"John Cook" wrote in message
...

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral
decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US
friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up
your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's
book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and
Pakis
moving that day.

Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
authority from their superiors.

Not real bright, are you? You trot out a source that allegedly supports
your
warped construct, and it turns out you can't even properly get the very
basics of the *source* right. Hint--what *USMC* unit was involved in that

Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
think that's what you are on about?.

Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic facts
right, amigo.


Mogadishu raid that is the subject of your source? You need to go back
and
read that book again--most of it obviously passed through your cranial
cavity without your accurately decyphering its meaning.

Oh, so now you are postulating a "Day One", to be followed by another...
Day
One? Or is this just another example, like your later, "Well, we'll keep
the
US-ians around to handle the REAL problems while we have a few thousand
of
(undetermined providing nations' troops) serve as window dressing--but
other
than that the US will cede control and be tucked away quietly in its
bases,
out of sight, out of mind!" idea, of how you can use the US forces,
without
actually using the US forces? Doublespeak much? Either you have the US as
a
player, as you are now indicating, or you don't, as you originally
postulated--which is it?

You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
possible.

What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is nice
to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard the
US forces on "Day One"...


No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear
up
the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in
fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy
hitting,
but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus"
otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
pro-american.
do you believe such a state can exist??.

I find your protestations against being labled anti-American a bit weak,
given the evidence of your repeated posts against myriad things USian,
and
*none* pro-USian...

How does that affect the situation in Iraq?, its still a big cock-up

I note that for a change you don't deny your wide-ranging anti-US bias;
maybe you are finally beginning to come to terms with your own prejudices?




No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have
been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't?

That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

So they don't like Chalabi--so what?


So what!!!, you stick someone they don't like in and pretty soon they
will be out and someone you don't like will be in, blimey you are
not facing reality are you, there not interested in imported Iraqi's.

Their governing council will provide the initial interim leadership,
followed by a government of their own choosing. Oddly enough, the question
of national leadership ranked low among the polled Iraqis concerns---seems
you are more worked up over it than they are.


They have the CPA until they can
construct their own new final government, they are overwhelmingly happy
with
their current local government, and they decidedly want the coalition to
remain in the country for the time being. I suspect the reason you don't
like that poll is because it does not square with your own sermonizing of
what the Iraqis themselves *really* want, which begs the question of when
you were annointed and gifted with the clairvoyance necessary for you to
repeatedly tell us their desires.


You have zero military experience?
Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

Uhmm--the guy driving the Roach Coach (mobile snack stand) around FT Knox
could claim he "worked with" those of us who were actually pulling duty.
I used to make bits for missiles systems and elsewhere on worked on
communications, beyond that I can't say.

Well, you moved beyond that very limited range of expertise a long while
back.

Sorry, no points awarded for that claim. So what we have in you is a guy
who
claims that he knows the "strategy and tactics" of the situation in Iraq
better than those who *do* wear the uniforms, or the SecDef, etc., yet
who
has zip/nada/zilch in terms of military experience or training. That
figures.

OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
identify with he-

Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so darned
fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and tactics"
(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based upon
zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to mention
reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
engaged.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3646947.stm
Quote"Now, the two serving generals have raised questions about the
wisdom of excluding Baath party officials from the post-war
administration"
Now what was it you were saying about ridiculous assertions!!, I said
excluding the old mob was a big mistake, two US generals (who I
freely admit have an Infinitely better handle on the situation in
Iraq than you or I, "seem to share the view that the policy of
casting senior Iraqi officers aside was a mistake."

So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof that
they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.


"British generals, too, have been speaking out".

"Yesterday, the head of the British Army - Gen Sir Mike Jackson - told
the House of Commons Defence Committee it was a fact that the British
approach to post-conflict situations was doctrinally different to that
of the US".

"There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
other commanders."

LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went something
like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."


But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
the British are wrong, and the polish too..

No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just disagree.
Even you should be able to see the difference.


That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is
better than not having them there...

Well I have two US generals and a couple of other nations who agree
with me...Or do you agree with "the famous French statesman, Georges
Clemenceau, who said that "war is too important to be left to the
generals". Funny I thought you didn't agree with the French.

No, you don't. You indicated we should be putting known hostiles into the
forces--not the same thing.



Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed?
Or to put it in
the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that
the
guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective
are
part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT
would
claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
"wise" move.

"23/6/2003 U.S. announces formation of new Iraqi army
RAMADI, Iraq (AP) - U.S.-led civil administrators announced the
creation of a new Iraqi army Monday, hoping to contain anger among
soldiers jobless since Saddam Hussein's military was disbanded and to
curb a rash of anti-U.S. attacks."

Or perhaps

"I'm not that comfortable in the new army," said Nawar Mahmood, 23,
who said he was a member of the Kurdish pesh merga militia and had
been reassigned to the new Iraqi army. "I spent 13 years in the pesh
merga fighting the Baathists, and now there are many Baathists in the
new army."



Now Mr Brook every single Iraqi soldier is a known hostile,

No, they are not, not after the initial conflict was resolved and Hussein
removed from power. By your view, Germany would have been left with NO
leadership after the war at ANY level had we taken that complete approach to
defining "hostiles". As would have Japan.

Out of time to debate this with you further at this point. Go back to your
"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website and general
bashing of us Yanks, John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
specifically critiqued...).

Brooks