posted
Some of you may recognize the name, P.X. Kelly. General Kelly was Commandant of the USMC from 1983 thru 1987.
General Kelly is a much beloved and respected Marine, highly decorated from two wars.
He has written a very short but poignant commentary to the editor of the Washington Post.
All politics aside, it would behoove us all to read and heed the General's words:
Don't Give Terrorists a Timetable
Tuesday, November 22, 2005; Page A28
One of the most critical issues that members of Congress must address is the wisdom of setting a schedule for our continued presence in Iraq. In this regard, I would hope that they would look back to September 1983, when both houses of Congress held War Powers Act hearings on our presence in Beirut as part of a multinational force. I asked Congress then not to set a schedule for our withdrawal from war-torn Lebanon. I said, "If the time is too short, our enemies will wait us out; if it is too long, they will drive us out."
My warning was ignored, and Congress passed a law that said that Marines would stay for 18 more months. That in essence told the Iranians, the Syrians, the Druze and the newly organized Hezbollah: "Put your plans on hold for a year and a half."
On Oct. 23, 1983, they gave us their answer -- an 18-ton truck carrying the equivalent of 18,000 pounds of TNT smashed into the headquarters of Battalion Landing Team 2/8, and 241 of our most precious sons, who had done nothing more than try to restore peace to a troubled country, were murdered.
My message to Congress is simple: Never tell your enemies your plans. Ambiguity in war is essential.
My personal message to our enemies is equally simple: If you continue your barbaric acts of terrorism, you eventually will be punished -- count on it.
Let me close by reminding all Americans of the mission given to Muslim terrorists by Osama bin Laden in 2001: "By God's leave, we call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward to obey God's command to kill the Americans and plunder their possessions wherever he finds them and whenever he can."
Important point, we don't want timetables to be used by the Terrorists who want to attack us or our allies.
Seems the question raised is are we fighting the bulk of THOSE terrorists in Iraq.. or have we done as much as we can there, and also incited a united opposition (the insurgents)..who are fighting the occupation..the occupation itself has clearly become a catalyst for violence, despite the good work and gains from many targeted efforts within the country.
We are fighting terrorists there now, just not the ones who attacked us..
tho new ones are breeding in Iraq who do want to now..calling themselves 'alQueada of Iraq' and they hit Jordan.
-- yet others are growing and training in several other locations. So then IMO don;t we need to focus on all the cells.. in Iraq and other countries and maybe the ground effort has gone as far as it can (why fight the insurgency anymore if they are fighting the occupation..go after the Terror cells globally)
As far as a timetable, I was going to ask what you thought about perhaps guidelines as far as transitioning out of Iraq, with specific conditions to meet..
and rather than announcing them, having a closed Congress to oversee where things are along the way, if conditions are being met..or if new ones propose new obstacles..ect..
Because..it has become unacceptable to simply take Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's "Shut up and trust us, you're unAmerican to ask..we'll leave when we say we should"
Which has been the stance for so long, whithout results administratively to stand behind that..
aside from the fact that it goes against the fundamantals of a Democratic society.
If that is the stance, there has to be some oversight and accountability for the leadership roles, right? You have to admit these administrators have the shadow of doubt cast over them for several reasons to date...at least enough to require accountability.
Meanwhile..in a new development today the admin has turned around announced they are planning a pullout of 50,000 troops next year, and some redeployment to Kuwait in case the Iraqis need us again..
which is a complete about face from the 'Generation' of War Bush spoke about up until recently, even what they were saying last week in resoponse to the public confrontations and Congress push for a plan.
I don't get it, this sounds allot like Murtha's proposal..
What do you think about their announcement?
Moreover, I wonder what you think about the posibility that military efforts in the War on Terror would be better focused elsewhere at this time..
if the Iraqis want Democracy..let them fight for it. If they want to split into three states.. let them do it.
