Please Dems, not Hillary!

[blatantninja]

I suppose it's preferable to borrow us into a multi-trillion dollar debt rather than tax us to pay for what we get now? I've never understood this vehemence towards taxation.

I don't have a problem with taxation. I have a problem with increasing taxes rather than cutting the fat and the handouts.

 

[Prime Junta]

To go off on a bit of a tangent, that hoopla about "insufficient" body armor and "insufficiently armored" Hummers isn't exactly so. Or, rather, much of the hoopla is based on huge misconceptions about what actually happens in a war.

Thing is, armor involves trade-offs. A heavily body-armored soldier will move more slowly, tire more quickly, and require more backup and support. A heavily armored vehicle will move more slowly, have poorer visibility, run out of fuel sooner, and wear out faster. What's more, the enemy adapts their tactics to different types of targets.

If you have lots of lightly armored, highly mobile forces with great situational awareness, you'll end up facing snipers, hit-and-run attacks with light arms, and light IED's. If you up-armor them, you'll have a fewer (because they need to spend more time in transit and resupply), less mobile units with poorer situational awareness -- and you'll be facing heavier IED's, more elaborate ambushes with RPG's and mines, and that sort of thing. Even the Palestinians have taken out Merkava tanks by burying a water boiler filled with TNT in the road, and setting it off when the tank is on top of it -- and some of the insurgents in Iraq are a fair bit more sophisticated; at least the ones trained and equipped by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are.

Put another way: which would you rather have, one fully armored Hummer, or ten unarmored ones? The answer, of course, is that you'd want a mix of them -- say, one fully armored vehicle for every five unarmored ones. Then you'd do your level best to use them where they're most effective. And you'd inevitably make some mistakes and lose some of the light vehicles and troops to weapons that would have been stopped had you used the more heavily armored ones instead. And then some civilian will start wailing about "sending your troops into battle with insufficient armor."

IOW, you can't up-armor your way out of casualties, and lack of or insufficient equipment isn't the problem in Iraq -- not now, and not before.

Strategically, the problems are (1) being there with no realistic strategic objective, (2) being there with about one-fifth or one-tenth the number of troops required to keep the place locked down, and (3) being there with a configuration, doctrine, and skill set designed for a conventional rather than an asymmetrical war. This was the case from Day 1, and of these problems, only number (3) has been partially addressed by now.

 

[dteowner]

Well, that didn't go well. I'm going to have to do honest research now. There was some porkbarrel construction project in West Virginia that made the news. I'll see if I can find the link.

Poor example aside, before you go attempting to prove war profiteering to me, I would ask y'all to re-read the part where I said, and I quote, "tired old saws with little basis in reality".

 

[zahratustra]

Well, yes and no PJ. Main thrust of your argument about armoured versus un-armoured is certainly correct BUT you forgotten one very important fact: troops which were to occupy Iraq weren't supposed to do any fighting at all (welcomed as liberators and all that jazz) so their trucks and Hummers weren't only un-armoured they were softskinned. This means no buletproof glass and no kit-armor in the doors. You didn't need RPG to kill soldiers inside, you could (in theory) do it with a metal bar. You remember Rumsfled visit to Iraq when one of soldiers complained that they have to scavenge wrecks for armor? He wasn't talking about fully armored Hummers (those have to be manufactured), he was talking about upgrades which would make softskinned vehicles less vulnerable.

 

[dteowner]

I don't suppose it would be a good time to remind everyone that the executive branch has no control of the budget beyond a (relatively speaking) small discretionary fund? That belongs to the democrat controlled Congress. And would it be fair to say that some of the same politicians leading the parade on the armor problem are the ones leading the parade to cut military spending?

 

[zahratustra]

I don't suppose it would be a good time to remind everyone that the executive branch has no control of the budget beyond a (relatively speaking) small discretionary fund?

Will not wash dt I am affraid. The whole post-invasion plan was fatally flawed from the very beginning and that (and not the budget) was the reason why inadequate number of inadequatelly armoured troops was send. Remeber that Rumsfeld originally planned to send even smaller number of troops than the number which was finally decided on.

 

[Prime Junta]

Well, yes and no PJ. Main thrust of your argument about armoured versus un-armoured is certainly correct BUT you forgotten one very important fact: troops which were to occupy Iraq weren't supposed to do any fighting at all (welcomed as liberators and all that jazz)

Yes, that's strategic points (1) and (3).

so their trucks and Hummers weren't only un-armoured they were softskinned. This means no buletproof glass and no kit-armor in the doors.

Soft-skinned is the same as unarmored. Bulletproof glass and kit armor on the doors weighs and costs a lot.

