Written By: - Date published: 3:10 pm, March 20th, 2008 - 93 comments
Categories: iraq -
Tags: iraq
It is five years since the
But the biggest cost is in human lives. Iraq Body Count’s cross-referenced count says at least 82,249 Iraqi civilians have died from direct military action since Iraq was invaded. That doesn’t count civilian deaths from direct military action that were not reported, deaths that occur because of the war but not from direct military action (reduced healthcare, increased poverty and disease, increased crime etc), and the Iraqis who have died as combatants, either with the Iraqi army during the invasion itself or in one of the many armed groups in the subsequent war. A Lancet survey concluded 655,000 more Iraqis had died between the invasion and October 2006 than would have died at pre-war mortality levels. Other studies estimate Iraqi deaths at 150,000 to 1.3 million. The studies are now months out of date and don’t include foreigners who have died in Iraq, including journalists, pilgrims, and combatants.
The only figure we can be sure of is that 4300 US and coalition soldiers have died in the war. The graphic below links to flash-based animation that maps these deaths over time (to October 2007). It is a moving experience. Remember, each dot represents one coalition soldier but, for each, up to another 250 people also died.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“Dean takes up the struggle eh. OK then. Tell me Dean, what is your source for the above claim? I do hope it isn’t Jameson. He was confused about a few issues of fact, and I didn’t have the energy to call him on every one.”
No, it’s from the UN.
“The most significant reasons presented for America’s invasion of Iraq, namely that Iraq had and could deploy WMDs, were incorrect. Do you agree Dean?”
In retrospect, absolutely.
Isn’t it nice, being able to comment in retrospect? Chamberlain is absolved, too. In fact, anybody who was wrong about anything must be as well.
While we’re on the topic though, and seeing as how you like to play dumb about it, why do you think it was ok that Iraq treated women the way it did? Why don’t you think that was reason enough to invade? And most importantly – and I bet you don’t answer this one without any kind of conviction – would you support any New Zealand government in similr treatment of women? Exactly the same way you talked in circles about Labour and the Chinese over Tibet, I imagine.
why do you think it was ok that Iraq treated women the way it did?
Where the hell did you get that notion from?
Why don’t you think that was reason enough to invade?
No it was not.
Very few problems in this world are solved by the use of military force. Many are made much worse.
Your reasoning reminds me of that famous line from the Vietnam war; “We had to bomb the village in order to save it”.
“The most significant reasons presented for America’s invasion of Iraq, namely that Iraq had and could deploy WMDs, were incorrect. Do you agree Dean?’
In retrospect, absolutely.
Well done Dean! See Jameson? It’s not so hard! Now, there are some really interesting lines of questioning that follow on from that realisation, but you know what, I can’t be bothered.
why do you think it was ok that Iraq treated women the way it did?
You really don’t have a clue, do you Dean. In general women in Saddam’s Iraq were among the most liberated in the Middle East (see quote below). However, the regime did also use systematic rape and abuse in a way which was of course abhorrent. Why would I think that was OK?
But Dean, do you think it’s OK that since the invasion things have got a lot worse for women? A 2007 account:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/13/gender.iraq
Do you think that’s OK Dean? Or should we invade again to liberate the women?
“You really don’t have a clue, do you Dean. In general women in Saddam’s Iraq were among the most liberated in the Middle East”
Yeah, and that person who got treated really badly compared to other people when in this country we’d treat the same person really well must feel really aggrieved.
Your double standards in relation to women obviously know no bounds.
Moral equivalancies, Rob, that’s all this is to you.
And you still failed to answer the question. I’ll repeat it for you: would you support any New Zealand government in simialr treatment of women? If you can answer this without trying to say Iraq was, in secular Islam terms, a relative heaven, then I’ll be very surprised. Given that you seem to want to keep on dodging it.
“Do you think that’s OK Dean? Or should we invade again to liberate the women?”
