cia says iraq is screwed, again

[Enforcer Talen]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... raq_cia_dc

[Stravo]

Will Bush and his cronies fire these guys too for being defeatist?

[Durandal]

Of course. The best way to deal with a problem is to fire anyone who thinks that a problem exists.

[Mr Bean]

Assement link already posted last week, duplicate thread locked

[Darth Wong]

How could this have been posted last week, when the story broke this morning? This is about the classified cable story that was just broken by the NYT today.

Assuming that you have this confused with some other (similar) story, I'm unlocking it for now.

[Enforcer Talen]

the cia is issuing a lot of these warnings.

perhaps they are trying to give the admin a hint?

[weemadando]

Will Bush and his cronies fire these guys too for being defeatist? :roll:

Ahhh, the Hitler syndrome re-arises.

"Sir we are experiencing some difficulties on the Eastern Front!"
"Difficulties, our great army shall know no difficulties. Have this traitor shot."

"Sir, we are experiencing some difficulties in Iraq!"
"Difficulties? Well dang-poopie-chow, Donald told me we were doing just fine. You must be wrong. Donald? What should I do with him?"
"Fire him sir."
"You're fired."

[Beowulf]

Classified you say?

Someone's head needs to roll...

[Lord Zentei]

According to the interviews with the seven retired generals posted in an earlier thread, the administration needs either to:

1) at least double the number of troops in Iraq to contain the situation (admitting they were wrong) or

2) get the hell out (betraying the hopes of the Iraqi people for democracy and admitting defeat).

Looks like the CIA agrees that things aren't as dandy as Bush wants to beleive.

I'm rooting for number 1, personally, since the "betraying the hopes of the Iraqi people" bit sits very badly with me.

[Imperial Overlord]

Apparently the report was widely distributed to government officials, so it may be impossible for any heads will roll. Of course, unlike outing CIA agents, the only harm this leak does is to tell us a truth we should have already figured out.

[Patrick Degan]

Will Bush and his cronies fire these guys too for being defeatist?

Of course. In Bushworld, you remove problems by removing the people who say there are problems.

[Aaron]

According to the interviews with the seven retired generals posted in an earlier thread, the administration needs either to:

1) at least double the number of troops in Iraq to contain the situation (admitting they were wrong) or

2) get the hell out (betraying the hopes of the Iraqi people for democracy and admitting defeat).

Looks like the CIA agrees that things aren't as dandy as Bush wants to beleive.

I'm rooting for number 1, personally, since the "betraying the hopes of the Iraqi people" bit sits very badly with me.

Unfortunatly if the US doubles their troops in Iraq, burnout will set in, and in very short order. I fail to see how the US can honour it's other committments and double troops in Iraq. Something needs to give, like Bosnia and South Korea, and withdrawing troops from Japan would be a good start as well.

[Lord Zentei]

According to the interviews with the seven retired generals posted in an earlier thread, the administration needs either to:

1) at least double the number of troops in Iraq to contain the situation (admitting they were wrong) or

2) get the hell out (betraying the hopes of the Iraqi people for democracy and admitting defeat).

Looks like the CIA agrees that things aren't as dandy as Bush wants to beleive.

I'm rooting for number 1, personally, since the "betraying the hopes of the Iraqi people" bit sits very badly with me.

Unfortunatly if the US doubles their troops in Iraq, burnout will set in, and in very short order. I fail to see how the US can honour it's other committments and double troops in Iraq. Something needs to give, like Bosnia and South Korea, and withdrawing troops from Japan would be a good start as well.

Pulling out of Bosnia and Korea would be a bad idea for the global strategy. Bush has already pulled troops out of Europe and that decision was criticized by Kerry as weakening the US (and that wasn't even a troublespot). The problem as I see it is that Bush has consistently refused to expand the size of the ground forces, relying instead on reservists, while at the same time increasing their commitments. Honestly I haven't got the foggiest idea why he is using this bizzare approach.

[Aaron]

Pulling out of Bosnia and Korea would be a bad idea for the global strategy.

Why is that? Bosnia is stable and has been for several years. South Korea is perfectidly capable of defending itself from NK.

Bush has already pulled troops out of Europe and that decision was criticized by Kerry as weakening the US (and that wasn't even a troublespot).

Kerry doesn't know what he was talking about then. The only benefit to having US troops in Europe was that they are closer to potential hot spots. They are being pulled out of Europe so that the US can save some money and hopefully buy some new fancy gear.

The problem as I see it is that Bush has consistently refused to expand the size of the ground forces, relying instead on reservists, while at the same time increasing their commitments. Honestly I haven't got the foggiest idea why he is using this bizzare approach.

