U.S. Commander Warns of Looming Threats in Iraq

Associated Press ^ | September 4, 2003 | D'arcy Doran

[FixitGuy]

"Col. James Hickey, commander of the 4th Infantry's 1st Brigade, said the man, who was not identified, surrendered without a fight. He is suspected of bomb making activities in the Tikrit area and was being interrogated, Hickey said."

"Suspect will be returned to Tikrit with his bomb making materials following interrogation, probably tomorrow." stated Hickey. (/sarcasm)

[Wright is right!]

Did Sanchez have approval from his bosses, Rummy, and the White House to go out in public and tell the enemies that we don't have enough forces? If I were Rummy, I'd have busted that commander down to Staff Sergeant in 2.2 seconds. What's with these military guys of ours???

Michael

[Austin Willard Wright]

Busted for the telling the truth? It seems that Rummy's "splendid little nation building" campaign is a tougher and more expensive job (or the taxpayers and our overburdened troops) than he and other pro-war folks predicted, doesn't it?

[Sam Cree]

"On Wednesday, the United States asked the United Nations to take an expanded role in Iraq's security, political transition and reconstruction. The draft resolution would transform the U.S.-led military force in Iraq into a U.N.-authorized multinational force under a unified command."

This doesn't look good. Does anyone have details on it?

[Coop]

It seems that Rummy's "splendid little nation building" campaign is a tougher and more expensive job (or the taxpayers and our overburdened troops) than he and other pro-war folks predicted, doesn't it?

Doesn't seem that way at all, at least to us realists. To some misinformed idealists wandering through life where all large operations - especially combat! - go perfectly, it probably would seem that way. In your little world, 99% good and 1% bad = failure.

[inPhase]

Especially "God bless our troups" Coop.

Can someone give a proRum argument as to why we need international troups but this does not translate into we need troups?

Separate agendas is not an option.

[Coop]

Sure. Sec. Rumsfeld has said his Combatant Commander has not requested more U.S. troops; therefore, the SecDef is not compelled to send more U.S. troops. The Combatant Commander and the President, however, would like to see more international troops. So the SecState is working hard to accomplish that, and the SecDef will ensure they're properly integrated.

By the way, welcome to the forum. Stick around and learn a few things.

[Austin Willard Wright]

There is a difference between combat with clear goals (our troops are great at that) and playing nursemaid to ethnically/religiously divided people in a medieval hell hole (nobody is good at that).

[Coop]

So in your world you blast into the country, blow everything up, then leave it to be overrun by terrorists. Two thumbs up!

[inPhase]

Sorry, don't buy your commentary.

The commanders did say they need more troops, look around,
they just keep swallowing their words in the aftermath. Abizaid, Sanchez, even Schoomaker's "gut feeling" to the SASC. It is tough to put your stars on the table...

Repeat, we need more troops and Rumsfeld knows it, just can't back down, let Shin win

yet.

[browardchad]

"On Wednesday, the United States asked the United Nations to take an expanded role in Iraq's security, political transition and reconstruction. The draft resolution would transform the U.S.-led military force in Iraq into a U.N.-authorized multinational force under a unified command."

The resolution states that the U.S. would retain control, both militarily and administratively, with a token (6-month) report by Abizaid to the U.N. Security Council.

Not surprisingly, France and Germany said this morning they wouldn't agree to the resolution.

Let's hope it's not watered down to the point that the Euros get what they want: UN control and a premature Iraqi government that France and Germany could live with -- just like France and the UN happily lived with and profited from Saddam.

[snooker]

"Can someone give a proRum argument as to why we need international troups but this does not translate into we need troups?"

Yep, once you get past the gotcha crapola of the Dims it's very simple. Foreign troops causes the Iraqis on the street to see a foriegn face on the occupation instead of an American face. That in turn calms the situation, and allows progress to be made towards getting Iraq on a democratic road to a peaceful nation.

The most important thing is to get Iraqi poilice on the scene, not foreign. This is going slower than I would like to see, but reports from in country say it's going far better than the media reports.

It's easy to blame the Americans for everything, gets harder once there are more variables.

The same thing works with riots.

There that wasn't hard was it.

Welcome ... maybe you will learn something.

[APRPEH]

doesnt it bother anyone on this board that for months we have been told "no we dont need more troops" time after time by the white house and DOD spokesmen when it was obvious to everyone that more troops are needed.. 150,000 troops to control 25 million iraqis, their borders, catch the baathists, the islamic wild asses of men imports from all over arabia, the al qaedas, and those who just enjoy laying bombs on the road or taking cheap shots at infidels? it bothers me... disinformation or not..
this has been a good war for the right reasons but we are not handling things well in its aftermath.
there damn well should be 500k+ US SOLDIERS on the ground running the country in order to do this job correctly. otherwise, its time to pull back either to back to regional bases or set up a few long term but temporary bases in iraq and give them the appearance we are going to stay until our goals are achieved.

[inPhase]

also weak.

Stating that rum is too proud to back down implies none of what you said,
wrt dims, or blaming Americans. I certainly do not blame us if you mean the troops or Army military judgement in this case.

Do buy your comment about other nations showing their faces. But the other nations are not buying this. I would rather that Turkey ot Iraq show up to help, save our guys,

but I do not think that this will lead to an exit strategy which is sorely needed, to be led by the Sec Def.

[inPhase]

Right on. We need more troops. My read out big time in the media anyway
is that our sec def has big emotional bias to contend with in his own self when Army is involved as in personalities. Shoomaker, Abiziad, Sanchez and others have said that we need more troops,

only to be paraded about (Abizaid on TV with Rum) to establish the Rum dominance

or lay down yo stahs...

[ASA Vet]

So in your world you blast into the country, blow everything up, then leave it to be overrun by terrorists

If you blow "everything up" correctly the terrorists would have to use canoes.

[snooker]

Dim crapola ... double bag full

Funny how many dumpocraps we have been seeing lately.

[ASA Vet]

an exit strategy which is sorely needed

The "exit strategy" will be a large movement of US Troops into Syria from Iraq.
Turning some functions over to UN weinies, as long as they don't impact
our military operation, is part of that "exit strategy."

Iraq will soon become a staging area for the next battle on the WOT.

[APRPEH]

no good political argument without the blame game.. its the clintonite military structure which has resulted in the US looking at a need to fight 2 maybe 3 more wars with a force structure of special forces/ops and far too limited heavy armored and mech inf to do the job...