Conflicts between the Sunni, Shiite and Kurds go hundreds of years back.. many speculate they will not be able to function under one body.
Maybe we have done all we can on the ground there, and we could do better organizing specialized missions to address Al-Qaeda where they are operating..
a new strategy that is not a ground operation for a new kind of enemy that does not reside in one place and was not strongly based in Iraq pre-War..
but for that we need strong allies willing to be involved and to fork up some money.
George senior had that when he went into Kuwait.. don't you think we could use more help?
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
Let me digest your post and I'll get back to you later tonight.
IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
``Seems the question raised is are we fighting the bulk of THOSE terrorists in Iraq..
THOSE terrorists in Iraq... I just don't see how we can distinguish between terrorists in Iraq, terrorists in Beirut in 1983, terrorists in Dhahran in 1996, terrorists in Kenya or Tanzania in 1998. Or even the terrorists that lived in America prior to their attacks in NYC in February 1993 and their subsequent flights in September 2001.
All of the groups we are fighting and have been since the late '70s are Muslims - Islamic terrorists. They are not a single race of people, they are by birth Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi, Pakistani, Syrian, Russian, and so on and so on, etc.
They, as a religious group, have declared war against all people who don't claim their spiritual inheritance from Allah. They are without doubt extremists, but they are Islamic extremists nontheless. We have to fight them where we're able, currently we are able to find a very large number of them in Iraq.
Regardless of the political correctness of the day, it is a fact that the current crop of enemy combatants do believe that if they die fighting in a ``Holy War'' against infidels, they will be granted immediate passage to their paradise. We are just trying to assist them in their speedy trip.
``the occupation itself has clearly become a catalyst for violence''
I don't agree, at least from my perspective. The catalyst for violence is their religious dogma that calls for the death of all non-believers. That violence began, at least for the U.S., as far back as 1979 when Muslim extremists took over our Embassy in Tehran and held our citizens as hostages.
From my study of the world events, it has not let up much since that time. These people do not need a catalyst, they already have one - world domination.
The ``occupation'' (your word not mine) has only served to allow them to concentrate their efforts to kill as many Americans as they can. They are also using the ``occupation'' as a rallying cry to their faithful to rise up and assist in the ``Holy War''. If it weren't in Iraq, it would be somewhere else, maybe even in NYC or LA, who knows.
So after all that rambling I guess my answer to your question; ``have we done as much as we can there''
My answer would have to be: Absolutely Not
``tho new ones are breeding in Iraq who do want to now..calling themselves 'alQueada of Iraq' and they hit Jordan.''
I'm not clear on your point here, but let me say, they can call themselves what they want, they are Islamic terrorists by any other name. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they ``hit Jordan''. Jordan has been a fair-weather ally of the U.S. It only stands to reason that they would love to make that change. (See train bombing in Madrid for prime example).
``So then IMO don;t we need to focus on all the cells..in Iraq and other countries''
I think I may have said this before, but here goes anyway: there's a very clear mission to ground forces in combat - ``Locate the enemy, get a fix on his position, close on that position and kill him''.
We have located the enemy, we on many occasions are able to get a fix on his position, when we do, we close on that position and we kill as many as we can. At the same time we do so while allowing for the fewest number of our own casualties.
George Patton: The role of the American fighting man is not to die for his country, it is to get the other bastard to die for his. In this case we're helping our enemy die for his God, not his country.
``(why fight the insurgency anymore if they are fighting the occupation..go after the Terror cells globally)''
Of course the insurgency is fighting the ``occupation'', they have a fix on their enemy, we're right there where he can find us. Going after Terror cells globally is not practical. We have in the military a concept called, Span of Control. We cannot spread our forces thin enough to fight this war on more than one or two fronts.
Going after the enemy on a global basis would be beyond difficult. In would seem to do that we would not be able to afford to be reactive, we'd have to much more proactive. Our intel would have to be such that we had some probability of disrupting terror cells before they attack, that's pretty small scale, one at a time.
