"Bang $100,000 goes up in smoke..."

[skelley]

Yeh, we just stick with good-old judicial coups.

Don't forget about the Democrats using the dead vote and the illegals that vote.

[Splinty]

I'm another 3 tour Iraq vet Duke, and although I think I understand where you are getting your information from, Abneo and Clavicula are right. The reality on the ground in Iraq at least; is much different from what you are being reported by the media or hearing from people not on the ground there. If I remember correctly, in another thread, there was a discussion about the lack of U.S. presence out in the streets. You IIRC believed we just drove around in M1114s and had little or no direct contact with the locals. I replied that was not the case. In my experience, I spent at least 3-4 hours out of every 8 hour patrol on the ground, in market places, schools, etc.My unit had 3-4 MP squads out in sector-and for us sector meant all of East Baghdad-on any given day. We had Iraqi interpretors with us, and we talked to people all the time. That-among other things-was what we were there for.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

[/qb]

I know it's Army-wide, I was questioning why it isn't maroon berets since it is an Airborne unit..isn't it? [/qb]

Ah, I understand your question..no, officially, and basically, we are "Air Assault"

[Clavicula_Nox]

I want to add that being in the Army doesn't necessarily give someone an understanding of how it works. I know plenty of junior enlisted, NCOs, and officers who have no clue as to what's going on outside their normal day-to-day.

A personal example: My father in law is a 21-year 82nd Airborne Div veteran (68-89) and a retired E-7. He doesn't have the first clue as to how the military *actually* works. He also managed to avoid every deployment the 82nd went on during that period and he was a UH-1 crew chief. The man has no idea how today's army works and he refuses to believe that it has somehow changed over the last 19 years in ways that he just doesn't understand.

I'm just a lowly E-5 who doesn't know everything, but I know enough things, and due to my current unit, I have been all over that country in different capacities. Some regions are heavy on foreign fighters, some are lighter. Ironically, the place I have the least experience is Baghdad, I've flown into BIAP a couple of times, and spent around 3 days at Camp Victory waiting for a trip ticket.

Not so. Iraq is about 75% Arab and 20% Kurd. Southern Iraq is inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims who share the same religion as Iran, but they are ethnicaly Arab, not Persian. Babil province is dominated by the Dulaim tribe which is Arab (and Babil is in the center of the country which is mostly Sunni anyway).

I disagree with you, I was there for quite some time near Iskandariyah, the border with Karbalah, and around Al-Hillah.

Ah, I understand your question..no, officially, and basically, we are "Air Assault"

So the airborne tab is retained for tradition, then. Not a bad deal, but are the BCT's organized by PIR/AIR, or what? For example, 1st BCT/82nd is formed by 2 battalions from 504th AIR(They're Airborne Infantry Regiments now instead of PIR) and the misc support units.

I think you guys get hosed losing maroon berets, it *doesn't* matter but it's just a distinction and pride thing.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I disagree with you, I was there for quite some time near Iskandariyah, the border with Karbalah, and around Al-Hillah.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/iraq_ethnic_religious_map.html

[ March 24, 2008, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

That's great for him, seems he forgot a few things because his statements imply the enlisted soldier has some kind of choice or that NCO's are bound to undermine missions that they don't agree with.

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying, if you volunteered to participate in the war, then take responsibility for your decision. Defend it, with rational arguements based on fact. And if you can't, admit you're wrong.

The enlisted soldier volunteered. Nobody drafted him. He signed on the dotted line. No one pointed a gun at his head. No one forced him to become a soldier.

He is an adult, a responsible member of his society. He can vote. Where does it say, a person like that gets a free pass from criticism when he behaves irresponsibly?

And I am saying, not coyly implying, but stating in as clear terms as I know how, participating in a stupid war, voluntarily, is irresponsible. Not heroic, not brave, not even good for the nation. Irresponsible.

That is, after all, a conscious decision. Sign-up bounties are being paid, in good hard US cash. Thousands and thousands of dollars, per individual just so Uncle Sam can get a warm body into the ranks.

I see no reason why a person taking the money, and joining the war, should be excused from the criticism when his decision turns out to have been harmful to his country. Not helpful. Harmful. Wasteful in lives, national treasure, international reputation.

There is, to mind, little excuse in the arguement, "Well dude, I didn't know."

There is plenty of information, a plethora of infomation, a surfeit of information in English, or for that matter whatever other major language you might want, out there for any one willing to read. About the Afghan tribes, the British and Soviet campaigns, the differences between Afridis and Hazaras, the opium industry, and whatever other information one needs to realize that any kind of long-term military commitment by a Western force in Afghanistan is a big, fat, wasteful mistake.

This isn't the 1940s or even the 1970s, when there was only the mainstream media and one national opinion. If you are ignorant about the limits to military power in a place like Afghanistan, you have only your own laziness to blame.

