Reply With Quote
Those troops obvioulsy don't understand the sacrifices that have to be made in order to spread freedom.
If they bring it upon themselves, yes. I, you or the government can't solve all
problems. Sometimes, people themselves have to solve their own problems.
That is a fact. Like it or not.
Those troops obvioulsy don't understand the sacrifices that have to be made in order to spread freedom.
Are you referring to the occupation of Iraq or to the situation of the homeless?
What a dumb statement from someone who is suppose to be educated.
Believe me most troops are well aware of what they are fighting for. More
so than people like you. You sarcasm is just that and demeaning to those
that are doing the fighting.
hmmm, so back in World War II all the troops wanted to stay in Europe and Japan, never ever thinking about when they are going to return home?
That's probably the reason they want to withdraw.
^^If I remember correctly, course I am old, their tour of duty and enlistment was
for what they called: "the duration". Course I could be wrong, but don't think so.
And from my years in the service, the old saying was, a ing GI was a happy
GI, course I never did any....
...
Last edited by boutons_; 02-28-2006 at 08:19 PM.
Your opinion not mine.
You're the one that's against 70% of the troops.
The Repugs have accomplished their objectives, which don't include finishing the jobs in Afganistan and Iraq.
=====================================
Report Offers Gloomy View of Insurgencies
Escalation of Violence in Iraq, Afghanistan Cited
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; 4:00 PM
The Defense Intelligence Agency today presented a relatively gloomy assessment of the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, reporting that recent Iraqi elections appear to have contributed to rising sectarian violence and that Afghan insurgents have sharply escalated their attacks.
In written and oral testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the DIA director, described the insurgencies in the two countries as remarkably resilient as they battle U.S.-backed governments and the military forces of U.S.-led coalitions.
Also testifying before the committee was John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, who delivered a somewhat more nuanced threat assessment in which he stressed some "encouraging developments" in Iraq in addition to continuing "challenges" from insurgents. Negroponte gave essentially the same written report earlier this month to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Although al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are "relatively isolated" and under pressure, they are trying to "maintain a level of control over strategic plans such as the war in Iraq and another major attack against the U.S. homeland," Maples said in his written testimony. They also are pursuing a "decentralized track" by encouraging terrorist attacks by like-minded people.
In Iraq, Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has collaborated with "disparate Sunni extremist groups, formalizing ties with some," Maples said. "He has increasingly attracted Iraqis into his organization, replacing foreign fighters with Iraqi nationals" in many of the leadership positions in his group, al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Although foreign terrorists make up a relatively small share of the overall insurgency in Iraq, they have a disproportionate impact psychologically because of their "spectacular attacks," Maples wrote.
"While responsible for less than 5 percent of the overall violence in Iraq, foreign terrorists are responsible for over 90 of suicide bombings," he said.
Dissatisfaction with the foreign fighters and their tactics appears to have grown since last year among Iraqi tribal and local insurgents, but this tension "is localized and has not disrupted the overall strength of the insurgency," the report said. Leaders of Iraq's Sunni Muslim Arab minority, the main support base of the insurgency, "hold no influence over foreign terrorists such as al-Qaeda in Iraq," it said.
The group remains resilient even though coalition forces have dealt it "serious blows, killing and capturing several of al-Zarqawi's closest associates, constricting the flow of personnel, money and material in and out of the country and degrading their operations," Maples said.
"Reporting indicates sectarian violence is increasing," although the trend is hard to quantify, he said. "The elections appear to have heightened tension and polarized sectarian divides." He referred to voting in December for a new permanent parliament under the country's recently ratified cons ution. A new government has yet to be formed as a result of the elections because of persistent squabbling among Iraqi factions.
Maples said that "the perception of sectarian violence is increasing" in both Sunni areas and those dominated by the Shiite Muslim majority, and that "we continue to see a rise" in attacks led by al Qaeda in Iraq against Shiites and their religious shrines.
The bombing last week of a Shiite shrine in Samarra north of Baghdad set off the latest wave of sectarian violence. No one has claimed responsibility for that attack, but Zarqawi, a radical Sunni, is known to distain Shiites not only as collaborators with the Americans but as religious heretics.
"With over a million Sunni Arab military-aged males in Iraq, insurgents have little difficulty mobilizing enough fighters and support to sustain current levels of violence," Maples said. Moreover, "many elements" of the Iraqi security forces "are loyal to sectarian and party interests," and some have been infiltrated by insurgents, he said.
"Nationwide opposition to Coalition presence persists," he wrote. "Most Iraqis consider those who perpetrate violence against civilians to be 'criminals' or 'terrorists,' but those who attack the Coalition as 'patriots.' "
Even the increasing Sunni participation in politics has a downside, and it remains unclear how much insurgent violence will drop as a result. "Even moderate Sunni Arab leaders see violence as a complement to their political platforms and are pursuing a 'dual track' policy of political engagement and armed resistance," Maples wrote.
More broadly "Iraq appears to be emerging as an al-Qaeda platform for launching transnational terrorist attacks," he said, citing hotel bombings in neighboring Jordan in November and a rocket attack last August that targeted U.S. Navy ships visiting that country.