I personally would much prefer to have them come to me, which they're doing in Iraq as we speak.
``As far as a timetable, I was going to ask what you thought about perhaps ...''
You know I think I'll leave that one to the military planners. I do think, however, that we don't want to get this thing into a war by committee. Having the U.S. Congress making decisions on how to prosecute any war, just doesn't make much sense to me. I just don't see that bunch being able to keep their mouth's shut and not broadcast our intentions to the world for more than a few minutes.
I did like what P.X. Kelly had to say about the subject. Basically never tell your enemy what you're thinking. Timetables are necessary, I'm just not sure everyone must know what they are, to include the American people. It's unfortunate, but in my mind a necessary evil. Not everyone in this country is a loyal citizen to our cause.
It is very possible that the administration has a timetable, it is also possible that that timetable has been established by the military command staff and very possible that the timetable is event driven rather than date driven. It is possible.
``Because..it has become unacceptable to simply take Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's, "Shut up and trust us, you're unAmerican to ask..we'll leave when we say we should"
I'm just not sure that's what is being said, although I could be wrong. It appears to me that they are pretty much allowing the war to be planned and executed by the commanders in the field. I would hope that we could believe that the executive branch's intentions are honorable. I'm not a real big Rumsfeld guy, but I do believe we're at least seeing a similar situation as we had with GW's dad and we're allowing the military command structure do its job.
``Which has been the stance for so long, whithout results administratively to stand behind that.. aside from the fact that it goes against the fundamantals of a Democratic society. ``
I'm sorry I don't want you to think I'm hedging or dodging the issue but I just feel that's too political for me. Like I said in earlier posts, my private politics are just that - private. I'll leave that kind of stuff to others to decide. I voiced my opinion a couple years ago with my absentee ballot.
``Meanwhile..in a new development today the admin has turned around announced they are planning a pullout of 50,000 troops next year.....''
Again, too political for me.
``I don't get it, this sounds allot like Murtha's proposal..''
I've been thinking about Colonel Murtha's speech quite a bit since you asked me about it. I have reread the transcript of his first speech and I've come to this conclusion. I really believe the Colonel was saying that it was his perception that the American people were no longer willing to support the war in Iraq. I believe it is his feelings that if that is so, then there's no way we can prosecute the war effectively and if we can't win it, let's bring them home sooner than later.
I think I wrote you about my feelings similar to his. We can not defeat terrorism if we don't do sa as a united people. I truly believe if you were able to talk to Colonel Murtha personally and you were to ask him; Sir, if we could bring our people together, united in our cause to defeat this terrorist enemy in Iraq, would you support that effort? I'm quite confident his answer would be a resounding - YES.
``if the Iraqis want Democracy.... many speculate they will not be able to function under one body.''
Here's another cop-out, but this kind of stuff is beyond my pay-grade. Like I've said, my point-of-view is really narrow. I believe we have the enemy, at least a large number of them, concentrated in a very small area, globally speaking. We are defeating him on the battle field, in fact, if we were given enough troops to even slow his infiltration routes, we could really reduce his numbers.
``Maybe we have done all we can on the ground there, ...''
Asked and Answered.
``but for that we need strong allies willing to be involved and to fork up some money.''
Too political for me again. Strong allies, not sure they exist. Allies willing to fork over money, even fewer. When the rubber meets the road, (as we say, when the defecation hits the rotating oscillator), we've been shown our true friends and they stood up well before our move across the border from Kuwait.
``George senior had that when he went into Kuwait..don't you think we could use more help?''
With Mr Bush senior I had my first combat experience, didn't like it, still don't. That one was much different than this one, at least from a grunts point-of-view, Strat-Air & Tac-Air pretty well crushed the enemy. Remember the enemy had a fixed location, easy to close on and easier to destroy. We had plenty of help, but honestly outside the Brits, Aussies, and a few others, the help was pretty token.
