Posted on 11/20/2005 4:11:00 PM PST by Flavius
If the Repulblican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to get a second opinion on how the war in Iraq is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the top brass this time. In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner, joined by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls "ground truth"--the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq.
"We wanted the view from men who had been on the tip of the spear, and we got it," said John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman who declined to comment on what was said at the meeting but confirmed that some Capitol Hill staff members were also present. According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat.
There are about 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, a number U.S. commanders in the region plan to maintain at least through the Iraqi national assembly elections on Dec. 15. But the battalion commanders, according to sources close to last week's meeting, said that because there are not enough troops, they have to "leapfrog" around Iraq to keep insurgents from returning to towns that have been cleared out. The officers also stressed that the lack of manpower--rather than of protective armor or signal jammers--posed one of the biggest obstacles in dealing with roadside bombs, which have caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The commanders, according to the meeting sources, said there are simply "never enough" explosives experts on the ground. So far, no officer has been willing to go on record to complain about the need for more troops. But there is one positive sign: the Army recently decided to double the number of explosives experts to 2,500 over the next few years. From the Nov. 28, 2005 issue of TIME magazine
Based on his #19, he was on target. Want to know what's really going on? Don't ask Rummy; as someone at battalion or lower.
LOL
Battalion commanders are hardly junior officers.
I don't have any idea about what you two discussed on another thread or what's on those pulled replies.
However... why did you immediately jump to assuming I was against the "evil contractors"? That part I find curious.
I see his point vividly; he's not supporting any political position,only the military victory position.
I'd never heard of this guy before today. He comes across as pretty tense, but having spent significant time in western Iraq myself I can appreciate his viewpoint. It gets aggravating to read these threads and the musings of the ignorant, especially if you have to deal with getting shelled, shot at, and other acts of terrorism and insurgency.
That's right... the Iraqi insurgents are setting off those IEDs because they WANT our troops to continue occupying Iraq. I get it now! No problemo!
</sarcasm>
Think Warner, etc., are right? You say you've been in Iraq. Are you a soldier? Were you there? Might I ask when?
Simple sarcasm that didn't show up. Nothing meant by it.
I don't believe this. Usually, DoD does not permit troops or civilians to speak to the press. Usually, the spokesperson comes from the public affairs office.
Something smells here.
Another underhanded Stunt by Virginia's senior senator.
For someone that's been on the forum as long as you have I'm really dissappointed that you asked those questions instead of checking out my profile.
Analogy: Adams family in Potomas, USA claims the government is starving them to death. Everyone but the Adams family is doing just fine. HEADLINE: REPUBLICANS WANNA STARVE FAMILIES IN POTOMAS.
But if instead, you'd like to discuss why some areas/branches are having these problems of needing more troops, that would be a constructive opinion. And, I'd be interested in reading it.
Yep. I smell it too.
Nah, I don't put much stock in profiles. But I do look at posts. I agree with you about WMDs: No tootlin' -- in Iraq. Yes, they were there. Some still are. Troops have made some astounding finds.
if you start descending into untrue statements I will stop responding to you. I never stated or implied that Rumsfeld was a traitor. I cannot help what you infer.
Rumsfeld's responses to questions about equipment and armor was totally unsat. He came off as flippant, and I don't care if the trooper asking the question was a set up or not, the question was legit.
Fallujah in April 2004 was a fiasco because it was political and not military.
Troop levels have never been sufficient.
IMO, the administration tried to win this thing on the cheap and miscalculated. Rumsfeld has stuck to that line through thick and thin, and it comes across as pure politics instead of a military campaign.
But something else that yut said that was true: the US has not mobilized for this effort.
"Don't hit at all if you can help it;
don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it;
but if you do hit him, put him to sleep."
~ Teddy Roosevelt
He needs to GO!!! I am not sure the country can survive 3 more years of him.
What a posturing F'in waste of time that was!!!!!Does anyone here actually think this stupid meeting will change the mind of these power hungry liberal who_es?????
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.