Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19435
(19449 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 04:37 PM
quote:
Situational ethics. Here is a question that you have STILL yet to answer specifially. Would you have teamed up with the murdering communist dictator Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler?? Yes or no??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



The situations are quite different between then and now. Did we know then what we know now? I doubt it. Its always easy to make the right decision after the facts are known. The fact that you keep trying with this stupid comparison is evidence that you know youre wrong in pursuing "situational ethics" (your preaching about ethics is hysterical. You wouldnt know whats ethically correct if it walked up and introduced itself). Its either right or wrong all of the time, not sometimes when it suits us. Like Ive said before; Saddam didnt just wake up one day in '91 and decide to be a shait. He was a shiat for decades prior to that and we helped him murder thousands because it was good for us. He was a horrible, sadistic dictator but he was our horrible, sadistic dictator and as long as he was doing what we approved of, we looked the other way and helped him when we could. Just like we do today with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others.




There you go, folks.....yet again....no answer.


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Wrong again. In fact, in an article that probably bothers you because there is agood news in it, I pointed out the other day on this thread that even Sunni's were turning against Al Qeada making your argument, as usual, clueless. Below,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



LOL.. you dont even know the difference between factions and ideology. Derek, please, shut the fark up until you can get a grasp on things you dont know anything about. The core philosophies are the same. Ideology doesnt change.



All this time you have said that there was no Saddam- Iraqi Sunni and Al Qeada connection because their ideologies were different, and now your saying that they are the same??


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
I guess that you, and God forbid that the modern day liberal movement would have existed during World War Two or the Revolutionary War, would not have declared war on nazism because it is pointless??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



No, and again, you miss the point entirely.

Nazis- invaded countries, murdered millions, had a standing army, professional military etc. etc. etc.

Militant Islamists - not so much.



Islamo-fascists attacked America. When did the nazis attack America?? Who killed the most Americans on American soil?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
So, your highly nuanced mind sees no difference in the amount of communism compared to pre-1989??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



You still dont know what ideology is? As long as their are two people alive on this world, there will be two sets of ideas. You cannot kill an idea. You cannot bomb an idea and you cannot shoot an idea. All you can do is educate and assist. People and nations will have to make their own decisions and in 5 years, your map may look better or worse depending on global politics. The big change, of course, is the collapse of the USSR. This was not a defeat of ideology, but a breaking of the bank. You know this. Surely communism is alive and well or you and others like you wouldnt be so bent on trying to defeat it.


"This was not a defeat of ideology"???????????????????????????

Unreal.

 

____________________

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1531
(1644 all sites)
Registered: 12/6/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 05:21 PM
quote:
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Ann, thanks for starting this thread. I have a nephew out there who could appear as one of those numbers at any time. Does any one know if the casualty counts being posted include deaths of those employed by private security corporations? One of the unique aspects of this war is the level of privatization. We are in a time where corporations have plenty of resources to field their own private armies. I heard or read recently that there is a firm that markets its services as a private "CIA" for corporations. The consequences of a world wide, public corporate race to militarize is quite frightening to me, although, I believe we are now experiencing its infant stages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Number one, my first cousin, a veteran of both Gulf Wars, is over there now as well, only in a 'consulting' mode this time around. As far as the notion of being alarmed at private militaries, they are as old as the hills.


I did not say I am alarmed at the notion of private militias and, yes, mercenaries have been around as long as war has existed. If, however, you actually read that to which you respond, perhaps you might get lucky and make a relevant point. My assertion was directed to the " level of privatization". Private firms are being relied on at an unprecedented level in this war. No one disputes this and the ramifications are significant and disconcerting:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/singer20040416.htm


Outsourcing the War

Salon.com, April 16, 2004

Peter W. Singer, National Security Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

The killing of four American military contractors in Fallujah last week not only touched off a growing wave of violence but also raised concern about just how much of the mission has been outsourced to private firms. Private military contractors in Iraq are present in unprecedented numbers, more than 15,000, and they engage in a range of mission-critical activities—often armed combat—contrary to the U.S. military's own doctrine of how civilians should be employed in the field. Everything from handling military logistics and training the local army, to protecting key installations and escorting convoys has been turned over to a literal small army's worth of private troops.

This expansion arose not out of a well-planned strategy, but from a process that can at best be described as ad hoc. The public and Congress remain largely unaware, and the senior military leadership is in denial about the size and scope of such firms, but many in the military's junior and field ranks have begun to ask questions about what such outsourcing will mean in the long term. Papers within the professional war college system have asked: How does such outsourcing so many of its core tasks affect the health of the military institution? Does dependence on the marketplace bring new vulnerabilities in war zones? What is the exact legal status of the contracting firms and their employees, not just within outdated international law, but also within U.S. military regulations that consider contractors to be "civilians accompanying the force," not integral to its very operations? Is the military even equipped to be a business-savvy client and an efficient regulator?

Iraq is the largest private military market in modern history and also a testing ground for just how far the outsourcing trend will play out for the U.S. military. While vast areas within the operation have been turned over to private firms, helping to minimize the political costs of the war, the killings in Fallujah illustrate that outsourcing is never without cost. Indeed, the tragic deaths have raised two more key issues that continue to trouble the broader military-contractor relationship in Iraq: 1) private military firms, or PMFs, are integral to, but not within, the military operation, and 2) there are no universally established standards or even operating procedures, leaving too much to market discretion. In an era when "jointness" (the ability of the armed services to work with and depend on each other) is the dominant buzzword for transforming the Pentagon, the U.S. military is ignoring a critical disconnect.

Although PMFs take on the full range of military roles within Iraq, at the end of the day they are not part of the force. As Nigel Churton, chief executive officer of Control Risks, a firm that has about 500 personnel in Iraq, notes, "I think the key points one has to start from [are] we're not now military. We cannot pretend that we have the ability to respond like a military force can."

The consequence is that PMFs are independent entities, responsible for their own operations, safety and security. They do not receive full or timely access to the military and CIA's complete intelligence picture, do not have full access to the military's communications net, and, when out in the field on their own, do not have access to the same weapons, established systems of rapid reaction and response, or protection.

The lack of formally shared information on current threats and ongoing or planned operations is a crucial missing link. Military officers question why or how exactly the military should share confidential information with entities that not only lie outside their chain of command but also often hire local Iraqi and third-party nationals. But, according to one firm executive, the lack of information means that contractors are "flying blind, often guessing about places that they shouldn't go." For example, before the Fallujah killings, Marines were preparing their own operations in the vicinity as a follow-up to fighting in the city a week earlier, and the intelligence was that insurgents in the town were prepped for ambush.