Mr Bush made a tactical error however, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this one. It is my opinion that we should have crushed the enemy when we had the change, but our leadership deemed otherwise. I just don't think either option would have prevented the current war we're trying to win. Terrorism worldwide did not start and end with Desert Storm or with Sadam Huessin.
Hey its been interesting. Thanks for the change to think and respond.
You've given me allot to think about. I guess I'm just not used to a discusion in these parts.. the great abiss of OT on Lymenet..
LabRat's correct in his twisted view (term of endearment, you'd have to be around to know ) his point that I am 'outnumbered' at the moment.
but how fruitless our 'discussions' have been, because questions themsleves are roundly criticized, not spoken to. You 're a class act Ojai.. quite something and I'm glad you have shared you're views here.
The higher officials in the White House could use some insights from the likes of you in regard to communication I must say..It really has been what I described above, from a civillian perspective.. you either have to agree without much substance to go on (and many issues raise doubt on fronts both domestic and War related, but you have been clear you do not want to get 'political, and I respect that).. we are not being offered much here -- and I think that has been a big part of the resulting divide that you see as undermining the potential of this effort.
and let me be clear.. I do not think the American people should know the details, timetable, ect..
and I surely don't think Congress should be planning the War, God no!!
Simply that they should probably follow an appropriate and somewhat closed report of progress and plans.
In line, the American people should know what is appropriate for them to know............
look -- the Great Divide is not the fault of the supposed 'ignorant anti-War' folk.
If anything productive can come out of this discussion, I guess I want to focus on that.
Meaning -- to get a message across regarding my personal view, much of which I share in large part with others here in NY questioning the War.. so you may see the validity in at least the questions..that it is not an 'opposition' to the military at all.
Also perhaps to note, that it is our elected officials who have contributed to this divide.
Ugh -- have no idea if I am making sence..so it's easier to just get really into a personal view, as you did. Admitedly, I cry over roadkill and sad songs and what I envision is going on Over There.. but despite all that there concrete concerns ..
We get bombed..towers fall, death, stench, smoke, ash for weeks.. sheer terror..
everyone I know, and I mean everyone.. when Bush got on the bullhorn, was behind him. So in shock and awe and looking to these guys and what they said.
They were going to get them and get them good.
To be honest, for reason's very particular, I was not a fan of Mr. Bush, but I was behind him then. We all were.
fast forward to today and we feel betrayed.
There are too many 'political particulars' for me to use to illustrate that, and I don;t think you should be bothered with them. Some handiling of this War, some domestic..
but the leadership began to draw lines and use division to garner support, no doubt.
There is, here at home, an air of Facism rather than Conservaticizm. (Don't challange me on spelling, please, I suck at it.)
OK - so you probaly still think we in 'opposition' just don't get it..
and there is just too much to cover..allot of which is not and should not be in your view as an honored and active serviceman..
so I'll get to particulars regarding the threat we face.
I understand and am thinking allot about your view that in Iraq.. they are sort of creating a magnet in a frontline battle, where many of the terrorists will come to you..
and there, with an organized and concentrated base you can defeat them.
20 to one..
no doubt. You know what -- regardless I believe that the American military can accomplish anything.
I believe this mission as planned could be accomplished by our troops, the best in the World by far..
I also am glad that the morale is good, and that each mission is handled with the utmost skill and accuracy. I do not doubt that for a second.. tho I do worry about the extended tours and the physical and mental pressure..still..with your training, you guys are clearly up to the task.
I want to communicate to you that what we (opr me and some I know) are worried about really goes straight to the threat.
You say it is not practical to fight Terror in multiple locations..
I see that...but still wonder if it would be better if we adapted. This enemy is like no other..
they live to die to kill.. they are patient beyond belief, strive to die to kill, and I have very little faith in security here at home.
A chemical or biological attack seems totally possuble, even easy after living through 911.
