Brittian Troop Withdrawl

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Detector

It very well could. I don't claim to know troop deployment in Iraq but it could easily be the British troops coming home are deployed in an area of less importance, and area where the local Iraqis have gained control or an area near major ally troop concentration.

That’s the way it reads when I read it. I’m sure Army is right that it’s both that and politics.

Originally Posted by Detector

We may never know for sure but why does the left ALWAYS look at the dim side?.....

It’s because the guy in charge has a (R) behind his name. If the same thing was happening with a Democrat in the White House the MSM would have a totally different spin on things. There’s a whole list of things the Bush has caught Hell for that Clinton was praised for doing the same things. Look at this war for example. All the major Democrats kept telling us about Saddam’s WMDs for years. Most of then voted to authorize this war. But when the shine wore off and it started to get a little rough those same Democrats ran for cover and started pointing fingers. It's all power hungry politics.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Democrats ran for cover and started pointing fingers. It's all power hungry politics.

True...and our soldiers are caught in the middle.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

True...and our soldiers are caught in the middle.

You mean the troops that the Democrats claim to support but don’t want to send reinforcements?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

But when the shine wore off and it started to get a little rough those same Democrats ran for cover and started pointing fingers. It's all power hungry politics.

Ah sheesh, you just had to do that didn't you?

Don't you mean

1. When it became obvious that this war was planned on the cheap and our soldiers hung out to dry by a micro managing secretary of defense who didn't have a clue and that a good number of the military leadership sold their men and women down the river to keep their career? (See McClain's comments on Rumsfeld)

2. or when it became obvious that the administration did not have a clue on how to clean up after the victory and provide security for the country and rebuild the infrastructure? Thus embolding the insurgency and endangering our troops?

3. or maybe when the situation had gotten to the point that the administration was saying one thing and the military people something else? Thus not being upright and coming about the situation?

4. or perhaps it was pre-election talk from Bush on the Stump saying the strategy was fine while he tells the Wall Street Journal he made his decision the strategy wasn't working in the fall (while he was out saying something else?) Did I mention upright and forthcoming?

5. or maybe even after the administration agreed to enlist a bipartisan group of trusted and proven people to study the situation and make suggestions (James Baker), but instead went back to the "think" tank where this little misadventure was thought up and came up with an entirely different strategy and sprung it on us? Did we mention competence yet?

6. or maybe it was after a state of the union address where the president announced this little "surge" but made it clear that it was temporary and the iraqi "government" would have to stand on its' own without defining what on it's own was. Seems to me if I am an Iraqi insurgent, that tells me that I know the end is near so I can target some American's for a while since there will be plenty of time for me fight my fellow iraqi later? And now talks as if he wants to repeat this folly in Iran?

7. or maybe its whenever he says anything now, Gates or a military leader have to "clear up" what he meant to say?

You guys need a better argument that the Liberals don't like it or it's a democrat cut and run, or MSM. That's the kind of stuff we make fun of when someone gets their hand caught in the till and claim they did because they were a victim of something else. Last I saw this questioning and thoughts on reining things in are not purely a democratic thing. There comes a point in time when the incompetence and danger to our troops has to be acknowledged regardless of your political affiliation. Our military is too valuable a resource to be used as an instrument of a failed policy.

Anyone else notice the government report on the resurgence of Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan?

[Flying Dutchman]

My two cents...which aint worth much:

Big mistakes:
Rummy: It was obvious to all of us from the get-go that this dude was wrong for the position he had. The admin should have stepped up and got rid of him but instead played the "wait and see" card. To me that showed a weakness.

Underestimating the Iraq people: This was a flawed strategy that I believ is based on the assumption that we think the rest of the world feels like we do. We should have set up a strong, temporary government to control the infrastructure while we are there. Again, that looks bad so our government did not, and would not, do it. I do not believe we embolded the insurgents in as much as the Iraq people and leaders did and still do.

I remember the media saying different than the military, not the administration. I may be wrong. I remember the military saying things were not as bad as portrayed and that great strides in rebuilding the country were being done. Again, I may be wrong.

I find fault in the Bush admin in the area of falling into the "popular opinion" base in hiw to handle this war. In my opinion Bush should have, at every opportunity, stepped up. He should have called, personally, those on the carpet who blasted his decisions. Instead he plays the "wait and see" non-confrontational game. In this arena that is not acceptable. He should have confronted the media (which is truly against him) personally and put them on the spot. Right now the majority of the American people think Iraq is a waste. They base this on what the media reports. They hear about troops being killed, bombs, death and destruction and think the whole region is like that. Well, that is like saying all of California is a waste because of the riots in LA. The Bush admin allows this to continue and they shouldn't.

