Forums | MacLife

Steyr is just dissembling, again. He really isn't very good at understanding ground warfare. But that is understandable.

Steyr AUG wrote:

There is always room for improvement, thats what the after action report is for. What is unreasonable is pointing out everything that has gone wrong after the fact and smugly saying that it should have been done the "right" way from the very beginning. Quite the easy task looking back on the situation from several years in the future, no so much when you are actually in the heat of the moment trying to solve a problem.

I think you're right to an extent.  However it is hard to look over the wealth of information available about the planning process (especially on the civilian side) and believe that the course of action taken can be defended as reasonable and appropriate, especially when we know that these guys were warned that what did happen, would.  It seems as if an awful lot of informed advice was dismissed, and those working on the post-invasion "planning" (to use that term loosely) were often working at odds with each other and have different views of what the overall plan should be.

It helps not to bury your head in the sand like rummy did. And you were claiming that no insurrgency existed in Iraq not as recently as last year and before Pretraeus came out with his plan.

Your statements are disingenuous.

Last edited by sturner (2008-08-29 9:58 am)

Oh, you do try to weasel out of your own words.

sturner wrote:

Oh, you do try to weasel out of your own words.

You are confusing discussions of using the term civil war with those of insurgency.

Smells like victory!

Or a funeral pyre.

----------
Far be it from me to question the wisdom of the invasion plan (let alone that the action envisaged was based on lies, fear and totally illegal) the Pentagon's own off the shelf invasion plan was shredded; the general who went in front of Congress and used the 300k or so figure was hightech lynched.

So, you go to war with the plan you make up; not the plan you had already. As a bonus, NO PLAN TO END THE WAR. Or, cut and run; withdraw or otherwise be negotiable. Or responsible. Or responsive to the nation's best interests. Or legal. Or moral.
---------
Treason and war crimes. At minimum.

Ribtorus wrote:

I see Ali Faisal al Lami, Ahmad Chalabi's deputy has been arrested on terrorism charges. Rememer Chalabi; convicted embezzeler, serial liar, probable spy for Iran, and Wolfowitz's best friend? The "plan" was to let Chalabi run Iraq.  If a character like Chalabi, known by the CIA and foreign intelligence to be unreliable at best, met the planners standards, what does that say about the competence of those planners?

Oh, that's just one of those things that you can crow about in hindsight. There are always dissenting opinions.

McCain was also a big fan of Chalabi.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

One is tempted to ask a very simple question: if most of MiniThink knew the occupation of Iraq was going to be messy as hell, how did the Pentagon not plan for it?

Quite simple. The planning, like the decision to invade, was not the result of careful, sober analysis of facts but the inevitable result of a smurfed-up mindset.

The case for war was developed after the decision was made to invade. Likewise, the post-invasion plan, if there was one, proceeded from the assumption that everything would be sweetness and light once Saddam exited stage right. And that assumption was required to boost the case for war in the first place.

To suggest that it's all been just calm factual analysis is tragically misguided.

Some people just aren't ready for Leadership.

sturner wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I see Ali Faisal al Lami, Ahmad Chalabi's deputy has been arrested on terrorism charges. Rememer Chalabi; convicted embezzeler, serial liar, probable spy for Iran, and Wolfowitz's best friend? The "plan" was to let Chalabi run Iraq.  If a character like Chalabi, known by the CIA and foreign intelligence to be unreliable at best, met the planners standards, what does that say about the competence of those planners?

Where can one read this plan you speak of?

You have the active clearances, why don't you go find the original?

He would have to have a "need to know" to go with that clearance. I kind of doubt the Bushies are going to consider Steyr has having such a need...

sturner wrote:

Which is about par for the rest of his intimate knowledge that he can't tell us.

Multiple, freely available, books and reports have referenced that can easily provide knowledge on the subjects that have been discussed over the past few years. It has been a repeated, conscious choice not to pay attention to them

Oops you fell off the wagon! Or does your intimate knowledge of what is happening only apply to your lunches with the real soldiers?

Steyr AUG wrote:

sturner wrote:

Oops you fell off the wagon! Or does your intimate knowledge of what is happening only apply to your lunches with the real soldiers?

Not much beats actually being there.

A chair's eye view is still a chair's eye view.