Author Topic: Marines in Haditha  (Read 3753 times)

Shalako

  • New Member
  • Posts: 59
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2006, 08:46:41 AM »
A kinder, gentler military?

Shower the enemy with love, not bullets?

Have you hugged a terrorist today?


It seems like our society is teeter-tottering on the knife edge of: we are the cruel badguys vs. we need to be lovers not fighters. But it shouldn't be black or white.

There needs to be a well defined gray area between being 1. thuggs or 2. wimps that includes the ability to endure the taking of some "collateral damage" to achieve a well defined goal. Otherwise we fall on one side or the other of the knife edge and then we perish.

I believe too many people today believe war is black or white. If we are not negotiating for peace and appeasing the enemy, then we must be a rogue agent that is actually the bad guy. That to me is total BS and not the real world. Good guys need to kick a little ass too.

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2006, 11:50:06 AM »
Quote from: fistful
What do you suggest?
Not invading countries unless its absolutely necessary.  Not fabricating evidence to accomplish said invasion.  Not hamstringing our intelligence community so that they can't develop the appropriate intelligence.  Not invading a country of 25million people with a force of less than 150k.  Planning and preparing for the aftermath of invading said countries.  Giving our military the appropriate tools to complete the job.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,487
  • My prepositions are on/in
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2006, 01:43:05 PM »
Quote from: JamisJockey
Quote from: fistful
What do you suggest?
Not invading countries unless its absolutely necessary.  Not fabricating evidence to accomplish said invasion.  Not hamstringing our intelligence community so that they can't develop the appropriate intelligence.  Not invading a country of 25million people with a force of less than 150k.  Planning and preparing for the aftermath of invading said countries.  Giving our military the appropriate tools to complete the job.
Absolutely necessary?  We can always appease or capitulate.  Every war is optional.  In this case, Iraq definitely belonged on the list of swamps to drain - and draining swamps is the right thing to do right now.  Whether we should have drained it before some other place is a good question.

Fabricating evidence - I've heard charges of that, but I don't trust it anymore than a lot of other stuff that goes around.  My mind is open, however.

Hamstringing intelligence?  Yeah, I agree.

Should we have used more troops?  I can't judge that, so I won't agree or disagree.

Planning?  You think there was no plan?  Come now.  The plan may have been a bad one, but do you really think they had no plan?  Why?

Giving our military the tools - always a good idea.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2006, 09:33:33 PM »
These marine's heinous alleged actions cannot be blamed on the fact that you believe they are misreported.

They may be, but it's idealistic to believe that even if this specific case did not happen, other's didn't as well. Hundreds of thousands of soliders?

It happens in war. That doesn't make it okay. If it's proven, there ought to be some short drops and sudden stops. Especially in a volunteer military!


-----
War is a pretty crappy thing to participate in, from what I've heard. That's why you probably shouldn't do it on the behalf of people who don't seem to want you to do it for (to?) them anyway.

"Liberation" tends to mean voluntary.

Fistful Said:
Quote
and draining swamps is the right thing to do right now.
No. Doing things to people that they don't want done is NEVER the right thing to do.




And yes, I like mazzy star. (in reference to fistful's sig, although I am king of non sequiturs... like all the tea in china.)
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,487
  • My prepositions are on/in
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2006, 03:35:49 AM »
Quote from: Winston Smith
If it's proven, there ought to be some short drops and sudden stops.

Doing things to people that they don't want done is NEVER the right thing to do.
Having trouble reconciling these two statements.  

No one is saying it is the media's fault if some Marines messed up.  They are to be blamed, however, for taking some accusations and suspicious circumstances and assuming the worst.  They make accusations, people take them for the truth, and by the time the actual truth comes out, it's too late.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2006, 12:08:11 PM »
Article sent to me by a friend...

Washington Times
June 7, 2006
Pg. 21

Media Dance Macabre

Journalists in orgy of excessive Haditha reporting.

By Tony Blankley

The Marine incident, and its aftermath, at Haditha tells us much more about the media than it does about the Marines. And what it tells us ought to outrage us to the core.

On every radio and television show I appeared on last week (and all I observed) in which this topic came up, without exception at least one of the media people immediately attempted to implicate not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines, but the American military's leadership and methods in general.

The "Drive By Media" (Rush Limbaugh's scientifically accurate description) has already started to report this story in a manner that is likely do vast damage that may last for several years to the morale (and possibly recruitment) of our military. It will create a propaganda catastrophe of strategic proportions in our mortal struggle with radical Islam and their terrorist spear point.