What I'm sayin' is, if you occupy hostile territory, you'll be taking casualties no matter what you do. Israel stayed in South Lebanon for a quite a while. That gave the world Hezbollah. They started out by driving suicide cars into troop formations; then the stupid and hot-headed ones got killed off, and eventually they were cracking fortified positions and taking out Merkavas. Not enough to actually *force* them to retreat, but enough that the steady drip-drip-drip of casualties with no prospect of change got seriously old, so eventually the IDF buggered off. And nobody does counter-insurgency like the IDF.

You didn't need RPG to kill soldiers inside, you could (in theory) do it with a metal bar. You remember Rumsfled visit to Iraq when one of soldiers complained that they have to scavenge wrecks for armor? He wasn't talking about fully armored Hummers (those have to be manufactured), he was talking about upgrades which would make softskinned vehicles less vulnerable.

The same argument applies -- up-armored standard Hummers are still much heavier, much slower, much less durable, and much more fuel-hungry. You'll still want a mix of vehicles and troops. If you want to fight a war, be prepared to take casualties. As it is, you've been barely taking any -- the fact that only about 4000 GI's have bit it over five years of fighting in a hellhole like Iraq is pretty strong evidence that they're damn well equipped, trained, and led. That attrition rate is tiny.

 

[Prime Junta]

Well, that didn't go well. I'm going to have to do honest research now. There was some porkbarrel construction project in West Virginia that made the news. I'll see if I can find the link.

I'm sure you can. The point is that pork doesn't really respect party lines -- whoever is in the majority will get most of it.

That said, it's a bit of a red herring, really -- the federal budget is, what, $1 trillion, and pork is only about $20bn. That's barely pocket change.

Poor example aside, before you go attempting to prove war profiteering to me, I would ask y'all to re-read the part where I said, and I quote, "tired old saws with little basis in reality".

Are you saying there *isn't* war profiteering? Knowing your cynical attitude towards government, that'd be a bit of a surprise!

 

[zahratustra]

If you want to fight a war, be prepared to take casualties. As it is, you've been barely taking any -- the fact that only about 4000 GI's have bit it over five years of fighting in a hellhole like Iraq is pretty strong evidence that they're damn well equipped, trained, and led. That attrition rate is tiny.

Yes indeed but both Israel's (especially) and US' (to only slightly lesser extend) public opinion dislikes any sort of casualties. Why do you think most of the campaign in South Lebanon was executed by airpower with ground troops send in only reluctantly when aerial bombardment failed to dislodge Hezbollah?

And remember Somalia? Whole US force buggered off because two Black Hawks went down and 19 soldiers were killed in action!

I wonder if, while planning post-war occupation of Iraq, casualties and their impact on public opinion were considered at all! There was not supposed to be any fighting and it doesn't appear that there was any plan B in case there was!

 

[magerette]

I don't suppose it would be a good time to remind everyone that the executive branch has no control of the budget beyond a (relatively speaking) small discretionary fund? That belongs to the democrat controlled Congress. And would it be fair to say that some of the same politicians leading the parade on the armor problem are the ones leading the parade to cut military spending?

Wikipedia is just a click away dte Since I have no memory beyond what I ate for breakfast, I used it to verify a small thought I had that it was a Republican dominated congress when the Iraq invasion was planned and initially executed beginning March 20, 2003 and only recently gained Dem control:

The Republicans finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994, thanks in part to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. The Republicans have controlled both houses since, until they lost both chambers in the past 2006 Congressional elections...[except for when]...control of the Senate flipped twice in the 107th Congress (2001-2003), ending effectively tied. [50-50] The 108th Congress (2003-2005) saw the Senate return to a GOP majority of 51-49.

The Senate was exactly 50-50 in January of 2003(see above link) but by March was 51R-49D. The House was still under Republican control. Being as I'm not committed to either party, I'm inclined to believe the blame (if any) lies pretty equally between the two, myself.

 

[blatantninja]

Yes indeed but both Israel's (especially) and US' (to only slightly lesser extend) public opinion dislikes any sort of casualties! Why do you think most of the campaign in South Lebanon was exectuded by aeroplanes with ground troops send it only reluctantly when aerial bombardment failed to dislodge Hezbollah?

And remember Somalia? Whole US force buggered off because two Black Hawks went down and 19 soldiers were killed in action!

I wonder if, while planning post-war occupation of Iraq, casualties and their impact on public opinion were considered at all! There was not supposed to be any fighting and it doesn't appear that there was any plan B in case there was!

Agreed. As someone who has several friends in the military (and just as a human in general), I certainly don't want to see ANY military personnel killed, but in the grand scheme of things, it is amazing how small our casualty rate is. Now granted, the mortality rate is small also because we're better at patching guys up. I think a big part of the public perception problem is the media. Every day, we here about how many soldiers were killed the day before, complete with running total. It's constantly in our face and so is disproportionate to the reality of the situation.

 

[magerette]

The 'patching people up' part is also ugly and constant. Looking at nineteen and twenty year olds on the news every night who have to live the rest of their lives with prosthetic limbs is almost more of an impact than just the number of the dead.

 

[Eliaures]

Yes, the Republicans are all for cutting the defense budget. They cut VA benefits and keep the stupid unfeasible "Star Wars" program. Of course, many Democrats voted for this as well. Then there's the MRAP controversy where the Marine Corps decided to delay purchase of these IED resistant vehicles until American made ones were available in 2010. I wonder why they chose to do that?

As far as body armor being discussed? I wasn't talking about light armored vs. heavily armored tactics I was talking about fraud, as in this case. DHB Execs Indicted for Fraud

 

[dteowner]

@magerette: Today, magerette, today. The funding cuts I referred to are happening now, not when Iraq started. The armor problems didn't happen at the very beginning of the war, either.

@eliaures: You're welcome to explain to me what a rather common corporate embezzlement indictment has to do with the Republican party, which is the connection I think you were attempting to make. I believe this is where PJ steps in and "notes a change of subject" (unless he happens to agree with the point )

@PJ- no, I'm saying for me to deny profiteering would be as blindly stupid as the "mean old conservative" BS that was tossed my way.

 

[Prime Junta]

Yes indeed but both Israel's (especially) and US' (to only slightly lesser extend) public opinion dislikes any sort of casualties. Why do you think most of the campaign in South Lebanon was executed by airpower with ground troops send in only reluctantly when aerial bombardment failed to dislodge Hezbollah?

Can't resist to pick a nit: the IDF ground offensive in Lebanon was started as quickly as logistically feasible. The kidnap occurred on 12 July, and the IDF ground offensive started on 23 July. That's eleven days -- very, very short to get a fully mechanized modern army into offensive posture and rolling in, even in a country at as high a state of readiness as Israel, and even knowing that contingency plans had certainly been prepared in advance.

 

[Eliaures]

@eliaures: You're welcome to explain to me what a rather common corporate embezzlement indictment has to do with the Republican party, which is the connection I think you were attempting to make. I believe this is where PJ steps in and "notes a change of subject" (unless he happens to agree with the point )

@PJ- no, I'm saying for me to deny profiteering would be as blindly stupid as the "mean old conservative" BS that was tossed my way.

First off, the "mean spirited conservative" remark was not directed. If you decided to burden yourself with it, that was your choice. I can't recall that you've ever grumped about the welfare cheat myths.

Graft and corruption are unfortunately not party related. Both the Dems and the Republicans got us into this war, and they are both writing the almost blank checks, no-bid contracts, that are getting us heavily into debt. My point was not to blame Republicans, but to lament the fact that so many folks complain about government "hand-outs" but blithely ignore other government waste. Why is it that corporate graft seems to warrant so little grief from conservatives?

 

[mudsling3]

... as opposed to the $3 trillion war over ... stickin' our nose where it didn't belong?

I don't know if you were reacting to my post since it is right under it. In that case you are not only dead wrong regarding where I am standing, but also got into more fatal errors in believing Obama/Hillary/Democratic would not draw our nation into more wars. I spit on current crops of Republicans in office.

The only way to end war is to remove the fuel from under the boiling pot - limit Federal government power, abolishing central bank. Ask a president to end war is like hiring a CEO and expect him to ruin a corporation.

"War is the health of the state" - Randolph Bourne

 

[dteowner]

I don't see how you can even attempt to plead innocence on that one. You can't even play the semantics or misunderstanding cards.

Now, I'll ask once again what a corporate embezzlement indictment has to do with government. You don't even know where the $200M came from. You're assuming it's government contracts, but I don't remember a single line in that article stating that to be true. Basically, you're trotting out a completely unrelated situation, hoping everyone will assume it's politically motivated and gambling nobody will notice. Sorry, I may have gotten sloppy with my porkbarrel example, but I did take the time to read your link. Perhaps you should have, too.

edit- As promised, here's the joker from West Virginia that's put up so many roads, several truly going nowhere. The site does a pretty good job of skewering both sides of the aisle, so I'll assume they're half way close to impartial. Without further adieu, The Honorable Robert Byrd

 

[txa1265]

At least when we invest in crazy defense projects, we get something tangible for our money.

Well, at least we *used to* ... but there is a difference between a budget funding loads and loads of Humvees and such and the previous one that has created some of the fundamental research that fuels the technology that all of us here depend on daily.

 

[Eliaures]

Now, I'll ask once again what a corporate embezzlement indictment has to do with government. You don't even know where the $200M came from.

You're right, I didn't read the entire article. I assumed it would address the fact that the vests he provided were substandard and overpriced. This was only ONE example of war profiteering that I advanced and it doesn't include all the examples you could find if you Googled it and did more research. My MAIN point is that most conservatives get all bent out of shape over social "hand-outs" yet ignore corporate welfare and especially war profiteering which is tantamount to treason.