Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.


Most of the negative incidents and difficulties in Iraq are not because we do not have a well trained and dedicated military. On the contrary, look at how they performed during the first three months of this war. Our military is trained to destroy opposing military force and in that mission have NO equal today on Earth.

I have read articles that claim the reason for much of the negative events and lack of progress is because the mission given our military by their Commander-in-Chief is a mission for which our military is not trained, equipped or organized. They were NEVER intended as Nation Builders or to be a Police Force. As I look at the numerous diplomas on my wall from Artillery Basic, Combat Intel, Nuclear Weapons, Command and General Staff College and the Army War College, I must admit that we were NOT trained to do the things our military is being tasked to do in Iraq.

The Army has some Civil Affairs Units (Restoration of civilian services) and Military police units. However these are a VERY small part of the force and for the most part our military was not intended to do what is being asked of them in Iraq.

I commend our military for doing their best but the real problem lies with Bush who has put them into a role for which they were not intended and for which they are not trained or equipped to perform. It is time to for us to get out of Iraq and place that responsibility on this new Iraq Government and the Iraqi People!

Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jun 09, 2006
Darn it, I was hoping you were sitting on your lover, Zarqawi's lab when he was taken out.
on Jun 09, 2006
ParaTed2k

The truth is hard to accept!. This Blog is VERY REAL and describes the cause for MOST of the BAD NEWS out of Iraq! Tell me Bush is not responsible!
on Jun 09, 2006
Another useless, factless article by col. I notice you start new articles when you can't answer the posts in another one you started.

If you would read the good news from Iraq, not just the anti-American msm. You might see a different picture of our military.

I commend our military for doing their best but the real problem lies with Bush who has put them into a role for which they were not intended and for which they are not trained or equipped to perform. It is time to for us to get out of Iraq and place that responsibility on this new Iraq Government and the Iraqi People!


Same old tired arguement. Blame Bush. Blame Bush. Blame Bush. Do you know anything else?
on Jun 09, 2006
I have to agree for the most part. Our military is not meant to do the business they are doing in Iraq, and personally I think they should have kept right on fighting until we acheived a true victory. Then, I don't think it would have been so hard to rebuild.

We should have undertaken it as a true occupation, kicked in doors, and been exactly what they accused us of being. We would have been the bad guys, and suffered more in the world's opinion polls. We would have sacrificed tens of thousands of more Iraqi lives to save American lives. That, honestly, is what war is about.

I differ with you, though, on pulling out. I am sick of it too, and I doubt daily whether anything will come of it. I know for a fact, though, that pulling out now would lead to nothing coming of it. We simply have to allow our military to do their jobs.

In the long run if this is successful it will be of great benefit to us, even if the Iraqis hate us. We have nations like Egypt that hate us, but who are a stabalizing force in the region. If we gain another such nation in Iraq, it will be worth the effort.
on Jun 09, 2006
The truth is hard to accept!. This Blog is VERY REAL and describes the cause for MOST of the BAD NEWS out of Iraq! Tell me Bush is not responsible!


Bush is not responsible. You blog is about as real as Spongebob. You are constantly proved wrong, you are constantly ignoring facts that contradict you, and you never admit it.
on Jun 09, 2006
Did Zarqawi's mustache tickle when you two kissed?
on Jun 09, 2006
I want to know how many times he can write the same article over and over.
on Jun 09, 2006
It's a fundamental principle of army-building that only a core of combat veterans can effectively learn and teach the lessons necessary to change the institution.

The world is changing, and the army has to change with it.

Gene, you were a soldier during the Cold War, a period of relative peace, when the military had the luxury of staying in the last war's rut, and considering the next war only in the ease and comfort of the classroom.

Now the next war is upon us, and as in every war before, the Army-as-institution must learn by doing. And so we are generating veterans of the new style of warfare at a great pace, and learning valuable warfighting lessons from direct experience and experimentation. It's not a pretty sight, but then, this isn't a cooking class. These people aren't trying to figure out the recipe for apple pie. They're fighting a war.

No army is ever fully prepared for the next war. By the time such preparations are complete, the next war has become the last war, and the preparing army has lost. Rather, you go to war whenever you see some advantage, not whenever you are in the ideal position. In war, as in software development, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

And here, as elsewhere, we can see that your insistence on perfection is just another weapon in your attack against the good that the army is able to accomplish.

How can you have been a soldier--an officer, even!--without understanding these basic truths about soldiering?
on Jun 09, 2006
The military not only learns but applies and alters its policies and tactics from what it learns. That does alter the fact that the Mission in Iraq after Saddam Fell IS NOT what the Military is designed, trained or equipped to perform. For anyone to claim the Iraq War is not 100% Bush defies logic.

Bakerstreet is in part correct; we should have destroyed the hot beds of Saddam force activity after the central government fell. We should have prevented those factions from having access to the Ammo Dumps and should have safe guarded the infrastructure and sealed the borders. The lack of manpower is the reason why none of these essential functions were completed. That too is 100% Bush!

Bush made two major errors:

Going into Iraq was the first

Going to war with far too few troops to CONTROL the country as soon as the government fell was the second mistake.
on Jun 09, 2006
For anyone to claim the Iraq War is not 100% Bush defies logic.


Democrats voted to support the war col. I'm sure you will give them a pass and claim they were deceived as usual.

Do you know anything besides blaming Bush. You have an obsession with him and you need professional help.
on Jun 09, 2006
forget logic or reason, Gene is just a fart who blows out the butt with nothing of importance to say.
on Jun 09, 2006
IslandDog

Bush is the one that requested Congress the authority to attack Iraq. He did so under the rational that we were in danger from Iraq. He is the Commander-in Chief. Too many Democrats were convinced by the partial information given them by Bush and his minions. If ALL the Intel and he Military Assessment would have been presented to Congress there would NOT HAVE BEEN ANY WAR RESOLUTION passed!
on Jun 09, 2006
Bush is the one that requested Congress the authority to attack Iraq.


And most democrats approved of it.


He did so under the rational that we were in danger from Iraq.


As many democrats believed and have stated on record.

He is the Commander-in Chief. Too many Democrats were convinced by the partial information given them by Bush and his minions.


Enough of this. You have not provided one bit of proof that Bush gave partial information or any other bs you claim. Congress saw the same intelligence Bush did. Democrats believed Saddam was a threat before Bush was elected. I notice you never acknowledge the quotes from democrats about Iraq. You are nothing but a democratic hack.

If ALL the Intel and he Military Assessment would have been presented to Congress there would NOT HAVE BEEN ANY WAR RESOLUTION passed!


Hindsight means nothing col. Every committee and investigation has shown there was no deliberate deception on the part of Bush or Cheney for that matter. Everything you say here is false.
on Jun 09, 2006
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."


Was this person deceived by Bush and given wrong intelligence? Answer yes or no.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
on Jun 09, 2006
Ever notice that Col is only on his own threads?
5 Pages1 2 3  Last