So arresting criminals increases crime, so I guess lets get rid of all the police departments and DAs around the country, so crime will go away. Makes perfect sense.
Army Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short
An extraordinary action by the chief of staff sends a message: The Pentagon must increase the budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere.
By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
September 25, 2006
WASHINGTON ?- The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.
The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.
"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.
Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.
According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels.
"It's incredibly huge," said the Army official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity when commenting on internal deliberations. "These are just incredible numbers."
Most funding for the fighting in Iraq has come from annual emergency spending bills, with the regular defense budget going to normal personnel, procurement and operational expenses, such as salaries and new weapons systems.
Another consequence... the incredible cost to US taxpayers for a project which has, according to that NIE report, increased the threat of terrorism.
Quote:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-nationArmy Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short
An extraordinary action by the chief of staff sends a message: The Pentagon must increase the budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere.
By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
September 25, 2006
WASHINGTON ?- The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.
The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.
"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.
Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.
According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels.
"It's incredibly huge," said the Army official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity when commenting on internal deliberations. "These are just incredible numbers."
Most funding for the fighting in Iraq has come from annual emergency spending bills, with the regular defense budget going to normal personnel, procurement and operational expenses, such as salaries and new weapons systems.
Meanwhile, if the following is accurate, it would appear that Iraq has not yet given up despite the best efforts of anti-patriots and doomsday prophets and negative nabods to put anything related to the USA in the worst possible light.
I wonder how much more it costs to maintain a US Soldier in Iraq than it does to maintain that same soldier in Fort Riley KS or Fort Hood TX? All that has to be factored into the overall cost too.
okie wrote:So arresting criminals increases crime, so I guess lets get rid of all the police departments and DAs around the country, so crime will go away. Makes perfect sense.
Okie
That's really not the point at all. It is simply that this NIE report (leaked) has revealed that US intel agencies conclude that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist organizations, motivations and therefore the future threat posed to citizens in the US and elsewhere.
This is a serious indictment of Bush administration policies and personnel.
What makes it even more serious is the multitude of voices before the war was begun (from intel, from state, from the military, from non-government agencies and experts, from other nations, etc) who argued against the administration planning for this war PRECISELY because this result loomed so large as a probable consequence.
Progressive Radio Hosts More Accepting Of Dissenting Views Than Conservative Hosts
Research 2000 recently conducted a survey testing whether progressive or conservative talk radio shows are more open to callers with dissenting points of view. The organization made 15 calls (with a point of view that was not compatible with the host) to six radio shows ?- three progressive (Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz) and three conservative (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh).
Their findings concluded that all the progressive hosts were more willing to take calls from dissenters than were the conservative hosts. Research 2000's ranking, in order of accessibility: 1): Shultz, 2) Rhodes, 3) Miller, 4) Ingraham, 5) Limbaugh, and 6) Hannity. Among the findings:
READ ON AT,
http://thinkprogress.org/
And I also believe if other nations would actually follow their own U.N. resolutions to actually enforce them, and support Bush's policies as he has attemtped to follow through with the above, the world would be a whole lot better off. So blame the do nothingers, not Bush.
"Why are we asking our soldiers and marines to use the same armour we found was insufficient in 2003?" asked Thomas Hammes, a retired Marine Corps colonel.
okie wrote:So arresting criminals increases crime, so I guess lets get rid of all the police departments and DAs around the country, so crime will go away. Makes perfect sense.
Okie
That's really not the point at all. It is simply that this NIE report (leaked) has revealed that US intel agencies conclude that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist organizations, motivations and therefore the future threat posed to citizens in the US and elsewhere.
This is a serious indictment of Bush administration policies and personnel.
What makes it even more serious is the multitude of voices before the war was begun (from intel, from state, from the military, from non-government agencies and experts, from other nations, etc) who argued against the administration planning for this war PRECISELY because this result loomed so large as a probable consequence.
Theveßen: War der Irak-Krieg ein Fehler in Hinblick auf die Terrorbekämpfung?
Uhrlau: Ich sehe den Irak-Krieg unter dem Gesichtspunkt Terrorbekämpfung schon als einen Fehler. Denn Terroristen hat es vor dem Krieg im Irak nicht gegeben. Das ist ein anderer Ansatz des diktatorischen Regimes von Saddam Hussein gewesen. Islamisten wären immer eine Bedrohung für jeden Staat, der die Religion in die zweite Reihe schickt. Und Selbstmordattentäter sind nicht in der Struktur der irakischen Extremisten gewesen. Der Irak ist eine Plattform, eine Mobilisierungsplattform, und die Chance, die USA dort anzugreifen. Und so fatal es ist: Ein Sieg von Islamisten im Irak wird keiner in Europa sich wünschen können, auch diejenigen, die politisch 2003 das militärische Vorgehen noch nicht für angezeigt hielten.