These contradictions carry over to critical differences in the field. When contractor units are attacked, they must deal with the situation, in the words of one executive, "completely on their own." The difficulty is compounded in Iraq. One of the very few restrictions that the CPA applies to the firms is an upper threshold on their armaments, limiting them to small arms. So, while contractors in other war zones wield heavy weaponry and call in air strikes from contractor-manned jet fighters and attack helicopters, in Iraq, where they face the greatest risks, they are often outgunned by local insurgents. For instance, while Fallujah was a city that U.S. military units were allowed to enter only if accompanied by an up-armored vehicle equipped with heavy machine guns or more, the contractors were limited to SUVs armed only with automatic rifles.

The United States has put civilians in a war zone, asked them to carry out key military tasks, but restricted their ability to accomplish those tasks, let alone protect themselves. However, loosening the rules and allowing contractors to bring in heavy weaponry would further call into question the lack of sufficient U.S. forces on the ground, besides raising all sorts of legal and political red flags. But not allowing contractors to do so, particularly when they are singled out for attack because of their greater vulnerability, is costing lives—and hostages.

Regardless of the policy, many contractors feel they have to respond. As Malcolm Nance, the head of one firm in Baghdad, notes, "We are going to have to get heavy now, although discreetly. Some people already carry grenades, although I wouldn't do it because it's not permitted by the coalition. But in markets in Baghdad, you can pick them for $1 apiece, and I suspect a lot of people will be shopping there soon ... It's not just the coalition armies who are fighting this war now."

The rights and responsibilities between the military and its contractors also constitute an uncertain, gray zone. As opposed to what happens with a U.S. soldier, the military is under no compulsion to launch a full-scale search when a contractor goes missing. For instance, the U.S. military has spent 13 years searching for Navy Capt. Scott Speicher, whose plane crashed during the 1991 Gulf War. But when Kirk von Ackermann, a former Air Force captain working for Istanbul-based Ultra Services, disappeared outside Tikrit in November, the response was not a frantic mobilization or house-to-house hunt. Instead, von Ackerman's photo was given to local Iraqi police, and little has been heard of the incident since. Indeed, the difference carries all the way to when PMFs employees are killed; the firms are responsible for notifying the families, deciding what level of grief counseling to provide, and shipping the bodies home. A PMF executive I spoke with grumbled that when one of his employees was killed in western Iraq, the only support he got from the U.S. military unit in his sector "was a free body bag."

The obligations of the military when contractors are under attack is another area where the disconnect surfaces. One of the most disturbing aspects of the fighting in Kut was how all three outnumbered contractor contingents requested coalition military assistance, but received none. All were forced to "self-evacuate," to the detriment of their safety, their missions, and the overall operation. The Hart Group unit, which had one contractor bleed to death while stranded on the rooftop, made so many fruitless calls for help that its mobile phone batteries ran out during the night.

Private contractors complain that in this area they give more than they get. Scott Custer, a principal with Custer Battles, comments, "We've responded to the military at least half a dozen times, but not once have they responded to our emergencies. We have our own quick-reaction force now." For instance, when an Army helicopter crashed in Fallujah in November, nearby PMF forces rushed to defend the crash site. By contrast, many contractors ask whether the Marines would have intervened more rapidly in Fallujah if the corpses treated in such a barbaric manner had been those of Marines; instead, the Marines waited six hours only to send in Iraqi security to retrieve the bodies. (Marine officers respond that to have rushed in would only have inflamed the situation and that, because of they and the PMFs were not in communication, they only learned of the mutilations from the media.)

The problems of this PMF-military disconnect also deeply concern serving military officers. Clarified command and control is essential for commanders in the field. Military officers say that it is "so important it is one of the observed [that is, most fundamental] principles of war." One officer notes, "Not to be overly dramatic, but the centrality of having clear command and control in our profession relates to the obvious and direct impact it has on lives when we engage in combat. Doctrinally, every written/formal order we produce has a section that deals with command and control."

Unity of command may be a fundamental concept, but in Iraq, it is already lost. Officers must worry about armed forces operating within their sector of responsibility but outside the bounds of their authority. Many of these contractors work directly for the CPA, which coordinates and communicates only on a limited basis with the normal U.S. military chain of command. Others work for entities other than the CPA, such as construction firms and media companies. Thus, local military commanders are often unaware of the daily actions of firms in their zones of responsibility. This disconnect is not just a simple point of discomfort for officers: "Friendly fire" incidents have even broken out between contractor and coalition convoys.

Failures of command and control can have great consequences for the mission. Local populations are generally unable to distinguish between public and private forces, and as journalist David Wood of the Newhouse News Service writes, in Iraq, "a single misstep can ignite a spiral of political violence." Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew describes the predicament as follows: "You want very, very tight control. The issue is not so much their safety, although we worry about them. The question is: What does this [private contingents getting into firefights] do to American legitimacy in the country?"

Military jurists are equally concerned that by ignoring the well-thought-out doctrine on civilians' role in warfare, contractors now operate in a legal no man's land, beyond established boundaries of military or international law. If a U.S. soldier is suspected of committing a crime, there are the military criminal investigations, judge advocate, and court-martial system set up to investigate, prosecute and punish if appropriate. But contractors do not fall under this system and thus are generally self-policing entities. Rumors abound about PMF friendly-fire incidents, drunken firefights, and accidental discharges of weapons, but there is little that a firm can do other than fire its employees. Dismissal is even less likely when firm executives are implicated.

In turn, the worst that the combatant commander can do if a crime is presented to him is suspend the firm's contract and expel the individual employee from the theater, again clearly insufficient punishment for felony offenses. The 2000 Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act does not provide legal recourse, because it applies only to U.S. citizens working directly for the Defense Department on U.S. military installations, not to those working for other government agencies or private entities, or to other nationalities. Moreover, military jurists describe the "dearth of doctrine, policy and procedure" about when and how to apply the act, and no PMF employee in Iraq—American or foreign—has been held accountable under it.

Thus regulation is left to the local government, the irony being of course that the collapse of the local state is usually the very reason the firm is there in the first place. In Iraq, just as it was unlikely we would turn contractors suspected of crimes over to Saddam Hussein's regime during the war, so it is equally unlikely we would turn them over to the Iraqi interim council. In turn, it is unlikely the council would have either the interest or capacity to deal with contractor issues.

The second key dilemma results from the fact that private military operations are carried out by competing firms operating in a fluctuating and sometimes unpredictable marketplace. Contractors thus have no common standard for recruitment, vetting, training, weapons, appearance, tactics. As one former Special Forces veteran said, "The military really can't tell you how to do your job—they can advise you, but they really have no control over you."


The result is that, as in any other industry, the companies diverge in the information they collect, the quality of their personnel and recruiting, their methods for evaluating risk, and their operational procedures. Knowledge of the battlefield means not just power but profits. Yet the firms not only do not have ready access to the military's intelligence, getting only a delayed and "sanitized" version from the CPA, but also do not have any formal procedures or institutionalized incentives for sharing the local knowledge they have gathered. While there are certainly informal information transfers among clusters of firms, there is no central repository of intelligence or systemized threat analysis across the industry. Indeed, such a system would denude the leading firms of their very competitive advantage.

