Posted on 12/18/2006 8:37:30 AM PST by MNJohnnie
On Sunday's Meet the Depressed Mr Newt stuck his whole head in it once again. He said we needed to send 500,000 troops to Iraq. Some questions for Mr Newt
Hey Newt, We sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam at the height of our involvement. How did that work out for us?
Curious, where are you going to get the 500,000 troops for Iraq? How long do they stay? What are they going to be doing?
Gee Newt, I guess I missed the part of your Resume that covered your military background. Which Staff Schools did YOU attend Newt?
Newt has become a perfect machine politician. He simply is picking up on what the DC Political-Media complex wants to hear and saying it. He and McCain are basically the singing the same one note DC Marching song. This way both of them can placate the Right by saying "See we are supporting the troops" and still suck up to the DC noise machine by being against how the Iraq mission is being run by the President.
It is short attention span theater time again. The American people simply lack the emotional or intellectually discipline to face anything that requires sustained effort. So as usually the political snake oil salesmen are crawling out of the slime with the usual simplistic answers and easy fixes. Only problem is what they are trying to selling on Iraq is pure poison. The DC "Conventional Wisdom" on Iraq is, as usual, neither conventional nor wisdom
What Newt SHOULD be doing is listening to what Gen Abizaid told the US Senate when he came back from Iraq to testify to the US Senate in mid November. Newt should become Gen Abizaid's standard bearer. Position himself as the guy covering our troops back from the idiots in DC who STILL have learned nothing since LBJ screwed up "Nam.
For example, Newt could be raising the point that when asked specifically about troop levels by Sen McCain, Gen Abizaid (who only happens to be the actual commander on the Ground in Iraq) all but told McCain he is an utter idiot on Iraq. Gen Abizaid made it clear he did NOT need more troops. Newt should cut himself out of the 2008 pack by being the sane serious voice on Iraq backing up the Military rather then merely howling after the Junk Media pack. This "More Troops" propaganda line is both stupid political strategy and stupid military strategy.
There are 4 reasons why too many troops can be as bad as too few troops in a Counter Insurgency Mission.
Retardation, Marginalization, Friction and Unrealistic expectations.
Too many troops retards the locals efforts to develop their own military/political structure to govern . It takes time and effort to train and blood troops. It especially takes time to train up the cadre to run a serious military. Good NCOs and Officers are not born, they are made. This was on of the major US mistakes in Vietnam. It was easier to just have the US troops take over doing everything then work through the leaning curve of the locals. Problem was once the US no longer had the political will to carry on the mission they simply dumped the problem on an under developed Vietnamese political/military structure.
There is this odd American arrogance that seem to think ONLY Americans can do anything. Everyone else is incompetent and or corrupt. Only problem is the American public, like most spoiled brats, lacks the emotional or mental discipline to stick with unpleasant difficult tasks. Too many US troops would simply retards all efforts to get the locals to the point they can contain or break the Insurgents for themselves then when the petulant American people simply decided they wanted us to go home, there would be no one to pick up the bat for us.
Too many troops also marginalizes efforts to develop a counter political structure strong enough to break or contain the Insurgency. It deligitmizes the locals efforts and makes them simply look as lackeys of the occupying power. Having the US run everything marginalizes the political credibility of the local political structure and spurs the Insurgents propaganda and recruitment efforts.
The more troops the more friction with the locals. Face it, having a bunch of hyper aggressive mostly young mostly male Americans suddenly descend on you town is NO ones idea of a good time. Even in our own military towns there is a lot of friction between the locals and the military. Think how much worse that would be in an alien culture with a living memory of being a colony in everything but name? A heavily armed society with an exaggerated sense of male empowerment? Basically you have two aggressive testosterone drive heavily armed dominate male groups in close proximity.
Unrealistic Expectations. Send a lot troop and the expectation is you can quickly and easily solve all problems and bring the boys home. No, not in a Counter Insurgency. Counter Insurgency is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It takes time and lots of back breaking effort.. Sending a whole lot of troops simply exhausted your fiscal and military resources faster.
There are other things such as the added friction both on the locals and the US forces of having heavily armed, under trained conventional troops performing close combat operations in civilian areas. The counter productive results of a "kill people and wreck stuff" Conventional mentality in dealing with a Asymmetrical threat etc etc etc.
Frankly the DC Noise machine should simply shut up and get out of the US Military's way. They studied Vietnam hard and actually have the right answers here. As in Vietnam, the problem here is the "Washington Knows Best" mentality of the entrenched political media power structure who simply will sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid having to admit GW Bush has been right about Iraq all along.