Where's the money going to come from for this? Where are they going to get the recruits. Bush may have refused to expand the Regular Force but he inherited a military that was cut by his father and Clinton.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Rumie is telling him that everything is fine with the military and that he has no real idea of the state of it.

[Lord Zentei]

Why is that? Bosnia is stable and has been for several years. South Korea is perfectidly capable of defending itself from NK.

The presence of US troops in Korea acts as a deterrant to attack by the PRNK, even though South Korea is capable of defending itself. Anyway, the 30000 troops there won't be sufficient to stabilize Iraq.

Kerry doesn't know what he was talking about then. The only benefit to having US troops in Europe was that they are closer to potential hot spots. They are being pulled out of Europe so that the US can save some money and hopefully buy some new fancy gear.

It wouldn't be the first time he doesn't know what he is talking about regarding millitary matters . But what the US needs is more ground troops in Iraq, not more fancy gear. Though reducing troops in Europe, including Bosnia is not going to weaken the US directly, some might see the need for this as a weakness or desperation in the US, even though such an interpretation is unwarranted. Not the best message to send at the current time.

Where's the money going to come from for this? Where are they going to get the recruits. Bush may have refused to expand the Regular Force but he inherited a military that was cut by his father and Clinton.

No idea. But Bush sr. and Clinton cut the US forces during peacetime, it is not entirely relevant to the current situation.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Rumie is telling him that everything is fine with the military and that he has no real idea of the state of it.

Probably. Someone really needs to teach the lad the importance of listening to other points of view, particularly when they are voiced by retired generals and diplomats with experience in peacekeeping missions.

[Aaron]

The presence of US troops in Korea acts as a deterrant to attack by the PRNK, even though South Korea is capable of defending itself. Anyway, the 30000 troops there won't be sufficient to stabilize Iraq.

Kim Jong Il knows he can't take South Korea, the most he can do is flatten Seul(?) with arty. The uS needs to decide whats more important to them, a democratic and stable Iraq or letting South Korea mooch off them defence wise.

And 30,000 troops may not be enough to stabilize Iraq, but it'll help a whole lot.

It wouldn't be the first time he doesn't know what he is talking about regarding millitary matters . But what the US needs is more ground troops in Iraq, not more fancy gear. Though reducing troops in Europe, including Bosnia is not going to weaken the US directly, some might see the need for this as a weakness or desperation in the US, even though such an interpretation is unwarranted. Not the best message to send at the current time.

If the troops in Europe and Bosnia aren't doing anything, what message is the USA sending? That their not willing to invest more troops in Iraq, that s what. Perhaps you could explain why removing troops from stable regions to divert them to Iraq would cause the world to think their weak.

No idea. But Bush sr. and Clinton cut the US forces during peacetime, it is not entirely relevant to the current situation.

Too the best of my knowledge Bush Jr. has not actually cut the force levels since taking office. Therefore my point that he inherited a diminshed, less capable force, stands.

Probably. Someone really needs to teach the lad the importance of listening to other points of view, particularly when they are voiced by retired generals and diplomats with experience in peacekeeping missions.

Thats what happens when you have an idiot that never did any meaningful service in his life, running the country.

[Lord Zentei]

Kim Jong Il knows he can't take South Korea, the most he can do is flatten Seul(?) with arty. The uS needs to decide whats more important to them, a democratic and stable Iraq or letting South Korea mooch off them defence wise.

He certainly knows that. But the disincentive to attack is hugely important on the diplomatic arena. Even though troops don't perform a millitary mission and even though they wouldn't actually be used, they can still bring diplomatic leverage to bear and send a symbolic message with their mere presence. It may sound like meaningless posturing, but there is a lot of that in international diplomacy.

And 30,000 troops may not be enough to stabilize Iraq, but it'll help a whole lot.

True, but still not enough. If the US is to double it's troops in Iraq another 150000 troops are needed. The 30000 in Korea are only 20% of that figure.

If the troops in Europe and Bosnia aren't doing anything, what message is the USA sending? That their not willing to invest more troops in Iraq, that s what. Perhaps you could explain why removing troops from stable regions to divert them to Iraq would cause the world to think their weak.

I never suggested that no more troops should be sent to Iraq. I'll agree that the message that Uncle Sam is currently sending is one of an unwillingness to invest more troops in Iraq and that is bad. The troops in Europe are not the only option, though.

Anyway, I never claimed to agree with Kerry about the withdrawal of European troops weakening the US, per se. My point was that certain anti-US groups and factions will see the withdrawal of US troops in Europe which have been unmoved for years or even decades as well as the withdrawal of US troops from other hotspots (Korea), recent hotspots (Bosnia) will cause them to beleive that America has bitten off more that it can chew in Iraq and is having to redeploy troops that would otherwise have stayed put. I did say that such interpretations would be unwarranted but they will be made.