And all this is being done by journalists who are seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their acts.

President Bush noted the extraordinary damage that reported events at Abu Ghraib caused and continue to cause. One can only imagine what the radical Islamist propagandists and recruiters will do with the Haditha incident -- especially since they will merely have to accurately quote from major United States and European newspapers and television news broadcasts. Is this any way to fight a war?

It is a commonplace to observe that since the dawn of man -- and currently -- in the crucible of battle warriors sometimes cannot contain their emotions and their violent actions. It is amazing our troops act as civilized as they do in combat.

It is particularly commendable of our American troops that they willingly go into battle under such restrictive rules of engagement that they are required to constantly risk their own lives in order not to offend civilian/terrorists (?) until they are almost sure they are really combatants.

No other military force in history has been so tightly limited in their defensive actions. And probably no other military force has been sufficiently disciplined to maintain such restrictive rules in the heat of combat. God bless our troops -- if not necessarily the policy that so restricts them.

For the parents, wives, husbands and children of our young warriors who are killed because they followed the restrictive rules and didn't fire first, this is a damned bitter pill to swallow -- whatever the geopolitical wisdom of it.

But what further cuts is to listen to media people casually perpetrate blood libel against not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines but against our services more generally. To see the gleam in the eyes of reporters happily cackling on about "other possible incidents" -- about which they know not whether they even exist -- is to be filled with a fury that we have a system of journalism that permits people with such mentalities to poison the minds of the world with their malice.

Of course, of course, if an American soldier, sailor, marine or airman is found by a court martial made up of seasoned officers with a practical understanding of the exigencies of combat to have violated the standards of combat he or she must face American military justice. But in time of war, there is no reason why military censorship should not be enforced to shroud the carrying out of justice from the eager eyes and ears of enemy propagandists -- domestic and foreign.

Pending the implementation of such a policy, journalists should sharply limit their reporting to the bare established facts, preferably reported once on page A 36. (You know, the way they report Democratic Party scandals.)

But in the lunatic asylum which is today's America-at-war journalism, one possibly unfortunate event opens a flood gate of over-reporting, mis-reporting and just plain lying. Nothing is too harsh or too untrue to say about our military by these [fill in the blank].

At journalism conferences, the question is often brought up whether a journalist should see himself as an American first or a journalist first. Often the consensus is that they are journalists first.

I wonder how many of them would report a story if it would mean the death of their own child. And would any of those reporters who would be journalists first in even that appalling instant cheerfully mis-report a story in order to cause the death of their child? I suspect virtually none would.

If only they loved their country's young and willing warriors as much as they loved their own children.

But the journalists today are too swept up in their own dance macabre to even notice the murderous consequences of their own malfeasance -- or to hear the demands of simple decency.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Preacherman

  • Senior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 776
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2006, 07:11:47 PM »
Michael Yon has done his usual superb analysis of the Haditha situation.  See http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/hijacking-haditha.htm for an excellent portrayal of the incident - and the response of the press.
Let's put the fun back in dysfunctional!

Please visit my blog: http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/

Dannyboy

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,340
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2006, 05:19:37 AM »
I just found this bit of information.  Interesting stuff.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5566

Haditha: Is McGirk the New Mary Mapes?
June 9th, 2006

Evidence accumulates of a hoax in Haditha. The weblog Sweetness & Light has done an estimable service gathering together the articles which cast substantial doubt on the charge of a massacre of civilians at Haditha . Because the blog is too busy gathering and fisking the news, I offered and the publisher accepted my offer to put what he has uncovered in a narrative form.

Having done so, I can tell you that the story has a whiff of yet another mediagenic scandal like the TANG memos or the Plame outing. While the Marines quite correctly will not comment on the case pending the outcome of their investigation, I am not bound by those rules, and  I will sum up the story for you.

(a)   On November 20, 2005, Reuters reported that on the previous day an IED killed a US Marine and 15 civilians in Haditha, a town known to be a center of the insurgency, a town as hostile to our forces as the better known Fallujah was. Reuters reported that immediately after the blast, gunmen opened fire on the convoy and US and Iraqi forces returned fire, killing 8 insurgents and wounding another in the fight. The paper further reported that A cameraman working for Reuters in Haditha says bodies had been left lying in the street for hours after the attack. Reuters never named this cameraman but he was almost undoubtedly Ali al-Mashhadani.