Many soldiers and analysts express admiration for the professionalism of and the difficult jobs carried out by firms such as Blackwater and others. But all realize that not every firm can be the best and that, at the lower end of the market space, some are barely competent, if that. This has become a particular concern in what executives term the Iraqi "gold rush." The firms in Iraq range from well-established firms with thousands of years of collective experience in war zones, to start-ups that did not exist before the war. As Scott Custer of Custer Battles notes, "You've got a whole host of fly-by-night and disreputable companies. They're terrible. They get people killed."

Because of this loose and lethal environment, some of the best-respected firms in the industry have avoided Iraq altogether. For example, ICI is a firm with a strong operating history in some of the world's worst war zones, including Sierra Leone and Liberia. In 1998, the State Department named it small contractor of the year. Its president, Brian Boquist, is a former Green Beret. "In Iraq it is the Wild West," Boquist writes. "Almost none of them [the security firms in Iraq] have any real experience in war zones. We have stayed out of the place as it disintegrates from an insurgency to a civil war."

One of the challenges of the booming PMF market in Iraq is that demand is now outpacing supply, and the once tight-knit community, where every employee knew and had worked with every other, has been cracked wide open. David Claridge, head of Janusian, said, "There is a shortage of quality labor. Hiring people takes time now, whereas before we had a database of people we could just call up. Now we have to wait for people to come off other jobs." Claridge added, in an interview with NPR: "We are aware as an industry that perhaps some of the people being employed in Iraq—because of the massive demand for labor—some are perhaps not up to the task. As I say and I reiterate that this is not referring specifically to the individuals here [those killed in Fallujah], but we have seen a number of security operatives die during the last seven days, and we have to make sure that everyone providing services there is professionally trained and up to the task."

Firm seek to meet this labor shortage in different ways. Some continue the practice of hiring only personnel that are personally vetted and known by the company leaders beforehand. But this comes at the cost of lower employee rolls and lost revenue opportunities. Others pull in a grab bag of skill sets and backgrounds as they multiplied their numbers. What it means to be "Ghurka," "commando," or even "Special Forces" has a looser standard. But now, as Paul Rees, the managing director of Centurion, noted to Knight Ridder News, the labor market is so tight that firms are hiring people who don't know when to fire at attackers and when not to.

With no planning and a limited staff, as one senior Defense Department official comments, "the CPA has let all kinds of contracts to all kinds of people. It's blindsided us." At times, not only the lesser skilled but also some particularly disturbing characters have made it through the limited vetting, which can involve little more than sending in one's résumé. For example, British forces were not pleased to learn that a former soldier convicted of working with Irish terrorists had been hired by the ArmorGroup firm (which has a reported 600 personnel in Iraq) and granted clearance to enter U.S. and British bases in Iraq. (After an Irish newspaper reported the story, the employee was suspended.) South African political activists have identified a number of the contractors in Iraq from appearances before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including one who admitted to firebombing more than 60 homes for the apartheid regime.

Where the billing is done by the day in a madly expanding market, the labor crunch also affects preparation. Experienced employees complain that pre-deployment briefing and training, important not only for honing sometimes rusty skills, but also for building small-unit cohesion in combat, have been shortened and in some cases even eliminated. It is important to note that some skills needed in the private military world, such as evasive-driving tactics, are not regularly taught in the military, so private contractors cannot exclusively rely on past training. As one PMF executive says, "Just because you used to be a SEAL doesn't mean you'll know how to handle every problem in a place like Iraq."

Each firm determines its own standards and procedures, and there is no formal regulation or even an industry self-regulatory mechanism to establish them or to police and punish those who fall below standards. While the best firms will blackball rogue or incapable employees, the industry has grown so huge and the clients remain so clueless that such tagging offers minimal recourse. For instance, industry insiders could only shake their heads when one firm invited CNN "Crossfire" talk-show host Tucker Carlson to ride along on a mission into Iraq. Not only did the firm's personnel give the conservative pundit an AK-47 to wield in the middle of a volatile war zone, but when they needed gas, Carlson and crew took over an Iraqi gas station by holding local civilians waiting in line at gunpoint. (One hopes he wasn't wearing his trademark bowtie, which would have only added to the local insult.) Carlson described the incident with proud delight in Esquire magazine, apparently not understanding the multiple industry sins that had been committed. Firms also greatly vary in their tactics and operations. For example, in the role of escort and protection, some firms opt to stay under the radar of potential adversaries. They purchase local vehicles, grow beards to blend in, and keep weapons hidden until needed. Others "cowboy up" and attempt to deter threats through posturing. They are recognizable by their web gear, Oakley sunglasses, cradled submachine guns, and brand-new black or white SUVs that can act as magnets for ambush: a mode of operation that is a huge point of contention in the industry.

Risk evaluation, likewise, differs by firm. In the PMF realm, risk incorporates battlefield threats as well as investment hazards. With differing intelligence collection and analysis capabilities (some create an in-house cell; others don't), each firm weighs the risks using all sorts of metrics. The Monday morning quarterbacking of the Fallujah decisions has already begun, illustrating how various firms evaluate situations. Jonathan Garratt, the group managing director of Erinys, has publicly noted that he would have insisted his clients avoid Fallujah altogether. "It's very dangerous. As a generalization, Fallujah is out of bounds on our map. We would only go through there in armored vehicles and a significant security force to defeat all threats." Military officers have even suggested that if the decision to go into a "no go" area like Fallujah without the required up-armored vehicles and heavy weapons had been made within the military, the officer in charge "could expect a court-martial hearing." In response, Blackwater officials have said that their units may have been tricked into entering the town by turncoat Iraqi security forces, leaving aside the point that they didn't have access to such weapons in the first place.

The blame casting will likely continue, and may even result in civil suits, but the underlying point holds true that firms evaluate risks differently. This carries over to their life insurance packages—a complaint of the Chilean hired unit is that their contracting firm chose a poor one without their understanding—or the backup support they guarantee—some firms pay the cost of having a quick-reaction force in place, ready to rush to the rescue, while others save money by hoping for the best.

Another important difference between the PMFs and the military is that even individual members of firms can weigh the risks in deciding their own involvement. In the wake of last week's killings, many employees decided it was best to change their job locales, regardless of the heady pay. As one Halliburton employee departing Iraq commented, after his truck blew up underneath him in a convoy attack, "It was time to come home." Similarly, Michael Cherkasky, the president of Kroll, may have 100 employees on the ground in Iraq, but admits that he has chosen not to go. When asked why, he replied, "Are you kidding? I will fly into Kuwait. I will fly into Jordan. I will not fly into Iraq."