It’s OK that Saddam and his neighbours treated (and continue to treat) the majority of women badly, because some didn’t get treated so badly. I’d like to see you trundle this out to women you know, because I’m sure they’d find your double standard just charming.
Why do you continue to defend people who treat women the way Saddam did, Rob? There’s another one you won’t answer.
“You really don’t have a clue, do you Dean.”
And how about Tibet, Rob?
I don’t see you doing a lot of wailing and gnashing of the teeth on that particular subject.
How about you tell us exactly why it’s ok that Labour don’t want to uphold their beliefs concerning human rights with China and Tibet?
Take your time. I imagine you’ll need to.
Yeah, and that person who got treated really badly compared to other people when in this country we’d treat the same person really well must feel really aggrieved.
What?
Your double standards in relation to women obviously know no bounds.
Ummm – what?
Moral equivalancies, Rob, that’s all this is to you.
Sorry – what? Seriously Dean, I don’t follow your train of thought at all. It’s all right though, don’t try and explain, I’m happy to remain confused.
And you still failed to answer the question. I’ll repeat it for you: would you support any New Zealand government in simialr treatment of women?
Dean, I haven’t got around to answering this, because I can’t believe that the question is as stupid as it sounds. Are you asking me if I would support an NZ government in using systematic rape and violence against women? Seriously? How is anyone ever going to answer that question with anything but “no” Dean. Seriously – what are you on?
It’s OK that Saddam and his neighbours treated (and continue to treat) the majority of women badly, because some didn’t get treated so badly.
Saddam’s dead Dean – didn’t you get the memo? He’s not continuing to treat anyone as anything. If you’re trying to argue that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is unacceptable then for goodness sake just say so.
Why do you continue to defend people who treat women the way Saddam did, Rob? There’s another one you won’t answer.
I’ve done no such thing at any time Dean – do you have me confused with someone else?
Dean, the American invasion of Iraq has made things much worse for the women who live there. That is a huge tragedy. Yet another of the unintended consequences of this stupid war.
I don’t see you doing a lot of wailing and gnashing of the teeth on that particular subject.
It’s not the subject of the thread Dean. I think the actions of the Chinese government re Tibet are abhorrent, and I wish that the Labour led government had spoken out more strongly against them.
How about you tell us exactly why it’s ok that Labour don’t want to uphold their beliefs concerning human rights with China and Tibet?
Nah, I’ve answered a lot of questions already Dean. How about you answer this one first. How about you tell us exactly why it’s ok that National don’t want to uphold their beliefs concerning human rights with China and Tibet?
Dean,
I’m tempting to think you are drinking, you’re not making much sense.
Correct me if I am wrong but the question you appear to be asking is:
would you support any New Zealand government in simialr treatment of women?
Answer: No.
What is your point? At no point in this long thread have r0b, ancientgeek, Pascals bookie, or myself expressed any hint of explicit support for Saddam Hussein. Absolutely we have repeatedly expressed contempt and disdain for his crimes.
But it is important to note that these oppressions were directed at a relatively small minority of people whom the regime perceived as a threat. (And of course if a New Zealand govt did the same thing it would be condemned equally.) Moreover Iraq as you correctly point out is not alone in treating dissendents and internal opponents very badly. Imagine though if we had to invade everyone of them to put things to rights. (Just one invading one relatively small country has turned out poorly….)
But for the majority, life in Iraq was far more secular and developed than most Westerners realise and the consequences of this unwise military adventure has visited a far greater misery and oppression upon all of Iraqi.
Worse still the invasion has ripped the country apart along sectarian lines, and created the perfect conditions for an explosive resurgence of virulent anti-western Islamic fundamentalism.
And destroyed the prestige, morale and reputation of the USA in the process. And you seem to believe this was all such a good idea?
Jeeze? Do you want chips with that?
Dean are you saying that if a country has any policy that a person would not want to be the policy in their own country, then that person cannot object to war with that country?
