SwiftVets.com

[recongrunt]

I'd like to agree with your thesis on victory but I can't. Vietnam is not a free country, we negotiated a "peace with honor" because the American people lost heart. We could do the same thing in this war if Kerry runs the show and or the American people lose heart again.


CW Standiford
3rd Recon/3rd Marines
Vn 67-69

[sore loser]

[Paul]

"I'd like to agree with your thesis on victory but I can't. Vietnam is not a free country, we negotiated a "peace with honor" because the American people lost heart. We could do the same thing in this war if Kerry runs the show and or the American people lose heart again."

Well said RG.

I absolutely agree with this. This is why I say that among the WORST results and consequences of what men like John Kerry and his kind did back in '71 was the political activism that contributed to influencing our Congress to abandon our anti-Communist allies in southeast Asia and ALL of the bad results due to that ever since. Not to mention the Culture War aspect in our nation, especially over the past four decades. The lies of John Kerry and his kind from those movements have become institutionalized in American novels, movies, our educational system, throughout our society, with nothing but bad results. Our young people are formed in this garbage rendition and worst of all taught in a manner so as not to even to question it. And ever since the post-93 Clinton programs, it’s now even entered and is rotting our new politically correct Armed Forces.

I don’t discount the consequence of the United States being seen as lacking integrity and heart ever since we abandoned our allies in the 1970s. And the consequences of our failure of abandoning our allies in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are not restricted to the mid to late ‘70s into the mid ‘80s. The consequences remain for all the world to see today.

For those Vietnam Vets who have been back, then tell me, beside the usual Marxist banners and the renaming of Saigon to "Ho Chi Minh City" and such, how really different is Saigon (or Hue or Da Nang or any other place in the former Republic of Vietnam today from the 1970s? The sorry state of that country is not only a “living shrine” to the failure of it’s Communist Ideologue leaders. It’s a “living shrine” and example to our nation’s abandoning an ally.

The WRONG SIDE Won.
There have been NO good consequences from it. NONE.

Our present-day enemies sure the hell don’t buy this “victory” nonsense. Read the public statements of Osama Bin Laden (not the “spin” put on them by others, left or right) throughout the 1990s and look at that attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on our embassies in the late ‘90s and then 9-11 if you don’t think so. These bastards known perfectly well what happened in southeast Asia 1973 through 1975 and since and they also understand the US population today. Sloganeering and cheap false propaganda will not defeat them or prevent them from attacking us again.

John Kerry will respond if he’s President? So what since there may not be any question or doubt about the location of WMD then (or their residue anyway)? What US President hasn’t “responded” to an attack against us? The question is how? By bombing another worthless aspirin factory?

No few questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq on some substantial and sound reasons (and from all that I saw, I don’t include the left wing “anti-war” movements among them), only to be derided as “defeatist,” “anti-Semitic,” “racist,” you name it, by the pseudo-Marxist neo-cons. But, hey, we did it. We’re there and in contrast to the spin in this thread, all of the previously pent-up movements and groups have been unleashed.

If Iraq is abandoned now, then forget about any rationalizations about our having “won” there either. It will most likely become another frozen-in-time 3rd world waste land like the former Republic of Vietnam, Kingdom of Laos and Cambodia, probably dominated by the Iranians, with diasporas of one group of Iraqis after another, and most likely about as sorry as what the former Republic of Vietnam has been over the decades since due to our Abandoning it 1973 to 1975. Expect the same unchanged pit decades from now.

And if one doesn’t think that kind of “living shrine” to the abandonment of something that we started but lacked the heart or the resolve to finish properly as a result won’t have an impact, then forget it.

'We believed we could change the world,' [speaking of his early post-Naval Service days as an anti-war activist]. 'And you know what? We did. But we're not finished.'"

Senator John Kerry at the Democratic Convention in his acceptance speech when accepting the nomination of the Democratic Party only a couple weeks ago.

Kerry and his kind want to do more damage.

And guys, let’s be honest, this President is waning and he’s been following some sorry advisors. He needs to buck up too and get this organized. This nonsense of arguing the 2002 Congressional vote and of whether or not to invade now in 2004 is irrelevant.

