Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

if we are fighting Al-Q in Anbar shouldn't we add more troops
there?

Posted by anon at September 24, 2007 11:29 AM

Can't you read, anonymous moron? We've won in Anbar. We now put the troops where the battles are still to be waged.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 24, 2007 11:37 AM

But....We are making NO progress against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia!

Posted by Craig at September 24, 2007 01:12 PM

Isn't great to make up your own action figure, sorry, I mean terrorist group? You can write all sorts of stories about their activities, or lack there-of, without some pesky military type showing you up.

Posted by Craig at September 24, 2007 01:20 PM

We really need to do something about Al Queda in Washington...

Posted by David Summers at September 24, 2007 01:23 PM

really?

We've won in Anbar?

Is that kind of the same kind of victory as "Mission Accomplished"?

Let's See : "Anbar Province as a whole isn’t completely secured yet"

and

"What will it take for Anbar Province to stand on its own,” I said, “so American troops can leave?”"

What kind of victory is it when the first question is how long
before we can leave?

and this part must have been just a body blow to simberg

“What do you think about the media coverage of the Anbar Awakening?” I said.
“I think it’s pretty accurate, actually,” he said, in contrast to the complaints I usually heard about the media from the military. Most soldiers and Marines who grouse about the media, though, are thinking of the war coverage in general rather than reports from Anbar Province specifically. “I think the media accurately describes the reality on the ground here"

Posted by anon at September 24, 2007 04:33 PM

and this part must have been just a body blow to simberg

Ummmmm...no.

Only to anonymous morons.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 24, 2007 05:14 PM

We've won in Anbar.

Yeah, for the fifth time. Nor is it the last time that we will have "won" in Anbar, or Baghdad, or several other places in Iraq. We will keep "winning" and "winning" in Iraq, for years or even decades, until one day the White House is hit by a wave of competence and admits that the war in Iraq is a crock.

You were asking the other day whether you're naive. You certainly are, just not about Irvine. You could be so cynical about Irvine that you wouldn't trust your own shadow if it fell on campus grass. But when it comes to the Iraq war, you're as naive as a toddler. If some pro-war Army officer told you that the word gullible isn't in the dictionary, you would then declare that any dictionary that has it is corrupted by media bias.

Posted by at September 24, 2007 07:07 PM

Well, obviously he's gullible. I mean, he thinks that Bush isn't as bad as Hitler or Stalin.

Posted by Big D at September 24, 2007 07:51 PM

Nobody said anything about Hitler or Stalin in this thread, Big D. You have Godwin's Law on the brain.

But what is true is that Bush is every bit as treacherous as Lyndon B. Johnson. Win every battle until you lose the war --- I never thought that America would do it a second time. Or rather, that the government would do it to America.

Posted by at September 24, 2007 08:07 PM

You mean the way that Abrams took command, changed strategies, and cleaned what was left of the Viet Cong after Tet out? You mean the way that South Vietnam, with support from us, stopped a large conventional invasion in 1972?

Or do you mean how Congress cut all funding off, and South Vietnam was invaded... not by righteous peasants with rifles and dreams of a better tomorrow, but with tank divisions. And millions of people were murdered in the region, as a result.

I'm afraid I don't have much patience for BDS these days. It's not that I worship Bush--far from it--but the things that I dislike the most about his policies, would probably throw you into an apopleptic fit.

Posted by Big D at September 24, 2007 10:56 PM

Or do you mean how Congress cut all funding off

That too will come to pass in Iraq, Big D. "Congress" will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by at September 25, 2007 12:01 AM

Tell it straight, DEMOCRATS will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If it happens, and God help us if it does, it will be democrats that do it with the help of a handful of Rhinos.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 07:07 AM

Okay, here's a question: if the Democrats are helping al Qaeda, why don't we start arresting them and throwing them in jail? They want American defeated, that makes them traitors, that justifies anything we do to them, right? Execution is justified during wartime. So let's execute some Democrats!

I'm not saying that we need to execute _all_ of them. But if we execute a few prominent ones, maybe the others will get the message and start doing the right thing.

Posted by Nevil Simons at September 25, 2007 07:29 AM

If it happens

Rather, when it happens.

Posted by at September 25, 2007 07:54 AM

Moronic coward: "Rather, when it happens."

You hope.

And yes Nevil, some democrats should be jailed for treason. If Dennis Kucinich had pulled his Syria trip stunt 50 years ago he would very likely have been brought up on charges of treason. And Pelosi, for her Syria trip, would at the very least have been censured by her own party and would have been defeated in her next election. But not today, too many defeatist America haters living within our own borders and even holding high office.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 09:26 AM

Simberg 2003. We won in Iraq

Simberg 2004, We won in Iraq, ignore those dead-enders,

Simberg 2005 We won in Iraq, Ignore the odd defeated suicide
Bomber, after all, we beat the werewolves of the Nazi's too.