The reason I ask is because it’s difficult to determine what your argument actually is. Maybe that is because that horse you are on is so damn high, or maybe it’s because you havn’t thought an argument out and are just happy slaying strawmen using the corpses of Iraqi women as your cudgels. Whatever.
But if your argument really is that if someone objects to the war in Iraq then they must want Saddam era laws here, then you’re an idiot in more ways than I care to think about.
No one is defending how Saddam treated women. Honestly. If I say that under Jim Crow in 50′s Mississippi, African Americans were not treated as badly as they were in the Confederacy, I’m not defending Jim Crow. I’m just stating a fact.
Let’s say that in a hypothetical 1950′s there was still slavery in Texas and Georgia but Jim Crow in Mississippi. Let’s say someone invaded Mississippi but didn’t invade Texas. Let’s say further that this invader is an ally of Texas and Georgia (the slave states) and calls them friends and ‘moderate southerners’.
If I say that this war is based on lies, immoral, a strategic disaster and I won’t support it, I’m not in any way defending Jim Crow. I could have a million objections to Jim Crow, and a couple of really good reasons to object to the war. The two things are unrelated.
If some halfwit comes along and says that I must be a racist Jim Crow fan for not supporting the war, I am well within my rights to respond by pointing out that there are allies of the invader that practice slavery, so that’s not what the war is about.
If this halfwit then says that I’m practicing moral relativism and am a closet racist for not supporting the war, even though there are slavers on the halfwit’s side of the argument, and even though opposing the war is not the same as defending Jim Crow, why the fuck should I pay the halfwit any mind?
Rob:
“Nah, I’ve answered a lot of questions already Dean. How about you answer this one first. How about you tell us exactly why it’s ok that National don’t want to uphold their beliefs concerning human rights with China and Tibet?”
Yep, spot on. National are as bad as Labour in this respect. It’s abolutely disgusting. Unfortunately for you, you’ve admitted to being a paid member of the Labour party before now (is that still the case?), whereas I have never been a member, paid or otherwise, of any political party.
So, let’s recap.
“Dean, I haven’t got around to answering this, because I can’t believe that the question is as stupid as it sounds. Are you asking me if I would support an NZ government in using systematic rape and violence against women? Seriously? How is anyone ever going to answer that question with anything but “no’ Dean. Seriously – what are you on?”
Yet you’re quite happy in restrospect for Saddam’s regieme to have treated women the way it did, all to avoid armed conflict.
Why the double standard, Rob? If it’s not OK here, as you’ve just admitted, why is it Ok for women to be treated this way anywhere on the face of the planet?
“Saddam’s dead Dean – didn’t you get the memo? He’s not continuing to treat anyone as anything. If you’re trying to argue that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is unacceptable then for goodness sake just say so.”
You missed the part where I said “and his neighbours” – you know, like Iran. But if you want to keep picking out the parts that suit you, that’s fine.
If you’re trying to argue that the treatment of women in Islamic cultures is OK because as long as it’s not in your own back yard, for goodness sake just say so.
“Dean, the American invasion of Iraq has made things much worse for the women who live there. That is a huge tragedy. Yet another of the unintended consequences of this stupid war.”
All of them? The majority of them?
How about the ones that got to vote this time around? Yes, Rob, they got to vote.
How about that? Of course, it’s ok that all of them didn’t get to vote previously because some of them were better off than others.
Double standards, Rob. Or don’t all women deserve to live in a democracy?
“I’m tempting to think you are drinking, you’re not making much sense.”
I’m tempted to think you’ve got the biggest sense of appeasement, but I won’t accuse you of it until I know the facts about you as a person. It would serve you well to pay other people the same courtesy – unless you wish to appear to be someone that wants to play the man and not the ball.
“But it is important to note that these oppressions were directed at a relatively small minority of people whom the regime perceived as a threat.”
Tell that to the Kurds.
“Jeeze? Do you want chips with that?”
I’d prefer you addressed exactly why you think it was a good idea to leave someone like Saddam in charge, notwithstanding the human rights abuses, instead of removing him. Because all you’ve done so far is wring your hands and declare that all war is bad no matter what.
“Maybe that is because that horse you are on is so damn high, or maybe it’s because you havn’t thought an argument out and are just happy slaying strawmen using the corpses of Iraqi women as your cudgels.”
Then you follow it up with 50 year old examples of the US.
More double standards.
“Let’s say that in a hypothetical 1950′s there was still slavery in Texas and Georgia but Jim Crow in Mississippi. Let’s say someone invaded Mississippi but didn’t invade Texas. Let’s say further that this invader is an ally of Texas and Georgia (the slave states) and calls them friends and ‘moderate southerners’.”
You conveniently forgot the part where Mississippi had rape rooms (ever so eloquently defended previously, and I notice not a single one of you has commented on that because that would be way too uncomfortable for your moral compass), routinely sought genocide and attempted to develop nerve agents against your precious UN’s sanctions.
Really, guys. You’re just debating semantics here from your comfy armchairs, where in reality, if any one of you had to spend a single day living in a regieme the likes of Hussein perpetrated you’d be more exited than a Greenpeace member at a fish market.
I’m actually not a supporter of the Iraq conflict, but the reasons you guys are using to argue against it are the same old tired claptrap.
Yet you’re quite happy in restrospect for Saddam’s regieme to have treated women the way it did
Please stop lying about my beliefs Dean.
Why the double standard, Rob? If it’s not OK here, as you’ve just admitted, why is it Ok for women to be treated this way anywhere on the face of the planet?
It isn’t OK Dean. It isn’t OK that in countries all over the world women are mistreated, that children starve to death, that minorities are persecuted, that people lie and hate and kill. None of it’s OK Dean. None of it is OK.
But to pick one particular instance out of all in the world that is not OK, to ignore everything else and to say, yup, that one particular case justifies an invasion that has killed over a million people and destroyed a country – that is deeply and profoundly stupid.
For the money America has spent on this war – how much suffering could they have alleviated in this world?
I think I’m going to go do something fun, like, bang in nails with my forehead. Goodnight Dean.
Parting Shot:
Good news for Iraqis: Bad news for whinging Saddamites
……………………………………………………..
Sun, Feb. 24, 2008
Despite proof of progress in Iraq, Dems obstruct
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
“No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. …If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government — in security, governance, and development — there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.”
– Anthony Cordesman, “The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield,”
Feb. 13, 2008
This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that “no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good.” Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.
Unless you’re a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., put it, “Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq.” Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.
We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers — ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terror activity — starkly symbolizing the insurgency’s loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaida leaders reveal despair as they are driven — mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists — to flight and into hiding.
Suddenly, three steps
After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it’s all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.”National” is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.
Doesn’t count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.
The objection was not only highly legalistic but politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.
First, a provincial powers law that turned Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.
Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenues — about 85 percent of which are from oil — to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.
Democrats denying victory?
What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces in the national budget.
The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means it will be allocating oil revenues year-by-year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaida and Iran?
Despite all the progress military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our “very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.”
Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the U.S. and victorious over al-Qaida. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?
……………………………………………………..
The Post
Five years later, Iraq is a better place than it was under Saddam Hussein
March 20, 2008, 11:44 AM by Marni Soupcoff
Editorial
It is taken for granted by many Canadians that the Iraq war has been a failure. But many of those who believe this seem to have stopped their mental clocks in 2006 at the height of the insurgency, when dozens of deaths by ambush and roadside bombs were a daily occurrence. Over the last year, during the “surge” that brought more U.S. troops to Iraq, remarkable gains have taken place. On this, the fifth anniversary of the 2003 invasion, it’s only right that we enumerate the lessons learned.
To be sure, American civilian war planners made many mistakes following the initial, successful invasion. Chief among these was the decision to overrule senior generals’ estimates that at least 400,000 troops would be needed to maintain the peace in the months immediately following the liberation. When General Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, proposed sending nearly half a million soldiers, his political masters — notably defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and deputy secretary Paul Wolfowitz — denounced his estimate as “wildly off the mark.” Instead, the decision was made to limit the deployment to fewer than 200,000, in the belief that superior equipment and technology could replace boots on the ground.
Without sufficient troops, the coalition could not secure Iraq’s borders. Jihadis flowed in from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia; bombs and missiles followed. Jihadis also beat coalition forces to major weapons caches. There were too few coalition forces to patrol the streets, collect intelligence about terror plots, protect Iraq’s civilian population and permit the resumption of normal daily life.
Attacks on essential infrastructure, such as pipelines and power plants, could not be stopped, so oil could not flow and the lights could not be kept on. That meant Iraq’s government had less oil-generated income than expected and businesses — small and large — could not operate fully since their owners could not be guaranteed a reliable power supply.
The U.S. purging of Baathists — the members of Saddam Hussein’s old ruling party — went too far. Reliable bureaucrats, army commanders and soldiers who knew the country were shunted to the sidelines, even though they were not Saddam loyalists. Many took up arms against the occupying army.
Young men without work were attracted to charismatic Shiite and Sunni militia leaders who offered them pay to fight the Americans. And neighbourhood leaders who could not trust coalition forces to secure their streets gravitated toward the militiamen, too.
Still, since the surge began a year ago, Iraq has changed. The overall picture that emerges is of a country that is gradually growing safer and happier. A poll done last week for American, British, German and Japanese television networks indicates 55% of Iraqis believe life is “going well,” compared to just 39% last August. Most now think the 2003 invasion was a good thing, and while they are not always happy with U.S. troops, 80% are happy the Americans are there battling al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The Awakening Councils — the anti-al-Qaeda alliances between tribal leaders, American commanders and the Iraq army — have cut off al-Qaeda’s supplies, safe houses and sources of recruits. Meanwhile, the Sons of Iraq neighbourhood patrols that pay citizens $450 a month to guard the streets around their homes and businesses have cut crime and minor acts of terror.
Oil is flowing at the rate of over two million barrels per day and the electricity is on for a nationwide average of 13 hours a day, versus just nine at the height of the insurgency.
Most important of all, deaths have dropped dramatically. Although Americans will likely suffer their 4,000th combat death this month or next, their fatal casualties have fallen from nearly 140 a month last summer to fewer than 20 a month now. Iraqi civilian deaths are down as well, from nearly 4,000 a month to under 500.
Sunnis — the dominant sect under Saddam — still feel victimized, and Kurds still seek their own nation carved out of Iraq, both of which are huge problems. However, in January, the Iraqi Parliament passed landmark legislation dealing with radicals from all elements who find their way into the military or civil service. This should permit the reintroduction of thousands of Sunnis into Iraq’s administration and mainstream culture — they had suffered a blanket ban under previous such laws — and facilitate the expulsion of radical Shiites friendly to Iran and militia leaders such as Moqtada al-Sadr.
That this might have come about much sooner, say, in 2004, if the U.S. had executed the occupation better is the tragedy of Iraq. Still, Iraq is a better place now than it was under Saddam, and its future is brighter. The world has also been spared the menace of a genocidal dictator playing the world community for fools, and acting as a champion of militant Arabism and a patron to Islamist suicide bombers.
……………………………………………………..
America. Making the world a better place.
Most important of all, deaths have dropped dramatically. Although Americans will likely suffer their 4,000th combat death this month or next, their fatal casualties have fallen from nearly 140 a month last summer to fewer than 20 a month now. Iraqi civilian deaths are down as well, from nearly 4,000 a month to under 500.
Last year, U.S. military deaths peaked as U.S. troops added troops to regain control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The death toll per month has seesawed since, but nonetheless 2007 has ended as the deadliest year for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.
Numbers speak a language all of their own… don’t they?
