0
   

Will Obama get ALL American troops out in sixteen months?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 04:56 am
Quote:
Obama could remove every single Combat brigade but leave all of the above structure up and running to support the Iraq's, our "advisors" and to allow for the possible rapid return of combat brigades if the need arises, and still technically keep his word. I don't know what the head count would be, but I figure it would be north of 50K.

No, it wouldnt be keeping his word.
Many of those units are combat units, so to leave them in Iraq would mean leaving combat troops in place.
The only US units on that list that could remain for Obama to keep his word are

Quote:
Gulf Region Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Gulf Region Division is responsible for helping the Iraqi government rebuild the country's infrastructure.

Logistical Support Area Anaconda
LSA Anaconda is currently run by the U.S. 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary). 13 SC(E) is responsible for providing logistics support throughout the theater.


ALL of the other US units on that list are combat units.
So to leave any of them in Iraq would mean that he didnt keep his word.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 07:42 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
Corps and divisions are for now administrative organizations only, the Army does not train or fight as divisions and corps. There are no such organizations in Iraq.

Well, yes and no. Mostly no.

It's true that corps and divisions are administrative organizations. But then it has ever been thus, since the days of Napoleon. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that they're not in Iraq right now. Even if the HQ for each corps or division remains fixed at its base, the corps or division itself is free to be assigned for duty elsewhere. And support units are most assuredly assigned at the corps and divisional level.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 07:43 am
mysteryman wrote:
ALL of the other US units on that list are combat units.
So to leave any of them in Iraq would mean that he didnt keep his word.

Now you're just contradicting yourself, MM. Time to give it up.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 07:49 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Time to give it up.


It's time for Obama to face the facts and give it up.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:21 am
Facts? Not for Obama...

___________________________

Planning to Ignore the Facts
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 09:43 am
Obama is speaking right now about his bullshit plan for redeployment that will get more American troops killed.

Obama has no clue what is going on. Obama does not understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are large battles in a global war.

Obama is dangerous for America - Obama is unacceptable as president.

Obama is misleading the dumbmasses into weakening our country and leaving us open to attack.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/NOBAMA.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 10:01 am
H2O_MAN wrote:


Obama has no clue what is going on. Obama does not understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are large battles in a global war.



I believe many of the people that will vote for Obama just do not like that the global war seems to rest mostly on the shoulders of the U.S.?

It is really difficult to reply to that thought when given.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 05:12 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
ALL of the other US units on that list are combat units.
So to leave any of them in Iraq would mean that he didnt keep his word.

Now you're just contradicting yourself, MM. Time to give it up.


Try again, except this time use my whole quote, and not just part of it.

Here is what I said...


Many of those units are combat units, so to leave them in Iraq would mean leaving combat troops in place.
The only US units on that list that could remain for Obama to keep his word are


Quote:
Gulf Region Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Gulf Region Division is responsible for helping the Iraqi government rebuild the country's infrastructure.

Logistical Support Area Anaconda
LSA Anaconda is currently run by the U.S. 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary). 13 SC(E) is responsible for providing logistics support throughout the theater.


ALL of the other US units on that list are combat units.
So to leave any of them in Iraq would mean that he didnt keep his word.

The 2 units I just listed are the only 2 units on hawkeye's list that are not combat units.
If he doesnt remove all of the other units on the list, then he has left combat units in Iraq.
He has said he is going to remove the combat brigades, but unless he actually removes EVERY combat unit, he hasnt kept his promise.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 07:49 pm
Before, mysteryman wrote:
So he gets all the COMBAT troops out, big deal.

What about all the support troops?
Those are the cooks, clerks, medical troops, armorers, mechanics, computer techs,dentists, supply personnel, and the thousands of other noncombat troops

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?


Then, mysterman wrote:
ALL of the other US units on that list are combat units.
So to leave any of them in Iraq would mean that he didnt keep his word.

So, to recap: before, Obama was lying because there were lots of non-combat troops in Iraq that he didn't account for; and now Obama is lying because there aren't a lot of non-combat troops in Iraq that he is (for some unknown reason) going to leave in Iraq. Really, MM, don't you ever get tired of yourself sometimes?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:00 pm
joe wrote: Really, MM, don't you ever get tired of yourself sometimes?


Wondered the same thing myself, quite often.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:13 pm
Uh, I think MM probably knows what he is talking about, considering the years he was in the military. I don't know about joefromchicago, but certainly Obama has no experience, zero, nothing, with the military, and I think that fact becomes more obvious by the day.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:27 pm
okie, You guys are always ready to say Obama doesn't have experience. Do you know the history of Franklin D. Roosevelt?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 08:52 pm
I am not particularly impressed with FDR, ci, so your angle is not going to work on me. Yes, when push came to shove, FDR did what he had to do, but he made some pretty big mistakes in my opinion. I am not a fan of FDR, although my parents were, more or less.