... international politics and diplomacy...
I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again: you break it, you own it!
So the invasion has brought down all infrastructure, all the control over the country? So militias, not the government or the invasion forces, control Iraq? So Islamic fanatics roam the country freely? So Iraq is a recruiting ground for more terrorists, militants come to Iraq to train and then go back to their home countries, and it appears that Iran rather than anybody else has control over Iraq? Three years post-invasion, no such thing as an effective Iraqi army or police force exists.
I disagree. The Iraqi army and police force are coming along nicely. They aren't ready to handle it all yet but they're already handling a lot of it.
Okay. Then do something about it. Start with: work on a conclusive plan. Apparently, there are not enough troops in Iraq to guarantee effective measures to rule in the violence. In Operation Desert Storm, 660,000 coalition troops were in Iraq, and didn't attempt to take over the country. Now, you have 145,000 US troops (constituting over 90% of the occupation force) in Iraq, and seem to expect that's enough to handle the civil war that's raging there. Therefore, send more troops. If recruiting numbers go down and you don't have enough personnell, introduce the draft in the States. Only when the situation is safe enough for Iraqis to enlist in the police and army forces without risking to be blown up right at the recruiting office, you will ever be able to hand over control to the Iraqis. If America can't do it alone, try to get more nations on board. The quagmire in Iraq is a threat to all Western nations, and if the Bush et aliter hadn't continously pissed off their allies, many would have committed more troops/forces/money/personnell/supplies to reign in the violence in Iraq. If you don't believe this, take a look at the countries which are currently engaged in Afghanistan. So talk to the other Western countries. If that's not enough, try to get a UN resolution for peacekeeping troops. If you think the UN is a toothless tiger and nobody commits troops anyways, take a look at the countries which are currently sending soldiers to Lebanon. Arm your troops appropriately. BS like "you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want" doesn't cut it.
I am always one to agree that overwhelming force is the only way to conduct war. I think we would have been more likely to have done that if every use of force we have used had not been criticized by our European 'friends' and the Leftists in this country. I wish we had ignored the critics and just did it, but the administration bowed to public pressure with disastrous results. (Source: just re-read this thread with all the links that have condemned the USA every time it has gotten really tough.)
Then, let's talk about diplomacy. How come the US still refuses to even talk to Iran? What happened to the "road map" in Israel? And how can you expect other nations to follow obligations and international treaties, if the US President denounces international agreements on biological weapons and on torture and refuses to sign up for an international court to try war criminals? How can you expect support when all you do is continously bash countries who dare to offer a different perspective on international problems than the US one?
What 'road map' in Israel. The United States has a long standing history of not doing business with terrorists or people who have pledged to destroy us. When Iran announces that it wishes to be friends with the US and Israel, we'll talk.
That stuff about "you're either with us or with the terrorists" sounds mighty good when you stand on a pile of rubble and call for revenge, but it's utterly useless as a guideline for international politics and diplomacy.
That stuff about "you're either with us or with the terrorists" sounds mighty good when you stand on a pile of rubble and call for revenge, but it's utterly useless as a guideline for international politics and diplomacy
But whether or not it was a mistake is a bell that cannot now be unrung. We are there.
The question for the American people is whether they want to tuck and run yet again or whether they want to demonstrate that we aren't so easy this time.
And there is the larger picture of the good that has been accomplished and will be accomplished once Iraq is a free and stable nation in the Middle East.
There are those who just want to bash Bush, bash America, and generally be critical about everything. They don't have a clue what should happen now. They just don't like what has happened. Ask them what Bush or America SHOULD DO and they lurch like jumping beans trying to avoid answering that question. It's easy with 20-20 hindsight to say what we shouldn't have done. What we SHOULD DO is a lot tougher.
Our true patriots and friends are ready to deal with what is and do what is the best to do with that.
I am always one to agree that overwhelming force is the only way to conduct war. I think we would have been more likely to have done that if every use of force we have used had not been criticized by our European 'friends' and the Leftists in this country. I wish we had ignored the critics and just did it, but the administration bowed to public pressure with disastrous results. (Source: just re-read this thread with all the links that have condemned the USA every time it has gotten really tough.)
If more Europeans would see the light in terms of the threat as it looms, and help enforce their own U.N. resolutions, as Bush has attempted to do, the situation would be far better than it is.