In contrast to military standardization, there is a simple market reality at play in Iraq: Each firm has its own approach (which each thinks is the best), but not every firm's recruiting, information and operating procedures can be the best, and some are not even optimal. Every industry has its winners and losers, but the price of establishing those in the private military world is different than in other marketplaces. This issue is compounded by the lack of formal weeding-out processes or the establishment of minimum capabilities, inherent needs in the military environment. One Special Forces veteran goes further: "How these contractors operate is determined by the individual companies. There's no such thing as a 'best practice.' It's a question of sheer economics—how much is the client willing to pay?"

Within the private military industry itself, the killings in Fallujah were shocking but not unexpected. As opposed to the first few months of the war, when contractor attrition was rumored to be as high as 30 percent (comparing quite poorly to the zero percent of U.S. soldiers that are able to decide to return home), those now going into Iraq know that it is an active war zone. Indeed, two contractors working for the Olive Security firm had been killed outside Mosul just days before the Fallujah incident, the main difference being that their deaths were not recorded on film. However, the Fallujah incident, followed so rapidly by the mass violence and the incidents in Najaf and Kut, caused most of the firms to reexamine their procedures, risk factors, and reliance on military support that may not be there. Christopher Bees, a director at ArmorGroup, says, "It'd be fair to say that anyone involved in the business in Iraq is bound to take a second look at what they do."

Disturbed by the upswing in violence and the lack of military backing and coordination, at least four military contractors (Halliburton, Triple Canopy, AKE and Control Risks) were reported by journalists and CPA officials to be reconsidering the extent of their presence in Iraq, and they suspended key parts of their operations as they waited for the situation to settle. However, most indicators are that Fallujah killings won't collapse the energetic PMF market in Iraq. The pay scale remains so high that those leaving will likely find ready replacements. In the days after the killings, I was contacted by two firms looking for advice on how they might crack the market, including one that had never operated in a war zone before.

So, while the boom for PMFs in Iraq certainly can't last forever, it bodes to be lucrative while it does. Duncan Bullivant of Henderson Risk notes, "I wouldn't give it more than another year at this level. The bubble will burst, but there's an immense drive to cash in while it lasts." U.S. plans for the transition to Iraqi sovereignty mean an even greater use of private contractors, such as a contract worth up to $1 billion to take over the responsibility for protecting the Green Zone, the four-square-mile area in central Baghdad where coalition officials live and work. Who knows, perhaps the PMF bubble may last longer than the dot.com one did.

The greater challenge looks to be how the broader business community responds to Fallujah and its aftermath. The cornerstone of the Bush administration's plan to turn the corner in Iraq is the transfer to local Iraqi sovereignty on June 30 and the simultaneous dump of some $18 billion in reconstruction contracts over the summer. It was hoped that the massive infusion of aid would draw in outside business and create an upsurge of employment that would dry out the insurgency.

But, instead, the Fallujah killings and the ensuing outbreak of fighting in six cities might have sucked the wind out of the corporate participation necessary to making the plan a reality. Those already on-site have restricted their movement and activity ("no go" areas have ballooned), while a number of other firms set to enter the country have cancelled. The head of the firm Meyer and Associates, which provides protection for a number of contractors, reports that "right now everything is at a standstill." Among the lesser-noticed victims of Fallujah was the Baghdad Expo, the largest conference planned by the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce. The meeting was to highlight business opportunities in postwar Iraq, with more than 200 companies scheduled to attend. The day after the killings, it was postponed.

So while the PMF industry has boomed, the accompanying investment needed to prop up the Iraqi economy has not (which could indirectly undercut the PMF industry in the long term). Companies know that the insurgents' strategy is to weaken the coalition by targeting them, and thus many firms are waiting on the sidelines for the situation to stabilize and a real, functional Iraqi government somehow to come into being. As one potential investor commented after a U.S. Commerce Department briefing on investment in Iraq, "The carrot that's being waved in front of everybody is that we should get involved on the ground floor. But this is below the ground floor. There are too many other markets now that are stable."

This reluctance derives from more than a fear of going into a war zone; rather, it represents real financial calculations. As the situation has grown increasingly dangerous, insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Because the Defense Department had no policy on it beforehand, Bunny Greenhouse, chief contracting official for the Army Corps of Engineers, relates that for contractors in Iraq as much as 40 cents of every dollar is spent on insurance. "Why are we paying 40 percent? That's unbelievable ... Nobody foresaw that we were going to be in this kind of dilemma." While Greenhouse is wrong —the experts on Iraq did predict the current turmoil, just as industry analysts pointed out the dangers of such poor planning—the insurance problem is yet another illustration of the costs of an ad hoc approach to doing business in the realm of war.

In turn, security costs have escalated, which is a boon for the PMF industry, but not for the broader effort. Many construction firms, such as Washington Group International, now have to employ two security personnel for every one worker carrying out the actual contracted task. Just before Fallujah, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the inspector general for the CPA, estimated that at least 10 cents of every reconstruction dollar in Iraq was spent for security, up from 7 cents in the fall of 2003. If the present spate of violence continues, industry insiders think it might grow to as much as 20 cents per dollar. As a point of comparison, security costs for oil operations in war-torn Colombia average about 6 cents per dollar.

These added costs mean that the reconstruction package funded by taxpayers may not go as far as hoped (Bowen contended that as much as $4 billion could be spent on security), perhaps requiring even more funding on top of the previous budget supplementals. Already, the CPA has had to transfer $184 million meant for clean-water projects, the kind of aid package that seeks to bolster local popularity, to cover spiraling security costs for its own installations. Additionally, these added costs mean that within firms' investment calculations, the threshold for turning a profit has been raised, further deterring outside investment. Bowen writes, "The inability to accurately predict the costs of security, including insurance, raises questions about the need for more funding—Iraqi, donor, or U.S.—to accomplish the reconstruction mission ... We are in this big gray area about how security concerns will affect reconstruction timelines."

In a recent campaign speech, President Bush proclaimed that "America must never outsource America's national security." Once again, the gap between rhetoric and reality is yawning.

While Bush was trying to make a point about U.S. relations with the international community, the fact is that the United States has indeed outsourced major portions of its effort in the war in Iraq. More important, it has done so in an ad hoc manner, without public awareness or discussion.

The private military industry is such a new phenomenon that most in Congress remain unaware of it. In turn, the issue is highly susceptible to partisan rancor, mainly because of the identity and political practices of some of the firms. For instance, simply mention the name Halliburton in a congressional hearing and the battle line is already drawn. Unfortunately, this ends rather than begins the inquiry, even though questions about the private military industry cut to the heart of national security and our soldiers' welfare.

In the wake of the shock over Fallujah, this may change. A group of senators led by former West Pointer Jack Reed, D-R.I., has requested that the Pentagon begin the basic accounting task of tallying the number of armed non-Iraqi private military personnel on the ground. They have also requested that the Pentagon begin to adopt written guidelines, with legal justifications, for the rules of engagement the firms must follow, as well as how they will be coordinated with U.S. and sovereign Iraqi forces. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has not yet responded.