I understand what you may argue, that the CIC does not need military experience to excel, however, if Obama spouts off stuff that is totally impractical, then constantly changes his position, without consulting people that have better knowledge of a situation, then I think inexperience can be very bad. We might as well elect any old Tom, Dick, or Harry for president if experience means nothing. But I think it goes beyond experience, it has to do with judgement, but experience helps judgement on these matters.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 08:33 am
Perhaps, the solution to the concerns here would be that all Presidents wear a military uniform, rather than civilian attire. This would imply that with each addtional week as President, every new President would be adding an additional week of military experience. Instead of stars or bars on the lapels, possibly something like "CIC" for Commander In Chief?

Also, a selection of caps. Some with brims, some without. Even a CIC helmet would add to certain speeches that address certain foreign concerns.

I would personally like a walking stick, a la Bat Masterson.

In effect, any President, with a little Hollywood panache, could put to rest any concerns about his/her military experience (or lack of it).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 09:17 am
okie, Okay, you're not impressed with FDR - the president without "experience." So what is it about FDR you're not impressed with?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:17 am
We could dress the president in a military uniform and call us the United States of south america. The military has more influence in my life than I like now! They are supposed to protect our liberties and keep a low profile not become involved in politics.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:30 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, Okay, you're not impressed with FDR - the president without "experience." So what is it about FDR you're not impressed with?

I did not live during that period, ci, so my opinion is more distant than after Truman. I remember from Ike on to the present day, so I think I have a better handle on it. So the following is a general opinion that I am willing to change if anyone could show an otherwise convincing argument.

I give him credit for successfully fighting the war, beyond that his New Deal was not a great deal in my opinion, it may have some positive aspects, but Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, collect now, pay later, the money was spent, for us to pay later, and the 12% that every lower income working man pays now is a significant drag on those people, and if a private fund manager got the same returns on his money, he would be fired. The war had more to do with getting us out of the doldrums than virtually anything else, I think.

The other thing, you know this, he rounded up tens of thousands of people simply by the virtue of the fact they had a Japanese, etc. heritage, and placed them in concentration camps.

Also, I think he was asleep at the switch in 39 and 40, to what was going on in Europe. I don't know what all he knew, but I suspect it was more than he would have admitted later.

There is speculation he knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, I don't think so, but I think he was asleep at the switch at least, and as commander in chief, he should have been more aware and should have had our armed forces in more of a state of readiness.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:40 am
BBB
Most people don't realize and haven't considered the enormous cost of moving our troops out of Iraq. We can't leave any of our equipment and facilities in Iraq so they don't fall into the hands of insurgents. Some of it can be moved to Afghanistan, but not all. It will cost billions of dollars to bring it all home and to Afghanistan.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:47 am
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Most people don't realize and haven't considered the enormous cost of moving our troops out of Iraq. We can't leave any of our equipment and facilities in Iraq so they don't fall into the hands of insurgents. Some of it can be moved to Afghanistan, but not all. It will cost billions of dollars to bring it all home and to Afghanistan.

BBB


What about the Iraqi Army? They can't use the equipment or facilities?

I expect we will end up leaving quite a bit of it there for them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:56 am
removing Iraq as a future battlefield for us insofar as possible; and emerging from this war with America's image as a restrained but impossibly overwhelming foe improved.

There is no magic in these ideas. The solution lies in America's leaders working together among themselves and with others. The reality is that there must be a political accommodation at home as well as in Iraq. Overseas, Iraq's neighbors, as well as our friends and allies, have serious stakes in salvaging this tough situation. They must be involved. To involve them, we must talk with them.

If we need more talented American leaders working on this than those who have the responsibility today, we should be able to come up with them. America is the world's strongest and most powerful nation and we require leaders who measure up to our principles and work to advance the country's interests. That's what elections are for.

We must have a strong, capable, agile, well-trained, and equipped military. It has to be prepared for all the relevant fights: against terrorists, drug cartels, pirates, nuclear proliferators, and against other nations, when our national security demands. The military must be multi-lingual, culturally attuned, disciplined, temperate, restrained, and ferocious at the appropriate times.

Our military today is as fearsome an instrument of national power as has ever existed. When necessary in the future it should specifically be feared. So leaving Iraq without considering the future military power and image of the United States would be a serious mistake. Iraqi and foreign insurgents must not be allowed to define the limits of American power for years to come.

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.)

Vice Admiral Gunn is a member of the American Security Project's Board of Directors. He is President of the Institute of Public Research at The CNA Corporation, a non-profit corporation in Virginia. During his 35-year career in the Navy, he served as Inspector General of the Department of the Navy; Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel; Commander, Navy Personnel Command; Commander, Amphibious Group Three; and Deputy Commander, Combined Task Force UNITED SHIELD, protecting the withdrawal of U.N. forces from Somalia.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2022 at 05:43:59