NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON, DC—Departing from his usual hopeful rhetoric during a question-and-answer session with reporters in the White House Rose Garden, President Bush suggested Tuesday that the war in Iraq has not been successful because the nation's armed forces are "just not very good."

Bush conjectured that U.S. servicemen and women thrust into the horrifying chaos and violence of Iraq's Sunni Triangle may simply lack the proper perspective and cool detachment needed to implement an effective strategy against the insurgency. The commander in chief also wondered aloud why, for all their vaunted competence, American forces become disillusioned while fighting "for such a just and noble cause."

"On the occasions I've met our troops, most of them didn't seem like they had much going for them," Bush added. "I don't think very many went to college or anything."

Bush lamented the fact that the U.S. is "losing a lot of vehicles and equipment" in the ongoing conflict.

Shortly after the press conference, the White House announced that an advisory panel comprised of former officials from both Bush administrations and of private military contractors would be formed to devise effective solutions to problem areas in the nation's defense, namely the quality of the soldiers.

It's certainly a possibility.

Thoughts?

Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_maybe_u_s_military_just_not)

Aah, The Onion. You nearly had me going for a second :D

Lol!

It's rather depressing that I thought this was legit at first, and that it sounded like the sort of enormous gaffe Bush might make.

As an NSG poster, could you please not look at the link and instead take a wildly opinionated stance without stopping to think?

Honestly :mad:

You know what the sad thing is? Up until the last quote, I beleived he had done it.

What does it say about the man when an Onion article sounds disturbingly a lot like what he might actually do and say?

You just can't find the people to die for a needless cause anymore.............. :rolleyes:

As an NSG poster, could you please not look at the link and instead take a wildly opinionated stance without stopping to think?

Honestly :mad:

Sure! I'm outraged! [Insert outrage] ;)

Really though, I was more than a bit skeptical. :p

What does it say about the man when an Onion article sounds disturbingly a lot like what he might actually do and say?

He's been out of the news for so long, with our new 18-month presidential election taking up most of the headlines, that I wouldn't be too shocked if some policy change were basically unanticipated. :p As for the article, it really wasn't that far "out there," with the just cause talk, which is always used, and the lamenting of losses, which isn't really a stretch.

Now with added poll feature!

The Onion is good at pretending to be real. It's better at that than FOX or CNN.

In Capitalist America, incompetent leader criticises you.

As an NSG poster, could you please not look at the link and instead take a wildly opinionated stance without stopping to think?

Honestly :mad:
If you want it that way, my answer is that the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been given the ROE to succeed. Or maybe the policy of "one Iraq" is a bad idea.

There's a great parallel in the Balkans, isn't there? Tito held Yugoslavia together for years, as did Sadam. Why not work on equitable distribution of natural resources and then let each little faction have their own POS country to ruin. Our politicians should be great at something like this, after all, they are experts at the fine art of gerrymandering. Is this really different?

Why not work on equitable distribution of natural resources and then let each little faction have their own POS country to ruin. Our politicians should be great at something like this, after all, they are experts at the fine art of gerrymandering. Is this really different?

Unfortunately, Iraq's biggest resource up for grabs, Oil of course, is quite unevenly distributed across the country, and neither the Sunni nor Shia leaders want to lose control of any of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_key_maps/img/maps/iraq_oil_map485.gif

Also, I don't think it's fair to say they would "ruin" thier new states.

If you want it that way, my answer is that the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been given the ROE to succeed. Or maybe the policy of "one Iraq" is a bad idea.

There's a great parallel in the Balkans, isn't there? Tito held Yugoslavia together for years, as did Sadam. Why not work on equitable distribution of natural resources and then let each little faction have their own POS country to ruin. Our politicians should be great at something like this, after all, they are experts at the fine art of gerrymandering. Is this really different?

Didn't Dick Cheney state that you go to war with the army you have not the army you want - sure, he was talking about the structure as opposed to personnel but this Onion article simply magnifies what I suspect the administration feels anyway - Abu Ghraib, the US is simply being let down by the troops, certainly not the fault of the administration?

The Balkans? There are some striking similarities if only that the conflict was extended and excaberated by vested outside interests on ideological grounds.

Didn't Donald Rumsfeld state that you go to war with the army you have not the army you want - sure, he was talking about the structure as opposed to personnel but this Onion article simply magnifies what I suspect the administration feels anyway - Abu Ghraib, the US is simply being let down by the troops, certainly not the fault of the administration?

The Balkans? There are some striking similarities if only that the conflict was extended and excaberated by vested outside interests on ideological grounds.

Fix'd

Think of how much it costs to train a military the size of the american forces.

For what they have they are doing a brilliant job training wise.

People are scared of chinese forces - they have the most basic of "training", they just cant afford it.

Granted other countries such as the UK, France, Israel etc have higher trained individuals, but thats because the forces are far smaller.

Fix'd

Thanks - they meld into one for me but I should have checked :)

Thanks - they meld into one for me but I should have checked :)

It's NP. They've all said so much stupid stuff over the years, sometime's I get confused, myself.

Unfortunately, Iraq's biggest resource up for grabs, Oil of course, is quite unevenly distributed across the country, and neither the Sunni nor Shia leaders want to lose control of any of it.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say they would "ruin" thier new states.
Nothing is particularly easy. I just wanted to toss out an idea for discussion. I don't think our national personality will ever unite the Shi'ites and Sunnis, neither will our military.

Granted other countries such as the UK, Israel etc have higher trained individuals, but thats because the forces are far smaller.
It is not only that, Anglo and Israeli culture is different.