Better George Bush than John Kerry by far, but it can’t end in November.

This nation needs to see through and finish properly what it started last year.

One mistake after another was made in Vietnam 1961 through 1975.

To have fought the Communist insurgencies in southeast Asia was NOT a mistake.

The BIGGEST MISTAKE with the worst consequences for our former allies and our own nation was to have Abandoned our allies.
_________________
Paul

[sore loser]

[Paul]

Hi SL:

Sorry, I almost missed this. I'm 'running my fingers' in too many strings I think

"No Peace, No Honor", or something like that. . . it sounds like you read it too.” {SL}

No. I haven’t read this book. I haven’t seen it either. I’m not aware of it or familiar with it.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“Actually, whether one calls it a 3rd, 4th, or finds a way to call it a 5th, 6th or 7th war in 1975, it’s all Bull and no different from the old Communist propaganda of it being a new war in ’75 when it was not. The north Vietnamese violated the ’73 Cease fire routinely after it was signed and then the US failed to honor it’s promises and then abandoned it’s allies.” {Paul}

”You and others keep talking about this 3rd and 4th etc I've never heard of it until recently. What does it mean??” {SL}

After I responded to the message that kicked off this string and that claims a “4th” and unique war ought in 1975 between the Republic of Vietnam (south) and the People’s Republic of Vietnam (north), then I got to thinking harder about it. Prior to this then most of the variations that I’d seen on based on the supposition that 1975 constituted a new and unique war, referred to it as a “3rd war”.

Vietnam’s post-75 rendition that was developed upon it's previous false propaganda all the way back to the 1950s is that 1975 constituted a unique war from all previous fighting that it refers to as the final war of re-unification (which even the claim of an historic “re-unification” of south and north Vietnam –traditional regions of Tonkin, Cochinchina and Amman- made by the Marxist-Leninist Communist government is arguable).

Speaking with younger folks these days and looking around, this seems to be a common presentation in many university history departments by some professors as well as among the more pro-Hanoi crowds.

The basis is a claim of there having been three distinct wars: The first being The French Indochina war of 1945 through 1954 ended by the Geneva Accords. The second being an “American War” of 1965 through 1973 ended by the 1973 Cease Fire signed by most of the various parties in Paris but referred to as a Peace Treaty (and claimed as a north Vietnamese victory by the current government of Vietnam and most of the apologists for this version or its variants that I’ve seen). And then a Third War in 1975 between north and south Vietnam alone in which the north was triumphant in its effort to “re-unify” the nation.

Obviously, and for the reasons I’ve given, I reject the claim that American involvement ended formally in 1973 due to a Peace Treaty ending a war (that was never declared a war to begin with) and 1975 constituting a unique war between only south and north Vietnam, or that the whole thing was only a “civil war.” Regardless if it’s the left-wing pro-Hanoi versions that claim victory in each “distinct” war for north Vietnam or any of the newly emerging pseudo-left wring Right winger versions claiming victory for the US.

For myself, one false version is as bad as another, and fundamentally they all rely upon the premise and basis established by north Vietnamese false propaganda that it developed and promulgated over the course of it's 1954 through 1975 invasion and conquest of south Vietnam.

I'll concede that the French Indochina War was unique having been a confederation of nationalist movements united as the Viet Minh against the French. The communists under Ho Chi Minh were one among numerous movements that comprised the confederation. After the French withdrawal in '54, then "Uncle Ho" and the Communists among the Viet Minh in the north set about eliminating all the leaders of the other nationalist movements of the confederation and then Soviet-backed and Soviet and People's Republic of China supplied north Vietnam began it's conquest of south Vietnam, and what was previously French Indochina beginning in the newly established Kingdom of Laos. . . .
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“Again, the cause I believe was right, and arguably so. The political conduct of the US effort in southeast Asia from '61 on, I'll never defend.” {Paul}

”Good choice, I happen to think it's indefensible also.” {SL}

My main reason is that there’s a big difference between the fact that US forces never suffered a tactical defeat in any major battle or operation and routinely inflicted tactical battlefield defeats on the North Vietnamese in every major battle and every one of their Offensives (whether their Viet Cong units in the south or regular army units from the north) and claiming an overall Strategic “victory” (ie. "win") of some kind in that undeclared war, routinely referred to as a conflict.

