Army Desertion Rate Highest Since 1980

Xyn

3 letters, 0 meaning
Mar 3, 2005
3,753
2
0
California
#26
We opened this can of worms. So we can either clean it up now or clean it up later.
Unfortunately we can't clean it up now. If we are willing, able and required to do something in the future, so be it, but all we're doing now is maintaining the status quo.

Maybe if we got several trillion dollars together, initiated a draft and created a police state across the entire middle east, we could have a military victory. Short of that, there are just some things that a military can not do, even if they are the best in the world.

Speaking of no win situations, welcome to the game :action-sm

 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#27
I'm wondering which statistic will get more play in the media this week: the one about desertion, or this story, which states that violence in Iraq is down 55% since just the summer (it's down even more dramatically from longer periods of time, such as a year ago).

Seeing as good news doesn't fit the media's narrative - and how that story I just linked goes out of its way to try and find ANY scrap of negative news that it could hold onto - I've already got my guess as to what the answer will be.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#28
Please, God, Don, tell me you're not one of those "Saddam hit the towers" guys...
Of course not, I'm one of those "we fucked up by doing this in the first place but we should make the best of a bad situation" guys.

It's not an unwinnable war. The people who started the thing won't let the guys fighting the war win it. There's a huge difference between "CAN'T WIN" and "DON'T WIN".

Personally, I think that the people running this war are so afraid of the left that actually wants us to lose, so they can pin a loss on Bush, that they're scared of doing what is necessary to win.

In a choice between cowards and traitors, I'm forced to pick cowards.
 

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#29
I'm wondering which statistic will get more play in the media this week: the one about desertion, or this story, which states that violence in Iraq is down 55% since just the summer (it's down even more dramatically from longer periods of time, such as a year ago).
So basically after 5 years it's still going on. Wonderful, those are high standards you have. No big deal though, we gained so much and didn't really lose anything. I can't wait until the war ends next month!
 

Hog's Big Ben

Getting ass-***** in The Octagon, brother.
Donator
Jul 28, 2005
28,401
18,522
693
New York
#30
This is not new. It's not like suddenly during the Iraq War it became a PC country run by PC lawyers and PC politicians. We knew the climate going into it. We thought we'd be given a lot more leeway, we thought we'd be treated as saviors and we weren't. We were cocky and it hurt us. We bought into it, we thought it would be a good deal, we'd get more markets, but we were never able to connect like we thought we would and once did in the 90s. So of course the bureaucrats and the lawyers would come in and try to fix things by hindering us in everyything we do with their antiquated rules and regulations. We thought we could work around those rules and regulations but our lack of movement is so apparent that that further hurts our cause.

But we can't act shocked by this since we knew the climate in the first place.

:D

Well played, sir. :clap::clap::clap:
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#31
Of course not, I'm one of those "we fucked up by doing this in the first place but we should make the best of a bad situation" guys.

It's not an unwinnable war. The people who started the thing won't let the guys fighting the war win it. There's a huge difference between "CAN'T WIN" and "DON'T WIN".

Personally, I think that the people running this war are so afraid of the left that actually wants us to lose, so they can pin a loss on Bush, that they're scared of doing what is necessary to win.

In a choice between cowards and traitors, I'm forced to pick cowards.
No one "wants" the whole thing to be a waste of time, but you can't really call a group of people traitors for saying "I told ya so".
 

Jerry1

Megatron Star!
Jan 26, 2006
3,338
2
228
Brooklyn, New York
#32
Unfortunately we can't clean it up now. If we are willing, able and required to do something in the future, so be it, but all we're doing now is maintaining the status quo.

Maybe if we got several trillion dollars together, initiated a draft and created a police state across the entire middle east, we could have a military victory. Short of that, there are just some things that a military can not do, even if they are the best in the world.

Speaking of no win situations, welcome to the game :action-sm

The last time we had to clean it up was because of this....

(Sorry for the dramatic point)

Bush Sr. pretty much ended support of the mujahadeen when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan after about 10 years of monetary and equipment support. The US Stinger was the bane of the Soviet Army Hind gunships and helped turn the tide in that insurgency.
But when support was cut off in 1989 the Afghans were left to their own devices and erupted into a civil war where the Taliban ended up in power. The same group that let Bin Laden and Al Queda set up camps in Afghanistan to plan attacks on the embassies, the USS Cole and the Sept 11 attacks(for those that don't believe in the conspiracy theories).
Plus keep in mind that Al Queda and Iranian supported groups are already in Iraq.

