Another blunder

[ldzppln]

in the "war on terror" in Iraq. This isn't necessarily "new" news, but it never got much attention.

Unguarded munition sites still feed Iraq violence: report
Thu Mar 22, 7:08 PM ET

As of October 2006 US forces had still not secured all of the unguarded munition sites in Iraq, allowing thieves to keep stealing war material and stoke the country's violence, a US government report said Thursday.

The Government Accountability Office said that not enough soldiers were available to take control of massive arms dumps across Iraq after the March 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

"Not securing these conventional munitions storage site has been costly, as government reports indicated that looted munitions are being used to make improvised explosive devices (IED) that have killed or maimed many people, and will likely continue to support terrorist attacks in the region," the GAO report summary reads.

"Conventional munitions storage sites were looted after major combat operations and some remained vulnerable as of October 2006."

"The widespread looting occurred because DOD (the Department of Defense) had insufficient troop levels to secure conventional munitions storage sites," it said, citing war reports and defense officials.

"DOD does not appear to have conducted a theaterwide survey and assessment of the current risk unsecured conventional munitions represent to US forces and others."

Speaking Thursday after the release of the report, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged the problem while pointing out that US forces have already destroyed several hundred thousand tonnes of Iraqi munitions.

"Fundamentally, the entire country was one big ammo dump. And there were thousands of these sites," he told reporters.

"We're doing our best to try and find them but, given the expanse of the country and all the other tasks that the military is trying to carry out there, it's a huge task," he said.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A huge task indeed. Hmmmm... you'd think the military planner guys & gals maybe would have thought about that before attacking, invading and subsequently occupying Iraq. They knew the country was "one big ammo dump". Heck, they "knew" Saddam had WMDs, right? They knew all this, yet didn't send a large enough military force to properly secure the country, costing countless (okay, hundreds of thousands) of lives? It's a good thing Saddam didn't have any WMD, because those would likely have been left unsecured as well (but that was never really an issue, was it?)

To sum it up:

Bush willingly and knowingly sent an under-sized and insufficiently prepared military force to attack, invade and occupy Iraq, all the while knowing there would be an insurgency, and knowing the "conventional munitions storage sites" throughout the country would not be secured thus fueling said insurgency. Does anyone else find it odd that the "ammo dumps" were not secured, but the oil fields were?

Read that again - the "conventional munition" storage sites were not secured. There were too many. The military had another tasks to carry out. Securing the ammo sites was not important enough. Keeping these weapons and explosives out of the hands of the predicted & ongoing insurgency was not important enough. Preventing the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops was not important enough. Preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens was not important enough. What was important to the military planners? Protecting the oil. Unbelievable.

[hork]

well to be fair they were sent in completely unprepared, undermanned and under-armed. this is little more than a manifestation of some of the worst pre-invasion planning since the bay of pigs.

but that aside, there is no truth to this story in the first place. after all we all know beyond doubt that the insurgents are only using weapons provided to them by iran. they do not have access to any other weapons and we know that must be true because it's based on the same quality intel that the whole invasion was based on......

[spoc22]

So more soldiers being sent there would provide someone to guard this ammo dump?

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by spoc22

So more soldiers being sent there would provide someone to guard this ammo dump?

Sure, as long as all of the ammo dumps are in Baghdad, or near the oil fields.

Here's a quick timeline of the Iraq war:

- March 13, 2003: Bush launches attack, invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq
- March 21, 2003: (8 days later) Sr. military officials declare oil fields are secured

Four years and 3,216 American troops' lives later...

- March 22, 2007: Conventional Munition storage cites around Iraq remain unsecured by US forces.


Amazing.

[Bill Shaw]

While it may not be the most popular perspective (at the moment)...

A look at the larger picture often provides greater clarity.

Many (read that as pretty much all) observers of the current conflict trace the root back to the suicide attack on the U.S Marine Barracks in the predawn hours of October 23, 1983

Common dismissal to the extent of organization it took to wreak that level of havoc would have it believed a small renegade group was behind it.

Almost never mentioned is the fact that for almost 12 hours immediately following the attack, the Airport and Barracks areas were constantly fired on from the nearby mountains to the extent helicopters could not safely be brought in to remove the wounded and dead. Only when Israeli planes began firing into the mountains did it cease.

A major contributing factor towards the success of the attack was that the Marines guarding the area were doing so with arms that contained no rounds. A diplomat concession, reflecting their presence as peace keepers as opposed to an occupying force.

Ever since, any action taken to reduce or remove U.S. military participation in the region (and by that, I mean as far west as the Mediterranean, and east as Asia) has been met by organized attacks to exploit the diminished participation.

On our shores, the September 2001 World Trade Center attack was the culmination of a series of attempts that began in 1993 by, if not centrally led, certainly sympathetic entities.

