"Bring It On"

“BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Three U.S. soldiers were killed early Thursday in northern Iraq when small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades ambushed their convoy, according to the U.S. military.

The soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division were traveling into Qayyarah, a town about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south of Mosul, when they were attacked about 2:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday), military officials said.

Soldiers secured the ambush site and found two rocket-propelled grenades and an AK-47 assault rifle, according to U.S. Central Command.

Also Thursday, U.S. military officials said they had no information about eyewitness reports that two Iraqis were killed in Baghdad near a U.S. military checkpoint.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1, 42 U.S. troops have died from hostile fire, including Thursday's fatalities. Another 57 have died in accidents and what the Pentagon calls "nonhostile" incidents.

A total of 237 U.S. military personnel have been killed since the war in Iraq began in March. (Interactive: U.S. deaths as of July 21)

On Wednesday, two U.S. soldiers were killed and nine wounded in separate attacks when their convoys hit explosive devices, according to the U.S. military.

Wednesday's attacks took place near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, and Ramadi, about 70 miles (110 kilometers) west of Baghdad.”

“Hey, at least the war makes the evening news interesting.”

“I thought this was going to be about that cheer leader movie.

"That's alright, that's OK,
Your going to pump our gas someday!"”

“Bring 'em home!”

“There's no way we should leave now that we're in. The mistake was getting in, in the first place.

Should a REAL threat become apparent (read North Korea), we're in a very poor position, militarily.”

“hyperbole, phaedrus. you're a master of it.”

“Should have just carpet bombed them. Level the entire country!”

“Lets take care of Korea next!”

“Phagdrus, you were so close on making total sense.

We have a military of over 1 million. 140,000 left in the Middle East and around the world is negligible. If North Korea decides to be stupid, #1) China will step in first. #2) Russia will get involved to shut NK up. #3) The US, UN, EU, and every other ally will join to stop any nuclear threat and China and Russia will step aside if NK defys them.

China and Russia depend on the US. They dont want to turn against us, they'd rather calm NK down if they want to be a child they will let NK be gone... if China trys to use Taiwan as a barganing chip, if we attack NK they can go after Taiwan... so be it... most people dont like us to get invloved protecting defenseless countries anyway... right lefties?”

“if China trys to use Taiwan as a barganing chip

stupid. not going to happen. if china invaded taiwan, it would spell doom for their economy. Also, it would be quite a reversal of their recent 'sunshine' policy toward taiwan and precedent set in hong kong recently.”

“Hmmm... Keeping reservists on active duty should be sign, Mutt.

Perhaps you have some insight into the situation that I haven't considered?”

“I'm not a military expert, and I don't know exactly what the military strategy in Iraq is, but I think there should be aggressive patrols rounding up anyone even suspected of ties to Hussein. You can sort them out later. It is a war after all. Start taking the fight to the enemy more. Maybe they're already doing that, but I don't hear much about how many enemy were killed on any given day. Maybe the media would rather just report how many of our boys were killed.”

“Hmmm... Keeping reservists on active duty should be sign, Mutt

A sign that we should expand the military, yes.”

“Evasive.

You called the idea of the Iraq occupation putting us in a bad military position hyperbole. Please explain.”

“We have plenty of reserves and materiel to fight another major conflict. That certainly is not a "poor" situation.”

“It used to be standard policy to have enough resources to fight two major conflicts at once. In the past 10 years or so, the ability to do so has been called into question, and so has the feasibility of such a strategy. My opnion is that we could do it, but it would tax our resources to the max.”

“Yeah, bush effed up when he took office. He should have immediately started building the military back up.”

“I'm going to have to look up our current troop number in Afghanistan. I'm not sure if it qualifies.

At any rate, I found an article of an interview with Michael O'Hanlon from the brookings institute, on the perception that our military is stretched too thin at the moment. Interesting set of opinions here.

Mutt, what makes you believe we have ample military resources for another major conflict? It seems to be a minority opinion, so you would appear to have something of a burden of proof on it.”

“All we need is a couple of B-1 bombers fully loaded.”

“Interesting reading Phaedrus. I do think the military should be expanded, but still, it should be pretty obvious that the U.S. could fight another decisive war if it had to.

Mutt, what makes you believe we have ample military resources for another major conflict? It seems to be a minority opinion, so you would appear to have something of a burden of proof on it

Ah no. Minority in this forum? Maybe, but I certainly haven't seen any believable analysis that suggests things are nearly as bad as you portray.

