Kicking Ass: The Democratic Party's Blog

Looking Back

Posted by on December 20, 2006 at 10:24 AM

What ThinkProgress said:

Yesterday, President Bush announced his intention to increase the “overall size” of the Army, acknowledging that the current forces were “stressed.” The Washington Post reports he’s considering an increase of 50,000-70,000 troops.

On June 3, 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) — campaigning for the presidency — proposed expanding the Army by 40,000 troops. Bush quickly slammed the proposal as unnecessary and counter-productive:

Bush’s campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld already has authorized 30,000 more troops through extended tours and new recruitment. He said the country would be “less safe” under Kerry’s approach.

In a news release, Kerry explained the problem with the Bush approach:

The Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including “Stop Loss” orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.

As recently as six months ago, President Bush was sticking to his guns. From a June 14, 2006, “Statement of Administration Policy“:

The Administration opposes increases in minimum active Army and Marine Corps end strengths in Title IV, because they could require DoD to maintain a higher personnel level than is needed. The restructuring of the Army and the Marine Corps, plus other initiatives, is enabling our military to get more warfighting capability from current end strength.

This “restructuring” was a central part of Rumsfeld’s efforts to make the military a “more modern force.” Bush cited those efforts as a key reason why he believed Rumsfeld was “one of the finest defense secretaries” in history.

Comments (7) «

I watched Mr. Bush stumble through his question and answer session with the press. I wish one of the reporters had asked him what he is doing with "his" attack fleet off the coast of Iran. Could it be that he is trying to prevoke Iran into attacking our fleet as a justification for a "counter attack" on Iran. I notice that this build up continies while Congree is in recess. I wish Jack Murtha, John Kerry and others would step up and ask Bush one question, "Just what in the hell do you thing you are doing now?!!!"

1
goodfoe on December 20, 2006 at 01:07 PM

I noticed the old spin and rhetoric, the failure to answer the question, the trying to make the journalist look foolish because they asked a hard question.

But I also noticed how OLD, georgie boy is looking these days, and how his beady little eyes showed how uncomfortable and pissed he was at having to answer questions about his Failure, his future legacy, etc. Let's hope this is all eating his guts up !!!

2
PamB on December 20, 2006 at 01:17 PM

Bush keeps seeking that "military victory" in Iraq.

In a nuclear world, what is a military victory?

3
Kathleen on December 20, 2006 at 03:13 PM

In the November 27, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh wrote in "The Next Act":


But many in the White House and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. “It’s a classic case of ‘failure forward,’” a Pentagon consultant said. “They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq—like doubling your bet. It would be an attempt to revive the concept of spreading democracy in the Middle East by creating one new model state.”

Of course the usual people denied or refused to make a comment regarding what Hersh revealed on November 27 of this year. However, in today's news there are a lot of talking points using the term "double down" to describe the possible buildup of troops. Interesting! We are told a buildup would be to stabilize Iraq. So, do Bush and the neocons really intend to make a move against Iran?

Hersh also talks about a CIA document in which the CIA's thorough check of Iran, through open and clandestine means, revealed no parallel nuclear program intended for weapons going on in Iraq -- only a program for civilian use. The report was given to the White House, and they are said to have dismissed it. It was also given to various Intelligence officials.

A lot of unsubstantiated accusations have been floated around about Iran and that country's intentions. The frequency and the way in which they are delivered by White House officials or by their "news" mouthpieces , is intentionally meant to deceive -- AGAIN. Mainstream media repeats them. It would be important to know the truth about Iraq, and to get that information independentely rather than from a presidency that creates what it wants to be true.

Can any of our elected officials do some investigation and verification about what is going on here? We have 2 naval carriers enroute to the Persian Gulf and PNAC zealots acting as advisors to the president, with Cheney vowing that he will get around anything that Democrats put in his way, says Hersh.

Democrats know that this group has no qualms about lying to get what they want. Can we perhaps finally understand that their goal is much broader and longer than stabilizing Iraq? It appears that the Iraq Study Group's suggestions to find a political solutions are not an option. We must remain vigilent and wary of Bush and his people or we will find ourselves in a ground war with Iran. Hersh's article seems to be coming true. It is well worth reading -- now.

4
Kathleen on December 20, 2006 at 04:16 PM

OK folks. He can ignore people going to the polls. He can pretend that we only want a change in policy. He can ignore polls that say 71% of the people do not want more troops in Iraq but we are still sitting in our livingrooms screaming at the news. Clearly, we have to plan a massive march on Washington, maybe as soon as January 1st to let him see us. I'll be there. If people do not read the newspaper or go on line, I'll recruite people on the corner of every town in RI to go. Just tell me where and when.

5
stopbush on December 20, 2006 at 07:04 PM

Would more troops really make a significant positive difference in Iraq? Worth the deaths, injuries and bigger budget deficit? Worth doing instead of other spending such as on healthcare, education, etc.?
In the long run, will we be safer by having more troops in the short run, or by investing in education, fighting obesity, etc. so that in the future (when China is stronger, N. Korea has more nukes, etc.) we can better afford to spend more on defense?