The reason I mention any of this is we are truly blessed to have the military apparatus and leadership thereof we do. That includes all the Commanders in Chief before and since (even that embarrassment of a Co-President from Arkansas).

Were it not for them, this country would have resembled Beirut long ago. And the very same folks that waffle between "get out" and "not enough was done" arguments might not have the life or liberty to do so.

Let another major foreign induced calamity happen in this country today.

How short would the cycle be from stunned silence to nitpicking unimportant elements (out of context) as if they had a more workable solution?

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

.... The reason I mention any of this is we are truly blessed to have the military apparatus and leadership thereof we do. That includes all the Commanders in Chief before and since (even that embarrassment of a Co-President from Arkansas).

Were it not for them, this country would have resembled Beirut long ago. And the very same folks that waffle between "get out" and "not enough was done" arguments might not have the life or liberty to do so.

Let another major foreign induced calamity happen in this country today.

How short would the cycle be from stunned silence to nitpicking unimportant elements (out of context) as if they had a more workable solution?

In other words, war is the only option?

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

In other words, war is the only option?

Conflict is not necessarily a discretionary matter.

If the people everywhere decided to operate on selfless principles one day, and then on, it could forever cease.

Hasn't happened, and may never.

In the meantime, the very real ability to protect and defend, here and abroad, allows us the opportunity to live in a society that, at it's best, reflects an imperfect adaption of them.

It may be the singular reason our culture is so loved / hated elsewhere and within.

[hork]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

It may be the singular reason our culture is so loved / hated elsewhere and within.

see this line of thought bothers me greatly. having had the luxury of growing up a military brat and living abroad for a good portion of my life i can honestly say that not once have i experienced anyone voicing hatred for our culture or our way of life. i have however heard on many occassions people voice disdain for our foreign policies. the two are not mutually exclusive. i'd argue that most the rest of the world don't hate americans for the rights and freedoms they have but rather for the insane need many have to force our own philosophies and politics on other nations especially where they are neither needed nor wanted.

[ldzppln]

Originally Posted by Bill Shaw

Conflict is not necessarily a discretionary matter.

If the people everywhere decided to operate on selfless principles one day, and then on, it could forever cease.

Hasn't happened, and may never.

In the meantime, the very real ability to protect and defend, here and abroad, allows us the opportunity to live in a society that, at it's best, reflects an imperfect adaption of them.

It may be the singular reason our culture is so loved / hated elsewhere and within.

You speak of such matters from a thousand foot view (maybe higher). Fair enough. That's the easy way out - our way or the highway. You're either with us or against us. U.S.A knows best, the rest of the world be damned. Live off the "peace dividend" of our victory in the cold war. The typical NeoCon view.

Though a proud U.S. citizen, born from generations of men who have proudley served - both voluntarily, and when called upon, I fully appreciate the right I have been afforded to oppose such a view point. To suggest those opposed to the current actions of our (misguided) military have a lack of understanding or appreciation of the significance of those who have gone before us is, to put it plainly, B.S.

Your argument that military might is the best/only way to get our point across and have our way with the world is weak on so many (if not every) levels, it can hardly be disputed in one, or a series or posts, here. When you're ready to argue points at an earthly level, let me know. Until then, I'll have to believe that you, like most loyal "Bushies", are out of ammo, and simply waiting... hoping... grasping for something positive to come out of all of this. Good luck with that.

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by hork

see this line of thought bothers me greatly. having had the luxury of growing up a military brat and living abroad for a good portion of my life i can honestly say that not once have i experienced anyone voicing hatred for our culture or our way of life. i have however heard on many occassions people voice disdain for our foreign policies. .

While only you know what anyone has said in your presence, to put forward the proposition that our way of life is not at issue anywhere is beyond naive.

I don't find it hard to believe you've never chit chatted with those in power of oppressive regimes. In those societies, it doesn't matter what anyone you met thinks, or says, or feels very much. Not for a moment, most likely not for their lifetimes.

Even as far as that goes, sniping at foreign policy may be your right. It does not, however, make it right.

Originally Posted by ldzppln

You speak of such matters from a thousand foot view (maybe higher). Fair enough. That's the easy way out - our way or the highway. You're either with us or against us. U.S.A knows best, the rest of the world be damned. Live off the "peace dividend" of our victory in the cold war. The typical NeoCon view.

Though a proud U.S. citizen, born from generations of men who have proudley served - both voluntarily, and when called upon, I fully appreciate the right I have been afforded to oppose such a view point. To suggest those opposed to the current actions of our (misguided) military have a lack of understanding or appreciation of the significance of those who have gone before us is, to put it plainly, B.S.

Your argument that military might is the best/only way to get our point across and have our way with the world is weak on so many (if not every) levels, it can hardly be disputed in one, or a series or posts, here. When you're ready to argue points at an earthly level, let me know. Until then, I'll have to believe that you, like most loyal "Bushies", are out of ammo, and simply waiting... hoping... grasping for something positive to come out of all of this. Good luck with that.

You may be entirely wrong.

My view was from the USS Iwo Jima (named by the way, after the largest loss of Marine life in a single day prior to Beirut). The only reason I know what I know is because I was within a mile of the Beirut blast that day.

Meanwhile, yours involves something akin to entitlement, and genetic code. If you rocketed into space your perspective would be closer than it is.

NeoLib may be sexy, but so were leisure suits once.

You have absolutely NO awareness of my political -or- social views. I never came close to saying anything of the sort that "it's our way or the highway".

Something positive has come from this already. That whole crashing planes into skyscraper and landmark fad seems to have lost steam.

But keep it up... if you had your way it'd be back in vogue, and quick.

[ldzppln]

My view was from the USS Iwo Jima (named by the way, after the largest loss of Marine life in a single day prior to Beirut). The only reason I know what I know is because I was within a mile of the Beirut blast that day.

My father was stationed on the very same ship, although in a different place and time. I humbly thank you, and countless others for your service to our country.

Meanwhile, yours involves something akin to entitlement, and genetic code. If you rocketed into space your perspective would be closer than it is.

There it is - "I served, and you didn't, so STFU". That smacks of military elitism. Not surprising, but of no use in these sorts of discussions.

You have absolutely NO awareness of my political -or- social views. I never came close to saying anything of the sort that "it's our way or the highway".

If you didn't before, you sure as heck did below.

Something positive has come from this already. That whole crashing planes into skyscraper and landmark fad seems to have lost steam.

But keep it up... if you had your way it'd be back in vogue, and quick.

If I'm way off base, please correct me. Seriously, me not so smart. All this fancy talk can be confusing to cavemen like me (think "unfrozen caveman lawyer" from SNL).

[Bill Shaw]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

My father was stationed on the very same ship, although in a different place and time. I humbly thank you, and countless others for your service to our country.

Just doing what my father, and his father did. Was a cool opportunity that may have served me much more than I did it.

Originally Posted by ldzppln

There it is - "I served, and you didn't, so STFU". That smacks of military elitism. Not surprising, but of no use in these sorts of discussions.

No use to you, but that doesn't make it no use. Kinda' lets the air out of your "thousand feet above" shot.

You're not required to shut up. Wouldn't know what you really think if you did.

Originally Posted by ldzppln

If you didn't before, you sure as heck did below.

If you have no problem with terrorist attacks on US soil, we just differ.

Originally Posted by ldzppln

If I'm way off base, please correct me. Seriously, me not so smart. All this fancy talk can be confusing to cavemen like me (think "unfrozen caveman lawyer" from SNL).

Stick with Jon Stewart.

At least you two can form eerily similar opinions in time to post just before the morning papers hit.

[ldzppln]

No use to you, but that doesn't make it no use. Kinda' lets the air out of your "thousand feet above" shot.

that was not intended as a shot - I interpreted your view of US policy and the world in general as "high level" view (1,000 feet up). Not that you weren't grounded in your thinking, but rather your thinking was at such a high level that the details didn't matter. Long term thinking - what's best for mankind in the long run, as opposed to what's best for us individually, right now.

If you have no problem with terrorist attacks on US soil, we just differ.

Ooof. I don't get that one at all. No one wants attacks on US soil (or any soil, for that matter.) Where we differ is in what we believe leads to these attacks, and what measures ought to be take to avoid/prevent such attacks in the future.

Stick with Jon Stewart.

At least you two can form eerily similar opinions in time to post just before the morning papers hit.

I get a kick out of the highlight clips from his show that I view periodically throughout the week, but I don't watch his program. Heck, I don't even know what channel (I've got Direct TV) he's on. Comedy channel, I think, but I don't know what the number is. ESPN is 206, VH1 Classic is 337 - that's about it for me. But speaking of Jon Stewart... I've got a six degrees of separation thing going there.. more like 2 degrees, but that matters not right now.

Anyway, back to the point I made when I started this thread. Bush and his war mongering buddies care more (read: only) about the oil in Iraq, and care little (if at all) about the US service personnel who gave their lives for this unjust, illegal war.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

In other words, war is the only option?

No, that blessed fountain of international solutions, the U.N. talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked and talked with Sadam and God knows how they scared him to death.

[spoc22]

Originally Posted by ldzppln

To suggest those opposed to the current actions of our (misguided) military have a lack of understanding or appreciation of the significance of those who have gone before us is, to put it plainly, B.S.

To misguidedly suggest those supporting the current actions of our military have a lack of understanding or appreciation of the significance of those who have gone before us is, to put it plainly, B.S.