Better to clean it up now. But like Ant says, we're going about it the wrong way.
You are right in the fact that a major change in strategy needs to change over there because the status quo will not do it. This is very reminiscent to Vietnam due to the fact that we're so worried about offending people somewhere. In Vietnam we were afraid to anger the Chinese or Soviets for fear of them getting involved or retaliating. Now its a fear of world opinion and the media's opinion.
In a conflict where our forces are left alone to do the jobs they are supposed to do with little interference, they are very successful(WWI, WWII, Granada, Panama, Gulf War) and the ones with all these restrictions have been less successful(Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq).
You'd think we'd learn?
 

Xyn

3 letters, 0 meaning
Mar 3, 2005
3,753
2
0
California
#33
The last time we had to clean it up was because of this....

(Sorry for the dramatic point)

Bush Sr. pretty much ended support of the mujahadeen when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan after about 10 years of monetary and equipment support. The US Stinger was the bane of the Soviet Army Hind gunships and helped turn the tide in that insurgency.
But when support was cut off in 1989 the Afghans were left to their own devices and erupted into a civil war where the Taliban ended up in power. The same group that let Bin Laden and Al Queda set up camps in Afghanistan to plan attacks on the embassies, the USS Cole and the Sept 11 attacks(for those that don't believe in the conspiracy theories).
Plus keep in mind that Al Queda and Iranian supported groups are already in Iraq.

Better to clean it up now. But like Ant says, we're going about it the wrong way.
You are right in the fact that a major change in strategy needs to change over there because the status quo will not do it. This is very reminiscent to Vietnam due to the fact that we're so worried about offending people somewhere. In Vietnam we were afraid to anger the Chinese or Soviets for fear of them getting involved or retaliating. Now its a fear of world opinion and the media's opinion.
In a conflict where our forces are left alone to do the jobs they are supposed to do with little interference, they are very successful(WWI, WWII, Granada, Panama, Gulf War) and the ones with all these restrictions have been less successful(Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq).
You'd think we'd learn?
If we leave and terrorists start taking control in Iraq, bomb them. Keeping our troops in a never ending meat grinder isn't making us any safer. The fact that we haven't had another 9/11 has nothing to do with what we're doing in Iraq.

Also, enough with using 9/11 as a propoganda piece. It's denigrating to the lives lost.

Unfortunately, we couldn't win in Iraq like we did in WWII even if we did have a change in policy. The people we are fighting aren't a nation or a military like we used to fight against.

Oddly enough, Bush standing with a big Mission Accomplished sign behind him is probably the closest thing to a victory we'll ever get in this war. At that time, the military had done what they do best. They came in and cleaned the place out. Invasion is one thing, occupation is another. An occupation is a costly thing, in both lives and money. Also, here's the thing about occupations. You don't win an occupation, becuase you have already won.

The only thing we can do is stay or lose. If the Iraqi's took responsability and were able to keep the peace on their own, then maybe we could walk away. As it is, they've done a pretty good job showing how unable they are to maintain order without us around.

Most people are pretty sick of the war right now. Recruitment is way down and soldiers are deserting. The brave people who stay there will have to keep staying there. Either that, or we would have to draft some people.

Billions, Trillions will keep pouring in. We've been in there for over four years, how much longer are we willing to piss away our military resources? Another five? Ten? Twenty?

It was a mistake to go in. The majority agree on that. Now the question is, obviously, where do we go from here?

Who knows, it may not get much worse in the long run, but without any way for us to win, it's not going to get much better. So do we admit our error and walk away now, or do we spend more lives and more money just so we can walk away in a few more years?

I don't want our soldiers to lose, so that's why I want to get them out of this no win situation. If anyone has anything more concrete than "we'd win if we had a policy change," I'd love to hear it. If there is truely a way for us to win, bring stability to Iraq and get the hell out of there, I'd much prefer that to any other alternative. I just don't know how anyone can think that is a reasonable expectation.
 

Jerry1

Megatron Star!
Jan 26, 2006
3,338
2
228
Brooklyn, New York
#34
I didn't mean to be one of those Sept 11 propaganda people. I didn't believe in the Sept 11/Iraq connection then and I don't really much believe it now. I just meant to say that this a possibility, a real one, that could happen. Kinda gotta learn form history.
It's just that we can't just end up bombing them again if the terrorists take control over there and operate out of there. It didn't work for Clinton in 98 after the embassy bombings. It'll take troops on the ground. Right back where we started.
Funny thing is that the best time we could have gotten rid of Saddam was under Bush Sr. After the first Gulf War, the people of Iraq saw a weakened, not so confident Iraqi Army and thought this was the time to get him out. In fact, Bush kinda pushed the people to revolt.
However, when the people in the north did revolt, with the thinking that the US will support them, the Iraqi Army just crushed them.
If we did do it then, it would have been easier and would have had support from the people of Iraq. Instead we waited 10 years and lost credibility with the Iraqis.
If we leave tomorrow, great. I just don't want this biting us in the ass years from now.