Those are good first steps, but they do not go far enough. To put it in economic terms, privatization always comes with both positive and negative externalities. The onus is not on the contracting firm, but on the client, in this case the U.S. government, to guard its own interests and make sure the job is done right. We must set up the processes needed to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives.

A clear examination is needed to bring higher standards and greater clarity into our current and future military outsourcing decisions. This need goes beyond tracking the armed personnel. It includes a basic accounting of the broader realm of contractor forces, public transparency of contractor casualties, and an examination of what is being spent. The U.S. budget on the service side of war has tripled in the last decade. We need far better financial scrutiny of contract competitions, awards and oversight to ensure that money is being saved through outsourcing (no formal study has yet proven this). Serious thinking must take account of such fundamental military questions as command and control, rights and responsibilities for both the good and the bad times, legal status, and the establishment of industry standards on recruiting, procedures and intelligence.

We should also take a step back and examine the overall trend, rather than continue to breathlessly outsource. Just because we can turn something over to the private market does not always mean we should. Two basic questions must always be asked before handing over any public function, most particularly to private military firms: Is the function being privatized in symmetry with national security and the public interest? If so, how will this privatization save money and promote efficiency? Unfortunately, our CEO-filled defense leadership has forgotten Economics 101 and brushed aside basic issues of public accountability. Instead, it has outsourced first and not even bothered to ask questions later.


© Copyright 2004 Salon.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

Note: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and should not be attributed to the staff, officers or trustees of The Brookings Institution




Peace.

Erik






[Edited on 3/5/2007 by CEEJ]

 

____________________
Walk True, Walk Tall, Walk Together

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18448
(18914 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 07:16 PM
The cost in the lives of those who don't get killed but still have their lives shattered nevertheless.

60,000 Marriages Broken by Iraq, Including Mine

By Stacy Bannerman, The Progressive. Posted March 5, 2007.

When one military wife got the news that her husband was coming home from Iraq, they didn't tell her he was going to bring the war back with him. Tools

I was folding fliers for a high school workshop on nonviolence when my husband, a mortar platoon sergeant with the Army National Guard 81st Brigade, walked into my office and said, "I got the call."

We hadn't talked about the possibility of him being deployed for months, not since President Bush had declared, "Mission accomplished." But I knew exactly what he meant; I didn't know then what it would mean for us.

We weren't prepared, and neither was the Guard. The Guard sent him into harm's way without providing some of the basic equipment and materials, such as global positioning systems, night vision gear, and insect repellant, that he would rely on during his year-long tour of duty at LSA Anaconda, the most-attacked base in Iraq, as determined by the sheer number of incoming rockets and mortars, which averaged at least five per day.

Unlike active duty military, the National Guard had no functional family support system or services in place. While the Guard was scrambling to get it together, my husband was already gone, and I was alone, just months after we had moved to Seattle.

Twenty-four hours after Lorin boarded the plane for Iraq, I hung a blue star service flag -- denoting an immediate family member in combat -- in the front window. Then I closed the blinds, hoping to keep the harbingers of death at bay. They still got in, through the phone, the Internet, the newspaper, and the TV.

Each week, I heard of a friend's husband or son: wounded, maimed, shot, hit, hurt, burned, amputated, decapitated, detonated, dead. A glossary of pain. I checked icasualties.org all the time, cursing and crying as the numbers rose relentlessly, praying that Lorin wouldn't be next.

I got involved with Military Families Speak Out, which is exactly what the name suggests: an organization of people with loved ones in uniform who are adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq. We were breaking the military's traditional code of silence by publicly protesting this war, and the pushback was intense, particularly for military wives. I was ostracized by the women married to men in my husband's company, and my husband was reprimanded by his superior officers. I was an "unruly spouse," and Lorin could "expect adverse career consequences."

I thought being forced to serve in a war based on lies was itself an "adverse consequence." I said as much during an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews, which just happened to be broadcast on the big-screen TV during lunchtime in the mess tent at Anaconda. Lorin didn't see it, but approximately 5,000 of the troops he was serving with did. He heard about it for weeks, but never asked me to stop. He had his own questions and concerns about Operation Iraqi Freedom.

During the run-up to the war, when 76 percent of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq, we protested in the streets of Spokane. But he was contractually bound and committed to his men. He clung to what he'd been briefed on regarding the Guard's mission in Iraq, which included building schools for kids.

Two months into his deployment, I got a call from him, and he said, choking up, that there was an "accident." Two Iraqi children were dead because he gave the order to fire a couple of mortar rounds. Several weeks later, he phoned again, his voice flat and emotionless, to tell me that the men he had dinner with the previous night had been killed by the same Iraqi soldiers that they were training six hours earlier.

Days went by without any communication -- anxious hours, restless nights. I swerved between anger and fear.

His e-mails were sometimes delayed, or returned to him as undeliverable, with portions blacked out by military censors. The ones that got through asked for more homemade treats, baby wipes, batteries, movies, and magazines. One missive informed me about rockets landing next to the trailer where he slept ... while he was in bed. Another ended abruptly because he was under attack.

Lorin spent hours loading coffins onto cargo jets; I spent days on red alert.

Finally, the phone rang with the news that my husband was coming home, after nearly a year in Iraq. They didn't tell me he'd bring the war with him.

He'd been back for almost two months, but he was still checking to see where his weapon was every time he got in a vehicle. He drove aggressively, talked aggressively, and sometimes I could swear that he was breathing aggressively. This was not the man I married, this hard-eyed, hyper-vigilant stranger who spent his nights watching the dozens of DVDs that he got from soldiers he served with in Iraq. He couldn't sleep, and missed the adrenaline surge of constant, imminent danger. The amateur videos of combat eased the ache of withdrawal from war, but did nothing to heal my soldier's heart.

At a conference on post-deployment care and services for soldiers and their families, a Marine Corps chaplain asked, "How do you know if you're an SOB? Your wife will tell you!"

Har-de-har-har-har. The remark got the predictable round of applause from the capacity crowd, which, with one exception, wasn't living with anyone who had recently returned from Iraq. I was that exception, and it infuriated me that this was a joke. The Pentagon's solution for the constant stress endured by those of us who felt bewildered and betrayed was: "Learn how to laugh." With help from the Pentagon's chief laughter instructor, families of National Guard members were learning to walk like a penguin, laugh like a lion, and blurt "ha, ha, hee, hee, and ho, ho."

Emotional isolation is one of the hallmarks of post-combat mental health problems. The National Guard didn't conduct follow-up mental health screening or evaluations of the men in my husband's company until they had been home for almost eight months. Nearly a year later, in August of 2006, my husband was informed of his results: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It was obvious that he was suffering, but when I brought it up, he parroted what the military told him: "Give it time."