Crap -- Osama could easily have shaved and took a job driving a cab in the east village.
it's hard to feel secure that the valient efforts and achievements in Iraq are addressing the Terror that threatens us.
It is hard to ignore pre-existing agendas in writing by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams, ect.. that mirror this sinario we are seeing in Iraq.. the fact these men have never served..(I am biting my tounge hard here) and the information coming out re: pre-War intelligence.
OK, I know..I crossed the line into the political..but just to illustrate a bit of 'reasonable doubt'
dealing with Lyme disease I have learned that 'ties' matter. Things are not always as they seem or as they should be.
I am all over the place because I had no Thanksgiving and am going on cranberry sauce and I actually am drinking tonight! (oh, LabRat ..where for art thou? )
Still, I will try and get tactical..
The War on Terrorism..
In response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Al-Qaeda's infrastructure in the country was destroyed and their military commander..Atef, was killed. Another top operative, was captured in Pakistan.
Bin Laden and Zawahiri, however, escaped and are presumed alive. They release audio and video messages to the Arab media from time to time. I still think they are part time cabbies...
In March 2003 the U.S. invadied Iraq and deposed of Saddam Hussein and his Baath party. Although President Bush asserted that there was a working relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda, no solid proof of collaboration between them ---specifically on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or on any other terrorist activities --- has emerged.
As the Iraqi insurgency has continued.. however, suspected al-Qaeda terrorists have moved into the country and are likely responsible for kidnappings and suicide-bomb attacks.
I recall U.S. forces intercepted a letter believed to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (sp?) a Jordanian radical.
The letter outlined plans to destabilize Iraq by igniting conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Al-Zarqawi is thought to be the mastermind behind insurgents fighting in Iraq, yes?
For a time, al-Zarqawi appeared to position himself as a rival to bin Laden, then he officially declared allegiance to al-Qaeda, changing the name of his organization from Unification and Jihad to 'al-Qaeda in Iraq'.
A few months later bin Laden declared him "prince of al-Qaeda in Iraq," and welocomed hin joining forces or something like that.
Al-Qaeda cells are located in many countries, and are operating there with intent to attack ..as you said..
What concerns ME is despite the U.S. War on Terror, al-Qaeda continues to be a threat world-wide.
There have been about a dozen major attacks by al-Qaeda terrorists since September 11.
Both Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri.. although in hiding play an important role in shaping the group's mission.
Bin Laden offered a truce to Europe, saying that al-Qaeda would not attack any country, with the exception of the U.S... that withdrew its troops from the Islamic world within three months. European leaders quickly rejected that offer.
THEN -- Spain's most horrific terrorist attack occurred in bombings at Madrid's railway station.
Evidence emerged that al-Qaeda was responsible. Many Spaniards blamed their prime minister's staunch support of the U.S. and the war in Iraq for making Spain an al-Qaeda target.
Following that -- London suffered al-Qaeda's attack. Four bombs exploded in three subway stations and on one double-decker bus during the morning rush hour. A group calling itself the 'Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe' claimed responsibility there.. asserting that the attacks were a retaliation for Britain's involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So..this is the concern.
I have no doubt in the military's ability to excecute this planned mission in Iraq.
To some of us, we have the greatest military resource in the World.. and do not have enough information, or enough asurance that that resource is being used or managed by the higherarchy in it's utmost efficacy against the Terror that threatens us here..
or that your blood sweat and tears are being honored and managed in the best way by an admin we have a hard time trusting (with good reason from a domestic view that I have not gotten into).
This just so you know we are behind you, but our concerns are valid and not without merit and still holding great reverance for you all.
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
Well written response. I'll need some time to read and digest before I write back.
Speaking of digest, I need some time for physical digestion too. Mom's a heck of a cook and I think I may have injured myself eating yesterday.
I wish I had a way to be more empathetic with those suffering from LD. My sister is the only picture of the disease I have and I don't like to see her suffering this way. I can't pretend to understand the pain and suffering you all are living with.