Simberg 2006 We can win in Iraq, if only the dems stay out of office.

Simberg 2007 : We won in Anbar, let's not talk about Baghdad,
Basra or any place nasty like that.

Which is roughly the same line as

Gen Paul Harkins : 1962, we are winning in Vietnam, we have
the Viet Minh on the Run.

Gen Harkins 1964, We clearly are winning, we just need
some more troops.

Gen Westmoreland 1965 : We are winning, we just need 100,000
Men.

Gen westmoreland : 1967 : We are winning, we just need 350,000 men.

Gen Westmoreland : 1968: The VC are defeated, broken and
starving, we control all but 4 provinces, but I need 535,000
men.

six weeks later Tet started.

As for Big D, he may say what he wants about the Congress,
but in 1972 Kissinger and Nixon were debating what
graceful way they could throw the vietnamese under the bus.

seriously, he talks like he was winning the battle of Kontum
in 1971 himself.

By the way, what's happeing in Afghanistan?
Who holds squat there?

Posted by anonymous at September 25, 2007 05:00 PM

And guess what anonymous coward troll? We won in Vietnam militarily. But another generation of cowardly democrats wanted to cut and run then too, so we did and we have paid for it in the ridicule of our enemies ever since.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 05:52 PM

Cecil:

"We won Vietnam Militarily".

Really? Who'se We? Were you over there?

Posted by at September 25, 2007 07:20 PM

We as in AMERICA. I am part of AMERICA, past, present and future. WE won the Revolutionary War. WE fought each other in the Civil War. WE won the Spanish American War and WE won WWI and WWII.

WE also don't know who you are but WE do know you are a coward and a fool.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 08:50 PM

Cecil

Ah, so you didn't actually do much winning then in Nam.

Just wanted to make sure that you were taking credit
for other people's work.

I note that as you use the Expansive WE won in Vietnam,
you don't say WE Lost the Vietnam War. SOunds like you
are at least as responsible for US Losing in Vietnam as
US Winning.

Posted by anonymous at September 25, 2007 10:27 PM

WE, as in the United States of America of which I am a proud citizen, did not "loose" in Vietnam.

democrats, which is a subset of Americans of which I do NOT belong, lost Vietnam.

I also feel I need point out to you the subtle difference in our not loosing "in" Vietnam while at the same time losing Vietnam. Of course the non English comprehension impaired got it without my explaining it for them.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 26, 2007 05:11 AM

Cecil:

So what did you do in Vietnam?

You claim, you Won vietnam? What were you doing?
Were you having a good time in College? Sending good
thoughts to the fighting men?

Working Hard on your career?

It sounds like it wasn't a priority for you to win there.

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 06:43 AM

Vietnam era? I was in grammar school, where one memorable event was that I took a huge dump that grew up to be an anonymous coward internet troll.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 26, 2007 08:10 AM

Hey, anonymous,

I started grammar school shortly before the "treaty" that ended the Vietnam Conflict.

My military service came later, starting during the Reagan administration.

Will you accept MY claim that WE Americans won the war against North Vietnam? Or do you insist that I had to fight there to render a judgment.

If the latter, please tell me all about your Operation Iraqi Freedom military service. Please include your MOS, unit, and the specific spans of your service there.

If not, then Mr. Trotter and I have equivalent status to comment on Vietnam.

I await your response with bated breath, so please respond quickly, else I shall asphyxiate.

Posted by MG at September 26, 2007 02:14 PM

Cecil

"You were in grade school during Vietnam"

Ok, That means you are young enough to serve
now.

What's stopping you from serving your country, protecting the
people, fighting terrorism?

Are you in a wheelchair? Are you capable of
walking patrol in Baghdad?

There are lots of very tired soldiers in Ninevah, who want you to
come relieve them.

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 05:53 PM

There is more to winning a war, then winning a battle.

Sure we could fihgt like hell, and bring in lots of air power,
but that didn't mean we won the battles.

I kind of doubt we won Ap Bac, I think we didn't win Ia Drang 2,
it wasn't much good that came out of Hill 881,

When did we Win in Vietnam? 1962? 65? 68? 71?
tell me the year we won, as you define it.

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 05:57 PM

Anonymous math challenged moronic coward: "That means you are young enough to serve now"

No. While you're taking the english comprehension classes you may as well brush up on your math too.