Time wasn't a panacea for Jeffrey Lucey, Doug Barber, or the dozens of other Guard members and Reservists who have committed suicide after serving in Iraq. Time hasn't helped the hundreds of homeless Iraq War veterans wandering lost in the streets of what military families are assured is a deeply grateful nation. Time is most definitely not on our side.

My husband has served his time with the Guard. He's got more than twenty-three years of actual service, and almost twenty years of "good time" that qualifies him for retirement benefits.

But then he learned about a few loopholes. Now, if he serves as a member in good standing for 364 days in a year, instead of 365, that year isn't credited as time served toward his retirement. If he's deemed irreplaceable -- he's one of a handful of mortar platoon sergeants who've seen combat -- the Guard can retain him for several more years after his contract expires.

He is surprised by this, but I'm not. I no longer expect that the Department of Defense will keep its promises to the soldiers or their families. I don't pretend that the Pentagon will adhere to its policies. And I know from experience that "support the troops" is a slogan, and not a practice.

On January 11, 2007, the Pentagon discarded the time limit that prevented Guard members and Reservists from serving more than 24 total months on active duty for either the Iraq or Afghan wars. The Pentagon's announcement came in the wake of President Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The escalation contradicts the advice of top U.S. military officials. Although the majority of Americans are opposed to the "surge," most members of Congress are reluctant to block the supplemental appropriations request that will fund it, claiming that they don't want to abandon the troops. Congress has abandoned the troops for nearly four years. It is the soldiers, their families, and the people of Iraq that pay the human costs. The tab so far: more than 3,000 dead U.S. troops, tens of thousands of wounded, over half a million Iraqi casualties, roughly 250,000 American servicemen and women struggling with PTSD, and almost 60,000 military marriages that have been broken by this war. Including mine.

It was hard to reconnect after more than a year apart, and the open wound of untreated PTSD made it virtually impossible. Lorin is still the best evidence I have of God's grace in this world, but we just couldn't find our way back together after the war came home.

Stacy Bannerman is the author of "When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Reservists and the Families They Leave Behind." She is a member of Military Families Speak Out, www.mfso.org, and can be contacted at her website, stacybannerman.com.



 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 08:42 PM
Thank you for the article Gina. Very heartfelt and incredibly sad.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16576
(16858 all sites)
Registered: 12/24/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 11:30 PM
Gina, Thank you so much for posting this article.
I wish I could say I am shocked, but, really, I am
not even surprised.

Squatch, You are so right on this topic.


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 08:09 AM
quote:
There you go, folks.....yet again....no answer.


I gave you the best answer for the loaded question you asked. In short, its not a black and white issue. But, you know that. I also asked you questions relevant to your own. I dont see any answers here from you either. I know you too well to know that you think others wont check your work, so Im asking you to support your argument before I waste a bunch of time digging out the truth of your so-called "situational ethics" regarding the Russians.


quote:
All this time you have said that there was no Saddam- Iraqi Sunni and Al Qeada connection because their ideologies were different, and now your saying that they are the same??


Oh lord. No, there was no connections between Saddam and Al Queda. Stop trying to make one. Your semi-rational points of discussion go right out the window when you start in with the RW fantasy crap.

quote:
Islamo-fascists attacked America.


Youre right! Theres a cookie for you in the hallway.

quote:
When did the nazis attack America??


Pretty sure it was Kasserine Pass.

quote:
Who killed the most Americans on American soil?


The Union Army? Seriously though, if we are going to follow your logic, then you are equating the militant islamists to one of the largest and most formidable military armies in the history of the world? The same army and nation that had a goal of world domination and who actually had the means to carry it out? The same army that had an airforce, navy and army. Dozens of armored divisions, bombers, fighters etc. Yes, I can surely see the parallels between the Nazis and militant Islam. You guys are so desperate to tie your war with Islam to an actual struggle for survival that you will say the most ridiculous things.

quote:
"This was not a defeat of ideology"???????????????????????????

Unreal.



Whats unreal is that you think helping to foster the financial collapse of Russia (outspending them) equated to a defeat of an idea. Interesting that during all this talk of how dead communism is, you havent once mentioned Chavez, who according to you, is the next big thing in communism. Why is that? Heck, you dont even mention Castro..or China..or NK.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 263
(263 all sites)
Registered: 1/26/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 08:37 AM
Nine U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks, Military Says

It is believed to be the third deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Iraq this year. Twelve soldiers were killed in January when their helicopter was shot down and 7 died in another helicopter downing the following month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR200703060 0181.html

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 12:28 PM
March deaths - 22
February deaths - 84
January deaths - 86
Total dead - 3,185

February '07 - 50
January '07 - 631
Total wounded - 33, 814

March Iraqi civilian deaths - 223
February Iraqi civilian deaths - 1,531
January Iraqi civilian deaths -1,802
Total Iraqi civilian deaths in past 14 months - 22,123

Mission Accomplished day 1,420

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 12:56 PM
quote:
Nine U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks, Military Says

It is believed to be the third deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Iraq this year. Twelve soldiers were killed in January when their helicopter was shot down and 7 died in another helicopter downing the following month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR200703060 0181.html


Clearly, the "surge" is working.

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 01:20 PM
Whatever happened to the days when the king would lead the troops into battle? I suppose Bush could never do that because he's too busy doing interviews with Fox and photo ops!

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 01:21 PM
quote:
Whatever happened to the days when the king would lead the troops into battle? I suppose Bush could never do that because he's too busy doing interviews with Fox and photo ops!


Hey, look on the bright side, Ann. Cheney finally saw combat the other day.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19435
(19449 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 01:47 PM
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
There you go, folks.....yet again....no answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



I gave you the best answer for the loaded question you asked. In short, its not a black and white issue. But, you know that. I also asked you questions relevant to your own. I dont see any answers here from you either. I know you too well to know that you think others wont check your work, so Im asking you to support your argument before I waste a bunch of time digging out the truth of your so-called "situational ethics" regarding the Russians.



What a boatload of diversionary BS, yet a typical response from the 'no core values whatsoever' Left. Answer the question.

Would you have teamed up with the murdering communist dictator Stalin in WWII or not??

quote:
so Im asking you to support your argument before I waste a bunch of time digging out the truth of your so-called "situational ethics" regarding the Russians.



Support what argument?? What the hell are you talking about??

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
All this time you have said that there was no Saddam- Iraqi Sunni and Al Qeada connection because their ideologies were different, and now your saying that they are the same??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Oh lord. No, there was no connections between Saddam and Al Queda. Stop trying to make one. Your semi-rational points of discussion go right out the window when you start in with the RW fantasy crap.



