FR EXCLUSIVE: "Mission Accomplished" banner was ordered by the Navy, not by the White House

NAVY WEBSITE ^ | 5-1-07 | DFU

[doug from upland]

Because today is the fourth anniversary of the commander in chief landing aboard the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN with the famous "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner, the enemies at home are going to attempt to use it for political purposes. I don't think I need to name the enemies at home. We all know them well. They are the ones who see defeat as politically beneficial to them and will do whatever they can to embolden the enemy and hurt our troops.

To get to the truth of the story, I phoned the media office of the 2nd Fleet in Norfolk, VA. The man who had the answers for me and graciously returned my call was Captain Conrad Chun.

"When something of such high level is planned, such as the landing of the commander in chief on the ship," said Chun, "there are several planning meetings. At one of the meetings was the idea for a banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." The mission in this case, was the mission of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The men and women aboard the nuclear-powered carrier accomplished their mission and stayed out for a record time -- 290 days. It was a very long cruise for them.

The banner specifically was designed to celebrate and memorialize the ship's successful deployment. According to Chun, they had no way to make the banner aboard the ship, so the White House was asked to have it made for them.

"There are still those who will doubt the story," said Chun, "but after speaking to those on the ship, I have no doubt that is how it happened."

On a side note, Godspeed to my former son in law Josh who is on the Nimitz now. Go, Navy!

[angcat]

Draws them in like flies to Shi_!

[Alberta's Child]

One of the most startling lessons learned for the U.S. government after Vietnam was the revelation that the enemy had laid out a plan to wage war against the U.S. for 35 years. There's no way in hell the U.S. ever would have tolerated that kind of crap over that period of time.

If you thought Vietnam was bad, imagine how much worse it would have been if the last U.S. helicopter lifted off from Saigon in 2000 instead of 1975.

You might also want to take a look at the ideas advanced in "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife." It's a study of why the Brits succeeded in their guerilla war in Malaya and we failed in Vietnam. The author concludes that trying to fight Vietnam like we fought WWII was exactly what did us in.

Do you honestly think the U.S. has applied any of these ideas in Iraq?

[Mr. Silverback]

Then what was that whole episode with the U.S. trying to construct a wall through the middle of Baghdad all about?

Nice hyperbole, do you work for the NYT? Building a wall between one Shiite neighborhood and one Sunni neighborhood because of suicide bombings is hardly "a wall through the middle of Baghdad."

The wall (and sectarian violence) doesn't prove anything. If the Iraqis really wanted to be separated in three different ethnic groups, they would have elected different people to their constitutional convention. Otherwise, it's like saying you want tough policy on illegal aliens and then writing in Elvira Arellano for Congress.

I'd also point out that the Iraqi constitution in question enshrines Islam as the official state religion, which raises two points

So what's your plan? Split it into two Islamic states and a Kurdish state?

It's their country, they set up the rules. That's part of the deal.

[Mr. Silverback]

If Iraq is the front in this war, then anything short of destroying the place would seem to be nothing more than a futile gesture.

"This is too hard, let's commit genocide! Waaaaaa!"

[doug from upland]

How does however the WH wanted to use the image take away from the story I reported?

[SittinYonder]

When is the Iranian parliament meeting again?

LOL ... Certainly that's an approach to resolving the conflict in Iraq.

[Mr. Silverback]

One of the most startling lessons learned for the U.S. government after Vietnam was the revelation that the enemy had laid out a plan to wage war against the U.S. for 35 years.

And Hitler had a plan for a thousand year reich. And the Soviets planned to take us down in the long run. I agree with Curtis LeMay that Vietnam could have been won in any two week period you care to name, but it was geniuses like you who lost it for us with an idiotic pullout/handcuff combo.

[F.J. Mitchell]

The truth doesn’t matter to the Dems and their MSM stooges and enablers. They will just keep on telling their lie until the line become truth and fiction becomes so blurred that no one can see it.

[Alberta's Child]

So what's your plan? Split it into two Islamic states and a Kurdish state?

That's pretty much what is unfolding now anyway -- at least as far as the Kurdish region is concerned. By the time the dust settles on that God-forsaken place called Iraq, I suspect the Sunni region will end up being a massive U.S. welfare state that makes Detroit look like a vibrant city.

It's their country, they set up the rules. That's part of the deal.