Too the best of my knowledge Bush Jr. has not actually cut the force levels since taking office. Therefore my point that he inherited a diminshed, less capable force, stands.

I never challenged that point. In fact I agree with it, and beleive that this diminishment needs to be adressed.

Thats what happens when you have an idiot that never did any meaningful service in his life, running the country.

Indeed.

[Aaron]

He certainly knows that. But the disincentive to attack is hugely important on the diplomatic arena. Even though troops don't perform a millitary mission and even though they wouldn't actually be used, they can still bring diplomatic leverage to bear and send a symbolic message with their mere presence. It may sound like meaningless posturing, but there is a lot of that in international diplomacy.

Considering that South Korea has taken steps to normalize relations with the North in recent years, his posturing is meangingless. In fact the US was responsible for heighting tensions between South and North due to their "Axis of Evil" rethoric. South Korea currently exports a massive amount of aid to the North, why would Kim risk that by acting against the South?

True, but still not enough. If the US is to double it's troops in Iraq another 150000 troops are needed. The 30000 in Korea are only 20% of that figure.

It's not enough, but they could reinforce the Sunni Triangle. And that's where the shitstorm is.

I never suggested that no more troops should be sent to Iraq. I'll agree that the message that Uncle Sam is currently sending is one of an unwillingness to invest more troops in Iraq and that is bad. The troops in Europe are not the only option, though.

The US leadership is refusing to invest more troops in Iraq because Rummie and Bozo the Clown (Bush) have no idea what their doing. They need to give the Generals "Carte Blanche" to run the war as they see fit.

What other option does the US have in the short term but to pull troops form Bosnia, Europe, Japan and SK? Expanded recuritment will not yeild results for at least 8-12 months.

Anyway, I never claimed to agree with Kerry about the withdrawal of European troops weakening the US, per se. My point was that certain anti-US groups and factions will see the withdrawal of US troops in Europe which have been unmoved for years or even decades as well as the withdrawal of US troops from other hotspots (Korea), recent hotspots (Bosnia) will cause them to beleive that America has bitten off more that it can chew in Iraq and is having to redeploy troops that would otherwise have stayed put. I did say that such interpretations would be unwarranted but they will be made.

What do you believe will be the result of this? Are you saying that they may take that oppurtunity to strike at the US beyond Iraq?

I never challenged that point. In fact I agree with it, and beleive that this diminishment needs to be adressed.

Ok then.

[Lord Zentei]

Considering that South Korea has taken steps to normalize relations with the North in recent years, his posturing is meangingless. In fact the US was responsible for heighting tensions between South and North due to their "Axis of Evil" rethoric. South Korea currently exports a massive amount of aid to the North, why would Kim risk that by acting against the South?

He won't take action against the south. But leverage is needed to keep him from continuing his nuclear ambitions, both in the form of aid and diplomatic tough-talk; the tough-talk will be unconvincing if the troops are withdrawn even if they aren't actually performing a millitary function as such. As for the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, it certainly didn't help, but the PRNK had been just looking for an excuse to throw the shit at the fan. No-one builds a missile like the dapodong 2 and a pair of nukes at the drop of a hat. Both a carrot and a stick are needed to contain North Korea and remind them not to get uppity.

It's not enough, but they could reinforce the Sunni Triangle. And that's where the shitstorm is.

Point. But an uppity Kim is not worth it in the long run.

The US leadership is refusing to invest more troops in Iraq because Rummie and Bozo the Clown (Bush) have no idea what their doing. They need to give the Generals "Carte Blanche" to run the war as they see fit.

Absolutely. In fact , they should have done that from the beginning.

What other option does the US have in the short term but to pull troops form Bosnia, Europe, Japan and SK? Expanded recuritment will not yeild results for at least 8-12 months.

Sadly so. The expanded recruitment should have started in 2002. The sooner they begin, the sooner they won't have to rely on reservists. Draining the reserves with no light at the end of the tunnel in sight and another 150000 troops being needed is bad mojo no matter how you slice it.

What do you believe will be the result of this? Are you saying that they may take that oppurtunity to strike at the US beyond Iraq?.

Yes.

[Aaron]

He won't take action against the south. But leverage is needed to keep him from continuing his nuclear ambitions, both in the form of aid and diplomatic tough-talk; the tough-talk will be unconvincing if the troops are withdrawn even if they aren't actually performing a millitary function as such. As for the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, it certainly didn't help, but the PRNK had been just looking for an excuse to throw the shit at the fan. No-one builds a missile like the dapodong 2 and a pair of nukes at the drop of a hat. Both a carrot and a stick are needed to contain North Korea and remind them not to get uppity.

