the troops that we have there are involved in military actions and support and how many are involved in the nation building activities that are just as important for the Iraqis and for us and are being unreported by the MSM.
It just strikes me that we probably have at least 50K troops who are doing things that are necessary for the Iraqis and the good name of the US and are not being reported by our MSM. Those are the ones building the clean water supplies and electrical systems and training the government employees and assisting in running the rebuilding projects and providing the medical training where there was none before. They are doing sterling work and should be reported and commended for doing so.