(b)   Ali al-Mashhadani had been imprisoned for five months before his report  because of his ties to insurgents. He was subsequently placed under another 12 days in detention for being a security threat.

(c)   Tim McGirk of Time wrote about the incident at Haditha for the March 27 issue of the magazine. He unsuccessfully lobbied his editors to use the term massacre in the story. McGirk seems hardly a neutral reporter. He spent the first Thanksgiving after 9/11 in Afghanistan dining with the Taliban and concluding of this celebratory meal:

    Our missing colleagues finally arrive, and I leave thinking that maybe this evening wasnt very different from the original Thanksgiving: people from two warring cultures sharing a meal together and realizing, briefly, that were not so different after all.

Right, Tim. We all want to enslave women, bend the world to Sharia law, behead nonbelievers and otherwise carry on the honored traditions of the Taliban.

A key source for McGirks report that US Marines in Haditha had deliberately attacked civilians was Thaer al-Hadithi. whom McGirk inexplicably described as a budding journalism student. He is a middle-aged man, and was subsequently described by the AP as an Iraqi investigator.

McGirk also failed to note that Hadithi is a member and spokesman for the Hammurabi. The chairman of Hammurabi Organization and Hadithis partner in publicizing the massacre is AbdulRahman al-Mashhadani. It is unknown if he is related to Ali al-Mashhadani but their names suggest a possible relationship, and it beggars belief that as Sweetness& Light  notes,

    Abdel Rahman al-Mashhadani just happened to be given a video by and unnamed local. And that he then turned it over to Ali al-Mashhadani who just happens to make videos for Reuters.

Hadithis story is that was staying near to one of the two houses where the massacre occurred and saw it with his own eyes. According to his version of events he waited one day to videotape what had occurred, though apparently nothing prevented his doing so from the very window he watched it from as it took place. More troubling is why he waited months to turn the tape over to anyone.

The actions of his partner al-Mashhadani are equally puzzling. On December 15, 2005 Mashhadani was interviewed by the Institute for War and Peace which described him as an election monitor.  In that interview he expressed great satisfaction with the election turnout (which in fact was terribly low in Haditha). Why did he not mention to this apparently sympathetic group one word about the supposed atrocity which he claimed had occurred three months earlier?

Hammurabi apparently did share the video in March with the largely Soros-funded Human Rights Watch which in turn provided it to Time.

(d)   The videotape.On  March 21, 2006 Reuters reported that Hadithi and Mashhadanis organization, the Hammurabi Organization, had provided the organization was a copy of a videotape showing corpses lined up in the Haditha morgue, claiming these were the bodies of civilians deliberately killed by the Marines. Aside from the suspiciously-timed release of the video and the fact that chairman al-Mashhadani had never mentioned the incident or the tape in December when he was interviewed, the video shows people removing bodies from a home, a report at odds with the Reuters report the day after the incident which spoke of bodies lying in the street.

(e)   The witnesses to the massacre

    (1)   The Doctor.

    In the March 27 report, McGirk quotes the local  doctor:

        Dr. Wahid, director of the local hospital in Haditha, who asked that his family name be withheld because, he says, he fears reprisals by U.S. troops, says the Marines brought 24 bodies to his hospital around midnight on Nov. 19. Wahid says the Marines claimed the victims had been killed by shrapnel from the roadside bomb. But it was obvious to us that there were no organs slashed by shrapnel, Wahid says. The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the chest and the headfrom close range.

    Another report however, indicates the doctor bore considerable animus to the US troops.

    (2)The Iraqi eye-witnesses.

    In Haditha: Reasonable Doubt,  Andrew Walden  describes how a similar case against British soldiers fell apart , describing the Arabic blood money tradition which hardly is as exotic as it sounds. Ask the American Trial Lawyers Association.

    (3) The American eye witnesses.

    There are two American witnesses who have spoken out. Despite the press spin, neither has a first hand account of the events.

    Lance Cpl James Crossnan is the source of some very selective quotes on the incident. He, however, was wounded in the IED explosion with killed the US Marine Martin Terrazas. He was evacuated from the scene and saw none of the after-action.

    And then there is Lance Cpl Roel Ryan Briones. He helped evacuate Crossnan and took bodies to the morgue. He was not an eyewitness. He claims he took pictures of the bodies at the morgue and has made various statements about what happened to the pictures and his camera. Aside from the fact that he is not an eyewitness, and his claims about his photographs seem unlikely, his story remained unuttered until he was arrested for stealing a truck, driving under the influence and crashing the stolen vehicle  into a house. It was then for the first time that he claimed post traumatic distress and pointed to Haditha as the source of that stress. (His report of taking the bodies to the morgue, moreover, seems inconsistent with the first Reuters report that there were 15 bodies left lying in the street the day after the incident.)

The sum and substance of this thumbnail sketch on the Haditha claims is that it follows so closely the template for the TANG and Plame stories. Take a reporter with an anti-Administration agenda, an interested group (think of the Mashhadanis as the VIPS in the Plame case or Burkett and Lucy Ramirez in the TANG case) and a story too good to be checked and circumstances where the people attacked are limited in what they can quickly respond to  and you get a story which smells to me like it will soon be unraveled.

This time, Im betting the consequences to the press which rushed to judgment will be more disastrous than it was to Dan Rather. I surely hope so. Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC and a frequent contributor.

Edited to add:  Michael Yon made a great point with the "No Writing" roadsigns.
Oh, Lord, please let me be as sanctimonious and self-righteous as those around me, so that I may fit in.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2006, 03:47:29 PM »
Quote from: tokugawa
This patroling crap is a losing proposition.  Why fight the way your enemy fights best?
I'd have to agree.   The "strategy" is too often becoming "Ride around until someone tries to kill you, then go kill them."   The problem is initiative.   If the enemy chooses the ground and the timing, you're at a major disadvantage.    One strategy the insurgency in Iraq is employing is attacking American forces in areas that are heavily concentrated with civvies.   You return fire, you're very likely to kill civvies.  Which looks bad on TV, and more importantly, affects the prevailing local attitude towards the occupation forces.

Too often, Americans think their perception is the sole determining factor.   Sorry folks, that ain't true.  Sure, media coverage may make the Iraqi occupation look unpleasant to Americans.   Well, if watching CNN while sipping your latte makes you feel less good about the occupation, imagine having an Abrams putting a HEAT round through your living room TV.   People tend to not like the whole "dying" thing.   Especially when it is committed by "Them".   If someone looks very different than you, dresses very different, and doesn't even speak your language...  Tribalism is very strong.   No one likes an outside force occupying their country.  When the war enters their living room, they like it less.  

Intellectually, one can be happy that one has the ability to vote.   Over time, seeing the dead bodies of friends, family, neighbors, coworkers tends to make one...   less optimistic.

Part of the problem with the US occupation is that one cannot squeeze toothpaste back into the tube.   As many Generals suggested, our initial occupation was very poor executed at a strategic level.   On a tactical level, no Army on the planet to date could have done a better job of occupying Iraq.   Strategically, it was FUBAR.   There was very little planning into what happens AFTER Abrams were going down the streets of Baghdad.    We should have gone in with at least three times the soldiers we used.   We should have clamped down on munitions dumps, civil govt resources (museums, govt office buildings, etc) and kept the Iraqi Army intact.   These were all screw ups that many people pointed out at the time.   General Shinseki was fired for merely suggesting a higher number of occupation forces.   Whatcha think that said to the rest of the Generals?

How can we un-FUBAR the situation?   Better intelligence.   Better cultural training.  (Language mostly, but also local culture and customs)  Less hummers, more boots.   And getting out as soon as possible.

Whether we leave tomorrow or in ten years, the Iraqi people will have to decide for themselves what to do.   We can try to impose our ideas on them, and it will sorta work when we're holding a gun to their head.   Sooner or later, we'll leave.   They'll have to decide what kind of an Iraq they want.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,487
  • My prepositions are on/in
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2006, 04:48:04 PM »
Quote from: RevDisk
 There was very little planning into what happens AFTER Abrams were going down the streets of Baghdad.
I find that hard to believe.  Maybe the planning was poor, but it stretches credulity to say that the planning just didn't get done.  What do we know about the planning as compared to how much we should have planned?


Quote from: RevDisk
We should have clamped down on munitions dumps, civil govt resources (museums, govt office buildings, etc) and kept the Iraqi Army intact.   These were all screw ups that many people pointed out at the time.
Even if you take the view that we should not have disbanned the Army, it doesn't matter that some people called it a "screw-up" "at the time."  There was an argument to be made for disbanning it and a choice had to be made.  Maybe they were wrong, but if so they were sincerely wrong, believing that the Army, as a symbol of the regime, had to go away.

