1. No conventional foreign occupying army can defeat a homegrown guerilla insurgency
2. Doesn't anyone see the irony in fighting the very same people we supported when they fought the USSR invasions/occupation?
3. We won all the battles in nam, including 68 TET, yet lost the "war" because insurgencies can only be defeated POLITICALLY not militarily.

bring em home now

For the partisans who want to blame obama for deaths occurring now, uh, he INHERITED this mess....

Tell us WHY lilaWol/hallichainy opted to walk away from the nato supported mission, barely committing 10k us troops there and invaded/occupied a country that did not attack the usa and was no threat to do so?

Why did they not secure the country first? Could it be there is NO WAY for a foreign occupying military to defeat a homegrown guerilla insurgency militarily (it's a political issue) AND they just wanted to fill the coffers of the war/oil corps who put them in office?

Do tell.

Posted 3/20/2004 12:30 PM Updated 3/22/2004 9:51 AM

Ex-aide: Bush ignored terror threat
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON The White House's former top anti-terrorism adviser says President Bush ignored warnings about al-Qaeda and ordered him to find a link between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq.

By Paul Sakuma, AP file

Clarke said Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes that soon after the attacks, Bush demanded to know whether Iraq was behind them. When Clarke told him intelligence found no link, "He came back at me and said: 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way."

After experts concluded again that Saddam Hussein played no role, Clarke said, his memo "got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. Do it again.' "

Clarke's memo was returned because Tenet had already "told the president that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack," the White House said.

As early as Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke says, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq despite repeated assurances from intelligence officials that the threat emanated from Afghanistan.

"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' "

Clarke served under every president since Ronald Reagan. He quit the White House in January 2003 after he was demoted to a sub-Cabinet job. The White House statement said Clarke "never had Cabinet rank." It said Bush did not need briefings from Clarke because he met daily with the CIA director.

EBERLY

The question is why doesn't the loss of American life and treasure piss you off?

Oh, yeah, party ideology OVER country....eh?

And then?

They blamed the cia director, eh?

Great job there, brownie....er....lilaWol/
hallichainy

Then why the fk are you making jokes at me about it?

Are you disengenuous or just a goofball whose posts shouldn't be taken seriously?

Oh, yeah.....political ideology over country, and now you can place all the blame on Obama.....eh?

LOL

Why not confine your posts to the topic at hand and the points presented instead of ad hominem attacks??

And, realize I asked a question of you, not attacked you personally EBERLY.

See the difference between debate and discussion vs juvenile ad hominem personal attacks>?

I guess being a smartass trumps logic in your world, eh EBERLY?

a "pussy"...?? smoke break???

who's assigning positions here EBERLY?

LOL

Well, at least I'm a pussy who served in a war zone occupation for a year and have some personal experience insight into the topic and try to share that info, as opposed to a stalker who lurks until they can attack a poster personally and off topic, eh?

And, uh, i already worked for over 40 years and retired 5+ years ago.

Does your employer know you are posting on DR while working or are you unemployed at present?

it was the LEFT who demanded that coffins be photographed.

#47 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2009-10-05 10:51 AM

More neocon war profiteering drivel.....

The returning caskets of those who served and died were always shown before hallichainy CHANGED the pentagon rules during reagan/bush41 when he was DOD, as well as changing rules so our military could be PRIVATIZED, before he became halliburton ceo....and then veep, and reaped windfall war profits from the nobid contracts he assigned to his previous corp.

no conflict of interest there eh?

And just like 5 deferment hallichainy, I'm guessing YOU never served anyone but yourself either, eh?

Why do you NOT want to HONOR the dead who resulted from the unnecessary invasions/occupations you championed AFK?

LOL

#53

Think the "surge" was a success? Think again, but first realize some FACTS about the issue.

The surge was PLOY to get lilaWol/hallichainy out of office without further debacle.

The surge began in FEB 07 and each and every month thereafter showed doubled or more US troop casualties UNTIL a DEAL was brokered in Sept 07 with the SUNNIS. From Sept on, after the deal was brokered, the US casualties dwindled....

But don't let FACTS get in the way of good propaganda you believe, eh?

Here, check it out for yourself...there were MORE us troops kia from Feb thru Aug of 07, than ANY other YEAR......

until the "truce"/deal was made with the Sunnis...

Try this link to iraqnam casualties....instead

Point taken mtnman.......

I, for one, am hoping that whatever the current cic decides, people stop the partisanship long enough to gain enough success to bring our troops home.

As with the sunnis, the saudis began back in 08 attempting to make some contact with and broker some peace in afghanistan, apparently with little success. Info I have read say they are doing the same more recently again.

There will be no victories in invasion/occupations where foreign occupiers have a huge prescence either imo. Was Vietnam a victory? We never lost a battle, yet the arvn/us never were able to overcome the insurgency.....vc and nva.
Decades from about 45-73.....58k kia....250k wia......

At what point do we cut our losses without cutting and running?

It's a fine line.