The foundation of American policy preceded the beginning of the large troop buildup that begain in '61 all the way back to the Truman Doctrine: to stop Communist aggression. Post-61, that was applied in particular to southeast Asia and the Republic of Vietnam even when military and naval strategies and tactics were modified.

1961 to late '64 early '65 the US buildup rose from 700 staff Advisors to upwards of 24,000 that included a predominance of Special Forces field personnel '61 to early '65 and the military strategy in the RVN was predominantly one of pacification via various anti-insurgent tactics on the part of the US forces and RVN. The strategies and tactics were changed post '65 to eliminating and pushing out NVA and VC main force units within the borders of the RVN while employing pacification and anti-insurgent efforts coupled with Limited Strategic bombing of specific targets in the north, gradually increased, all so as to compel the north Vietnamese to a negotiated settlement. '68 to early '72 the bombing in the north was stopped. Late '69 through '73 was the Vietnamization strategy --push the last NVA main force units out of the country, destroy the north Vietnamese bases in Laos and Cambodia, build up RVN armed forces facilities, withdraw US ground forces and turn the resistance of the PRVN invasion over to the RVN [not a perfect summary of these periods, I admit].

But through it all, in spite of changes in military and naval stratagies and tactics, the US never declared any intention to "win" anything. After the violation of the '73 cease fire our government chose not to keep our promises, reduced the aid that was promised and abandoned our allies who were overrun in the RVN in '75, followed by the Kingdom of Laos and then Cambodia.

Frankly, even by the policy that was routinely stated by the US, I don’t see how any one can claim or even rationalize a strategic overall victory or win of any kind for the United States, for obvious concrete reasons, some of which that have been given by a few of us in this string.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Hi SL:

“I’ve seen it claimed that a greater tonnage of ordnance was carried by A-6 Intruders than B-52s.” {Paul}

“I wouldn't know if what you say is true about A6's carrying more tonnage than B52s, but I wouldn't be surprised either if it was the case.” {SL}

I’ve seen this stated in at least four different places, a couple that are known for verifying their data. However, the wording of the statement in three of them was identical and I’ve never seen an actual tonnage stated by way of contrast by anyone. One reason I don't personally state it as an absolute fact. For all I know, it was stated somewhere and now everybody is quoting the same statement by each other after it began with that same initial source. Hence my only saying that I’ve seen it claimed. I really don’t know with any real certainty myself. But, like you, given the capacity of the A-6 and its use throughout the war, then I wouldn’t be surprised either. To be honest, I won’t be surprised if five years from now it’s determined that this claim isn’t accurate either. I don't know with reasonable certainty one way or the other.

As to dumping ordnance from cancelled missions, then I only added that one as a small example to point out that total tonnage that so frequently gets quoted, doesn't by itself say a lot. One could also point out that not all of the flights, including B-52s, were dedicated solely to the strategic air campaign headed by CinCPac. I didn’t state it, but of course there were the flights in support of the big ground operations headed by MACV and other operations against main force units, both VC and NVA.

When I look at it over the course of years of Rolling Thunder, especially '65 through '68 when bombing in the north was stopped, then it's interesting to see the limited targets as the campaign was "expanded" and to see just how many targets were off limits. Not to mention all of the various halts in the strategic bombing and the reasons given for them.

“While A6 jockeys did ditch ordinance into the sea sometimes, I think that would've been the exception, rather than the rule. As accurate as the A6 was . . . “

This is a point about restrictions on naval aviators in Vietnam that I’ve seen brought up by former A-6 drivers who flew strikes in Vietnam.

You’re right about the accuracy of the A-6, although, I wouldn’t think that cancellation of a particular mission would be due to problems with accuracy due to the aircraft but for any number of reasons, including heavier surface to air defenses than expected or unexpected PRVN MiG activity (especially in the case of the subsonic, unarmed A-6) or change in a orders from “intelligence” or whatever . . .

