Daily Kos

Progress in Iraq

by kos

Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:40:02 AM PDT

Yet another string of car bomb attacks targeting police and national guard recruits lined up outside of station. Another 60 dead.

Umm, why do they still do this? Why line them up outside of recruiting stations presenting such juicy targets?

The suicide bomber was standing in line with the rest of the potential recruits. Why don't they search people before they stand in line? That much explosive can't be easy to hide from the most cursory search.

Meanwhile, the GAO has issued a report about the mess in Iraq. DHinMI writes:

But the most revealing part of the report is contained in the background information. According to GAO, and contrary to the propaganda from the White House celebrating a "peaceful" election, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency told GAO that "attacks on Iraq's election day reached about 300, double the previous 1 day high of about 150 during last year's Ramadan." Furthermore, the peak months for attacks since June 2003 were August and November 2004, and January 2005. During this period, according to GAO, the attacks have grown in intensity and sophistication. (And presumably in  lethality.)

Finally, GAO dismisses the notion that most of the attacks are being perpetrated by foreign fighters who've slipped into Iraq from Syria or elsewhere. Foreign fighters, they claim, "comprise a small component of the insurgency," which is made up primarily of Sunni Arabs tied to the Baathist regime, with a small group of Jihadists responsible for high profile attacks (i.e., the terrorism against Shia, which I'll write about sometime in the next few days). They also mention that Muqtada al-Sadr's forces "remain a threat to the political process" and are "re-arming, re-organizing, and training, with al-Sadr keeping his options open to employ his forces."

And if there's any doubt about the lethality of the insurgency, there's this.
Screaming "Allahu Akbar'' to the end, the foreign fighters lay on their backs in a narrow crawl space under a house and blasted their machine guns up through the concrete floor with bullets designed to penetrate tanks. They fired at U.S. Marines, driving back wave after wave as the Americans tried to retrieve a fallen comrade.

Through Sunday night and into Monday morning, the foreign fighters battled on, their screaming voices gradually fading to just one. In the end, it took five Marine assaults, grenades, a tank firing bunker-busting artillery rounds, 500-pound bombs unleashed by an F/A-18 attack plane and a point-blank attack by a rocket launcher to quell them.

The Marines got their fallen man, suffering one more dead and at least five wounded in the process. And according to survivors of the battle, the foreign fighters near the Syrian border proved to be everything their reputation had suggested: fierce, determined and lethal to the last.

"They came here to die," said Gunnery Sgt. Chuck Hurley, commander of the team from the 1st Platoon, Lima Company, of the Marines' 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment, that battled the insurgents in the one-story house in Ubaydi, about 15 miles east of the Syrian border.

"They were willing to stay in place and die with no hope," Hurley said Tuesday. "All they wanted was to take us with them.''

We need people with like determination to combat them, like the War Politicians, War Preachers, War Pundits, the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, and their loyal followers. Recruiters are eagerly (and desperately) standing by to take orders.

Update: Armando has more on the "reputation" of the insurgents.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 122 comments

  •  Who is going to do the searching? (none / 1)

    I almost think that recruiting stations are euphemisms for unemployment offices or bread lines.

    --Is RINO a good thing?

    by anonymous coward 8 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:35:37 AM PDT

    •  War is for the poor (none / 0)

      There is no doubt about it.  Thats probably why they don't bother to armor the troops.  If they don't make it back, the rich taxpayers won't have to cover  their social security or medicare.  That would be the true Republican point of view.

      Fight AIDS and other Infectious diseases from your PC and make a real difference. Click Here

      by Closet VB Coder on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:44:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was thinking of offices in Iraq (none / 0)

        But that works for here too.  Cheap labor republicans.

        The modern medic triage procedures are supposed to have much higher rates of success: less KIA/more WIA, but the long term disabilites are more severe.

        I guess they're counting on the rapture to clean up this mess.

        --Is RINO a good thing?

        by anonymous coward 8 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:52:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The money holes (none / 0)

        I read that one of the reasons the guys/gals aren't getting the proper equipment is that when the money is appropriated it gets siphoned off for pork barrel projects.

        Its not a matter of who needs the money, it who is the most powerful that needs the money.

        If you try to dip into Halliburton's honey pot, you get your hand slapped so you go after the helicopter repair and armoured vest fund.

        "Who do you believe, me or your own two eyes?" - Groucho Marx

        by MrEdward on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:01:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Elections (4.00 / 2)

    Interesting.  I don't recall the "liberal" media doing a lot of coverage of the 300 attacks, or mentioning that it was double the previous one day high.

    by VladiG on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:41:05 AM PDT

    •  Because Almost All the Attacks... (none / 1)

      ...were in the parts of the country where its too dangerous for reporters to go.  They're relatively safe moving through the Kurdish and Shia areas, but the Sunni Triangle is too dangerous for them.  I don't begrudge the reporters in Iraq; the problem is more with the editors in the US who accept whatever the administration tells them despite their inability to get their own independent confirmation.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:46:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmm (none / 1)

    I sense a recurring theme.  I like it.  Let's put these keyboard chickencommandos on the spot to put their money where their mouths are and enlist.

    "You're all perfectly safe, by the way. I took off my shoes at the airport. The terrorists hate the smell of feet." Kurt Vonnegut

    by agi on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:41:51 AM PDT

  •  is there consensus (none / 1)

    what do kossacks think?

    withdraw or remain?

    strong infrastructure and fair play

    by pyrrho on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:42:56 AM PDT

    •  I'm Sticking With Daily Kos (4.00 / 3)

      No goodbye cruel world diary from me.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:44:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It depends on what the mission is. (none / 0)

      Secure the oil?  Withdraw.

      Act in the best interests of the Iraqis (clean up per the pottery-barn rule) Remain.

      What the hell is the mission?

      --Is RINO a good thing?

      by anonymous coward 8 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:57:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure... (4.00 / 3)

        ...that the US is capable of doing anything better for the Iraqi people than withdrawing. Its not that I think that Iraq doesn't need security assistance including foreign troops. I'm saying that the US, because of how we got to be there, appears to do harm by its presence that outweighs the benefits we give by providing those things.

        by cdicely on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:34:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we could do good (4.00 / 2)

          If we were serious about it.

          I really don't think we are serious about it, and the mission is something along the lines of 'Clap harder, and don't let Tinkerbell-BushCo look like they made a mistake'.

          --Is RINO a good thing?

          by anonymous coward 8 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:41:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you (none / 1)

            I think it could still be possible that we could get through this mess with, if not a good solution, at least a "least bad" solution that would get Iraq back on its feet to some extent.

            But it would take a level of real commitment (read: money, well trained, high morale troops, heavy involvement in rebuilding the social services as well as the political) that simply isn't going to happen under this administration.

            I go back and forth on what I think we should do from here. I think a really competent and dedicated administration could sort of pull this out. But given the reality of the administration we have, I just don't see any potential for good coming from staying.

            On the other hand, again, the people most screwed over if we up and leave will be the half of the population that are women. This causes me huge amounts of grief, and no "but it's just the culture" fixes the reality that many of them do not choose to live in the fundamentalist way. They will likely be forced, and that will be long term. That is not a minor issue, though many here and elsewhere treat it as one.

            Add to that that political instability in Iraq threatens the stability of the larger region as well... and not in at all the way our Dear Leader and his crew intended...

            Point: I have no fucking clue. I don't like any of the options -- all have huge human rights, economic, and political implications that are just downright ugly. And it's quickly getting past the point where I think it even could be turned more positive.

            by Spit on Wed May 11, 2005 at 01:09:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The women (none / 1)

              in Saddam era Iraq could journey in public without covering their face...

              Sad that we're putting in a fundamentalist puppet government...

              "You can't awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."-Navajo saying.

              by quartzite on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:04:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Iraq is not Afghanistan (none / 0)

              So we should be careful about assuming that some sort of taliban-like theocracy would result from a US pullout.

              Iran is a better example: yes, the theocrats there still hold an enormous amount of power (and women suffer as a result) but a secular, pro-democracy movement is building. After years of rule by the mullahs, people are staring to rebel and demand more rights for everyone, including women.

              In short: we have to allow people to live their own history, there are no shortcuts.

              by StephenB on Thu May 12, 2005 at 02:33:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think that good could be done... (4.00 / 2)

            ...but it requires goodwill between the helping party and the Iraqi people that I think we've fatally squandered, which is why I am not convinced that the United States, especially the US military, is capable of doing good for Iraq even if the US government suddenly got serious about it.

            But, when I say I'm not convinced, I mean just that. I really don't know if we can still do good or not.

            by cdicely on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:25:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I (none / 0)

          agree with you reasoning that US forces can only make things worse in the long run

          American dream is a myth!

          by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:26:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Withdraw (4.00 / 2)

      I vote withdraw in disgrace.  None of this claim victory crap.  Admit we can't afford it moneywise and manpowerwise.  Blame the people who put us there and get the hell out.  Watch Iraq burn in civil war. Watch Iran battle some new Saddam for ten years.  

      Weep and beg our children for forgiveness for this world we've left them.

      by Rob C on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:04:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  withdraw (none / 0)

        Since we did not go into Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqis,(remember wmd) why do we have to stay there for the preceived benefit of the locals? Lets not kid ourselves Iraq does not have an insurgency they are having a civil war andthe american forces are in the middle of one.
        Please spare me the moral high ground reasons that include we broke it so we have to fix it;its a mess but we have to finish the job;the islamic fundementalists will take over the country if we leave etc.
        The only reason America is in Iraq is our national interest (be it control of the middle east, oil etc).

        American dream is a myth!

        by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:24:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure (4.00 / 2)

      I'm confused about what the insurgents are trying to achieve, so I'm not sure if withdrawing makes a democratic government there more or less likely to succeed.

      by Cat1133 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:26:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ah yeah (4.00 / 2)

        that's part of the trick, isn't it.

        I think we can assume they are not pro-democracy, however.

        strong infrastructure and fair play

        by pyrrho on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:33:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Civil war followed by a theocracy so harsh (none / 0)

        and so appresive that the middle east will not recover for many, many generations.

        I think we need a change of command, and a completely defined mission, but pulling out the troops will hurt us so bad in the long run that we can not even imagine the consequences.

        And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo, everyday you see quite a few

        by Ageredon on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:07:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah (none / 0)

          it will be the end of the world !

          American dream is a myth!

          by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:33:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  we (none / 0)

          Had a civil war and we have a theocracy now in this country

          American dream is a myth!

          by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:34:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh really? (none / 0)

            It should be rather embarassing to the left if we can't tell the difference between the Iranian government and our own.

            by Cat1133 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:15:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't fool your self (none / 1)

              Shed the holier than though attitude.
              I have another post of our glorious history in this thread.
              Also are you aware of things done in our name by our govt?
              And by the way I am not left or right. I am a poor human being.And I am correct and not right.
              Historically in the Roman senate, those who agreed with the Ceaser, sat on his right and those who disagreed with him sat on his left!!!!(Is that true with King George too?)
              Peace my friend!

              American dream is a myth!

              by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 07:34:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You think I am fooling (none / 0)

                myself if I would prefer to live in the US over Iran? We may not have a perfect democracy, but I prefer not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

                I think if anyone has a holier-than-thou attitude, it is probably you. Apparently, Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton etc. didn't come up with a form of government that is good enough for you. In contrast, I'm pretty happy with it, warts and all.

                by Cat1133 on Thu May 12, 2005 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  When American Women (none / 0)

            are being stoned to death for not having there face covered, that will be the theocracy Iraq will have.  When people are being beheaded because of a difference in faith, that will be a harsh theocracy.  What we have now is a bunch of overly abitious fundamentalists who want to change things, and they dont have a chance in hell of making any real changes because the Republicans will lose the Whitehouse and, at the very least, the House of Representatives.  At the rate things are going Republicans will be out of power for over a decade.  There is no chance of an American Fundamentalist Theocracy.

            And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo, everyday you see quite a few

            by Ageredon on Wed May 11, 2005 at 04:17:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  don't (none / 1)

              forget to check the crime rate that include the "wonderful love and affection" shown in the domestic violence cases. (I see a lot of them and trust me when I say that women are not treated that well even if they are not stoned in public -most of the time its worse)
              This country will never get better unless we shed our hoilier than thou sense.
              or own up to the acts of our govt (we are responsible for the action of our govt) towards people of the world.
              Whether this country is the best place inspite of our shortcoimgs (often cited by people when one brings up the shortcomings) is besides the point as long as we turn a blind eye towards things done in our name.
               Actions against prisoners in Iraq are called abuse become its done by us... Call it what it really is -Torture! And you have only seen a small percentage of the pictures or have you forgotten that story and moved on to the story of finger in the chilli or run away bride?
              What about the atrocities against the women prisoners? Why do I even have to mention those actions  here? what about the near eradication of the native americans; the slavery, jap interments, atomic bombing of 170K, and death of 2to 3 million vietnamese? That is just old news right?Yes it is history but its our history. and its for us to stand up and acknowlege it as our history. Its not just the barbarian arabs who does all those henious things. Look with in ourselves and our history and unless you do it you will repeat it again and again.And sadly will not even be aware of it!
              What is the difference between the insurgents beheading one american from our military dropping a daisy cutter bomb on thousands? Is it more civilized because we do it?or is it more aseptic and made for TV? call a spade a spade !

              American dream is a myth!

              by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 07:27:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Right (none / 0)

              It's important to notice the very real differences between a real theocracy and a wannabe theocracy.

              by Cat1133 on Thu May 12, 2005 at 09:00:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Who's the president again? (none / 1)

          "I think we need a change of command, and a completely defined mission"

          Kerry didn't win the election, remember?

          So the choices we have are:

          1. continue the occupation under Bush and Rumsfeld (who, incidentally, just said he wants to finish out Bush's term) with all the corruption and incompetence that they are famous for and a total disregard for the lives of innocent iraqis and US troops

          2. withdraw

          Note: unlike most multiple choice tests, in this case, the longer answer is not the one most likely to be correct.

          by StephenB on Thu May 12, 2005 at 02:43:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  they said the same thing about VIETNAM (none / 0)

          how many soldiers are you willing to sacrafice to prevent these "unknown" consequences ???

          would YOU be willing to die to prevent what YOU DO NOT KNOW ???

          Withdrawl is the only way to stop the killing of American soldiers

          we should ALL accept the conxequences of Bush's folly, support our troops by bringing them home now

          fuck the unknown consequences, we KNOW that continued occupation means MORE DEAD SOLDIERS

          how much worse than that can it be ???

          by knowthings on Fri May 13, 2005 at 01:19:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  We need people with like determination... (4.00 / 2)

    to work for peace.

    The perfect plan, Is not the man Who tells you, You are wrong

    by dss on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:44:09 AM PDT

  •  This Is Progress (4.00 / 2)

    Their goal does not match the goal they portray to the masses, imagine that. They want perpetual war there, at a low boil, which is a perpetual license for free reign here at home and an occupation that depresses the prices Iraqis can expect for oil. Everything else, including the desire to invade Iran, is, I think, second fiddle of smokescreen.

    by NewDirection on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:44:16 AM PDT

  •  Line-up (4.00 / 2)

    The question posed by Kos is a good one: Why do they keep lining these recruits up as sitting ducks? Any thoughts?

    by NoIvory on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:54:16 AM PDT

    •  Basically (4.00 / 2)

      from a logistics viewpoint, it is the easiest way to process a lot of peoplequickly.

      Unfortunately it also leaves them open to attacks like this.

      I have read from several sources that most of the recruits are men looking for work to feed their families, not necessarily patriotic Iraqis looking to make their country safe (although I am sure there are some of them also).

      But I think that perhaps the lines will shorten if things don't change soon.

      Bush, so incompetent, he can't even do the wrong things right.

      by JAPA21 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:58:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then I hope they have better recruiters than we do (none / 0)

        "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."- Thomas Jefferson

        by RandyMI on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:23:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  do (none / 0)

        you have any idea what the un employment rate is in iraq for Iraqis?
        The good jobs are taken up by the foreigners.
        Average Iraqi man is left with two choices for employment one to join the Iraqi security force or to join the freedom fighters. either way they are sitting ducks!

        American dream is a myth!

        by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:38:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They probably search them (none / 0)

      when they get to the door.

      Also, I belive the food-for their families theory.

      Even if the recruiting stations aren't directly employment or welfare stations, I could see our people in those stations demanding proof of searching for employment, with a ticket from standing in a recruiting line serving as proof.

      --Is RINO a good thing?

      by anonymous coward 8 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:05:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why the lines? (4.00 / 2)

      There are a lot of unemployed people desperate to feed their families.  There are going to be lines somewhere - all of these people could have been standing in line waiting to be checked by security to get to whereever they were going.      

      by NickM on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:05:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Paging Mr. Goldberg (4.00 / 2)

    The Marines need a replacement.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."- Thomas Jefferson

    by RandyMI on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:55:38 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps they could go to (none / 0)

    Afghanistan to help keep the Afghans under control. That should be easier.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/11/afghan.protest/index.html

    Oh, and silly me I though it was Free and under control.

    by Osiris on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:56:10 AM PDT

  •  BODY ARMOR (none / 0)

    Morning Edtion (I think) said the Marines reported that these guys were wearing uniforms and BODY ARMOR. If true, this represents a new phase of the war that will problably not help recruiting.

    I mean, now our side guys have to make headshots too?

    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." General Nathanael Greene, Continental Army, April, 1781.

    by faithnomore on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:57:19 AM PDT

    •  courtesy of the new Iraqi army (none / 1)

      I suspect the body armour came from the new Iraqi Army. Much of the stuff we're handing out is getting "lost" (sold) or looted rather quickly.

      by bigbay on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:09:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See Vietnam re: Insurgent resupply units (none / 0)

        we called them the soldiiers of Army off the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN)

        the enemy called them resupply units

        the soldiers were dressed, equiped, and sent into battle, where they were captured, striped of clothes and equipment, and returned to get some more

        anybody want to buy some ARVN rifles, never been fired, only dropped once

        by knowthings on Fri May 13, 2005 at 01:46:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What strategy? (4.00 / 2)

    What is wrong with the leadership of our government? I'm sure it's Rumsfeld and the civilian leadership who refuse to acknowledge their ideas are dead wrong. Of course the military leadership who dared speak up were eliminated, so you end up with toadies like Franks and Myers.

    We have changed nothing about our approach to occupation of Iraq in the past two years, other than minor things to reduce casualties. Meanwhile the insurgency grows stronger and more experienced. Americans are dying at a higher and higher rate because the assholes in our government put pride before reality.

    I'm also pretty pissed at the poor excuse for media in this country. Remember Somalia? Everyone called for Les Aspin's head after Mogadishu, and he was forced to resign. What's happening in Iraq is far more egregious and Rumsfeld is the primary person responsible, although I think the whole Pentagon needs fumigation.

    Iraq is a doomed venture. Bush will never leave and doesn't seem willing to change things to win. We can expect another 3000 dead at the rate we're seeing now before the end of Bush's current term. We will be able to occupy any small area we put our troops on, but we will never pacify the country. Will it take a Dien Bien Phu for us to realize we've lost? Why are we wasting lives there at this point, for the corporations?

    Are you shaking or biting the invisible hand?

    by puppethead on Wed May 11, 2005 at 11:57:21 AM PDT

    •  Dien Bien Phu (none / 0)

      The Green Zone could indeed be it.

      by outside observer on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:04:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The contrast with Somalia (4.00 / 3)

      is striking.  America barely got its hand slapped in that conflict compared to the present situation.  It's basically just that this adminstration has a much tighter control over its media representation than Clinton's did.  

      It occurs to me that the media bias against presenting the Iraq atrocities is probably borne much less out of ideology than out of the profit motive.  No one wants their ads choc-a-block with footage of dismembered children.  You can't shift units that way.  So any show that would attempt an even remotely vivid representation of "the facts on the ground" would quickly find its corporate sponsors pulling up stakes.

      And with the fairness doctrine absent from television news, who is to call them on it?  We talk about a "culture of life," but essentially contemporary America is a culture of fear.  Forget overseas atrocities.  Get Americans whipped up into a lather about killer bees, or ecstacy rings, or trial lawyers and their meddling ways, or dying from not being on the Atkins diet, or dying from being on the Atkins diet, etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah -- and then channel that terror into consumption of commodities.

      "Well, in these trying times, you can't be too careful.  That's why I use Krelm toothpaste, Biff."

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:24:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Aspin (none / 0)

      >>Everyone called for Les Aspin's head after
      >>Mogadishu, and he was forced to resign

      And this is a bad thing? It's been quite a while, but don't I remember Aspin refusing to provide the troops with front and back body armor? I definitely recall soldiers dying because they only had the front armor. I also recall when Aspin stepped down, and the Washington Post published an editorial decrying Clinton's perfidy; something about "Aspin had given up his irretrievable position" on some committee to become SecDef. I guess the fact that soldiers were giving up their irretrievable positions as living, whole sons, husbands, fathers, etc. wasn't important.

      by Champurrado on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:24:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those Were Symptoms (none / 0)

        The root cause of Aspin's problems was apparently that he was a completely incompetent administrator.  Being an executive is very different from being a legislator, and he apparently wasn't able to make the shift.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by DHinMI on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:27:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ISTR... (none / 0)

        ...the front and back body armor was not a DoD decision but a practice in the field to reduce carried weight by shedding gear that was perceived to be unnecessary.

        The critical thing Aspin refused was heavy armored vehicles (i.e., main battle tanks) to support operations in Somalia, IIRC.

        by cdicely on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:36:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I left out... (none / 0)

          ...the key part. The bad thing isn't that people called for Aspin's head. The bad thing is that people in the media and outside rightly called for Aspin's head, but when Rumsfeld did much worse by the troops, well, not so many calls for his head, and he's still there.

          by cdicely on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:38:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  In Somalia (none / 0)

        The US force had no armored vehicles, and had to borrow some from the Pakistani Peace keepers to rescue the besieged American forces and downed helicopter crews from within Mogadishu.

        I had a rightwingnut argue with me that of course it was Clinton's fault, even though Bush the Elder (and his handpicked ambassador sent the troops into Somalia in the first place.

        Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

        by Ed in Montana on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:02:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Half-awake reaction to a piece on Morning Edition (none / 0)

      NPR's "Morning Edition" had a fascinating segment this morning that I happened to catch twice, half-asleep both times, so I don't have a lot of the details.   Apparently Philip Reeves (the Baghdad correspondent with a British accent) was shadowing around some Marines as they went about their daily duties, mostly of a humanitarian and "public relations" variety.   I thought the piece did a great job of showing the conflicted mission that we've given to our military there and why such a dual role isn't really a reasonable expectation.  

      In one episode our men need to hide out in some private civilian house for some surveillance mission.  When they explain this to the owner of the house, he expresses consternation.   One of the Marines is fairly understanding, but another reacts by swearing a blue streak.   Then he says to the translator, "Don't translate that," as though his emotions would somehow fail to transcend the language barrier.   I don't know how common it is for the Marines to invite themselves into a private home, and if it helps their mission it might be acceptable.   (It might also be the sort of thing that led our Founders to write the Third Amendment.)   Nevertheless, it sheds light on the naivete of thinking that our military can be seen as a force for good at the same time that it's barging into civilian houses.

      In some ways, another incident was even more disturbing: The Marines had brought different items to give out to the public, including newspapers.  Apparently one recipient took the newpaper and tore it up then threw it to the ground.  This outraged one of the Americans, who started to make an aggressive-sounding threat but never finished it.   If the Iraqi was going to tear up the paper, the Marine was going to.... What, precisely?   My mind supplied some possible continuations: Report him to the civil authorities?   Send the offender to Abu Ghraib?  Or maybe Guantanamo?    Eventually cooler heads prevailed, and another Marine stepped in to ease the situation.   Without a doubt, destroying a gift in the giver's presence is rude, no matter the culture.   However, it's unnerving to think that some of our troops are reacting so strongly to every little act of civil disobedience.

      After the Abu Ghraib revelations, I remember having the disheartening realization that the soldiers involved must have really believed that Iraqis were the enemy, that all Iraqis (or at least those turned into them) were terrorists.  This morning on "Democracy Now" Seymour Hersch reinforced that impression.  The "Morning Edition" piece somewhat balanced this chilling prospect with a view of our military trying to interact with the Iraqi public -- but I'm not sure I came away feeling reassured.

      Trusting Republicans for small government is like trusting Taco Bell for Mexican cuisine.

      by EqualOpportunityCynic on Wed May 11, 2005 at 01:45:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I too (none / 0)

        listen to Emmy Goodman every morning rather than NPR these days.
        I tend to trust Mr Hersch a lot more than all other so called media people. I don't think its  because he tells  us what i want to believe to be the  truth, but I think history has shown that he has been accurate in the past.
        Don't forget there are huge number of pictures that the govt refused to make public.
        They know that if they ride it out the people will feast on the next finger in the chili or run away bride story!

        American dream is a myth!

        by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 08:34:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What if there was no reporter (none / 0)

        Think about how those marines would have acted if there was no reporter with them.

        by Eric in Dublin on Thu May 12, 2005 at 05:59:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They must be down to (none / 1)

    what, 379.5 tons of HQX now?

    </snark>

    "You can't awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."-Navajo saying.

    by quartzite on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:00:36 PM PDT

  •  Why does the GAO hate America?! (none / 0)

    <snark>

    Why doesn't the GAO mention that the rising number of bombings is clearly a last-ditch, desperate effort on the part of insurgents, and all of the deaths just more proof that we are winning?

    And the GAO doesn't even mention that Saddam gassed his own people!

    How long must we endure this liberal bias?

    </snark>

    Take the fight to them. Don't let them bring it to you. - Harry S Truman

    by jgoodfri on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:05:31 PM PDT

  •  Stories at least getting back on front page (4.00 / 2)

    The Dallas Morning News today went front-page-bottom with the WP story, using the headline:

    Marines on brutal battle: "Enemy came here to die"

    The WP story contains further explanations and details of the fight which resulted in the premature and bullshit "75-100 killed" headlines which have now circled the world several times, on which I called bullshit yesterday. This misinformation has put the Defense Department in the difficult position of being shown up as bullshitters by, of all people, Al Qaida and Al Jazeera, who posted immediate denials of the story.

    So the US will gradually leak out more details and yet probably try to protect the stinky 75-100 numbers for a while, until everyone forgets, but is clear, imho, who was shoveling propaganda shit on May 8.

    fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

    by seesdifferent on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:05:57 PM PDT

  •  I don't know about you, but I don't want (3.50 / 2)

    to be the one assigned to pat down people standing in line to find out which ones are walking bombs!  That's like using someone with enormous feet as a mine detector.

    U.S. being in Iraq attracts these jihadist types because it's a target rich environment.  But we won't get out of Iraq because of the insurgent loonies.  

    Does it sound to anyone like we'll ever get out of Iraq following this line of reasoning?

    Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

    by groggy on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:14:17 PM PDT

    •  I agree with your point about the sucky position (none / 0)

      of the person assigned to pat down potential suicide bombers. It would be preferable to handle the problem logistically to prevent people from bunching up in groups on a predictable basis. For example, divide the people interested in joining the police into small groups, based on name, address, whatever. Have each group report at a different time throughout the day. If the previous group hasn't been processed yet, send the next group away until the next day.

      Even better, increase the number of sites where recruits are processed.

      John McCain says women shouldn't have the right to choose.

      by Cowalker on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:28:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or send them through airport security! (none / 0)

        If they panic and set themselves off, you only loose some equipment that doesn't work verry well anyway.  

        Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

        by groggy on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:44:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't we have Robots (none / 0)

      or Bomb Sniffing Dogs to do some of the work. I mean we have Appropiated Billions of dollars to  go toward these type of things....

      Anybody no where the money is going?

      by Northstar on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:49:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Star Wars (4.00 / 2)

        They are filling missile silos in Greeley Alaska with missiles to shoot down incoming missiles from someone who knows who.  Same guys moved the WMDs out of Iraq.  More than $10 billion a year on that science fair project.

        Not to worry they are installing them in case some one shoots at Alaska and in case they might get a missile out of the silo much less 3000 miles up range to hit an incoming target the size of a small automobile.

        Have yet to get one of the test missiles to fire when wanted, and when they launched it after many delays it never got close to the rigged target.

        Body armor is $600 a set, not much chance of making billions there.

        Body armor is low tech cannot keep a huge number of BMW driving engineers in the cushy jobs.

        Maybe recruit defense contractor engineers for Iraq.

        Oh, the salary is only a fraction of what they make and it would kick them off course to building their share fo the ownership society.

        Then we own a dozen carrier battle groups, one 5 or 6 billion dollar ship surrounded by about $5 billion in other ships to keep the sampans away.

        Then there is the Amphib Assault Groups, a dozen baby flat-tops surrpunded by support like a carrier battle group to put about a thousand marines ashore so the bad guys can shoot them through their body armor or lack of good stuff of the like.

        Finally, Boeing is handling a billion or so a year in Army money to develop small light combat vehicles (they only do airplane well) so the grunts can be transported into a small airfield where we cannot get them decent food, water or fuel for the vehicles.  

        They have to wait for the new body armor.

        Army and navy are thrifty compared to the Air Force.

        It is all where the money is and grunts are not good for profits in peace or in war.

        "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

        by RetLtCol on Wed May 11, 2005 at 01:34:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  what (none / 0)

      is the difference between our forces and the insurgents?
      Insurgents are called Jihadis and our forces are called Crusaders!

      American dream is a myth!

      by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:54:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the so called jihadist types (none / 1)

      probably wouldn't even be jihadist types (in fact I'd bet most were just going about their lives without a second thought about us until we conquered Iraq) if it weren't for the fact that we are seen throughout the Middle East as invaders that must be repelled at all cost.

      Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

      by Pescadero Bill on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:14:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the 2nd part (none / 0)

    of this post (the wapo part)...  

    sounds a lot like the fighters in soviet afghanistan in the 80's as described in a book I read 'bout a month ago.  I mean to the 'T'.  

    I had a history prof. who worked in that area (afghan) for the  military, and NATO I think.  He described the mujuhadeen(?) as resolute and fearless, but I think we know that by now...

    Another story he told he was how these fighters could survive on an egg split into fourths, and with creek water for weeks - months - at a time.

    I'm not so liberal that I unwaveringly support capitulators.

    by hfiend on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:34:24 PM PDT

    •  Fundamentalism (none / 0)

      You can't defeat people who think they are on a mission from God until they stop believing or are destroyed.  That goes for the "Christian" right in this country also.

      by eric kobesak on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:38:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so true (none / 0)

        we haven't even started to fight this problem I'm affraid.  Think of the #'s of fighters that were trained in Afghan camps and elsewhere from 1980 till 9/01.  it's a large number.  We are only fighting in a small area of land from islamabad to amman and down through Iraq.  A small footprint in my opinion.

        I'm not so liberal that I unwaveringly support capitulators.

        by hfiend on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:46:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Its (none / 0)

        ok to be a fundementalist, either religious or secular as long as they leave others alone and don't try to convert.

        American dream is a myth!

        by brown american on Wed May 11, 2005 at 08:41:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ugly (none / 0)

    This just gets worse and worse everyday.  The American people deserve to have to pay for this mess that they let happen.  Will the costs go up to $500 billion.  While children and their parents die of AIDS around the world.  Disgusting.  The American people are disgusting.

    by eric kobesak on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:36:13 PM PDT

  •  line (none / 0)

    if they searched people before they got in line, wouldn't there be a line for being searched that was just as enticing a target?

    by dartvader on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:36:50 PM PDT

  •  Unbelievable Argument on NPR (none / 1)

    I just finished listening to a discussion on NPR, and I found this new line of reasoning jaw dropping. Now remember, we went to was because of two things, Hussein weapons and his connection with terrorism. We pointed out that Hussein was a secularist, but that didn't carry any water with a public and administration that believe Iraq and 9/11 intimately connected.

    Well, they were arguing on NPR that all of the suicide bombers in Iraq had to be foreign troops. Why? Because Iraqi's have no tolerance or history with those kind of tactics. These kind of suicide mission would never be carried out by Iraqi's.

    Doesn't that contradict the whole "Iraq and al Quaida are the same" argument they made at the start of the war?  Of course, also glossed over were the few concrete examples they had where there were foreign fighters from our good friend Saudi Arabia.

    by DJ Adequate on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:42:31 PM PDT

  •  What would you do if the US were invaded (none / 0)


    and occupied?

    Would Americans do any less to expel the invaders from their towns, their country?

    And would they consider themselves "insurgents?"

    blog updated 6-1
    one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan

    by DuctapeFatwa on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:52:57 PM PDT

  •  expect (none / 0)

    a bait and switch tonight and for the next few days, from dead Iraqis and GI's, to a plane that flew off course ...

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Wed May 11, 2005 at 01:11:22 PM PDT

  •  "...them..."? (none / 0)

    Who are you referring to when you say "them"?

    There is usually no happy ending for an action begun in ignorance, esp. one that has turned out to be so rewarding to those in charge of said action.

    I am echoing others here. We need to get out.

    by CWH on Wed May 11, 2005 at 01:33:59 PM PDT

  •  Wth all the comment at Kos on recruitment (none / 0)

    do a search at Free Republic on the keywords:

    recruiting
    recruitment
    Houston
    stand down

    There's nothing about falling short of recruiting goals later than March 21. The only recruitment being done is apparently in Iraq. There was no recruiting scandal in Houston, and the Army has no thoughts of having a stand down day on May 20 to refresh its recruiters on the rules and ethics of recruiting. Freeperville is a happier and less realistic place than Disneyland.

    John McCain says women shouldn't have the right to choose.

    by Cowalker on Wed May 11, 2005 at 01:39:06 PM PDT

  •  I've Noted This Numerous Times Today (none / 0)

    But I'll mention it again.  Notice how many times they use the term "foreign fighters" in that WaPo story about the Marines fighting the guerrillas.

    Think they're trying to make some kind of point about Syria helping the guerrillas out?

    "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Wed May 11, 2005 at 01:52:21 PM PDT

    •  Not Necessarily (none / 1)

      In that region of Iraq, it's quite possible that there are a high proportion of foreign fighters.  Like Afghanistan was in the 1980's, Iraq has become a motivation and destination for politicized Islamist radicals, and their easiest route in and, until now, safest haven away from US troops, was through Syria into al Anbar province.  

      There have been a lot of legitimate reports, including I think the GAO report I cited in the post Markos linked, that describes the foreign fighters as a real element in the mix, even if not to the degree described by the Pentagon.  And I think al Anbar, being on the route from Syria to the more populous areas of the Sunni Triangle, would be the place in Iraq most likely to have a high percentage of foreigners.  