Funny thing is I do rememeber all those people saying to invade Iraq during the Clinton years. They don't say much now.

By the way, you are right. The question is "Where do we go from here?",
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#35
Better to clean it up now. But like Ant says, we're going about it the wrong way.
You are right in the fact that a major change in strategy needs to change over there because the status quo will not do it.
You say this. And people here, and elsewhere, keep saying this. "We need to change the status quo."

Ahem.

We DID THAT.

It was called "The Surge". Democrats and liberals, almost as a whole, shit all over it. And what's been the result of the surge thus far?

An overwhelming reduction in the amount of violence that has occurred in Iraq. Portions of Iraq which many considered "unwinnable" or irrevocably lost, have done nearly a complete 180. And still, people are acting as if things are the same as they were before the Surge happened. They're not. Things are demonstrably different.

It doesn't mean that the "mission" is anywhere close to being finished, but the worst problem in Iraq was the security, and that's greatly improved. It's still a difficult job, because now the pressure is on the Iraqis themselves to self-govern, and there's enough graft and corruption present in the government for that to not being occurring near on the level it should be. Still, though, the question has to be asked, do certain Americans really want us to succeed over there?

And I honestly believe, in terms of elected Democrat officials and many liberal idealogues, the answer is a resounding no. They want Iraq to be a failure, in part to "humble" Bush, whom they hate on a level that even surpasses the Republican hatred of (Bill) Clinton circa the 90s, and also because, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid himself stated, things going poorly in Iraq equals more Democrats taking power in Congress. I'm fucking sick and tired of hearing fucking Democrats saying "bring the troops home" and people act as if they're doing it because they have America or our troops best interests at heart. That's all bullshit. It's all about advancing their own political agendas and gaining more political power, just as much as Iraq could be considered furthering the [YourAmishDaddy]NEOCON AGENDA[/YourAmishDaddy].
 

Jerry1

Megatron Star!
Jan 26, 2006
3,338
2
228
Brooklyn, New York
#36
The question does have to be asked. And yes, I would like for us to succeed over there. Have a stable Middle East country, friendly to the west? Maybe, heaven forbid, a country that will sell oil a little less to us? Sure!
Plus a major factor to wanting to succeed would be knowing that all those soldiers killed or injured(physically or mentally) in Iraq would not have been for nothing.

Kinda sickens me to see that Democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq. Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead Americans.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#37
And what's been the result of the surge thus far?
Not that you could find that information on any regular media sources. Just sayin'....

The bottom line is that no war has ever been won without overwhelming show of force. When we fight like our military is designed to, we win. When that same military is turned into a referee force in the middle of a civil war, nothing gets done. That doesn't mean we're losing. That means we aren't winning. We're in limbo.

Things are indeed turning around, but we're still not doing things the way we should be. And you can directly blame Harry Reid and his minions for that. Bush's people are so scared now that they won't allow the military to fight the way they should be. And don't think for a second that the Democrats are not hoping that they can pin ultimate failure on Bush before November 2008. We lose, they win. Thats all that matters to them. Simple as that.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
143,777
50,721
644
#38
Things are indeed turning around, but we're still not doing things the way we should be. And you can directly blame Harry Reid and his minions for that.
The Democrats have been in "power" (and I use that term loosely) for what a year? Yet the war's been going on for about 5 and most of that time Congress was firmly in Bush's camp. Yet if the war is going better recently, with Democrats in power, then why is the Democrat's fault that the war is going badly?

And don't act like it's those political masterminds the Democrats who are using this war for political advantage. The Republicans are and have been doing the same thing. Neither side has the best country's interests at heart, no side is blameless, and both sides are using whatever they can with this war for their own political advantage.

Kinda sickens me to see that Democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq.
There's a difference between not wanting a success and wanting to cut our losses. Not want to waste more money and lives refereeing a civil war we caused. Yes, we fucked up there, but we shouldn't have been there in the first place. So should we keep paying for a dreadful mistake? I can't answer that because I realize that there is no good answer. Personally I think the best option would be for them to fight it out between themselves. But I don't know how it would play in the future I don't know if it would play in the future.

Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead Americans.
Seriously? I can play too.

Kinda sickens me to see that Republicans still want us in Iraq. Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead American soldiers. (I totally just upped you.)
Kinda sickens me to see that Republicans don't want universal health care. Not so much to sound patriotic but knowing that means they kinda want, in a way, more dead American babies.