Think about it. If the US cannot police its own border, with its own people, and keep the drugs out, how in the world are a few thousand NATO troops going to keep the opium inside of a place like Afghanistan?

It is a ludicrous proposition, on the face of it.

Ignoring the obvious, and then hiding behind excuses like "hey, I had to follow orders" or "hey, I'm defending my country" or "I don't know the big picture" or arguing "you know, actually, things are getting better, and I know so because my unit is getting hit less" is just that: hiding behind excuses.

Five years is plenty of time to make meaningful progress against an insurgency. The British were in the driver's seat in Malaya in five years. The Russians, for practical purposes, won in Chechnya in five years.

If the Afghanistan campaign hasn't shown the same progress, then participants need to take responsibility for the result, or explain in some coherent way how what by almost any objective standard looks like failure, actually is success.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I want to add that being in the Army doesn't necessarily give someone an understanding of how it works. I know plenty of junior enlisted, NCOs, and officers who have no clue as to what's going on outside their normal day-to-day.

A personal example: My father in law is a 21-year 82nd Airborne Div veteran (68-89) and a retired E-7. He doesn't have the first clue as to how the military *actually* works. He also managed to avoid every deployment the 82nd went on during that period and he was a UH-1 crew chief. The man has no idea how today's army works and he refuses to believe that it has somehow changed over the last 19 years in ways that he just doesn't understand.

I'm just a lowly E-5 who doesn't know everything, but I know enough things, and due to my current unit, I have been all over that country in different capacities. Some regions are heavy on foreign fighters, some are lighter. Ironically, the place I have the least experience is Baghdad, I've flown into BIAP a couple of times, and spent around 3 days at Camp Victory waiting for a trip ticket.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Not so. Iraq is about 75% Arab and 20% Kurd. Southern Iraq is inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims who share the same religion as Iran, but they are ethnicaly Arab, not Persian. Babil province is dominated by the Dulaim tribe which is Arab (and Babil is in the center of the country which is mostly Sunni anyway).

I disagree with you, I was there for quite some time near Iskandariyah, the border with Karbalah, and around Al-Hillah.

Ah, I understand your question..no, officially, and basically, we are "Air Assault"

So the airborne tab is retained for tradition, then. Not a bad deal, but are the BCT's organized by PIR/AIR, or what? For example, 1st BCT/82nd is formed by 2 battalions from 504th AIR(They're Airborne Infantry Regiments now instead of PIR) and the misc support units.

I think you guys get hosed losing maroon berets, it *doesn't* matter but it's just a distinction and pride thing. </font>

[abneo3sierra]

Bigduke..the fact you label the war as a bad war, is your opinion. Most soldiers believe in honor and keeping their word, but would still leave if they did not believe in it. The war was fought for good reason. If you were really an intel officer as someone above pointed out, you would, or should have access to at the minimum, the information I have access to. That said, if you actually were, but believe there was no cause for the war, something is very wrong with your thought process, and I am stating, not coyly implying, that. The average person, even a reporter, I could almost see their reasoning, but not at all for someone who would have had access.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I disagree with you, I was there for quite some time near Iskandariyah, the border with Karbalah, and around Al-Hillah.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/iraq_ethnic_religious_map.html </font>

[Bigduke6]

Splinty,

I am saying, that until those Americans can drive around in normal cars, unarmed, any judgement they make about how "safe" the country is is suspect.

Now, if you're driving through your AO not wearing body armor, obeying all the traffic laws, wearing your seat belt, and your weapons are back at the base in the armory, all you have to defend yourself is your winning personality and your trusty Arabic phrase book then I'll be the first to say I'm wrong, actually security is really getting better.

But not getting hit as often could be something as simple as the bad guys have figured out, it ain't worth it to try and hit US combat units, too high a price for too little pay off. That's not the same as progress against the insurgents, after all, they'll just go kill governors or tax collectors or border police or whomever. Not dying as often in ambushes might be less insurgents, or it might be better American vehicles, tactics, and medical support.

In any case, the important issue is not how safe Iraq is for Americans. The important issue is how safe Iraq is for Iraqis. A country where bombers go unpunished and the government is epically corrupt, and where there are hundreds of thousands of refugees, and God knows how much human suffering, is not going to be impressed if a few less Americans die or are injured every month. For whatever reason - and the numbers look to be spiking again from what I see. Almost as if the insurgents have adapted to the Surge...

As to language, you are entitled to your opinion, and certainly your experience is not to be sneezed at. But...as some one who has worked in a couple of places with an interpeter, and in others speaking the actual language, I'm here to tell you, working through an interpeter is pretty close to useless for getting a feel for a foreign society. You have to be pretty close to a genius to put your personality across through a interpeter. Most of us aren't geniuses. This is why foreign languages are taught, after all.