YOU made the assertion the military is in dire straights. It is YOUR burden of proof.”

“Mutt, what makes you believe we have ample military resources for another major conflict? It seems to be a minority opinion, so you would appear to have something of a burden of proof on it."
Phaedrus


It's divine revelation, Phaedrus.”

“Gramps is just upset I humuliated him in another thread.”

“LOL! Straw-man, Mr logic. I said we were in a poor position to handle another big military threat - not that the "military is in dire straights".

The snippet below illustrates some of my concerns.

Finally, what about public perception of overextending the military? With the casualties adding up in Iraq and the situation in Liberia, do you think the public is skeptical or wondering if we are overextending our forces?

Well, people clearly have concerns. Whether the concerns really amount to the focus of the overextending of the military, I am not so sure. I think that people are less happy about the casualties in Iraq on a daily basis and other immediate problems, not the hypothetical ones that I am posing. The overextension problem is one that gets worse and worse as the year goes on. As next year unfolds, and we have to start considering sending people back to Iraq who have only been home for a short time, the overextension problem will become more acute. Also, by then I think that it will have become more clear to people how long we are going to stay in Iraq. But, right now the problem is that the American public recognizes that the post-war era is not nearly as decisive as the wartime effort. The guerilla war is more nettlesome, and more difficult that the traditional combat we had in March and April.


Sure, we could call up the national guard units, or we could even call on selective service, if we had to. I'm certainly not arguing that!

I am saying, however, that another conflict would put undue strain on our military, and it was my impression that you were of the opinion that we could do it easily with the standing army we currently have. Is that right?”

“"Gramps is just upset I humuliated him in another thread."
Mutt

Just as you did on this thread, you spouted off without having the faintest clue what you were talking about and in your sorry excuse for a mind you think you've done something you haven't even begun to do. In your own mind you're a legend Mutt. Otherwise you're a wet behind the ears twit who hasn't a clue what he's talking about, which is apparent on every thread you post on.”

“SMW: The enemy body count is not released by the Pentagon. That's why you don't see it reported; it's not some Liberal Plot.

I think it goes with the apparent policy of avoiding anything remotely reminiscent of Vietnam. Recall the verbal contortions Rumsfeld & Co. have performed to avoid expressions like 'guerilla warfare' and 'low intensity warfare'.

Then the new chief of Central Command waltzed into his first press conference and said, "Of course it's guerilla warfare," then proceeded to define it, point by point.

I wonder what he'll say when the subject comes up next time?”

“LOL! Straw-man, Mr logic. I said we were in a poor position to handle another big military threat - not that the "military is in dire straights".

Get it right, phaedrus. That wasn't strawman, that was a simple exaggeration. Now, if I had said something like "well if the military is about to fall apart and collapse, how do you explain the massive reserves blah blah blah", then that would have been a strawman fallacy. But I refuted your original assertion that the military is in a "very poor position".


I am saying, however, that another conflict would put undue strain on our military,

Well, that's not what you originally asserted. I agree. I don't think it would be a good thing to have happen, but we're not in a "very poor position" - we're in a position (with undue strain admittedly) to decisively win another major conflict.”

“LOL @ gramps. Get angry - you only prove my point.”

“The only point you have is on top of your head.”

“Tilt I wasn't inferring that it was a liberal plot, merely that it wouldn sell more press to report on the American deaths. I wasn't aware that the Pentagon was not releasing the information--I too wondered if it had anything to do with the McNamara days of quantitative analysis and statistics. Still, it would be interesting to see a comparison of the numbers. May not prove anything, but I'd like to see it.”

“You're splitting semantic hairs, Mutt.

Undue strain = very poor position, at least in my assertation. We agree, then, that another military call in the next two to four years (one of the most common estimates of how long we will be nationbuilding in Iraq) will put undue strain on our military.

Hyperbole is what you called it. How so?”

“Here's your original assertion, phaedris:

Should a REAL threat become apparent (read North Korea), we're in a very poor position, militarily

That says to me that you think we'd be in trouble in a conflict with Kim. The truth is, we'd woop his butt. Yes, the military would be stretched. Yes, the military would have to be expanded. But in a very poor position to fight North Korea? Hardly.