Quote from: RevDisk
General Shinseki was fired for merely suggesting a higher number of occupation forces.
I also find that hard to believe.  Why do you say this?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Dannyboy

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,340
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2006, 06:00:02 PM »
Shinseki should have been fired for the beret fiasco, long before this war started.
Oh, Lord, please let me be as sanctimonious and self-righteous as those around me, so that I may fit in.

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2006, 11:22:00 AM »
Another related article:

Washington Times
June 14, 2006
Pg. 3

'Bad News' Rife In Military Coverage

By Jennifer Harper, The Washington Times

Broadcasters continue to target the military, according to an analysis by the Media Research Center (MRC), which has detected a pronounced "bad news bias."

From May 17 to June 7, NBC, CBS and ABC aired 99 stories -- or 3½ hours of negative news coverage -- on the ongoing investigation of U.S. Marines in the death of Iraqi civilians in Haditha in November.

However, from September 2001 to June 2006, the same networks broadcast just 52 minutes of positive coverage of the nation's top military heroes, such as U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, who died while protecting 100 fellow soldiers during the battle for Baghdad's airport in April 2003, earning the Medal of Honor.

Nineteen other men received high honors -- the Air Force and Navy crosses and the Distinguished Service Cross -- yet 14 were never mentioned on the air, according to the MRC analysis.

"None of those positive stories have interested the networks as much as news of possible military misconduct," noted Rich Noyes, who led the research.

The analysis examined Haditha coverage from May 17 to June 7, "before the networks' pessimism was interrupted by the successful termination of terrorist menace [Abu Musab Zarqawi]," the study said. It also found that the networks used terms such as "Marine massacre" and "mass murder" to describe the Haditha incident, which is still under investigation by the Pentagon.

The MRC analysis noted that ABC News was the worst offender, airing 86 minutes of negative coverage, followed by NBC with 67 minutes and CBS with 58.

"Much of the coverage has been repetitive, reviewing the allegations and the still unfinished investigation. At the same time, the networks have presumed a guilty verdict and a blow to the overall American military's reputation," Mr. Noyes said.

The trend has not gone unnoticed by the military. Major Gen. William Caldwell, a spokesman for the multinational force in Iraq, recently cautioned journalists not to muddle facts -- such as confusing Haditha with a March 15 raid near Samarra in which Iraqi civilians died. That raid was investigated and found to be in accordance with standard rules of engagement.

"Recently there has been much attention in both the Western and Arabic media concerning reports of coalition soldiers killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Temptation exists to lump all these incidents together," Gen. Caldwell said June 3. "However, each case needs to be examined individually."

Such was the case, perhaps, when a grisly photo of blindfolded Iraqi civilians executed by local insurgents was used to illustrate Haditha coverage in the Times of London on June 1 and as an inspiration for a Chicago Sun-Times editorial cartoon. Both news organizations later apologized.

And overlooked: A May 28 Defense Department press release reporting that the United States recently spent $230,000 in repairing schools and water systems in Haditha, a city of 75,000.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2006, 05:40:47 PM »
Quote from: fistful
I find that hard to believe.  Maybe the planning was poor, but it stretches credulity to say that the planning just didn't get done.  What do we know about the planning as compared to how much we should have planned?
It's not hard to believe that the Army knows about occupation.  They're long, difficult and generally suck.  Tis why we didn't occupy Iraq back in 1991.   Read Gen Zinni's book "Battle Ready" for the assessment by the brass at the time regarding occupation of Iraq.   The first Bush obviously agreed with the suggestions of the Brass back then as we did not occupy Iraq back in 1991.

Things get interesting when politics enter the mix.   The political line was that the Iraqi people would be throwing flowers in the street ahead of our soldiers.  No, I'm not kidding.  My assessment of the Plan was bit over a hundred thousand soldiers would invade, everything would be wonderful after Saddam was removed, and we could immediately start scaling down troop levels.  

Call me an idiot, but at the time I was a Spec 4 and *I* thought that sounded unlikely.  You plan for the worst case scenerio, and hope for the best.    I was apparently not alone in these thoughts.



Quote
Even if you take the view that we should not have disbanned the Army, it doesn't matter that some people called it a "screw-up" "at the time."  There was an argument to be made for disbanning it and a choice had to be made.  Maybe they were wrong, but if so they were sincerely wrong, believing that the Army, as a symbol of the regime, had to go away.
We're reconstructing the Iraqi army and police forces.   And as I said, disbanding the Iraqi Army temporarily was only one mistake.   There were plenty of others.  