After the A-6s and A-7s that made the raid into the Bakaa Valley in ’83 were chewed up by the Syrians, that brought an end to subsequent attack strikes off of the Kennedy. In fairness to those guys, that raid was largely forced on them with short notice. The navy wanted to use the New Jersey for the task, but the orders came from Washington for an immediate air strike instead (again, why such mirco-management from “afar” in tactical matters, only God knows. . . In addtion to the aviators killed because of it, then “Strategically” it sure as hell didn’t turn out very well either in the subsequent mess of getting the guy home who was captured and all of the television coverage of Donald Rumsfeld sent as special negotiator and Jesse Jackson. . . ).

After they were ordered to make the air raid, I understand that a quick plan was put together that was essentially a modified Alpha Strike from Vietnam era days, more than ten years prior by then: coming in off the coast at about 10,000 feet, and then a quick drop in elevation coming in over the beach. Apparently the Syrian gunners were ready for them.

After that failure, then in every action after that where the navy was used off Lebanon, the New Jersey was used as originally suggested, with the results of chewing up half-a-dozen or more Syrian batteries and silencing all of the others each time she was, and with no losses to our people as a result.

Another example, and more apt being one of missions en-route against a specific target when cancelled, that I’m personally familiar with would be the A-6 and A-7 strikes on Libya in March ’86 (not the April raid). A number of strikes were cancelled when the planes were detected by the Libyans and the element of surprise that was part of the planning was lost.

By the way, if you’re not familiar, then the “short notice” wasn’t just used as an excuse for what resulted in Lebanon in ‘83. You may be familiar that in the late ‘60s a study was done of US Fighter pilots due to the radical and steady drop in performance from the ‘50s and early ‘60s. The enemy-US kill ratio had dropped from greater than 12 to like 2-1, if memory serves correctly. Quite dramatic.

Whether or not that was due to the enemy only getting better, than who knows unless it’s looked into? From the results of the study released I think in '69, those conducting it believed that Fighter pilots’ training was not keeping pace with technological advancements of the aircraft. For the navy, that resulted in establishing the Top Gun program for pilots outside Miramar NAS in 1970. The Air Force established a similar program for their Fighter Pilots a few years later. That resulted in bringing the performance of Fighter pilots back up to the 1950s levels, as any foreign pilot stupid enough to go against Tomcat drivers over the course of the the ‘80s learned, one time after another, and as the results of our people’s performance in exercises with allies routinely demonstrated.

After ’83, the navy recognized a problem and established the program for strike aviators at Fallon NAS in Nevada based on the Top Gun model for the Fighter pilots. As I understand it, strike squadrons spent six weeks there prior to every overseas deployment to review and test new tactics. The strike aviators more than demonstrated the good results of it in March and April ’86 in Libya and then again in ’91 in Iraq.

I bring that up because I’m concerned at seeing the apparent decline in performance of US air forces, military and naval, through the ‘90s into the present. In 2000 the Israeli air forces (who really haven’t seen serious air combat since the early ‘80s) chewed our people up in an exercise and this year the Indian air forces did the same. And all I hear coming out of the Pentagon press releases is one rationalization after another. One would hope that they're working the problem and not just rationalizing, because something like this needs to be looked at objectively and not only rationalized. But from the trend, and from the responses to the increased accidents and such following the post-93 changes and purges in naval aviation, then I don't beieve that it's reasonable to merely assume that they are. . .

Anyway, I don’t think missions were scrubbed only due to “accuracy” of the aircraft and only point out what I’ve seen pointed out by some A-6 drivers who flew in Vietnam that the most common policy during the Vietnam era was restricting the planes to the specific target and of dropping the ordnance into the sea if the mission was canceled while they were in the air sometime rather than allowing pilot discretion for targets of opportunity. In the Strategic bombing campaign the targets were determined politically and the strategy forced to be formed by civilian leadership.

Total tonnage due to this won’t be answered by pilots or aircrews from any of the years the A-6 was used in southeast Asia. It can’t be, there’s just not enough information for any one person to answer what total tonnage was.