You can stop posting now, you have written enough to prove to everyone what an idiot you are. That WAS what you were trying to do, right?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 26, 2007 06:27 PM

I see Anonymous liar and coward is using the "Chickenshit" argument tonight and doing it rather ineptly.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 26, 2007 07:04 PM

Mr. Anonymous,

We sealed military victory in 1972, when the ARVN repulsed the NVA invasion.

We sealed the formal, political victory in 1973 with the Paris "treaty".

Our esteemed (Democrat controlled) legislature then reneged on the America's treaty obligations to the RVN during the subsequent two years.

The Democrats then (such as John Kerry) were wrong about the consequences of abandoning the RVN:

-- Wrong in humanitarian terms (such as the number of refugees);

-- Wrong in military terms (such as how North Vietnam would "integrate" RVN citizens);

-- Wrong in international political terms (such as how other states would no longer trust us);

-- Wrong in law (by reneging on treaty obligations)

-- Wrong in morality (by abandoning people whose lives depended upon our reliability, and for whom we had made affirmative pledges)

So, there you go. Had we remained engaged, the RVN would now be perhaps where the ROK was in the late 1980's (Summer Olympics host, etc.).

But, we'll never know. And neither will the victims of Uncle Ho's cleansing of the citizenry of the RVN.

Any more questions?

Posted by MG at September 26, 2007 08:48 PM

Ah,

We sealed Military victory in 1972.

So we were not winning in 1962, It took
10 years to achieve military victory?

so all that Winning General harkin and
Westmoreland was talking about in
the prior era was what? Bull?

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 09:05 PM

Cecil

You can still contribute to Iraq.

KBR needs many a truck driver.

Are you afraid to go?

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 09:06 PM

And your ilk sealed defeat in 1975 with the elimination ofa all militarty aid to the south.

The Soviets keep pouring money in and we cut our's off and you are suprised the south was overrun? Are you really that stupid? Never mind, tht was rhetorical, we know you are really that stupid.

At least the Dems are getting serious about defeat with the impending nomination of the Hildabeast.

Their defeat that is.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 27, 2007 07:19 AM

And your ilk sealed defeat in 1975 with the elimination ofa all militarty aid to the south.

The Soviets keep pouring money in and we cut our's off and you are suprised the south was overrun? Are you really that stupid? Never mind, tht was rhetorical, we know you are really that stupid.

At least the Dems are getting serious about defeat with the impending nomination of the Hildabeast.

Their defeat that is.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 27, 2007 07:19 AM

Hey, Anonymous,

"Winning" is not the same as "won".

We were "winning" World War 2 by the summer of 1943. We "won" WW2 two years later.

In a lower intensity war, the timeline stretches, and the "won" part is a fuzzier continuum, not a discrete surrender signing ceremony.

And please, for your own good, knock of the chickenhawk arguments. If you use them, you have already lost the argument.

Cecil has full status to support Iraq policy, without having served there in any capacity. You have full status to oppose Iraq policy, with or without having served there.

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 07:50 AM

So in April 1968 when Westmoreland briefed a
Joint session of Congress and had all these charts
and pictures with arrows showing how the Viet Minh
were utterly defeated, starving, and unable to operate
except in 4 provinces was part of that continuum of winning?

And when it turned out there were plenty of Viet Minh
in Saigon and Hue was that part of the continuum of winning?

and 500,000 men in combat is a little war? That's pretty
dismissive to the men who fought that.

as for puckett, sounds like he forgets about 1972
where the ARVN were running and abandoning their wounded.
just like they did in 1962

Posted by anonymous at September 27, 2007 01:51 PM

Mr. Anonymous,

Kindly pay me the courtesy of quoting what I write. Please do NOT put words in my mouth.

Compared to WW2, the Vietnam Conflict was indeed a small war, though I didn't say that in my previous post.

It was a lower intensity war than WW2 and the Korean Conflict (and the Great War and the US Civil War and...). Johnson's constraints on American military action lengthened the war, increased the numbers of dead, and made victory more difficult.

So, yes, when GEN Westmoreland spoke of progress post-Tet '68, that was part of the continuum of winning. When the Viet Cong came out of the shadows for Tet '68, they got hammered. They seized ground, held some for a few weeks, and created NO general uprising or political changes.

The North Vietnamese had destroyed their S. Vietnamese cadres on a big roll of the dice.

Then they watched US news reports, compared the televised images with what they knew to be their status on the ground, and learned that the real battlefield was on American TV sets.

North Vietnamese replenished "indigenous" S. Vietnamese cadres, and sustained the IMAGE of a resilient Viet Cong. This IMAGE, mongered by reporters and political opportunists alike, delayed victory and made it more expensive.