Rhetorically speaking I wouldn’t have said that just because things are getting better now means that the original invasion can be considered either an appropriate course of action or a success. I’ve never thought that America should leave before cleaning up the mess they’ve made. But the fact that they’re still cleaning it up doesn’t mean they didn’t make it, or that the excuses used to go in in the first place actually stack up. And the assertion that Iraq is about to become a stable democracy if only America continues to hang in there is obviously an expedient thing for any Republican commentator to make. I hope it’s true, but I’m not holding my breath. The reality on the ground is far more complex culturally, religiously, politically, than any tidy op-ed piece from a comfy armchair in America can hope to address.
Ahh Jameson – a “parting shot” – some puff pieces from armchair neocons. Pathetic.
As AG pointed out far above, the “surge” is an admission of failure. Failure to establish a workable Iraqi society or army. And is it working? Never mind armchair neocons, never mind even asking Democrats, what do the folk in Baghdad have to say?:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19405.htm
There is also interesting stuff going on behind the “surge” that you won’t find in the puff pieces:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19384.htm
Even if the “surge” really does work, even if, eventually, in a decade, peace does come to Iraq, has America been “making the world a better place”?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19596.htm
And the final Irony, Jameson, is that those who are big fans of America are those that should be the most outraged at this stupid war. This war has gutted America militarily, financially, and morally. The damage is huge. And for what? If you love America you should hate the war that is dragging America inexorably down.
I always find this guy interesting on Iraq, he gets a lot right, some wrong, but certainly knows who is who.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/
Or if you prefer journalists to academics, Nir Rosen seems to have lot’s of good contacts in country:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge/print
Ancient G, if you are still around I’d appreciate your thoughts on the following, if you have any you’d like to share.:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4198
Parts of it shocked me.
As an example of what shocked:
38 percent of officers thought the draft should be reinstated to to help the military meet its recruiting and retention needs. Crikey thought me, that’s high considering these are all volunteers.
I’m around – just a lot less active during the working week..
Excellent link. I’ll muse over it today. But some prelim thoughts.
The post-cold war thinking in the US military in the 90′s (from my understanding) favoured being able to be involved in two regional level conflicts at the same time, as well as their general readiness and commitments. They redeployed on that basis
Problem is that they are involved in two at present – but they haven’t been quick like Grenada or Panama. So it is causing a stretch.
We’re having exactly the same problems here in a more miniature level. Just at present I think we have deployments in East Timor, Solomons, Afghanistan, etc… Current army deployments. This is reduced compared to the last few years as you can see from the list here, in particular as the commitment in Timor reduces.
But it is the same issue.
It is the old adage. To control an area you have to be able to control on the ground. There has been quite a focus in the US on improving tech over the last 20 years. That allows them to win campaigns, but as they’ve found in Iraq, not to win a war.
I wouldn’t like to be an intelligence chief in the states at present. The officer corp in the US is really starting to gun for them. From what I have heard, the military has been doing quite a lot of reworking of their own intelligence.
That has got to be a worrying trend. I wonder what the senior non-com rates are. If they are similar then the US has a real problem.
I think that the most interesting point that shows up in that survey, is that the officers show more intelligence than their C-in-C and defense sec.
That is probably related to this section.
You have to remember that they are at the point where they haven’t had to substantially eat into their resource commitments elsewhere. That is what happened in Vietnam where equipment, munitions, and troops were stripped from critical areas like the NATO and Korean deployments.
But if they get pulled into another conflict or there is continued escalation in Iraq, that will happen. The officers would prefer to get the recruitment for that started now rather than have to try and do it under time constraints. The military in the US is directly under political control rather than being semi-detached as they are here or in the UK. They have a lot less control over their own deployments.
Thanks man.
I guess one worry about the high number of officers leaving would be that the pool of options shrinks with regard to promotions.
Even if there is an even distribution of talent amoungst those that leave, I guess there will be many moving on up that might otherwise have been stuck at Captain or what-have-you.
Happy Birthday War