Quickly on-subject.
I have no ill feelings for those who don't share either my political leanings or my personal thoughts concerning the war on terrorism.
I deal with people in uniform who happen to be social liberals as well as fiscal liberals, shucks I've even helped a couple of them get promoted.
As I've said, my view of the world is extremely narrow. It's not a good thing sometimes, but at least in my current circumstance I just can't afford to be otherwise.
I know since I've been attempting to express my views on this situation, I've been able to think through the subject and actually bring my thoughts together outside my military environment. I've written several papers for military leadership classes, but this forum is quite unique for me.
Perhaps you can answer my question. I am not anti-American or anti-soldiers. I am just looking for answers.
I watched/listed to an interview on TV last night, the Simpson (British) fellow who was kidnapped and held in an Iraqi prison for over 2 years, I think he is now suing the Cdn and British governments. He holds dual-citizenship.
What thing that caught my ear and gave me much to think about since then.
When asked why Cdn and British government didn't intervene sooner and do more, he gave this explaination. It's all amout the economy and money, big big money. He mentioned that the British, Cdn, American, Belgium, and a few other countries all traded in arms with Saudi Arabia. These governments I listed are making billions of dollars in this trade.
He also said that Saudi Arabia were using these weapons bought from us (all countried mentioned above)were being used against us. Imagine selling guns to kill our own soldiers.
What do you and others think?
Corinne
Posts: 461 | From Abbotsford, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
lymie tony z
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5130
posted
Corinne,
Allies(friends) and enemys shift back and forth thru time...
When they are friends we sell them stuff to help fight their enemies. So do most other countries that have military weapons.
I suspect that behind the reason of claiming Irag had WMD's is because we or Russia sold Irag the stuff in the first place...to fight their enemies...
We and they sell only stuff that is outdated...so that we would still hold superiority over potential future enemies....except where biological wmd are concerned...
OJAI could elaborate but I believe from what I have seen in film from that region that AK47 russian made arms are used by the insurgents mostly...grenade launchers and surface to air missles...some US some Russian...possibly now even Chinese....
That is the way of this world...
Mo I suggest you take a vacation as the above reponse seems a little ya know alcohol/lymebrain helter skeltered..........not mentioned to be too critical...just an observation.
-------------------- I am not a doctor...opinions expressed are from personal experiences only and should never be viewed as coming from a healthcare provider. zman Posts: 2527 | From safety harbor florida(origin Cleve., Ohio | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I should have known better than to use self-depricating humor over here.. lest it be used against me by certain someone's............. like monkeys on a cupcake.
Actually..in my demented way, perhaps it's the heritage..I see being able to have a drink at all a sort of victory over this disease.
I couldn't have an ounce of wine for over two years without literally being in bed for a week because of it.
Come to think of it, whilst totally Dewless .. I also couldn't hold a conversation or think about anything other than how to tie my shoes, and trying to remember where the stamp goes on an envelope.
..and I now think I maintained a decent discussion despite doing the Dew -- what's you're excuse?
I'm quite pleased with myself, I've worked real hard for health..I'll be sure and tell the nuerologist of my latest milestone, writing and dringking at the same time
Moreover, this a good thread, let's not send it off track ?
Mo
[ 28. November 2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
LymeOjai
Unregistered
posted
Corinne,
I hope you don't find this too much of a cop-out. But I know nothing about the circumstances you described. I haven't read or heard anything about the Canadian man who was held hostage.
The other stuff about Canada, GB, the U.S. selling arms to our enemies; that subject is way too political for me and I don't find it wise to comment on something I know nothing about.
Just for information sake, I have seen weapons from more than one theater of battle that were manufactured in several different countries, to include; Russia, China, Eastern Europe, France, Spain, U.S., etc.
I'm not sure of the source of supply for any of them, I just know what I've seen.
IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic