Posted on 10/08/2004 6:19:31 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
It's not an if, it's a when.
Pentagon officials have indicated that they plan to send as many as 15,000 more troops to Iraq during the first four months of 2005, and President Bush continues to insist that ''we will stay the course'' until Iraq is stabilized.
Where will the additional troops come from? The Bush administration insists that there will be no draft, but the ''backdoor draft'' that has kept so many from the Reserve and National Guard on active duty has backfired, as quotas for new enlistments have not been met. So plans are already advanced for fully mobilizing the Reserve and National Guard.
But how many troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq? The well-respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, before which the president spoke last November, says 500,000. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress publicly before the war that ''several hundred thousand'' troops would be needed. It turns out that he was asking for 400,000, fully aware that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was planning to attack and occupy Iraq with just a fraction of that. Rumsfeld gave him the back of his hand.
Conclusions gloomy
At this point, to be unaware of the requirement for additional troops while watching the burgeoning chaos in Iraq, requires a Ph.D. in denial. Indeed, cracks can be seen within the president's own camp regarding what is happening in Iraq.
While the president promotes the bromide of ''months of steady progress'' in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., calls this a ''grand illusion.'' Last month, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave tacit, but unambiguous support to the gloomy conclusions reached in the recent National Intelligence Estimate.
President Bush says that he will provide more troops if commanders ask for them. But it would mean early retirement for any general making such a request before the election.
As for the resistance to U.S. occupation, disingenuousness persists. The president has assured us that there are only ''a handful of people who are willing to kill'' to thwart U.S. aims.
And those interested in learning more about these people are malnourished by ''intelligence'' and forced instead to resort to Iraqi newspaper listings of the various groups who have claimed credit for hitting the invader.
Lack of intelligence
The reality in Iraq was far better captured by retired Army Special Forces Col. W. Patrick Lang, former Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. In an informal e-mail, Lang wrote: ``The sad thing is that U.S. combat intelligence in Iraq does not seem to know who the insurgents are, where they are, how many they are or what they plan to do.''
A widely respected military strategist and educator, retired Army Col. Sam Gardiner, writing recently for salon.com, reacted bitterly to reports -- now confirmed by Secretary Powell -- that military operations into the ''no-go'' areas in Iraq have been postponed until after the election.
'There is certainly no commander in the field saying, `Let's give the bad guys another 60 days to operate freely inside their sanctuaries before we attack.' Such a decision would be particularly bizarre when attacks against coalition forces are more frequent than ever, attacks on oil pipelines are on the rise, and the U.S. is suffering increased casualties.''
Bush insists that, ''You can understand how hard it is and still believe we'll succeed.'' No you can't -- not if you really understand how hard it is and are honest about what would be required.
It is high time that the administration explained how it is going to ''win'' this war with a troop force widely recognized as inadequate to the task.
Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
It's a mistake to send more troops. You don't fight terrorists with large armies. All it does is give them more targets. Saddam's army is now in the control of the good guys. We can begin moving our troops to border positions now. Keep an eye on Iran.
"You don't fight terrorists with large armies. "
No, but you do secure countries, which is a necessity for success in Iraq.
There are 20,000 at Ft. Campbell with the 101st, some of which are rotating back to Iraq next year.
From those being redeployed from Germany for the most part, but also from other places around the world where they are no longer needed.
democratic strategy to increase troops, isnt for securing Iraq.
but increase casualties, to try and secure political power
SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 Monday : (RAY MCGOVERN 'CONFIRMS' PLAME'S STATUS AS A 'DEEP COVER OPERATIVE RUNNING INFORMANTS ON WMD', ALSO ADMITS KNOWING FORMER AMBASSADOR JOSEPH WILSON, A KERRY CAMPAIGN ADVISOR) Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. “I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know,” said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, “that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.” - DemocraticUnderground.com, Mon Sep-29-03 05:49 PM
Joe Wilson must have had a really big mouth all along- note that Ray doesn't say he got the info from Novak who didn't say she was a covert operator- but from Wilson himself.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:wAftC5TrRCgJ:www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/090904c1.htm+%22truth+telling+project%22&hl=en http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/090904c1.htm
Whistleblowers urge workers to disclose classified information
By Chris Strohm
cstrohm@govexec.com
govexec.com, daily briefing, september 9, 2004
A group of former government officials urged federal employees Thursday to come forward with information exposing government wrongdoing - - especially with regard to Iraq - - and announced a new legal support network to protect whistleblowers.
The group issued a public memo asking current government officials to disclose classified information concerning plans and cost estimates for the war in Iraq, as well as other documents that reveal government deceit or misconduct.
"Some of you have documentation of wrongly concealed facts and analyses that, if brought to light, would impact heavily on public debate regarding crucial matters of national security, both foreign and domestic," the memo states. "We urge you to provide that information now, both to Congress and, through the media, to the public."
The group is made up of 10 former employees of the Defense, Labor and State departments, the FBI and the CIA. It includes Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine who leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War to the media in 1971; Sibel Edmonds, who reported security breaches and cover-ups of intelligence within the FBI while working as a contract linguist; Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA analyst who founded an organization opposed to the invasion of Iraq; and Mary Ann Wright, a career foreign service officer who resigned the day the Iraq war began.
The group compared Iraq to Vietnam, saying that government deception and the reluctance to publicize information carries a significant price in human life and national security.