In Afghanistan, Maples said, the ousted Taliban movement and other militants increasingly are adopting al-Qaeda tactics.
Although the Afghan government has made progress in disarming private militias, "the Taliban-dominated insurgency remains a capable and resilient threat," he said. Last year, the Taliban and other groups increased their attacks by 20 percent from 2004, stepped up suicide bombings almost four-fold, more than doubled attacks using roadside bombs and "increasingly used beheadings to terrorize the local population," Maples said.
Insurgents "now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001," when U.S.-backed Afghan forces and devastating American airstrikes drove the Taliban from power, Maples said. He predicted that the Taliban "will be active this spring."
Adding to the threat in Afghanistan is a "thriving narcotics trade" that not only has enriched Afghan warlords, militia commanders and corrupt government officials, but also has "enabled the insurgency to operate in regions of southern and northeastern Afghanistan."
Negroponte said in his own testimony that "the threat from extremism and anti-Western militancy is especially acute in Iraq and Afghanistan." But he said there were also positive developments in Iraq, noting that insurgents "have not been able to establish any lasting territorial control" and were unable to disrupt the elections. Nor have they been able to attract broad popular support or coordinate nationwide operations, Negroponte said.
The veteran diplomat also said that Iraqi security forces are "making incremental progress toward operational independence" and that conflicts between Sunni extremist and nationalist insurgents are "encouraging and exploitable." He added that "large-scale Sunni participation in the last elections has provided a first step toward diminishing Sunni support for the insurgency."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Hey, I was one of the troops for over twenty years. What is your
claim to fame.
you fought in Iraq?
No I flew twenty missions over Piccadilly....now you figure that out.
Baby killer!!!
This thread is amazing.
Its a shame, but we have fallen square on our faces in Iraq.
March 1st, 2006 3:10 pm
Poll of troops in Iraq sees 72% support for withdrawal within a year
By Leo Shane III / Stars and Stripes
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.
The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”
Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.
But policy experts differ on exactly what those numbers mean.
Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst for the Cato Ins ute, called the figure alarming, and a sign that the Bush administration and troops in Iraq see the goals and the progress of the war very differently.
The president has opposed any plans for a withdrawal date, saying troops will remain until Iraq’s security is assured. Logan sees so many troops wanting a clear time line as showing “an alarming disconnect” between the policy and its implementation.
But Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Ins ute, said troops who say the U.S. should withdraw could be concerned for their own safety, or they could be optimistic about progress so far, or they could simply be opposed to the idea of operations in Iraq.
“You have to pick apart each servicemember’s thought process to understand what that means,” he said. “I think this is about personal cir stances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.”
Defense Department officials declined to comment on the poll, saying they did not have details on how the survey was conducted.
John Zogby, CEO of the polling company, said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous, anti-war activist, but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.
Zogby said the survey was conducted face-to-face throughout Iraq, with permission from commanders. Despite the difficulty of polling in a war zone, he said, pollsters were pleased with the results.
“This is a credible and representative look at what the troops are saying,” he said. “Clearly there are those [in the U.S.] who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying.”
The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Ninety-three percent said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for the ongoing military action.
“We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure],” Zogby said. “Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public’s perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation.”
In terms of current operations, 80 percent of those polled said they did not hold a negative view of all Iraqis because of the ongoing attacks against coalition military forces.
More than 43 percent of those polled said their equipment, such as Humvees, body armor and munitions, is adequate for the jobs facing them, while 30 percent said it is not.
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. and chairman of the Victory in Iraq Caucus, a group of 118 Republican lawmakers, said the poll does not diminish his opinion of the importance of the armed forces role in Iraq.
“Whatever the percentages are, I know 100 percent of our troops want to complete their mission over there,” he said. “My view is, whatever the poll results say, the bottom line is these are troops who will continue their mission, because they would rather fight the enemy overseas than at home.” Of those surveyed, 75 percent have served multiple tours in Iraq, 63 percent were under 30 years old, and 75 percent were male.
I have seen and heard very similar sentiments from troops who have been there.
The basic gist of it goes like this:
"These people don't want us there, and my buddies are dying for nothing".
These guys are not some nebulous "left". They are, however, very uncomfortable facts for the Bush cheerleaders.
Give it ten years and I truly believe that even the die hards will see Iraq for what it truly is:
The most poorly-planned and poorly-excuted political blunder that the US has made since Vietnam.
I don't doubt the veracity of those numbers because they jibe with the first hand accounts I have seen. Some think it's a good idea, but an increasing number are really beginning to doubt that it will succeed in its stated objective.
If anyone thinks that everyone in the Military loves Bush they are sadly mistaken.
Direct quote from a returning soldier:
"We have been on over 2,000 missions and haven't accomplished anything."
Some of the optimists point out that we gave them elections.
This guy responded to that by saying he didn't notice one iota of difference in the glares after the election from the glares before the election.
The Iraqis don't really want us there, and this is becoming more apparent as time goes by.
Xray owned himself.
^^How long did it take us to achieve our freedoms? More than a few years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
