The real price of policy making in washington

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Deucedfour, Feb 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    It's a story of the happenings in Mosul, Iraq. Ninevah Province. In this story, it tells of 4 United States Soldiers and how they died. As well as how one interpreter died. His name was Jacob. This was his second or third time being an interpreter for US forces. Killed by a bomb buried underneath the road. He and those 4 other soldiers died because of policies made by people who don't fully understand the realities of war, and how this one is being waged. And i'm tired of seeing them die for mistakes being made by our politicians. Public opinion is giving our insurgent friends the tools they need to win. Hopefully we'll wake up before it's too late. Sadly though, I doubt it. It seems people are so blinded by their hate for the current administration that they're willing to turn a blind eye to our soldiers in the field. Using Iraq as a tool to bring them down.

    Policies created by public opinion in lieu of a war can only bring an end to our efforts. As demonstrated by the cut off of free fuel, because people here want to see progress. Good going America. You just killed 5 of your own.

  2. I don't think you can blame the American public. They were sold a bill of goods in 2002. By and large, most went along with the idea because they were told things like the issue of an imminent capability to deploy Weapons of Mass Destruction, that coalition forces would be "treated as liberators" and that oil revenues would pay for the operation. Paul Wolfowitz testified before the US Senate that the whole thing could be done for $2 billion.

    Congress swallowed it all hook line and sinker because, it was the midterm elections and the last thing they wanted was their oppoents to claim that they were weak on national security issues in the aftermath of 9/11. (Just ask Max Cleland about that.) The media was completely acquiescent because they were terrified of everything from losing access to the powers at be to the loss of advertising revenue. (ask Phil Donahue, whose show- which had the network's highest viewing figures- was pulled from MSNBC, about three weeks before the invasion, because he was an early critic of the Administrations plans).

    Bottom line is that it's easy to sell a public on a war when you can convince them that it'll be quick, easy, cheap and they won't have to make any sacrifices. 4 years on, with endemic mismanagement and ineptitude at the the strategic level, $300 billion spent and 30,000 US casualties (not to mention the damage done to the United States' reputation and readiness against other potential threats) with nothing to show for it but a few pictures on a videophone of a hanging that didn't look much different from the pictures of terrorists executing hostages, is it really any wonder if the new consensus becomes that the war simply isn't worth it?

    You can bemoan the fact that 3000+ American troops will have died for nothing if the war comes to an end without "victory"- however it's being defined, expectations and benchmarks are being lowered so frequently, it's hard to keep up.* But the responibility does not lie with the American people. It lies squarely with the Administration who led you there under false pretences, and then mismanaged absolutely everything- including, it would seem this idea of creating a benchmark regarding fuel supplies.

    You can oppose withdrawal, but you have to ask yourself whether it is better to lose 3,000 to a lost cause than 6,000 or 9,000. You might disagree with me and think that the cause is not already lost, but I can confidently predict one thing- if there is a way out of this mess, the idiots running the show at the moment wouldn't be able to find it if the plan was stuck in their own ass cracks. They have done absolutely NOTHING right when it's come to this war since plans first got underway in earnest in the early months of 2002, so you'll excuse me if I look on with incredulity and contempt at anyone who suggests that we should give them yet another chance to get it right. If the US were a corporation and they were the boardmembers, they would have been handed their cards years ago. But no, it's become part of the politcal culture that the American people support their Commander in Chief (and I have a problem with this term in its wider political setting) in time of war, and so the fcukwit and his cohorts who led the country to this state of affairs get to retire in 2 years while their staffs go and sit in boardrooms drawing stupidly high salaries and bide their time until the next election cycle comes round so they can do it all over again.

    It is not unreasonable that the people who elected this bunch of clowns expect to see progress. Making progress is the reason for being of any government. Without going into a long discussion of the idea of the Social Contract, if it cannot solve problems and improve matters, then it has no business being there. The problem lies in government, with some bright spark thinking that this is a bone that can be thrown to the people to cover a multitude of other sins, because I'm sure you know all too well that these 5 deaths, while tragic, are small potatoes compared to some of the other cataclysmic fcuk-ups that have occurred over the past 4 years.

    *As a brief aside, remember how victory was once couched in terms of a free, democratic and prosperous Middle East? Is there anyone in Washington who wouldn't sh1t a brick if the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians etc. were to announce tomorrow that they would be holding full,free and fair elections next week?
  3. Spot on. You should have seen The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for 31st of Jan where he more or less said what you just said. The spin doctors in the administration have basically said any form of dissent emboldens the enemy which to me makes no sense. IF the enemy was not already emboldend by his on will to fight then i doubt they would be taking on the might of the US Military. So for anyone to say that the public is the one giving aid to the enemy is stupid. This war was one that did not need to be fought but we went in anyway based on a LIE and now that people don't want to continue with it, they are now branded as weak and supporters of the enemy.
  4. Was out last night. I have it on TiVo. :thumright:
  5. I can see where your coming from. The coalition did not have enough manpower, and now resources are being withheld because of a "lack of results". They have done incredible work in spite of this Administration's incompetance. American's seem more concerned with the politicians debating the war than the troops actually fighting the war itself.

    Crabtastic, I'm not going to dispute your observations (most seem pretty solid).
  6. Thanks Chief, that's what I was trying to say.
  7. Lets not forget to thank all thoose human rights groups that had the balls to cry out to the world community about how saddams rights were not being upheld when the poor guy was hanged.

    You guys are right America sucks why support a regime of war criminals with your tax dollars, that is if you actualy had jobs. Maybe the anti war crowd should pack up and head for Venezsuela I hear that Chavez is a really nice guy with a plan for the future, North Korea is also nice this time of year I heard :thumleft:
  8. Can someone translate for me please?