      It's sorta like the Ho Chi Minh trail of Iraq; not everyone fighting the US is a foreigner, but some are, and the best place to find and interdict that flow is on the route they use to reach the scene of most of the fighting.  In Iraq, that's al Anbar.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:12:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent Point (none / 0)

        But the article still goes in for extreme overkill.  There's something like 8 references to "foreign fighters" or "foreign leaders" on the first of the four web pages devoted to this story on the WaPo website.

        I discuss the whole thing in more detail here, if you're interested.

        "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Wed May 11, 2005 at 05:08:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dismissing the enemy as "only Terroists" (none / 0)

    I always want to ask my more militant friends to step back and think what they would do if it was the US that had been invaded and occupied. Here in New Mexico, the majority would join the insurgents.

    by lcallen3 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:05:21 PM PDT

  •  Why Recover Dead Bodies? (none / 0)

    I have a question for Kos or anyone out there with military experience or who knows something about it.  The marines, including the marines in the story quoted here, make a big deal out of not leaving even any bodies behind.  To me this seems pretty stupid.  Once I die, I don't give a shit about my body and I certainly wouldn't anybody to get killed -- or even risk getting killed -- trying to recover my cadaver.  

    Why do they do this?  Is this something that a lot of people in the military really want?

    by The Fool on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:10:33 PM PDT

    •  Mystifying for sure (none / 0)

      I wouldn't want anyone to die rescuing my carcass either. But I don't think this is unique to the military. When most people lose a loved one, they want a body to say goodbye to and bury. Hence all the tears of happiness when we find MIA corpses in Vietnam.

      by Cat1133 on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:22:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The commitment to recover comrades... (none / 0)

      ...no matter what, even if they are dead, is really ultimately about maintaining esprit de corps among the living more than anything else.

      by cdicely on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:27:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Still Don't Get It (none / 0)

        I've heard the esprit de corps argument - but I'm wondering why this keeps up the esprit when it creates more corpses?  Doing it for the sake of the family also seems like a weak rationale.  Sure we'd like to see our dead relatives for the sake of closure but surely it is not worth getting people killed for?

        by The Fool on Wed May 11, 2005 at 08:38:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The idea is that ... (none / 0)

          ...you know that the people beside you are committed to you no matter what. There is a saying that, in war, you don't really fight for your country or freedom or any other abstract value, but for the guy on your left and the guy on your right. Its not just "no man left behind", there is a lot of military culture that seems to be based on building a kind of tribal identity, and like most such identities, there is some superficially impractical ritualism that goes along with that. It sounds kind of weird when you talk about it, but people aren't really all that rational, and so things that work on a psychological level don't always seem to make sense.

          by cdicely on Thu May 12, 2005 at 07:49:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Potent Explosives (none / 0)

    "Why don't they search people before they stand in line? That much explosive can't be easy to hide from the most cursory search."

    --It doesn't take all that much explosive! Remember that just before the election, Bush allowed Al QaQaa to be looted of 380 tons of RDX/MDX high powered explosives, 1 pound of which brought down the Lockheed jet over Lockerbie. He had been urgently warned by the IAEA to MAKE SURE to secure the place, but then failed to tell the military (who should already have known anyway...)

    So the Baathists have plenty of it to go around for many, many more attacks...thanks to W.

    by PKinTexas on Wed May 11, 2005 at 04:55:45 PM PDT

  •  "could go either way" (none / 0)

    last night on the ABC big pharma blitz nightly news they had a report from their pentagon embed martha robotz about the fact that our body count is back up where it was before the iraq election, recruiting is down and the insurgency just keeps getting stronger.  she passed this on, along with a remark from a pentagon official that "at this point the war could go either way."

    charlie gibson's reaction: "whoa! what- wait, what... you mean the pentagon isn't sure at this point if we're going to win this war? the iraq war?"

    martha: "that's right charlie.  officials here say that counterinsurgency operations usually take 5-10 years, even with the best of conditions."

    frankly, i'm kind of surprised they let that little tidbit slip through.  not that i expect ABCn00z to act like they heard anything like it, of course.

    l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

    by zeke L on Wed May 11, 2005 at 05:19:19 PM PDT

  •  blowback (none / 0)

    One problem with foreign fighters is known from Afghanistan: some return home as heroes and become focus points of anti-American conspiracies that regard their own regimes as American stooges.

    Second problem is that while Sunnis are minority in Iraq, they are overwhelming majority in almost all Arab countries.  Say thay Busheviks succeed in destabilizing Syrian Alawite regime.  I am afraid that the next government would be much eager to support insurgents.  I strongly suspect that if Saudi citizens support insurgency, the kingdom can do very little to stop them because officers of their own security forces would regard the insurgent cause as pius and just.

    by Piotr on Wed May 11, 2005 at 08:37:55 PM PDT

  •  warts and all (none / 0)

    would not hurt to make it better would it?
    Like trying to acknowledge the shortcoming and strive to make it betterrather sit on it.
    No one is comparing the life style of american with iraqs (it would certainly be comparing apples to oranges).
    Yours is the usual  stock remark one gets when one points out the inadequacies.
    Well jefferson was not a perfect person was he ?How many slaves did he have?
    peace my friend!

    American dream is a myth!

    by brown american on Thu May 12, 2005 at 11:04:08 AM PDT

Permalink | 122 comments