This is a tally kind of task for the guy good at that sort of thing. Perhaps this has already been studied in depth by someone. Given that it’s aviation, then possibly fairly accurate records were kept in after-action reports and a decent estimate has either already been made or one can be made by someone someday even if one doesn’t exist. At the same time, I suspect that maintaining records of the actual tonnage dropped into the sea due to this probably wasn’t high on the pilot’s “to do list” at the time and this will always be an estimate; at this point-in-time, possibly on the order of a SWAG. Again, even the estimated accuracy of the estimate will be for the researchers to work out. These are questions I sure can't answer and can't just be rationalized or reasoned out. Apparently it was common enough for former aviators who flew the missions to bring up.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“your going to ROTC." {SL}

Sorry, I can’t let this pass: You’re showing your age and possibly the bad company of your youth with this one!

“When Desert Shield started, my oldest son was 15 at the time. After some discussion about the impending war, he said "I guess if this is still going on when I turn 18, I'll have to register for the draft." I replied that war or not he was signing up for the draft when he turned 18, freedom isn't free, me and millions of others had done our duty, and the expectation is that he will do his duty if called. I then added "But if this is still going on when you turn 18, your going to ROTC." His face lit up and asked "Then you want me to be an officer?" "No" says I, "You'll Run Off To Canada, and I'll take you there myself. If they are still dinking aroound with this guy by then, their not trying to win the war, and I'll not allow them to do to you, what they did to me." I eventually ended up in Canada anyway engineering the Light Armored Vehicles, the predecessor to todays Stryker LAV. The US and Canada have an agreement where Draft Dodgers, those not smart enough to do it Clinton's way, can be extradited back to the US now.” {SL}


I understand what you’re saying perfectly about a concern back in ’91, if Iraq ’91 should have dragged on. . . . Hey, I’ll be honest, I voted against Clinton in ’92 in no small way for a reply he made to a question in a “town hall meeting” that due to the Cold War, he believed the US was unable to US forces abroad in ways the he would have liked. As far as I was concerned, his subsequent policies and the following use of our armed forces in one place after another that I don’t believe we should have allowed under the guy justified my unease at the statement. Personally, I’m not happy at all that over the course of the last 16 years our people have constituted the lion’s share of personnel in UN missions.

The current mess in Iraq, really bothers. I strongly questioned the soundness of the principles used to justify invading Iraq and also the prudence of doing it? It’s rubbish and without precedent in our history to call an invasion of another country an act of liberation. I don’t see the actual results as anyway similar to their conquests, but if this can even be called a principle (which I believe would be overly generous to do), then it’s an unsound one. “Wars of national Liberation” were how the Soviets described their lousy activities throughout the Cold War.

Pre-emptive strikes aren’t anything new, tactically speaking, however, as a national policy, strategic doctrine, and / or principle employed to justify invading another country, then again, it’s unprecedented, and I believe unsound. It’s too close to the People’s Republic of China military and naval doctrine of Active Defense and how that country has employed it in the past, especially against India, the Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of Vietnam (with the exception that the Chinese don’t give a damn about any “reconstruction” efforts following their applications of it, except for what they keep afterward – it would be a gross exaggeration to call the actions themselves anywhere near the same or similar, but the principle itself is essentially identical).

The shabby treatment of and mere reactions against many particular individuals who questioned invading Iraq back in 2002 did bother me. Most that I heard personally from the anti-war crowd on the left was mostly nonsense and whatever they could grasp onto. There were at least some few others asking some particular and sound questions and raising substantial points against it. I agree with former Secretary of the Navy James Webb, their subsequent treatment as a consequence was miserable.

After that, the ineptitude in the post-invasion reconstruction effort strikes me as inexcusable given the time for planning. I’m not pissing and moaning that it’s not perfect. I just don’t see that it was even competent right from the post-invasion start, except for the tactical skills of the combat brigades and the Marines. The current situation as a result of our invasion is a real mess.

Hey, even withdrawal is way easier said then done when in the middle of a destabilized nation with active insurgencies. And that’s not a new lesson, and one recognized well before even the 1950s.

Listening to the replies from members of the administration that there’s no problem with manning levels or threat to wearing out our people, and then looking at such as the extension of rotations, the quick retraining of some Guard units as MPs, the “blue to green” recruiting program to encourage sailors and air forces to enlist in the army following the personnel cuts in the navy and air force that will result because the bean counters determined this year that those branches are over-manned, and such as the “stop loss” program, and all the continued vague sloganeering, just what exactly is our policy and our goals for Iraq, what are we doing and how are we expect to meet them?