Me, I am dumbfounded that any one (not you) could assert that he can get a pretty good feel of a foreign culture, using interpeters and a few basic commands. That is the height of arrogance, and ignorance, in my book.

[Omenowl]

Now, if you're driving through your AO not wearing body armor, obeying all the traffic laws, wearing your seat belt, and your weapons are back at the base in the armory, all you have to defend yourself is your winning personality and your trusty Arabic phrase book [big Grin] then I'll be the first to say I'm wrong, actually security is really getting better.

Are you saying this applies to all police officers in their hometowns? Almost every police officer I know wears body armor and carries a firearm and this is in one of the safest cities in the US. I mean honestly that is an unrealistic expectation even in the United States. No wonder we can't win because the expectations are set so high.

[Clavicula_Nox]

In any case, the important issue is not how safe Iraq is for Americans. The important issue is how safe Iraq is for Iraqis. A country where bombers go unpunished and the government is epically corrupt, and where there are hundreds of thousands of refugees, and God knows how much human suffering, is not going to be impressed if a few less Americans die or are injured every month.

I at least agree with these and have been critical of the Iraqi govt since the beginning. I do disagree that the bad guys are "adapting" to the Surge, maybe you are unaware, but The Surge is a bit more than a troop increase.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I disagree with you, I was there for quite some time near Iskandariyah, the border with Karbalah, and around Al-Hillah.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/iraq_ethnic_religious_map.html </font>

[JP76er]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JP76er:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JP76er:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MD82:

Not if it takes out a 6 million dollar tank.

If I were an infantry commander in Iraq and my choice were to send in a platoon of infantry into an ied and insurgent infested building or use a $100,000 missile it's a no brainier.

Fire power saves lives and I don't think any parent of a trooper or any superior officer would begrudge the extra cost.

I agree. IMHO, my tax dollars being spent wisely. Our men & women in the service are priceless.

On another note; I'm working with some of the REAL Rangers from "Black Hawk Down" fame on two websites. They will be set up to aid ALL U.S. VETS, from ALL WARS. They are about done with the non-profit paperwork & meetings with the right important people. Just asking the Mods & owners, can I post those links when they are ready? Not selling anything at all, just setting up aid & networking to our heroes. The guys said something about leg units being invited too... </font>

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I disagree with you, I was there for quite some time near Iskandariyah, the border with Karbalah, and around Al-Hillah.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/iraq_ethnic_religious_map.html </font>

[FAI]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:If by enclave you mean, the majority of Babil province, then I would agree with you.

So the CIA was wrong about it too?

[Vanir Ausf B]

If by enclave you mean, the majority of Babil province, then I would agree with you.

Then you may want to edit the Wiki entry for Babil province, since if you are right it is wildly inaccurate.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:If by enclave you mean, the majority of Babil province, then I would agree with you.

So the CIA was wrong about it too? </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Would not necessarily make the CIA Factbook, or any of the dozens of other sources (other than Wiki), wrong. A "majority" of Babil province would only be around 2-3% of Iraq's total population.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I suggest a certain person at least put the term Persians through wikipedia. Look at the definition, look at the number of Persians estimated to be in Iraq. Now look up Babil Province in wiki. Look at the population. Do the math.

[FAI]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:If by enclave you mean, the majority of Babil province, then I would agree with you.

So the CIA was wrong about it too? </font>

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:If by enclave you mean, the majority of Babil province, then I would agree with you.

So the CIA was wrong about it too? </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

I suggest a certain person at least put the term Persians through wikipedia. Look at the definition, look at the number of Persians estimated to be in Iraq. Now look up Babil Province in wiki. Look at the population. Do the math.

Good catch. The source for the Wiki numbers is Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Even if every Persian in Iraq was in Babil it wouldn't even be close to a majority, although I do wonder if maybe there could be many ethnic Persians who do not speak Farsi.

[FAI]

Demographical data vs. intelligence pertaining to waging a war... Whoa, let me fetch popcorn first.

And no, the intel agencies did not provide the primary reasons for the invasion. The subsequent political handlers did.

[abneo3sierra]

I believe Clavicula's point was that on the ground experience counts for just as much as something written in a book or a particular website or news story. I continue to find this myself as well. When so many agencies etc. insist they are correct, and I can see through my own and others' personal on-site as it were, experience, I also put less stock in "sources" that are vastly different from what I have seen.

The sources may indeed be accurate, but my senses, and those of most of my fellows, also count for as much, imho.

edit..I am reminded of a US sgt in ww2, who excitedly told his captain that 2 Tiger tanks were approaching.. the Captain calmly assured him that Intel was that no Tigers were anywhere in the area. Later the same day, the Tigers proceeded to feast.

[ March 24, 2008, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]