Members also issued a list of 12 specific documents they said are being wrongly withheld and should be disclosed by federal workers. The documents relate to prisoners in the war on terrorism, the 9/11 commission investigation, security breaches and misconduct within the FBI, estimates on how many troops were needed to invade and occupy Iraq, and requirements for the postwar restoration of Iraq.
"It is a time for truth-telling. It is a time for unauthorized disclosure," Ellsberg said. "There is a more patriotic and more effective way to serve your country as an official than either by resigning in frustration or continuing to participate as Americans are lied to death. And that way is to tell the truth."
The memo notes that whistleblowers have little legal protection and often end up losing their jobs. Ellsberg said a new support network for whistleblowers is being established. The network includes pro bono legal counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union and advice from the Project on Government Oversight. The network also includes Ellsberg's Truth Telling Project and McGovern's group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
"Needless to say, any unauthorized disclosure that exposes your superiors to embarrassment entails personal risk," the memo states. "Should you be identified as the source, the price could be considerable, including loss of career and possibly even prosecution."
McGovern : "We have indeed. There have been a few courageous people who have stood on principle at some personal cost. Ironically, we intelligence professionals, we, unfairly, we tend to dismiss foreign service officers as knee-jerk mouthpieces for the administration.
Well, three such foreign service officers have stood on principle and have quit, some of them before the war ever started, and they have issued eloquent statements as to how their conscience would not permit them to have to tell these lies to folks, to try to rally support for an unjust US policy.
There is Andrew Wilke in Australia, an incredible person whom Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity had to this country. We all chipped in and paid for his fare. He spoke in Congress at one of the congressional hearings. Andrew quit the Office of National Assessments in Australia, which is the CIA counterpart, eight days before the war, because he could no longer countenance his country going into a war on the basis of intelligence that he saw to be bogus. And he spoke out immediately, and over the last few weeks, although you won’t see it in the US press, he and Prime Minister Howard in Australia have been having a personal argument in the press as to how the intelligence was over-egged as the British say, exaggerated, sexed-up, as some of the other British and Australians say. So there is precedent for people speaking out."
---- from kooky left website http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/17/1543215 Wednesday, September 17th, 2003 “The Crazies Are Back”: Bush Sr.’s CIA Briefer Discusses How Wolfowitz & Allies Falsely Led the U.S. To War
Note that Wilkie is the attack dog used against Australia's leader Howard, much as Richard Clarke and Ambassador wilson were used against Bush and those who were used against Blaire, Berlusconi, and other member nations' leaders of the coalition fighting terror in simultaneously orchestrated political attacks.
"Veteran Intelligence Professionals for [N]Sanity" bump
Not enough troops -- or truth
Miami Herald ^ | Oct. 08, 2004 | RAY MCGOVERN
Interesting that McGovern is echoing that talking point--makes me wonder what role the think tanks McGovern is connected with played in developing it.
Is McGovern a Larouchie type or just the usual far left liberal- I've seen his stuff on sites belonging to both extremes. Just wonder since that LaRouchie Lt. Col woman was Ted Kennedy's doll of the week.
They don't need more of our troops to secure their country. To the extent that it can be done at all, they can do it pretty much by themselves at this point.
Of course, they are going to face terrorism for another decade or more, but sending more US troops to walk their streets isn't going to change that.
I think LaRouche slants his propaganda so that it can appeal to both extremes--LaRouche has himself swung from one extreme to the other (at least in his persona) over the course of his career--so what you're seeing there may possibly be a reflection on that rather than McGovern. I'm not aware of McGovern having any ties to LaRouche types, but of course he might. However my impression of him so far based on his associations and his lectures/articles is that he's more of a far-left type.
Wrong-o. You can post US soldiers on every damn street corner, and it will only do 2 things:
/1/ Provide more American targets for snipers and bombers, and
/2/ Postpone ("enable") the day that the Iraqis are forced to step up to the plate and deal with the terrorists and provide their own security.
500,000 troops in Iraq would be a monumental blunder, as it was in Viet Nam, when the conventional-minded ground-pounder generals decided that the Special Forces and counterinsurgency troops weren't "winning the war fast enough."
You want to see a real quagmire, send in 500,000 troops.
That's what the red anti-US sovereignity types wanted to see- they hope for it. They must really have been disappointed when we didn't send the whole freakin US Army into Afghanistan, Russian-style. And then that speedy invasion of Iraq- we were supposed to be bogged down in a seige war south of Baghdad, where they and the world press could have more time to fire up their dreamed-of mass protests with draft-shocked youngsters like they did in Vietnam.
Yep, the left actively (but covertly) does all they can to ensure American defeeat and humiliation.
Where will they come from? I'm getting tired of this. Forget all those people they are stirring up on college campuses. Troops are being brought home from Europe and will be use for some of the deployments. If that's not enough take me back and all of you that will say I'm to old or laugh, I'm am American and I love my country. I am an United States Air Force veteran and I can do something constructive that will give a lot of help. I'm sick and tired of all these people that want to live in a Free Country that America is and won't do anything to defend her. There are a lot of us out there that have. In my immediate family my son and I have in the last thirty four years done twenty years of military service. God willing in seven years he will retire with twenty years U. S. Navy. My service was U. S. Air Force. There are many more in our family that served so let these people learn that FREEDOM is not FREE!
Your opinions are noted, respected, and appreciated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.