I’ve heard it suggested that the Russians may join the US in Iraq and get involved, but, hey, one hears one thing after another these days. . .

And this is just Iraq. There’s plenty of other questions about a lot else too, both regarding our foreign policies, the so-called GWAT and the new structure of our armed forces and the kind of commitments of them by the US to the UN efforts. .

From what I’ve seen of the 2002 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, then much in the policy looks to me like an institutionalization of the use of our armed forces during the Clinton years. . .

War or peace where the Islamic Para-military NGO movements declaring war against us and initiating terrorist attacks are concerned, then I don’t believe is an option. It only takes one for a state of war to exist. How it’s been conducted and how it’s going to be fought are the real questions, and I think there’s a lot to ask?

The term “war” gets thrown around a lot. But a formal one hasn’t been declared.

At the same time, there’s others in this world are competitors and who potentially would make themselves our enemies. All together reasons that I don’t understand at all our heaping on the debt from questionable social spending, the amnesty for Illegal Aliens (that supposedly isn’t an amnesty) or job line for foreigners, the lack of reaction to the last of our manufacturing flowing out of the nation, the loss of high-tech service industries doing the same. . . I’m not a Libertarian, I just don’t see the combination of all of this as boding at all well for the future; rather, more destabilizing. How is that going to help?

Hey, I’m a peon, and this is all very complex with inter-related variables. . . But,
truth to tell, this all looks like one big mess and after General Franks’ latest
statements in reply to questions posed to him don’t impress me in the least. :

Q. What's going to happen in Iraq? How were we caught so off guard by the insurgency?

A: I'm not sure we were caught off guard. It seems to me we just have to adjust our expectations. We just better buckle up and get ready for three to five years of pretty hard work in there.

Q. How will the miscalculation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) affect our future ability to go to war pre-emptively?

A: I have described it by saying: When you look at the terrorist threat we face, we have a multiple-choice test. The multiple-choice answers are: We get them there, or we fight them here.

This has created a public dialogue on the doctrine of pre-emption. America will come together on this point. We will fight them over there.

It has yet to be determined what the real impact (of the intelligence failure in Iraq) was. Heck, I was wrong. I am not sure there was anybody more surprised than myself. We absolutely believed we would see WMD.

Q. Now that you've been in two wars in the past three years, what do you think is the best way to defeat al-Qaeda and the threat from radical Islam?

A: Our work against terrorism is going to begin with intelligence. Better intelligence than we have had, more capable, better clandestine work. It needs to be more robust, more capable. That is the absolute key.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040813/6450672s.htm

I just saw the announcement for troop re-locations from Europe and Asia last night, and see that it’s supposed to be addressed at the RNC in a few weeks. I’ll be very curious to hear just what’s said.

What’s happening inside Iraq, I’m not so sure is a repeat of the physical situation in Vietnam ’54 through ‘75. Whether an insurgency of the kind by an outside nation as north Vietnam developed '59 through early '65 is developing there, I can't possibly know. But I do wonder about Iran and if we haven't possibly stupidly provided the opportunity for them for something similar? After that, a lot of the policies, actions, even statements of our present government "leaders" (and I'm bi-lateral in my disgust at the gutless wonders in this regard) sure are similar to some by some of their predecessors over points in time over that period. And this bunch strike me as pretty slow at learning or adjusting.

I doubt that you meant to get me started with this kind of verbosity and on this tangent, but, I do understand the concerns about watching something get out of hand and drag on. Obviously, even as a rank amateur, I don't like what I'm seeing and question just what in the world we're doing?

And Franks' other reply to a question that the important thins is everyone has bumper stickers that say "we support our troops" is put BS.

I don't kid myself. Like I said in a discussion with a Kerry Supporter mouthing that rot, I honestly probably don't do a damn thing to support our troops, other than keeping with my nephew while he was Afghanistan, and with friends in the Guard and a pal whose brother was with the 101s in Afghanistan and then Iraq. Personally, I don't count shopping and didn't a even a moment's thought to following the incredibly stupid suggestion of buying duck tape and plastic bags last year. . . Personally, I believe there's nothing wrong with shows of support and patriotism. But mere mouthing of cheap slogans I don't count much either.