-----------

Just as some ARVN troops broke and ran in 1972, so also did some US troops break and run in 1950, 1945, 1943, 1918, 1864, etc. Do you actually have a relevant point to make?

Green troops in ALL armies are at higher risk of breaking. So what?

---------------------

Mr. Simberg, do ALL your anonymous posters have a wide streak of misanthropy? If I must joust with anonymous posters, could I please exchange views with someone with humanitarian impulses?

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 02:34 PM

Mr. Simberg, do ALL your anonymous posters have a wide streak of misanthropy? If I must joust with anonymous posters, could I please exchange views with someone with humanitarian impulses?

Sorry, with the current set up, I have little control over cowardly anonymous morons, other than to ban them--a power that I've used sparingly (only one in the six-year history of this site).

Well, actually, I could delete their posts, but that would set a new precedent, despite the nonsensical claims of this particular cowardly anonymous moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 27, 2007 03:24 PM

"as for puckett, sounds like he forgets about 1972
where the ARVN were running and abandoning their wounded.
just like they did in 1962"

And yet they managed to wipe out entire North Vietnamese Armies during the failed NVA invasion of the south during that very year!

Rand,

I would be happy if you could force all poster to take a unique name so they cannot post unsigned or anonymous.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 27, 2007 03:27 PM

So please list the number of provinces in Viet Nam where
an american officer could bring his family, leave them
at home and find them safe? in 1970.?

Why should the ARVN's be green in 1972?
They had been fighting the Viet mnh since
1945, aside from some privates the ARVN should have
been the steeliest fighting force in history, if they had
done any fighting.

For a bunch of guys who want to be tough, you have a lot
of complaints when a debate starts

and sure with american air power the ARVN could stop
NVA offensives, but the ARVN couldn't repel the NVA or
take the initiative, they proved that in lam son 719 in 1971.
but with guys like this still in command " Lieutenant General Hoang Xuan Lam was an officer who epitomized the indecisiveness and ineffectiveness of Saigon's command structure, as had been discovered all too blatantly during Operation Lam Son 719.[24] "

no amount of resources would suffice.

Seriously MG is that the kind of 3 star you want
in command especially after 30 years of war?

The ARVN had political generals not combat generals
and you act surprised it fell apart once massive american
resources were withdrawn.

Posted by anonymous at September 27, 2007 04:44 PM

"For a bunch of guys who want to be tough, you have a lot of complaints when a debate starts"

A debate started? I must have missed it. What were the ground rules again? What was the "resolved"? Was I supposed to be "pro", or "anti"?

And what complaints did I make? That you have a wide streak of misanthropy? Guilty as charged.

As for tough ... well, I am not posting anonymously. Furthermore, I emailed some months ago my actual identity to our host, and will do so again upon request.

"The ARVN had political generals not combat generals
and you act surprised it fell apart once massive american resources were withdrawn."

Really? I act SURPRISED?

What is your evidence for your claim?

I wrote, quite passionately, about my anger at the Democrats reneging on treaty commitments to a sovereign government.

-----------

To return to the (apparent) topic of ARVN reliability:

The organizational structures of the ARVN got started in earnest in the late 1960's. The opponents of the Viet Cong had to transition from small unit actions, relying on kinship ties for morale, to the much more complex demands of conducting a combined arms defense against a combined arms attack.

--------------

What motivates your animus against the ARVN forces? Are you perhaps blaming the victim, when you should be blaming the predator, or perhaps the betrayer?

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 06:08 PM

what treaty commitments did the US have with the ARVN?

What treaty was signed by the president and
approved by the senate?

Posted by anonymous at September 28, 2007 02:38 PM

(MG Writes)

(I'm not sure where you dig this up. The Organizational structures
began in 1958 as the American's began pouring resources
into the Diem Government. For that matter, it began in 1945
as we poured lend lease surplus material into the french.
French colonial forces used american jeeps, american
rifles, american aircraft, and american money all through the
first indochinese war. By 1959, we were putting
american pilots into the RVNAF and advisors into the
field. by 1962, the ARVN were using M-113's, long range
howitzers and vertical insertion from american helicopters.

From the very beginning, the ARVN were built up using a
mirror image american command structure, what they lacked
was morale, efficient officers, honest government leaders,
effective doctrine, all the basic things to win a war.

The provincial and regional forces were never properly
trained or equiiped the central government forces
existed to protect the power of the central government
not to serve the people, and was used on a punitive basis.

The ARVN fought no better at Dak To in 1972, then they
did at Ap Bc in 1962.

A military dictatorship unpopular with it's people, and
viewed as a puppet force of an imperial power is doomed
over the long haul.

this will be proven again in Iraq.

Posted by anonymous at September 29, 2007 10:40 AM

Post a comment