I also blame the political structure because no matter what Bush did, would do, will do does not matter because the far-left hates him and always have. They have hated him from the start. He has had an uphill battle ever since taking office and it has become an us against him position in Washington. Before the "he stole the election" group chides in.........by any stretch of the imagination he should not have even come close to begin with. So get over it. That argument is akin to saying a Highschool football team beat a pro team because of a bad call by a ref. The Highschool team should have never had a chance to begin with. Bush beat Gore, plain and simple, and the left wing has hated that and held that grudge to this day. It has never been what is good for the people, it has been what is against Bush. This war is the same thing. If we win,, Bush wins. If we lose, Bush loses. They cannot have him win in anyway and will do what it takes to prove that. THAT is where the venom comes from and will continue to come from.

[Detector]

Once again FD, I couldn't agree more.

It seems too me that IF the Britt's were so against the war why would Harry be signing up to go to Iraq? Too me this clearly is a show of support for the war in Iraq.

Well either that or he's just plain crazy

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

You mean the troops that the Democrats claim to support but don’t want to send reinforcements?

No not those.

The ones they want to bring home.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

I remember the media saying different than the military, not the administration. I may be wrong. I remember the military saying things were not as bad as portrayed and that great strides in rebuilding the country were being done. Again, I may be wrong

To say there has been no good done in Iraq by the military would be a lie. I might try and dig it out tonight but I remember reading an essay from a newsource describing two different command sections and commanders. The approaches were different and the results were different. There has been ample documentation of humanitarian works by the military and others in specific instance. But taken as a whole It was the President and the administration who kept saying things were not as bad as they seemed when the people on the ground knew better. And apparently the President knew so too.

The military did their job and overcame the Iraqi defenses and accomplished their task. They have been charged with the task of keeping the peace after the fact and after what was the occupation plan was changed and the approriate support systems not put in place in a timely and competent manner.

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

I find fault in the Bush admin in the area of falling into the "popular opinion" base in hiw to handle this war. In my opinion Bush should have, at every opportunity, stepped up. [snip]
I also blame the political structure because no matter what Bush did, would do, will do does not matter because the far-left hates him and always have. They have hated him from the start..

You really got to help me out here on these. This president and his administration (or puppet masters depending on POV) have shown significant in your face attitude towards the press. And what difficulty ruling, the first 6 years he had a republican contolled house and senate. He never vetoed a bill until in involved stem cells and wrote over 700 notes saying why certain bills didn't apply. He had almost carte blanche to do what he wanted when he wanted. The "far left" couldn't do anything. Hell, they can't do anything now except bluster. Any failure of the administration to achieve their goals, whatever they are or were had little to do with the opposition party nor the press. It was their own over-reaching or incompetence.

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

He has had an uphill battle ever since taking office and it has become an us against him position in Washington. . It has never been what is good for the people, .

You partially right, it never has been what's good for the people but you got the wrong "them". Or are we not talking about the same president?

[Flying Dutchman]

The military did their job and overcame the Iraqi defenses and accomplished their task. They have been charged with the task of keeping the peace after the fact and after what was the occupation plan was changed and the approriate support systems not put in place in a timely and competent manner.

You will get no argument from me here. I never said that there were no reports of good things in Iraq, I said the military reports disagreed with the media in how bad things were. If you want to believe the media is not about sensationalism, more power to you. How much media coverage and bashing from top Democrats was there on the Abu Garaib (sic) situation? It was constant. That is one example of what I meant by the administration not stepping up to the plate and ending that situation. They should have been vehement about taking serious disciplinary actions against those who commited that crap.

As far as the Bush administration not reaching their intended goals.........other than Iraq I would say they have and did.

If you think the far-left does not control the Democratic party.........ok. Funny how Hollywood actors seem to get all the face time as the gaurdians of the Democratic party. I do not for one second believe that all democrats are far-left. I think the majority of them are just like the majority of republicans, moderate and in the middle. The problem is if Sean Penn says something, the democratic pundits and mouth pieces are stuck defending him. If Pat Roberts says something the republicans seperate themselves from it.
Tell you what, if the Democratic wing of the government thinks this war is so bad, and thinks it is a waste, and thinks that any strategy by Bush is wrong...all they have to do, since they controll congress and the purse strings, is stop funding it. They are in control now, let's see if they are willing to put their money were their mouth is.

When I said not doing what is right for the people I meant the government, not the Democrats in particular. Now if you think Bush is so bad, and has ruined this country, that is fine. I respect your, and anybody else's opinion. Difference is I can say he has his faults, has made mistakes and disagree with some of his decisions. I haven't yet met a dedicated Democrat who does the same with their party leaders.

[Firedog]

What part of the country are they in? The part they are in is one of the safest, is what I hear. So yea it would be a goodtime to pull out. But if you look what part do they have compared to the US. Still people don't know other then what the news says. Let get the full story and just not part of the story.