What I want to know is regarding support of the War Effort.
In particular, is there a War Effort given that we haven't formally declared a war? So what exactly is the War Effort? And what's our role as citizens other the bumper stickers Franks' is too easily impressed by?
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Q. Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was criticized by Rumsfeld for his comments last year that we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to stabilize Iraq. Was Shinseki right?

A: Have you seen 250,000 Americans in there yet? Yet we have hyped this beyond belief. . . . (Shinseki's) concern was that it might take lots and lots of troops in there. But the fact is that the prediction that Don Rumsfeld rose up to was 250,000 to 300,000 Americans. It doesn't mean (Shinseki) was wrong. It just means we have to stay away from hyperbole.

I'm sorry, but what kind of an answer is this?

No. We don't see these troops levels in Iraq, we only the same levels and troops on the ground having thier rotation times extended. We only see a couple insurgencies whose fighters have raised terrorist and guerilla offensives months after General Shinseki made his statements about inadequate troops levels. So what's the point that General Franks is making in only pointing out that the recommendation of a commanding general in a theatre of hostilities was not followed?

It's at least fair to ask if just maybe we wouldn't be seeing this if the recommendation was followed, no?

General Franks seems to love the word "hyperbole." Frankly, I'm coming to believe he's overusing it. His answer here is only the kind of answer that avoids an answer. I believe that it's pathetic. And I know the definition of hyperbole and I don't believe that "pathetic" or asking the above questions fall within the definition in this case.

Anyway, it's General Shinseki's statements last year and the situation since that also leave me wondering.

As to General Franks, then officially he's nothing at the moment since he's retired. So I don't associate this with answer by him with our government. But the more I hear from General Franks then the less impressed I become with the guy. Geez. I'm wondering if maybe General Franks isn't planning to run for office sometime? I'm pretty sure that I won't buying a copy of his just published almost 600 page autobiography either. . .
_________________
Paul

[sore loser]

This requires a reply too long to write at work at lunch, but standby Paul, my reply is on the way. I definately got some things to say and questions to ask too. With my schedule this week, it may take a couple of days.
_________________
The Supercarrier.
95,000 tons of diplomacy.
4.5 acres of sovereign US territory.
Any time. Any place.
CVAN-65 and VA-196
The Big "E" and The Main Battery

[one more captins mast]

Guys remember all the "stuff" used aginst us , was "made by commies

for commies" the Russians , China, North Korea, the East Block, all


spent their best "gold", and production and effort to dislodge you from


Ka San, the Delta, the Highlands, every little village and hamlet we

were in and it used them up. The Igloo White thing tracked them

down like the little dots they are, the big old "we will last forever

B-52's (even with LBJ sending them to the wrong place at the last min)

splattered all the Russian empires "gold" all over the jungles of

Asia, and they never recovered.

Giap knew when he died, Whore/who/****/men knew when he died.

They knew inside were it counts, they lied to themselfs and others

just like Kerry etal have done and will continue to do.

History on the other hand is Real and it will record the where and

the when, as these little liers that have the "microphone" at this

point will also die and they will die knowing they lied all the way

and the Real History written later will marvel that the low road they

chose. Worse yet they turn their heads as the little children of

the Vietnams, scratch in the dirt for "pennys" left in the dirt

at the "base camps" we used, for money for food , and they have

no hope , none, except that all the old mean commies die and

it all goes away like the bad dream it must have been.
_________________
the strange mr aj

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Strange Mr. AJ,

Sometimes you make too much sense.

Welcome home, brother. You're among friends, here.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[Paul]

"standby Paul, my reply is on the way" {SL}

Hi SL:

I apologize. I should have acknowledged your note.

So, just in case, be sure that I haven't been ignoring you. I saw your reply, understood, and then held off to wait while 'running off my big fingers' on Subic in that string. . .

Just a note, in case my lack of a reply might have been misunderstood as disinterest or ignoring you on my part. Not at all!

Again, I apologize for not acknowledging your note when you posted it.
_________________
Paul

[sore loser]

Sorry this took so long Paul, but I've had to recover from a crashed hard drive. Not quite there yet.