It's not semantics, it's having the ability to put your true intended meaning down in writing, which you obviously failed to do.”

“The Administration is not talking about civilian deaths either.”

“Mutt, part of being a critical thinker is understanding the opposing view, or at least attempting to. My follow up comments should have given a smart guy like you a clue about my intended meaning.

So you agree that the military would need to be expanded to deal with a military threat, such as North Korea. Almost sounds like a very poor position to be in, wouldn't you say?”

“Yes, when McNamarra was running the show, they made sure the body count was on the national news every night. It was like some bizarre scorekeeping exercise. We always seemed to kill at least three times as many of them.

Didn't matter much in the end, tho'.”

“Mutt: What precedent are you talking about in Hong Kong?”

“The original intent was to have the ability to fight two wars with the forces already at our disposal, not having to expand them, and without being stretched too thin.”

“My follow up comments should have given a smart guy like you a clue about my intended meaning.

That's a laugh. In your subsequent comments, you reinforced your initial implication:

Mutt, what makes you believe we have ample military resources for another major conflict?

Hmm, you mean a decisive conflict with North Korea? LOL.

So you agree that the military would need to be expanded to deal with a military threat, such as North Korea. Almost sounds like a very poor position to be in, wouldn't you say?"

No, the military wouldn't need to be expanded to deal decisively with North Korea. However, I have argued for years that the military should be expanded.”

“Tilt--you're right. The battle for the "hearts and minds" didn't go in our favor. I think that's still up for grabs in Iraq. It will be interesting to see what the US is doing in that arena.”

“We've GOT to do a better job than Saddam... but it's hard to get everything working again while you're being shot at.

That's the main thing that concerned me about the aftermath scenario. Even if only 1/10 of 1% are totally crazed (in a city of what? 8 million?)... That's still a Lot of wackoes with AKs and RPGs.”

“That says to me that you think we'd be in trouble in a conflict with Kim. The truth is, we'd woop his butt. Yes, the military would be stretched. Yes, the military would have to be expanded
***
It's not semantics, it's having the ability to put your true intended meaning down in writing, which you obviously failed to do
***
No, the military wouldn't need to be expanded to deal decisively with North Korea. However, I have argued for years that the military should be expanded.

Mutt, you're great! It's like having our own Monte Python skit-writer!”

“Mutt: What precedent are you talking about in Hong Kong?

The whole Tung row and "party democracy"”

“Its tough to win the "hearts and minds" while killing civilians and destroying their homes.”

“Phaedrus, I meant that the military would have to be expanded in the event of another major conflict. Hell, it needs to be expanded now.

This is what I said, which apparently you've failed to comprehend: The U.S. can decisively win a war with Kim. It would stretch the military thin. The military would have to be expanded. The military should have been expanded already.

I don't know how to put it any simpler for you to comprehend.”

“besides, phaedrus, you're engaging in a fallacy of diversion to avoid claiming responsibility for a weak argument.”

“Mutt: These are interesting developments, I will stay tuned to see how the party ultimately reacts. Often they yeild to pressure immediately and crack down in due time.

I agree with you that China is unlikely to make a major move on Taiwan. If something extraordinary ups the tension level, like a Taiwanese declaration of indpendence, the picture could change.”

“I comprehend it fine, Mutt, but you contradicted yourself and now you're getting defensive about it. It's funny as hell!

and by the way:

compare
It would stretch the military thin. The military would have to be expanded.
to
Should a REAL threat become apparent (read North Korea), we're in a very poor position, militarily


Sounds like we agree.”

“If you are drinking coffee, swallow before scrolling down.






”

“You just don't get it phaedrus. There never was a contradiction. You made an unreasonable assertion and it got shot down. We can win a war with NK - decicively with the military in its current shape. We are NOT in a "very poor position" militarily. If we do fight a war with NK, we'd have to expand the military. This is very simple, but go ahead and keep trying to make a joke out of it. Perhaps you might convince yourself you succeeded to make sense.”

“Hmmm. maybe You're right Mutt. What I should have said is:

"Our troop deployment to Iraq makes it a poor position for our current military structure to take on another major threat such as North Korea without resorting to such measures as calling up the national guard or enacting the draft."

By the same token, you might have qualified
"We have plenty of reserves and materiel to fight another major conflict. That certainly is not a "poor" situation." with "By expanding the military".

Would that make more sense to you?”

“fair enough.”