How did I just try to connect Saddam with Al Qeada?? I pointed out your duplicitous bullsh*t. Are you even bright enough to understand what is written?? Once again, I pointed out the other day on this thread that even Sunni's were turning against Al Qeada in response to your post below,

quote:
LOL.. you dont even know the difference between factions and ideology. Derek, please, shut the fark up until you can get a grasp on things you dont know anything about. The core philosophies are the same. Ideology doesnt change.




quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
"This was not a defeat of ideology"???????????????????????????

Unreal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Whats unreal is that you think helping to foster the financial collapse of Russia (outspending them) equated to a defeat of an idea. Interesting that during all this talk of how dead communism is, you havent once mentioned Chavez, who according to you, is the next big thing in communism. Why is that? Heck, you dont even mention Castro..or China..or NK.


One last time as I try to enlighten the unenlightenable - Underneath everything to do with Russia and the Soviet Union was the concept of communism. When folks defected from the Soviet Bloc, it was to escape communism. When the Soviets forced its citizens to stay within its borders, as Castro and Il Kim still do, or if a citizen did travel they never let whole families do so at the same time, it was to further perpetuate communism. When the call for the Berlin Wall to fall came, it was to go against communism. When folks were shot in the back trying to escape East Berlin, it was to escape communism. When the Soviet Union expanded its empire, it was to expand communism. I know first hand, because, as I have told about countless times on here, I was a part of helping Soviet, Hungarian, Polish defectors to make it here in America in the 1970's and 80's after they escaped communism, and even spent countless hours talking with, living with, breaking bread with the Soviet citizens and cultural exchange liasons who visited my best friend's father on a regular basis, he being one of the pre-eminent Russian language teachers in the country - (Henry Ziegler of Princeton High School, Cincinnati, Ohio who was also the President, Slava; Chair, U.S. Olympiada Committee; Board of Directors, American Council of Teachers of Russian, and author of 1982's "My Russian Program Is Alive and Growing." http://tinyurl.com/2cwmnt)

The Soviet citizens who visited us for months at a time were not allowed to travel with their spouses or family members at the same time, because communism splits them up so they have to come back. But, some Soviet visitors to us did defect anyway, and we helped them out as well.

But I understand your underlying leftist loyalties, so this doesn't really surprise me. It accounts for ther fronting for Hugo Chavez.

Past that, what question is it that I am not answering?? Whatever it is, and whoever has one that they feel I'm not answering, bring it on, please, and be specific.

DH

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 02:22 PM
quote:
quote:
Nine U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks, Military Says

It is believed to be the third deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Iraq this year. Twelve soldiers were killed in January when their helicopter was shot down and 7 died in another helicopter downing the following month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR200703060 0181.html


Clearly, the "surge" is working.


It actually does seem to be working but when you only hear about American casualties and NOTHING else, its understandable you would get a gloomy outlook. It's caleld propganda.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 02:24 PM
quote:
Whatever happened to the days when the king would lead the troops into battle? I suppose Bush could never do that because he's too busy doing interviews with Fox and photo ops!


Well in those days, wars of conquest for the personal agrandazement of the King was the order of the day. I guess you want to return to that. Do you have a problem that Lincoln didn't lead the union forces out into battle? Perhaps Roosevelt should have rode in a tank with Patton. That's just silly.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 02:32 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Nine U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks, Military Says

It is believed to be the third deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Iraq this year. Twelve soldiers were killed in January when their helicopter was shot down and 7 died in another helicopter downing the following month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR200703060 0181.html


Clearly, the "surge" is working.


It actually does seem to be working but when you only hear about American casualties and NOTHING else, its understandable you would get a gloomy outlook. It's caleld propganda.


You've obviously been listening to the propaganda from the right-wing pundits who are putting out the word that "the surge is working." I'd like for someone to explain how you can see such results based on what has happened in the past two weeks. Has it occurred to anyone on the right that the insurgents are "laying low" for the time being, or have directed their efforts in another area? I think we should give the surge a few more weeks before we break out the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

And why would you think that we hear about "American casualties and NOTHING else?" Do you have some source of information the rest of us don't have? I mean, besides Rush, Bill, and Sean?

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 04:24 PM
quote:
quote:
Whatever happened to the days when the king would lead the troops into battle? I suppose Bush could never do that because he's too busy doing interviews with Fox and photo ops!


Well in those days, wars of conquest for the personal agrandazement of the King was the order of the day. I guess you want to return to that. Do you have a problem that Lincoln didn't lead the union forces out into battle? Perhaps Roosevelt should have rode in a tank with Patton. That's just silly.


I may be a number of things....sarcastic, rude, adamant and at times ironic....but I don't deal in just silly. I've noticed that you have a difficult time allowing a statement that we all know is not realistic to stand without charging in with a retort. You constantly make my point that some people have no sense of irony about certain issues. Although in defense of Lincoln, he did travel to Gettysburg to make his address during the war and was often photographed with the troops at various encampments.....and in not a single picture will you see him serving the troops with a plastic turkey.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 04:58 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Nine U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks, Military Says

It is believed to be the third deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Iraq this year. Twelve soldiers were killed in January when their helicopter was shot down and 7 died in another helicopter downing the following month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR200703060 0181.html


Clearly, the "surge" is working.


It actually does seem to be working but when you only hear about American casualties and NOTHING else, its understandable you would get a gloomy outlook. It's caleld propganda.


You've obviously been listening to the propaganda from the right-wing pundits who are putting out the word that "the surge is working." I'd like for someone to explain how you can see such results based on what has happened in the past two weeks. Has it occurred to anyone on the right that the insurgents are "laying low" for the time being, or have directed their efforts in another area? I think we should give the surge a few more weeks before we break out the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

And why would you think that we hear about "American casualties and NOTHING else?" Do you have some source of information the rest of us don't have? I mean, besides Rush, Bill, and Sean?


As I've said before, I don't listen to propogandists of any party. If you are interested, you can surf the net for news that doesn't make the front page of the NY Times or ABC news. You can read people who know what's going on, who have sources and who report on it. People I respect as being straight shooters. One example is Ralph Peters, a retired military intelligence office who has been HIGHLY critical of Bush and Rumsfeld. He sees things starting to change in a positive way. The evidence is not in the casualties or the number of forces but the change in tactics and the reaction of the people we are fighting. Have you read the reports of anyone other than those against the war succeeding? I doubt it.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19435
(19449 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 04:59 PM
quote:
I may be a number of things....sarcastic, rude, adamant and at times ironic....but I don't deal in just silly. I've noticed that you have a difficult time allowing a statement that we all know is not realistic to stand without charging in with a retort. You constantly make my point that some people have no sense of irony about certain issues. Although in defense of Lincoln, he did travel to Gettysburg to make his address during the war and was often photographed with the troops at various encampments.....and in not a single picture will you see him serving the troops with a plastic turkey.


I'd say that flying into Baghdad is more dangerous that standing around an encampment.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 05:02 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Whatever happened to the days when the king would lead the troops into battle? I suppose Bush could never do that because he's too busy doing interviews with Fox and photo ops!