For example, weapons in the UK are not widespread, this gives a squaddie (British Soldier) more of a fist fight nature and British people in general hate fire-arms and would only use them when they need to. This, along with a very disciplined and well trained force means battle drill and rules of engagement are better kept.

Mabey the legend that American soldiers are all trigger happy is true but we, sitting here typing on a fourm, can not verify anything.

does it say something that, having gone through basic training in NZ, if you manage to complete it but Fail to qualify for the army here, and go to the USA and offer to join their army [once you get through all the hoops that may or may not be involved in being allowed to in the first place, anyway] , they'll take you in a flash, and as something along the lines of a marine etc rather than a rifleman, as well?

or so I'm told by my brother, who joined up but managed to get his knee damaged sufficiently for continuing to be something of a waste of time before completing his training.

i think it says several things, actually :)

It is not only that, Anglo and Israeli culture is different.

For example, weapons in the UK are not widespread, this gives a squaddie (British Soldier) more of a fist fight nature and British people in general hate fire-arms and would only use them when they need to. This, along with a very disciplined and well trained force means battle drill and rules of engagement are better kept.

Mabey the legend that American soldiers are all trigger happy is true but we, sitting here typing on a fourm, can not verify anything.

Sad but true about the guns haha.

Theres also far more tradition in British army which I believe keeps the morale and discipline there. Did most of my family members heads in though :p

Thanks - they meld into one for me but I should have checked :)
Rumsfeld's comments always have more of a Zen quality to them, like he's got one of those people who write for fortune cookie companies living inside his head.
Hence: "There will be some things that people will see. There will be some things that people won't see. And life goes on."

If you want it that way, my answer is that the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been given the ROE to succeed. Or maybe the policy of "one Iraq" is a bad idea.

There's a great parallel in the Balkans, isn't there? Tito held Yugoslavia together for years, as did Sadam. Why not work on equitable distribution of natural resources and then let each little faction have their own POS country to ruin. Our politicians should be great at something like this, after all, they are experts at the fine art of gerrymandering. Is this really different?

Many people have called for Iraq to be divided up into three countries. I think the reason that the US doesn't want to do it is that it creates an enormous power vacuum for Iran can fill. Things would probably be alot more peaceful over there... until Iran comes and kills all the Sunni and Kurds.

does it say something that, having gone through basic training in NZ, if you manage to complete it but Fail to qualify for the army here, and go to the USA and offer to join their army [once you get through all the hoops that may or may not be involved in being allowed to in the first place, anyway] , they'll take you in a flash, and as something along the lines of a marine etc rather than a rifleman, as well?

or so I'm told by my brother, who joined up but managed to get his knee damaged sufficiently for continuing to be something of a waste of time before completing his training.

i think it says several things, actually :)

My thoughts are that it says "sour grapes" loudest of all.

Many people have called for Iraq to be divided up into three countries. I think the reason that the US doesn't want to do it is that it creates an enormous power vacuum for Iran can fill. Things would probably be alot more peaceful over there... until Iran comes and kills all the Sunni and Kurds.
How does one undo a thousand years, or more, of history? The answer is that one doesn't. So, then the question might become more about how to force those factions to live together. The U.K. finally got the Catholics and Protestants to live together Northern Ireland after quite a few years of unrest, but the challenge seems much greater in Arab/Muslim countries...

My thoughts are that it says "sour grapes" loudest of all.

well, he was apparently quoting a sergeant who said as much right near the beginning. heh.

How does one undo a thousand years, or more, of history? The answer is that one doesn't. So, then the question might become more about how to force those factions to live together. The U.K. finally got the Catholics and Protestants to live together Northern Ireland after quite a few years of unrest, but the challenge seems much greater in Arab/Muslim countries...

Money.

Not to take too much away from Blair but joining the EU made Ireland rich due to its cheap, educated citizens. Once you give the general public the opportunity to make money, the impetus to fight disappears and the general public turns against those who block that opportunity.

Once the IRA lost public support it had no future other than coming to the negotiation table.

How you do that in the Middle East is another question, at least Ireland had a fairly solid structure on which to get going.

I work in a large london war museum. We had a party of troops from the Illinois national guard come in dressed in desert fatigues. They had just returned from Iraq and when asked wether they were glad to be going home they replied "Anything to be away from the dumb trigger happy regular US army troops" Says it all really.:eek:

The Onion wins.

I work in a large london war museum. We had a party of troops from the Illinois national guard come in dressed in desert fatigues. They had just returned from Iraq and when asked wether they were glad to be going home they replied "Anything to be away from the dumb trigger happy regular US army troops" Says it all really.:eek:

Head to Hooker Hill in the Itaewon district of Seoul, Korea to partake in some really deep philosophical conversations with Marines.

I rarely feel the spidey sense of 'get the f**k out of here now' but that place just blew all the fuses.

Soldiers, no matter the nation, not the most moral of citizens.

It's certainly a possibility.

Thoughts?

Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_maybe_u_s_military_just_not)



Or it could be that the current Commander & Chief of American Forces isn't very good at commanding anything.

Didn't Dick Cheney state that you go to war with the army you have not the army you want - sure, he was talking about the structure as opposed to personnel but this Onion article simply magnifies what I suspect the administration feels anyway - Abu Ghraib, the US is simply being let down by the troops, certainly not the fault of the administration?



I believe it was Donny (Donald Rumsfield) who stated that comment regarding the Army.

I believe it was Donny (Donald Rumsfield) who stated that comment regarding the Army.

Really? I wish someone had pointed that out around post 16, although it's mistake enough to point out numerous times I suppose.

Soldiers, no matter the nation, not the most moral of citizens.
But are they the most human of citizens? Seeing as humans are naturaly adapted for fighting.

Seriously though, it's not their fault.