The US has Carrier Battle Groups, which it can deploy to back up South Korea's Army. The US no longer requires ground troops there. They simply have to deploy several CBG's to the area to decimate the Norths infrastructure. They could even keep the present USAF assest that are currently there. But the Army assests are needed elsewhere and are no longer required to keep NK in check.

Point. But an uppity Kim is not worth it in the long run.

See above.

Sadly so. The expanded recruitment should have started in 2002. The sooner they begin, the sooner they won't have to rely on reservists. Draining the reserves with no light at the end of the tunnel in sight and another 150000 troops being needed is bad mojo no matter how you slice it.

Agreed.

Yes.

I'm not so sure. As it stands Iraq is an easyily accessable way to hurt the US for the enemy. Trying to hit the US in different locations requires more planning, training, and money. Why would they bother when Iraq is wide open for them?

[Lord Zentei]

The US has Carrier Battle Groups, which it can deploy to back up South Korea's Army. The US no longer requires ground troops there. They simply have to deploy several CBG's to the area to decimate the Norths infrastructure. They could even keep the present USAF assest that are currently there. But the Army assests are needed elsewhere and are no longer required to keep NK in check.

I absolutely agree that they are not needed millitarily. Diplomatic messages are based on a far less rational mindset, though.

I'm not so sure. As it stands Iraq is an easyily accessable way to hurt the US for the enemy. Trying to hit the US in different locations requires more planning, training, and money. Why would they bother when Iraq is wide open for them?

Of course Iraq is the primary battleground at present. But they may attack elsewhere beleiving such attacks would reduce morale and convince people that Bush is screwing up the War on Terror. And they would be right.

[Aaron]

I absolutely agree that they are not needed millitarily. Diplomatic messages are based on a far less rational mindset, though.

Than the US needs to decide. Either let Iraq go in the toliet or leave SK, Bosnia, Japan etc. It's not an easy decision but they have to do something or Iraq will turn into an Islamic shithole like Iran or like Afghanistan was.

Of course Iraq is the primary battleground at present. But they may attack elsewhere beleiving such attacks would reduce morale and convince people that Bush is screwing up the War on Terror. And they would be right.

Well they wouldn't be wrong. But does the enemy have the means to do this at the present time?

[Raptor 597]

Will Bush and his cronies fire these guys too for being defeatist?

Ahhh, the Hitler syndrome re-arises.

"Sir we are experiencing some difficulties on the Eastern Front!"
"Difficulties, our great army shall know no difficulties. Have this traitor shot."

"Sir, we are experiencing some difficulties in Iraq!"
"Difficulties? Well dang-poopie-chow, Donald told me we were doing just fine. You must be wrong. Donald? What should I do with him?"
"Fire him sir."
"You're fired."

Well not really, Hitler just fired everybody except those who couped and worked aganist him directly or indirectly in 1944. However, the next step in Stalinist Russia where you just disappear.

[Lord Zentei]

Than the US needs to decide. Either let Iraq go in the toliet or leave SK, Bosnia, Japan etc. It's not an easy decision but they have to do something or Iraq will turn into an Islamic shithole like Iran or like Afghanistan was.

Unfortunately that is so. Replacing the ground forces with Carrier groups costs a shitload of money, but perhaps that would be a tenable short term solution, although it would give Kim chortling rights and/or allow him to blast the US for "dangerous buildup" as he pleased. Ok, I guess that it would be the lesser of evils for now. Damn Rumsfeld and his idiotic minimalist approach to warfare.

Well they wouldn't be wrong. But does the enemy have the means to do this at the present time?

I doubt they could pull off another 9/11 anytime soon, but it doesn't take a lot of resources to pull off a stunt that would make the headlines.

[Aaron]

Unfortunately that is so. Replacing the ground forces with Carrier groups costs a shitload of money, but perhaps that would be a tenable short term solution, although it would give Kim chortling rights and/or allow him to blast the US for "dangerous buildup" as he pleased. Ok, I guess that it would be the lesser of evils for now. Damn Rumsfeld and his idiotic minimalist approach to warfare.

Thats what happens when you give a business dick with no military experiance the reigns to DOD. Remember he had "better things to do" than serve.

I doubt they could pull off another 9/11 anytime soon, but it doesn't take a lot of resources to pull off a stunt that would make the headlines.

I don't doubt that they do. But even in Iraq they usually only kill Iraqi troops. I say the risk is worth it, if they want to bring deomcracy to the Middle East than you have to make a few sacrifices.

That does not make me happy however, I have seen friends that I served with die, and I hate it.