6
GrassrootDemocratBruce on December 20, 2006 at 11:06 PM

Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, (a man who was forced out of office by the Shinseki clique) was the architect of the only workable and imaginative "transformation" of the military. He created his outlook after a cold realization that the Clintonista generals, left over from the ruinous Clinton regime, had embraced the worse concepts ever to threaten the lethality of US ground forces. Most of Rumsfeld’s focus was upon transforming the army, the most important ground combatant force. The army version of transformation was developed by Eric K. Shinseki retired Chief of Staff United States Army, darling of the media left and leading Clintonista. He was supported by a host of incompetent and self-serving conventional army generals (some now working for General Dynamics) who became convinced that the US Army must be converted into a poorly armed, unarmored (no tanks) international police force as a result of their mind melds with Bubba Clinton. The Balkan experience of the Shinseki generals clique also infected many of them with a strong sympathy for muslim imperialism.
That entire clique of US Army conventional generals were protégés of the neo-marxist President Bubba and had, over an eight-year period, adapted Clinton’s view of the world. During Clinton’s administration America’s conventional generals demonstrated a new low in risk-aversion. Literally, every time of crisis that demanded military daring and gumption, was parried with a set of clichés including: “That’s too Hollywood.” “That’s too complicated.” “That’s too dangerous to world peace.” (See www.quikmaneuvers.com\bureaucrat_generals.html and www.quikmaneuvers.com\generals_gone_bad.html )
The army general’s transformation scheme was a serious mistake but a clear example of the decadence of America’s conventional generals. They wanted to transform the US Army into Bubba Clinton’s version of a military, a Balkans-style police force. Shinseki and his unimaginative crew asked themselves: “How would a military police force be armed?” By thumbing through a few books, they saw that such a “force” would be very light and organized to fight gangsters who had no RPGs. The result was Shinseki’s
vulnerable, rubber-tired wheeled Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT). The six SBCT Brigades, now deployed in Iraq, have little firepower, no true ground reconnaissance, no armor, and are sitting ducks for any armed guerilla force. Such units are not able to stand up to a modern armored army for a moment, or a few muslims with RPGs for very long. Tanks rule in urban combat.
Shinseki’s clique bragged that they had rendered the tank obsolescent. Yet in Baghdad, Fallujah and elsewhere it was verified repeatedly that the presence of Abrams tanks facilitates victory by US forces at minimal cost in casualties. (See www.quikmaneuvers.com\tanks_in_the_city.html )
Shinseki’s new army of light weight, poorly armed constabulary was supposed to somehow overcome its massive weaknesses with the notion of complete situational awareness, (The daily images of burning rubber-tired wheeled vehicles in Iraq makes a mockery of this notion on a daily basis) and stand-off firepower (Where's that firepower supposed to come from? The air?). (See www.quikmaneuvers.com\secrets_of_improvised_explosive_devices.html )
The Shinseki clique is the enemy of every key tactic that serves to make the US Army great. For example, they claim that the US Army does not need ground reconnaissance and can be "totally situationally aware by depending upon technology." Colonel Grimsley, commander of First BCT, Third Infantry Division commented that he finally understood what the enemy was doing in the town of An Najaf when Iraqi citizens drove out to one of his tank battalions and told the soldiers what was taking place. According to the locals, the Special Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Sadaam were conscripting locals and compelling them to attack the Americans. All the UAV or satellite imagery in the world would not have revealed this critical detail about the enemy strategy. (A professional army, involved in life and death struggle with the most dangerous mass of psychopathic religious cult fanatics and treasonous domestic leftists ever seen on earth, cannot afford to let luck provide it with HUMINT.) (See www.quikmaneuvers.com\us_long_range_reconnaissance.html )
The Shinseki clique bragged that their brand of US Army military intelligence was so fine that "no enemy could get within miles without being easily detected." The largest conventional tank battle of the war occurred on the morning of 3 April 2003, when elements of three Iraqi brigades consisting of no less than 100 armored vehicles and up to 10,000 soldiers converged on 3-69 Armor as they guarded a critical bridge crossing the Euphrates River at Objective Peach. That type of large conventional force was the ideal formation that the extensive surveillance network operating in Iraq should have been able to detect. Lieutenant Colonel Marcone commander of 3-69 Armor, reported that, “the Iraqi Republican Guard did nothing special to conceal their intentions or their movements. They attacked en masse using tactics that are more recognizable with the Soviet army of World War II”. Despite the large conventional force moving against him, Lieutenant Colonel Marcone reported that, “we got nothing until they slammed into us.” In fact, the battalion did not receive a single piece of intelligence from their higher headquarters to indicate that such a large attack was imminent. The commander had terrible “situational awareness” that night in spite of the large array of airborne reconnaissance platforms that were supposedly watching his front. With almost no early warning, 3-69 Armor was able to successfully fight off the attack due to the unit’s quality training, superior armor protection, and the disjointed nature of the Iraqi attack. No greater indictment can exist for US Army military intelligence and the Shinseki concept of no strong ground reconnaissance forces. (See www.quikmaneuvers.com\combat_intelligence_iraq_1.html and www.quikmaneuvers.com\combat_intelligence_iraq_2.html )
Conventional US Army generals had their own transformation plan long before Rumsfeld came on the scene. The conventional general’s ideas were worse than incompetent; they were treasonous because they disarmed the army. It’s easily documented that the army’s conventional generals, not Rumsfeld, saw its own infantry as nothing more than a constabulary to "clean up" after a conventional warfare mess caused by “a perfectly targeted enemy that was killed from afar”. The plans of the Shinseki cult to totally moth ball all US tanks is a matter of record. Nothing the army has done in the recent past had made it adept at fighting long-term insurgencies or terrorist uprisings (Intifadas), and that goes back to the Reagan Administration. The days of the army’s acceptance of winning maneuver doctrine has disappeared, replaced by the same old awkward attrition methods that had lost the Vietnam War. Shinseki and his clique proved that US conventional generals and admirals are incompetent to fight a war. (See www.quikmaneuvers.com\fallujah_battles.html and www.quikmaneuvers.com\fallujah_battles_2.html )

7
affirmativeaction on December 31, 2006 at 01:59 PM


« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.