Fallback strategy for Iraq: Train locals, draw down forces

[Tiger Al 0]

If the current 'surge' fails, planners suggest relying on advisors as the U.S. did in El Salvador in the 1980s.

WASHINGTON — American military planners have begun plotting a fallback strategy for Iraq that includes a gradual withdrawal of forces and a renewed emphasis on training Iraqi fighters in case the current troop buildup fails or is derailed by Congress.

Such a strategy, based in part on the U.S. experience in El Salvador in the 1980s, is still in the early planning stages and would be adjusted to fit the outcome of the current surge in troop levels, according to military officials and Pentagon consultants who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing future plans.

But a drawdown of forces would be in line with comments to Congress by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last month that if the "surge" fails, the backup plan would include moving troops "out of harm's way." Such a plan also would be close to recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, of which Gates was a member before his appointment as Defense Department chief.

A strategy following the El Salvador model would be a dramatic break from President Bush's current policy of committing large numbers of U.S. troops to aggressive counterinsurgency tactics, but it has influential backers within the Pentagon.

"This part of the world has an allergy against foreign presence," said a senior Pentagon official, adding that chances of success with a large U.S. force may be diminishing. "You have a window of opportunity that is relatively short. Your ability to influence this with a large U.S. force eventually gets to the point that it is self-defeating."

The new round of planning is taking place in an atmosphere of extraordinary tension within the Pentagon, which is grappling with a war about to enter its fifth year and going poorly on the ground while straining U.S. forces worldwide.

At the same time, the war has created divisions within the Pentagon. Some support the new commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who advocates using more American forces to protect Baghdad neighborhoods, whereas others back the position of Gen. John P. Abizaid, the retiring commander for the Mideast, who favored handing responsibility more quickly to Iraqis.

A shift away from the buildup and toward a more advisor-based strategy would bring the administration more in line with the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel created by Congress to make recommendations on the war. The group called for a gradual reduction in U.S. combat forces. Kalev I. Sepp, a key advisor to the panel and an El Salvador veteran, was instrumental in getting the commission to back an expanded advisory effort.

"That's exactly what I proposed to the Iraq Study Group, and that's exactly what ended up in the report," said Sepp, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.

LINK

Is 'fallback strategy' nothing more than a militarized version of 'cut and run' that the republicans will soon embrace?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I thought the plan was to train the Iraqis to take care of themselves and then we leave. Seems like you are getting all tingly over nothing. Those "patriots" that support us so dearly will latch onto this (as you apparently have) as the Republicans "cutting and running." Nothing could be further from the truth.

When are you resigning your post in the Guard? For someone that roots against our mission as much as you do, it must really make the bile rise out of your stomach each time you get your drill pay. Personally, I'd be ashamed to take it and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror each morning if I did.

[Tiger Al 0]

I thought the plan was to train the Iraqis to take care of themselves and then we leave. Seems like you are getting all tingly over nothing. Those "patriots" that support us so dearly will latch onto this (as you apparently have) as the Republicans "cutting and running." Nothing could be further from the truth.

I thought the plan was to disarm Saddam Hussein. Oh wait, that was the first plan. Or, was it the second one? Which one came before Mission Accomplished? Anyway, so, are you now on record as saying 'fallback strategy' is not the same as 'cut and run?' I just want to know so that when you defend Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox's criticism of 'fallback strategy' as such we don't have any crawfishing on your part.

When are you resigning your post in the Guard? For someone that roots against our mission as much as you do, it must really make the bile rise out of your stomach each time you get your drill pay. Personally, I'd be ashamed to take it and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror each morning if I did.

I guess I just forgot to put my critical thinking skills in the Amnesty Box at basic training. I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours. Plus, I never stop at the urn of Kool-Aid in the chow line. Bottomfeeder told me they put something in it.

Why are you for censorship? Don't you believe in free speech?

[Captain Liger 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

[Tiger Al 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

[AFTiger 282]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

That is a strawman argument. I demand a link

[Captain Liger 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

The military defends democracy. It doesn't practice it. Its members do not have all the same Constitutional rights that a civilian has. So if you consider yourself a member of the military then, yes, you think wrong.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

That's just it. He's not a real military man; he joined the Guard to avoid the draft the democrats said was coming if Bush was re-elected in 2004. Now he's stuck. He is the prime example of why we should never go back to the draft.

If he were as courageous as he trys to make us believe, he wouldn't sell himself out just to collect easy money drilling each month. You disagree with the mission so much, resign. Quit. Stand up for your principle and be a man.

[Tiger Al 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

The military defends democracy. It doesn't practice it. Its members do not have all the same Constitutional rights that a civilian has. So if you consider yourself a member of the military then, yes, you think wrong.

Why am I wrong, simply besides you saying I am? Why do you think I'm not allowed to voice my opinion?

[JohnDeere 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

The military defends democracy. It doesn't practice it. Its members do not have all the same Constitutional rights that a civilian has. So if you consider yourself a member of the military then, yes, you think wrong.

Why am I wrong, simply besides you saying I am? Why do you think I'm not allowed to voice my opinion?

The early republic had no standing army. Instead, legions would be conscripted as needed (the term Legion comes from the Latin term Legio — "muster" or "levy"), put into the field to fight the war for which they had been created, and would then disband back to their civilian lives, which for most meant farming. Troops would be levied from Rome and its surrounding colonies, each which would be responsible for providing a particular number of soldiers. Such conscripts were theoretically taken only from those men who were property/land holders wealthy enough to equip themselves, although in time of dire military need this requirement was overlooked. This made the Roman Legion less expensive to the state, and ensured that the Legions were fighting to preserve their own property and way of life as much as trying to protect their country.

In the later republic, Gaius Marius instituted the Marian reforms (107 BC) which completely altered the form of the Legion. Marius restructured the standard legion and updated its equipment and tactical doctrines for modern warfare. He also recast the legions as a standing professional Roman army whose ranks were open to volunteers from any class. Marius did this to to address the new reality that Rome needed dedicated professional armies for extended campaigns lasting years (and not just a season), and to address the severe shortage of eligible middle class landholder recruits whose existence had been decimated by economic changes within Roman society, and the battlefield casualties inflicted by Rome's prolonged military campaigns. Now, instead of being a short term landholder recruit fighting to defend his own home and property, the typical Roman legionnaire was a lower-class "career soldier" who had enlisted for a period of 20 years, working towards a "pension" which was a land grant provided by the state by tradition (but not guaranteed by law) at the end of their service. The fact that such pensions were not guaranteed by law, but had to be proposed before the Senate by the Senator-General who was disbanding his legion(s) had the subtle, but important, effect of refocusing the loyalty of the legionary, who now fought as much for his General who could guarantee his "pension" as for the country.

[Captain Liger 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

The military defends democracy. It doesn't practice it. Its members do not have all the same Constitutional rights that a civilian has. So if you consider yourself a member of the military then, yes, you think wrong.

Why am I wrong, simply besides you saying I am? Why do you think I'm not allowed to voice my opinion?

It's actually quite more than me simply "thinking." This little thing called the Uniform Code of Military Justice says that you can't.

You can certainly express your political opinion in the voting booth where no one else can see and hear but that's about it. Sorry. If you desire to scream your political opinion from the top of every mountain for the entire world to hear then I suggest you get out of uniform.

[Tiger Al 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

The military defends democracy. It doesn't practice it. Its members do not have all the same Constitutional rights that a civilian has. So if you consider yourself a member of the military then, yes, you think wrong.

Why am I wrong, simply besides you saying I am? Why do you think I'm not allowed to voice my opinion?

It's actually quite more than me simply "thinking." This little thing called the Uniform Code of Military Justice says that you can't.

You can certainly express your political opinion in the voting booth where no one else can see and hear but that's about it. Sorry. If you desire to scream your political opinion from the top of every mountain for the entire world to hear then I suggest you get out of uniform.

UCMJ only applies to National Guard when federalized, otherwise, we are subject to the state military code and I haven't seen anything in it that bars me from voicing my opinion.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Do you have an Armed Forces ID card? If so, the UCMJ applies to you.

[Tiger Al 0]

Do you have an Armed Forces ID card? If so, the UCMJ applies to you.

From the US Code Title 10 Chapter 47, otherwise known as Uniform Code of Military Justice:

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

As I said, when not Federalized, the National Guard does not fall under the jurisdiction of UCMJ but the state's military code.

And, I didn't even see where it violates UCMJ to voice my opinion.

I think this is all a red-herring to avoid answering my question to you, which was, "Are you now on record as saying 'fallback strategy' is not the same as 'cut and run?' "

[Captain Liger 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

The military defends democracy. It doesn't practice it. Its members do not have all the same Constitutional rights that a civilian has. So if you consider yourself a member of the military then, yes, you think wrong.

Why am I wrong, simply besides you saying I am? Why do you think I'm not allowed to voice my opinion?

It's actually quite more than me simply "thinking." This little thing called the Uniform Code of Military Justice says that you can't.

You can certainly express your political opinion in the voting booth where no one else can see and hear but that's about it. Sorry. If you desire to scream your political opinion from the top of every mountain for the entire world to hear then I suggest you get out of uniform.

UCMJ only applies to National Guard when federalized, otherwise, we are subject to the state military code and I haven't seen anything in it that bars me from voicing my opinion.

Are you going to be so boisterous with your opinions when you get activated for a tour in the sandbox?

[Tiger Al 0]

I also don't believe that I give up my rights when I promise to defend yours.

Then you think wrong.

I haven't yet.

The military defends democracy. It doesn't practice it. Its members do not have all the same Constitutional rights that a civilian has. So if you consider yourself a member of the military then, yes, you think wrong.

Why am I wrong, simply besides you saying I am? Why do you think I'm not allowed to voice my opinion?

It's actually quite more than me simply "thinking." This little thing called the Uniform Code of Military Justice says that you can't.

You can certainly express your political opinion in the voting booth where no one else can see and hear but that's about it. Sorry. If you desire to scream your political opinion from the top of every mountain for the entire world to hear then I suggest you get out of uniform.

UCMJ only applies to National Guard when federalized, otherwise, we are subject to the state military code and I haven't seen anything in it that bars me from voicing my opinion.

Are you going to be so boisterous with your opinions when you get activated for a tour in the sandbox?

I'm sure I would discuss current events with others who wanted to do the same, but, if Cpt. Liger ever came around I'd just smile and say, "Hooah, Sir."

I try to follow the advice Robert E. Lee gave to J.E.B. Stuart; Be watchful and circumspect in all your movements.

[Captain Liger 0]

I'm sure I would discuss current events with others who wanted to do the same,

Just make sure you do it behind closed doors and never with your subordinates or those you outrank period. Gripes go up, not down. Heck, even if you're not griping it's still a no-no.

but, if Cpt. Liger ever came around I'd just smile and say, "Hooah, Sir."

And then promptly go on a convoy that I tell you to go on to conduct CASEVAC of wounded troopers, right? Even into a theatre of war that you loathe because why? Because you know it's your duty, right?

You do realize I'd reprimand soldiers publicly expressing their political opinion even if it coincides with my own, don't you? There were a few instances leading up to the '04 election where I did just that. I don't care which way you lean. Ours is not to reason why....

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm sure I would discuss current events with others who wanted to do the same,

Just make sure you do it behind closed doors and never with your subordinates or those you outrank period. Gripes go up, not down. Heck, even if you're not griping it's still a no-no.

but, if Cpt. Liger ever came around I'd just smile and say, "Hooah, Sir."

And then promptly go on a convoy that I tell you to go on to conduct CASEVAC of wounded troopers, right? Even into a theatre of war that you loathe because why? Because you know it's your duty, right?

You do realize I'd reprimand soldiers publicly expressing their political opinion even if it coincides with my own, don't you? There were a few instances leading up to the '04 election where I did just that. I don't care which way you lean. Ours is not to reason why....

You'd have to yell that order because I'd already be on the way!