Compared to Harry Reid's land deals this one's no biggie.
For some laughs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1755264/posts?page=1
RE: Clinton's Sex addiction
I thought I heard Kathleen Willy (?) say that Clinton needed therapy for sex addiction.
Hillary and sex just don't mix.
Jo, that was Lot's wife. Lot's daughters thought the world was destroyed and had relations with their father, whom they got drunk, because they thought they needed to repopulate the earth.
More on (moron) Clinton's sex addiction:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones031498.htm
BARF ALERT!
Vt. Woman Is an Unlikely Peace Activist
By JOHN CURRAN | Associated Press | Dec 18, 4:40 AM EST
BENNINGTON, Vt. (AP) -- Meet the anti-war movement's newest folk hero: 69-year-old Rosemarie Jackowski, whose arrest during an anti-war protest has made her a cause celebre.
A prosecutor's plan to retry her for blocking traffic while protesting the Iraq war is turning the feisty 4-foot-10 inch former schoolteacher into a darling of the dove crowd.
Bloggers have rallied behind her, peace activists are deluging her with messages of support, and advocates have established a defense fund.
"She's not a loony toon by any means," said Andrew Schoerke, 73, a retired U.S. Navy captain who was arrested with her. "She's a very down to earth, sensible, caring person with some very strong convictions."
Jackowski was one of a dozen protesters arrested at a March 20, 2003 protest, staged within hours of the start of the United States' "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq. Carrying a sign that read "Impeach Bush" on one side and listed U.S. "war crimes" on the other, Jackowski refused police orders to get out of the street and was arrested for blocking traffic.
"It was really hard for me to stand there and just hold my sign," she said in an interview. "I came from a strict ethnic, religious background. I was taught to never ever be disobedient to anyone - teacher, parent, policeman. That was my very first act of disobedience to anyone."
Asked during booking whether she had any aliases, she replied: "Yes, I do. `Mom.'"
To police, it wasn't funny.
The protest clogged traffic in this southern Vermont town's busiest intersection, delaying at least one hospital-bound ambulance and infuriating truck drivers and others.
"It wasn't about the war in Iraq," said police Lt. Paul Doucette, who ordered the arrests at the scene. "It was public safety at risk. This whole scene could've turned very ugly very quickly. So we did what was best. Now all of them have paid the price, except this one."
The other members of the so-called "Bennington 12" pleaded guilty and were accepted into a court-ordered program for first-time offenders. Jackowski refused, saying she did nothing wrong. After a one-day trial, a jury took less than 15 minutes to find her guilty.
She appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, her attorney insisting that the disorderly persons charge could only stick if it were proven she intended to disrupt traffic.
On Nov. 22, the justices threw out her conviction, saying trial Judge David Suntag erred in telling jurors they could convict her if they believed she was "practically certain" her conduct would cause public disruption.
Last week, Bennington County State's Attorney William Wright said he would seek to try her again.
"At this juncture, we are going forward with the case," he told the Bennington Banner newspaper. "We think that the evidence was overwhelming in our view, and we think that the jury should have another opportunity to decide Ms. Jackowski's guilt or innocence."
For her part, Jackowski - who gives her grandchildren "Give peace a chance" T-shirts and collects peace signs in her modest home - insists that the bombing of Iraqi civilians during the war is grounds enough for her actions. She has no intention of pleading guilty or admitting she was wrong.
"I will never say I'm sorry for what I did," she said Wednesday. "I don't care if they want to lock me up for life."
She could get 60 days if convicted. First, she needs an attorney for the retrial, although no date has been set.
"I'm just a little old grandmother who has been really, really affected by the fact that my government is bombing children in Iraq. I can't tell you how deeply I feel about this," she said.
Doucette, the police lieutenant, doesn't buy it.
"What upsets me personally is `Oh, they're going to send a grandmother to jail.' This isn't about being a grandmother, it isn't about being 70 years old. It's about `You broke the law and now you have to suffer the consequences.'"
She needs a kick in the teeth.
Lot's daughters. Right. I looked at your post again.
My mind won't let me absord that part of the story.
It's just too gross.
I know that with some drug addictions, they treat it with other drugs. Is that how they treat sex addiction? No wonder why Bill signed up for it.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
With all that energy she could be doing something much more productive.
She's the only smart one in the country. /s
Would that be a little red pill???
Hillary is where boners go to die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.