Well in those days, wars of conquest for the personal agrandazement of the King was the order of the day. I guess you want to return to that. Do you have a problem that Lincoln didn't lead the union forces out into battle? Perhaps Roosevelt should have rode in a tank with Patton. That's just silly.


I may be a number of things....sarcastic, rude, adamant and at times ironic....but I don't deal in just silly. I've noticed that you have a difficult time allowing a statement that we all know is not realistic to stand without charging in with a retort. You constantly make my point that some people have no sense of irony about certain issues. Although in defense of Lincoln, he did travel to Gettysburg to make his address during the war and was often photographed with the troops at various encampments.....and in not a single picture will you see him serving the troops with a plastic turkey.


And yet all polls show that the majority of troops fighting like and respect the commander in chief. Strange.

I respect your opinions (even when I disagree adamently with them) but I don't respect unfair statements. If you were being ironic it went over my head. I think its unfair to criticize the president of the United States for not leading the troops in person and there seems to be that suggestion once again of the "chicken hawk" which I find highly unfair. I don't think you are silly. But that statement, if meant seriously, is silly. If it wasn't meant seriously then I am the silly one for taking it seriously.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 05:03 PM
Bullsh*t.....obviously you're not a history buff.....the closest Bush has gotten to a bullet in this war has been in the gun of one of his 'posse.' There is absolutely no comparison to Bush flying into Baghdad and Lincoln in an army encampment at the time. But thank you for playing.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19435
(19449 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 05:10 PM
quote:
Bullsh*t.....obviously you're not a history buff.....the closest Bush has gotten to a bullet in this war has been in the gun of one of his 'posse.' There is absolutely no comparison to Bush flying into Baghdad and Lincoln in an army encampment at the time. But thank you for playing.



I'm absolutely a history buff, especially considering what I have had to correct on here at times. Now, obviously Lincoln eventually got it in the head from a sick minded southerner, and officers did want him to take his trademark hat off when out in the field because he made too much of a target should a would be assassin be nearby an encampment , but I still stand by what I said, and would gladly put up my knowledge of history to all but the most researched among us. Apparently you are not aware of what it takes specifially to fly into Baghdad, and apparently don't think it is dangerous simply because Bush was the one flying in at the time, but, that's fine..................

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 05:31 PM
quote:
What a boatload of diversionary BS, yet a typical response from the 'no core values whatsoever' Left. Answer the question.


This from the king of misdirection. Hysterical. Yeah, the Right is just brimming with core values huh?

quote:
Would you have teamed up with the murdering communist dictator Stalin in WWII or not??


Loaded question, already answered. See above.

quote:
Support what argument?? What the hell are you talking about??


Do I have to teach you reading comprehension?

quote:
How did I just try to connect Saddam with Al Qeada?? I pointed out your duplicitous bullsh*t. Are you even bright enough to understand what is written?? Once again, I pointed out the other day on this thread that even Sunni's were turning against Al Qeada in response to your post below,


Beats me why you brought up Saddam and AQ. Apparently the actions of a few people means that the whole ideology is changing? Maybe you can clarify your intent.

quote:
One last time as I try to enlighten the unenlightenable - Underneath everything to do with Russia and the Soviet Union was the concept of communism. When folks defected from the Soviet Bloc, it was to escape communism. When the Soviets forced its citizens to stay within its borders, as Castro and Il Kim still do, or if a citizen did travel they never let whole families do so at the same time, it was to further perpetuate communism. When the call for the Berlin Wall to fall came, it was to go against communism. When folks were shot in the back trying to escape East Berlin, it was to escape communism. When the Soviet Union expanded its empire, it was to expand communism. I know first hand, because, as I have told about countless times on here, I was a part of helping Soviet, Hungarian, Polish defectors to make it here in America in the 1970's and 80's after they escaped communism, and even spent countless hours talking with, living with, breaking bread with the Soviet citizens and cultural exchange liasons who visited my best friend's father on a regular basis, he being one of the pre-eminent Russian language teachers in the country - (Henry Ziegler of Princeton High School, Cincinnati, Ohio who was also the President, Slava; Chair, U.S. Olympiada Committee; Board of Directors, American Council of Teachers of Russian, and author of 1982's "My Russian Program Is Alive and Growing." http://tinyurl.com/2cwmnt)

The Soviet citizens who visited us for months at a time were not allowed to travel with their spouses or family members at the same time, because communism splits them up so they have to come back. But, some Soviet visitors to us did defect anyway, and we helped them out as well.


Meanwhile, after you wasted all that time, you still cant admit that communism is alive and well in a number of largely populated countries such as China and NK. Either its been defeated or it hasnt. You dont get it both ways. All of what you said is true. Whats also true is that its still going on today. Russia did not change into something other than Communism. They went broke and fell apart. It had 0 to do with Democracy or anything else related to political ideology. There are fewer Communist nations now than in the past, but that can and will likely, change due to global politics. Youre too shortsighted to see that.

quote:
But I understand your underlying leftist loyalties, so this doesn't really surprise me. It accounts for ther fronting for Hugo Chavez.


LOL..what you understand would fit in a thimble. Stick to music.

quote:
Past that, what question is it that I am not answering?? Whatever it is, and whoever has one that they feel I'm not answering, bring it on, please, and be specific.

DH


I asked you "Did we know then what we know now?" (with regard to Russia at the time) and I added "I doubt it". Beyond that, the Russians would have pursued victory over Germany with or without our help and I believe the outcome would have been the same. I dont know the historical particulars of our alignment with Russia, but I doubt it was a choice of choosing one bad guy over another.



 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 05:32 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Nine U.S. Soldiers Killed in Attacks, Military Says

It is believed to be the third deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Iraq this year. Twelve soldiers were killed in January when their helicopter was shot down and 7 died in another helicopter downing the following month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR200703060 0181.html


Clearly, the "surge" is working.


It actually does seem to be working but when you only hear about American casualties and NOTHING else, its understandable you would get a gloomy outlook. It's caleld propganda.


What makes you think its working?

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 05:36 PM
quote:
I'd say that flying into Baghdad is more dangerous that standing around an encampment.


Sure you would. You are willfully ignoring the fact that the area he is going into is so sanitized as to be as safe as a city street in Anytown USA. He is at no risk or he wouldnt be going. Its also quite telling that each time is a "surprise visit". If things were as peachy as we are being told, why not just show up with a couple of weeks advance notice?

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/6/2007 at 05:41 PM
quote:
I'm absolutely a history buff, especially considering what I have had to correct on here at times.


..and the revisions you spout.

quote:
Apparently you are not aware of what it takes specifially to fly into Baghdad, and apparently don't think it is dangerous simply because Bush was the one flying in at the time, but, that's fine..................


If you honestly think they are going to let Bush get within 20 miles of danger, youre dumber than even I thought you were.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 
<<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com