No, it's not. If the U.S. spends billions of dollars and thousands of lives to defeat an enemy, then there's no way in hell this country should ever allow the defeated state to establish its own rules of governance.

Would you have said the same thing if Osama bin Laden had been elected prime minister?

[Alberta's Child]

You can accuse me of a lot of things, but a "pullout/handcuff" approach is not one of them. In fact, I've long had the exact opposite approach. Do it right, or don't do it at all.

[Alberta's Child]

Remember, WE DIDN’T HAVE 500,000 TROOPS AVAILABLE.

That statement is preposterous when you consider that this administration began laying the groundwork for the invasion of Iraq six years ago (yes, even before 9/11).

Ya think six years is enough time to get 500,000 troops prepared for a military campaign that would take 500,000 troops to execute?

[Mr. Silverback]

If the U.S. spends billions of dollars and thousands of lives to defeat an enemy, then there's no way in hell this country should ever allow the defeated state to establish its own rules of governance.

There we agree. I think we should have done with Iraq exactly what we did with Japan. But that wasn't what was done, and complaining about the result of democracy is pointless.

Would you have said the same thing if Osama bin Laden had been elected prime minister?

Why would Osama be popular in a country that has nothing to do with our war against Al Qaida?

Seriously though, Islam or not, Osama would have as much chance of being elected in Iraq as he would in Alabama, so I reject the question.

[Mr. Silverback]

You can accuse me of a lot of things, but a "pullout/handcuff" approach is not one of them.

Yes or no: Do you want us to pull our troops out of Iraq?

[jackieaxe]

Mr Silverback: this is from the General P manual: 1-109. By its nature, insurgency is protracted. The conduct of counterinsurgency always demands consid erable expenditures of time and resources. Even if people prefer the host-nation government to the insur gents, they do not actively support that government unless they are convinced the counterinsurgent forces have the means, ability, stamina, and will to win. The insurgent’s primary battle is against the indigenous government, not the United States, but American support can be crucial to building public faith in that gov ernment’s viability. Insurgents and local populations often believe that a few casualties or a few years will cause the United States to abandon a COIN effort. Constant reaffirmations of commitment, backed by deeds, can overcome that perception and bolster faith in the steadfastness of American support.

The bolded part to me reads, as we keep dying, the population come around to our way of thinking. The whole manual talks to turning the other check.

I hope you have had your coffee.

[Bryan24]

You need to go do some research on how deeply the military was cut after the First Gulf War. We don’t have 500,000 troops to send to war, period.

[jackieaxe]

If Iraq turned into a fight between the Saudis and the Iranians, we should be happy. Also, I don’t share your opinion the Saudi Arabia is our friend.

[doug from upland]

I didn’t say Saudi Arabia was our friend. But I know what is going to happen if the radical Islamists totally take over the country. The Saudis and Iranians will not be fighting. Saudi Arabi will be overthrown from within.

[Mr. Silverback]

The bolded part to me reads, as we keep dying, the population come around to our way of thinking. The whole manual talks to turning the other check.

The bolded part says what it says: If Americans show commitment, the local population sees that freedom can win, and the enemy sees that his fight is futile. To be blunt, given all the forms of commitment one can have, it takes a pretty bloody minded (or biased) person to see "show commitment" as "waste your men's lives so the locals know we're serious."

You have stated on this board that you support an immediate pullout, which is the ultimate lack of commitment. You have apparently forgotten what our lack of commitment in Somalia got us. The rest of us haven't.

I hope you have had your coffee.

I have, and I still think you're pimping body count. Show some respect.

[jackieaxe]

I have, and I still think you're pimping body count. Show some respect.

I backed up my argument, you can call me a troll if you want, but show some respect? You're the one who took a run at me by cc'ing the Admin Moderator.

[Mr. Silverback]

I backed up my argument, you can call me a troll if you want, but show some respect? You're the one who took a run at me by cc'ing the Admin Moderator.

I meant show some respect for the troops, not for me. That's why I cc'd the mod, because the last thing we need is another "patriot" spouting leftist talking points and patting themselves on the back for supporting the troops while trying to lose the war.

And as I pointed out, you did not back up your argument. You not only cited a paragraph about commitment as "backup" for the idea that we're killing troops to prove a point, you cited it while cheerleading for the idea that we are a better nation if we abandon our commitment and make sure those losses accomplish nothing. You didn't back up squat.