Fiasco...Who's Read This?

See You Next Wednesday · Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:53 pm

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq

I am about halfway through it and it is very shocking, mostly about how the civilian leadership, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz and Bremer mainly, undermined the work and suggestion of intelligence and military experts to try and paint the worst case scenario in terms of Saddam's capabilities and best casing the war itself. On top of that is the astonishing lack of concern and understanding about the post-war needs, both militarily, socially and politically. A lot of the information is from interviews with military personel as well as tons of written documentation, much of it the military's own assessments.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:08 am

mvscal wrote:Fiasco perfectly sums up the thought process of attempting a definitive analysis of a war that is not over yet.

I don't even need to pick it up to understand that Ricks is an idiot.

Let me guess, you're really an AM talk radio host, on the White House lawn this week?

Normally, you seem to know what you're talking about, but the embrace of ignorance here is pretty funny.

What's next? A tale of how you were forced to kill fellow soldiers for the sake of freedom?

Save it, Col. DoucheJessup. Ricks has spent more time in Iraq than you have, from what you've posted, and likely has talked to a hell of a lot more commanders, in the field, as well.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:44 pm

mvscal wrote:I know what I'm talking about... no point in wasting any more time on somebody who is an obvious idiot.

So you know what you are talking about in regards to this book because you haven't read it?

~l to r: People who buy mvscal's crap~

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:47 pm

Technically, didn't the Iraq War end when the Saddam regime collapsed? 2003, wasn't it?

That war would have to be called a total success.

The occupation, on the other hand is being totally fucked up

See You Next Wednesday · Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:21 pm

mvscal wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:So you know what you are talking about in regards to this book because you haven't read it?
Yes, I do. The title of the book in and of itself is a biased judgment on a war that is not over.

So we can't make any assessments about mistakes and/or misrepresentations, that have been made to this point that have made the job a lot harder, cost more money, cost more lives, than it ever needed to be. Check.

Seriously, judging the book by it's title is pretty idiotic. I will be honest, I disagree vehemently with you about a number of things, but I do respect your knowledge of military history as well as your experience in the military. That is why it is kind of disappointing you would dismiss it so readily without reading. I would think this would have been right up your alley.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:31 pm

Dismissing an entire book which contains factual evidence of things that have already come to pass cetainly doesn't get you informed.

OTOH there is no way for a book like that to present the complete picture of a war/conflict until it is over.

However, a sufficient amount of time has passed that the book most certainly must have relevant information that shows what a fiasco it has been to this point.

Like anyone needs that info to know how fucked up it is over there.

Why don't you actually read it before you review it, mvscal? Or does the "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality spill over into all aspects of your life?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:39 pm

IF it contains factual information and not just assumptions or conjecture supporting the argument, it's more than just a polemic.

And true you can't judge the entire conflict in the face of it being an incomplete operation, but you can certainly see the inner workings ( as well as they are truthfully represented) of those in charge and get a more conplete picture of things.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:03 pm

is he judging the entire conflict, or presenting information about what has occurred so far?

Oh wait, you wouldn't know that, because you haven't read it.

Hell. Even I can predict a fiasco ahead of time as long as Denny Green is the coach. ;)

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:55 am

mvscal wrote:His bias is right out front on the cover.

Actually, he's spoken quite highly of individual military commanders' programs on the local level in Iraq, and criticized the generals for either not having a clue, or flat out dismissing their own. Just from what I've seen him say on Tim Russert and other television programs, the title is a misnomer for several colonels and others on the ground who have made a big difference. His criticism is directed at the generals in Iraq, not the commanders on the streets.

No point in wasting any more time on somebody who is an obvious idiot. In case you were wondering, drawing conclusions about a war that is still ongoing makes you a pitiful dumbfuck.

Says the fool who prides himself on not even wanting to consider the perspective of someone who's been there the last three years.

Remind me the next time I'm in the music forum to comment on how much some band I've never heard before sucks.

That's about the extent of your logic on this one, mvsyroo.

Btw, don't you find it highly questionable that not ONE single general since 2004 has been removed from his post in Iraq? Therein lies the title, mensa.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:21 am

mvscal wrote: If I'm talking at all, I know what I'm talking about.

Yes - war through the narrow scope of your personal experience ie: - infantry tactics which have not a lot to do with the situation. Mix in a bit of hysteria and machismo and you have an 'mv strategic overview' which rarely corresponds with reality.

Fiasco: The Union Perspective in the Civil War. Summer of 1864

Fiasco: The American Experience in WW2. December 1944

Fiasco: The Soviet Experience in WW2. October 1941

Fiasco: The Allied Experience in WW1. 1917

etc. etc throughout history.

What a ridiculous set of comparisons. It's not Gettysburg or Austerlitz. People aren't withdrawing in the centre and pushing forward their flanks - it's an occupation. There are better analogies from which you can draw. Conventional conflicts, set peice battles and mass on mass are irrelevent, they have nothing to do with anything. You've lost the population as a whole and you will never get them back... not that you ever had them in the first place.
For christ sake, it's over - just admit it.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:54 am

Every day "Haji" gets stronger...every day the "Green Zone security guards" get weaker...

What's a couple of billion to a big government, tax 'n spend, welfare queen mercantilist like you?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:02 am

mvscal wrote:
Martyred wrote:Every day "Haji" gets stronger...

You're still in Iraq, aren't you? Bush is repositioning his phraseology, is he not?

Someone's backpeddaling, and it ain't Muqtada Al Sadr.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:26 am

mvscal wrote:
Dr_Phibes wrote:You've lost the population as a whole
You are quite simply wrong. Sunni Arabs and radical Shiites do not comprise the majority of Iraqi citizens or even remotely close to the majority.

That matters so very little when they are incapable of wresting control of their country from the Sunni Arabs and radical Shiites.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:02 am

Mister Bushice wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Dr_Phibes wrote:You've lost the population as a whole
You are quite simply wrong. Sunni Arabs and radical Shiites do not comprise the majority of Iraqi citizens or even remotely close to the majority.
That matters so very little when they are incapable of wresting control of their country from the Sunni Arabs and radical Shiites.

So why should they? At least a militia provides a small modicum of security.

The police are bandits in themselves, the government lives behind blast proof walls - they are a non-factor. The US army runs about blasting in all directions, rounding eveyone up and shipping them off to god knows where everytime someone takes a pot-shot at them ( <---- generalisation, but still) or even better, rasing cities as collective punishment.

The middle class and professionals have left the country - food, water and hydro generation are fucked and all the re-construction money has been stolen or pumped into useless, unfinished projects. Petrol is being shipped overseas as fast as it can be pumped along with the money. Read the US Auditor Generals reports on re-construction - they're online and hilarious.

All of this - 'well they just aren't ready for democracy, stand up and we'll stand down' is an insult to anyones intelligence. How is anyone supposed to function in that sort of enviroment without protection?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:47 am

At least a militia provides a small modicum of security.

riiight. Tell that to all of the people the militias have murdered just because they are from a different sect.

militias over there would be useful for defense. Unfortunately they are currently in the attack phase.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:06 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
mvscal wrote: You are quite simply wrong. Sunni Arabs and radical Shiites do not comprise the majority of Iraqi citizens or even remotely close to the majority.
That matters so very little when they are incapable of wresting control of their country from the Sunni Arabs and radical Shiites.
You have that backwards.

How blind are you? 17 policeman yesterday, 35 people today. The Us toll for this month passed 100.

You've been saying the same shit for two years, and things have NOT gotten better, they've gotten worse.