Quote
Quote from: RevDisk
General Shinseki was fired for merely suggesting a higher number of occupation forces.
I also find that hard to believe.  Why do you say this?
General Shinseki testified before Congress in Feb 2003.

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.


Rummy and Wolf publically strongly disagreed with him.  General Shinseki was correct in this matter.  I didn't care for a lot of Gen. Shinseki's platforms, including the beret issue.   Rummy had already announced Shinseki's retirement date beforehand, the two were very well known to disagree on many issues.   Especially on force strength issues.  My assessment is that Rummy wanted to gut the Army to pay for expensive weapon systems, Shinseki thought that would severely damage the Army's operational capabilities.  In my opinion, Shinseki was proven right about that line of thought as well.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

Secretary White resigned for "no single event or conflict precipitated the firing" after supporting Shinseki.  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-25-white-resigns_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm

Shinseki was not fired for specifically recommending several hundred thousand soldiers.  His retirement had already been announced as Rummy and Shinseki had very different views on managing the Army, especially in the area of force strength issues.  Force strength is a fancy buzzword for "boots on the ground."   Too many folks think that nifty shiney toys can win a war.   Sorry, only forces on the ground can do that.  As much as I disagreed with many of Shinseki's policies, I acknowledge that he remembered that important lesson.


It is of course as it should be that civilians are in charge of the military and give the orders.  Little thing called the Constitution, yanno.   However, when the military folks are correct and the politicians are very much off the mark, due credit should be given.   Call me crazy, but when politicians deeply screw up, they should be held accountable and be given the chance to resign.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2006, 12:26:36 AM »
I remember way back when we were preparing to go into Iraq the general consensus on THR was that we were going to kick their butts in a couple of days and it would be all over in no time. Does anyone remember the video posted there of the middle aged looking Iraqi soldier training and all the "fun" that was made of him? I predicted in that thread back THEN that if we didn't "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis we were in for a long hard struggle. Here we are...

I'm pretty pissed about our 2 that were just kidnapped and tortured. Bastards...
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Leatherneck

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,028
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2006, 02:46:32 AM »
ditto that, 280. I remember wondering, as the invasion started and chaos seemed rampant, what we were doing to spin the news to the Iraqi citizens--propoganda if you will, but with a basis of facts. The answer, apparently, is very little. And we seem to be in dead last now in the Hearts and Minds war.

I won't get started on the butchery of our two soldiers. I'd get booted from even APS if I spoke what my heart feels on that subject.

TC
TC
RT Refugee

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #40 on: June 21, 2006, 03:05:10 AM »
Yup, it's not worth getting started on, I'm right there with you. You must be familiar with navydoc? Last I heard he was in Ramadi IIRC and up to his elbows. I really feel for him and the rest who are in the middle of all this.

Take care
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,487
  • My prepositions are on/in
Marines in Haditha
« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2006, 03:52:44 AM »
Quote from: RevDisk
Things get interesting when politics enter the mix.   The political line was that the Iraqi people would be throwing flowers in the street ahead of our soldiers.  No, I'm not kidding.
Of course you're not kidding - this has not literally happenned, but many Iraqis have welcomed us.  In any case, you give me no reason to believe that there was no planning for a difficult occupation.

 
Quote
We're reconstructing the Iraqi army and police forces.
Meaning what?
 

Quote from: RevDisk
Quote
Quote from: RevDisk
General Shinseki was fired for merely suggesting a higher number of occupation forces.
I also find that hard to believe.  Why do you say this?
Shinseki was not fired for specifically recommending several hundred thousand soldiers.  His retirement had already been announced as Rummy and Shinseki had very different views on managing the Army, especially in the area of force strength issues.
So you don't believe it either?

Quote
Call me crazy, but when politicians deeply screw up, they should be held accountable and be given the chance to resign.
So, Rumsfeld should be fired for disagreeing with Shinseki?

Quote
Secretary White resigned for "no single event or conflict precipitated the firing" after supporting Shinseki.
According to the articles you linked, it looks like he and Rumsfeld had a well-known falling-out over the Crusader howitzer program and Enron may have figured into it too.

Quote
White worked for Enron from 1990 to 2001.

In an interview in March 2002, amid the Enron controversy, White said he would quit his Pentagon post should the federal investigation into Enron distract from his duties in the war on terrorism.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife