Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/01/06 1:55 pm:
Ron :
Immigration control and terrorist catching are not directly related.
How did the terrorists already in the country get here? When you answer that question, you will see the nature of the problem clearly. Otherwise, all you have is sturm und drang!
FBI Director Robert Mueller said this week ,at a hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee on the FBI's budget ,that the FBI busted a smuggling ring organized by Hezbollah that had operatives cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the U.S. "This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States,” Mueller admitted that Hezbollah had succeeded in smuggling some of its operatives across the border.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/03/06 1:30 pm:
Ronnie,
Tom is right.
Port security determined who and what gets into the country via the seas. Border security determines what gets into the country by land. Airport security determines who and what gets into the country by air. Without effective control of all three, we are open to attack. The 9-11 terrorists got here because of poor control at the Canadian border, and were able to hijack the planes because of poor control at the airports. The Hizbollah guys that Tom wrote about above got here because of poor control at the Mexican border.
Border control is clearly a huge part of fighting terrorism. So is the anti-money-laundering laws for financial institutions. So is the NSA eavesdropping program. So is the USA Patriot Act. All of these things are necessary tools fo fighting terorism, and together they have been effective in stopping another terrorist act from occuring.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 04/03/06 1:42 pm:
"I would have put more boots on the ground in the opening days of the war. I would have put more specialized troops in specialized areas. I probably would have entered Faluja much sooner to pacify the area. I would also be more agressie in the manhunt for terrorist groups, cells, and organizations within Iraq. (I have a real problem with the fact that there is a "previously unknown" group called the "Revenge Brigade" or somesuch. There should be no such thing as an unknown group in Iraq these days. We should have a better hand on such intelligence issues at this point.)"
ETW,
tactics n sing strategem; ploy; the science of art of maneuvering troops in the presence of he enemy.
That would had been a better strategy. It would be correct to say GW's intent had purpose and that his initiave was well meaning.
George
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/03/06 1:51 pm:
George,
strat·e·gy (străt'ə-jē)
n., pl. -gies.
The art and science of developing and employing instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives. See also military strategy; national strategy.
--- US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003.
tac·tics (tăk'tĭks)
n.
-(used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.
-(used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.
-(used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.
---The American Heritage Dictionary
tactics
1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities.
--- US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003.
In other words, strategy takes place at the "macro" level while tactics takes place on the "micro" level. A solid strategy takes into consideration that specific individual tactical maneuvers or decisions might fail, and allows for that possibility. Bush's overall strategy did that. Bush's strategy was sound. His TACTICS in some areas are questionable, as I pointed out. The distinction is important.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/03/06 6:48 pm:
PORT SECURITY is not now and never has been a matter for the Ports managing authority.
PORT SECURITY is now, always has been, and always will be a matter for the US COASTGUARD and the US Security Agencies.
Neither of these two are conmpromised or interfered with by the company who is in charge of the port's day-to-day operations.
Those operations are matters of commerce, run as a commercial business enterprise, but SECURITY always has been and wlays will be a matter for the US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES who are commissioned to undertake them.
This is not difficult to understand.
To his credit, Bush understands it, and if he can, then you should do so with much less difficulty.
Get out of the habit of seeing terrorists hiding behind your curtains and under your bed.
Stategy is the means by which tactics are deployed!
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/03/06 7:26 pm:
>>>PORT SECURITY is now, always has been, and always will be a matter for the US COASTGUARD and the US Security Agencies.<<<
Since when?
Sorry to tell you this, but long before there was a USA Patriot Act, there were laws created to disallow enemies from entering the country via business transactions, including through our ports. OFAC was established in the 1950s and BSA/AML was established in the 1970s. Never has the Coast Guard been the sole entity responsible for port security issues. Individual companies have been responsible for port security and anti-money-laundering and stopping other criminal activities for half a century. You are just wrong on this issue.
>>>Neither of these two are conmpromised or interfered with by the company who is in charge of the port's day-to-day operations. <<<
Wrong again. If security is not maintained at the point of entry (the ports) then there is no effective control of security. The only effective way to maintain such security is through the companies that control the ports. Any other means of doing so is logistically ineffective.
>>>Those operations are matters of commerce, run as a commercial business enterprise, but SECURITY always has been and wlays will be a matter for the US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES who are commissioned to undertake them.<<<
And those agencies (including FinCen, OFAC, Homeland Security, etc.) can regulate who controls the ports of entry.
>>>This is not difficult to understand.<<<
No, its just wrong.
>>>Get out of the habit of seeing terrorists hiding behind your curtains and under your bed.<<<
I'm sorry, but when I look out my window in the morning, I see a big hole in the ground where the Twin Towers used to be. The terrorists (or at least the effects of their actions) ARE behind my window curtains.
>>>Stategy is the means by which tactics are deployed! <<<
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Tactics are the means by which strategy is implemented on the ground. You have it so backwards. Strategy takes place at the policy level. Tactics take place on the ground. Tactics are how policy is implemented. You cannot implement strategy through tactics. Strategy dictates tactics. Tactics do not dictate strategy. It would be like saying that captains and lieutenants in the field dictate national policy, and generals and presidents implement those policies as per the orders of the captains and lieutenants. It's just backward.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/03/06 9:33 pm:
"Coast Guard been the sole entity "
I didn't say it was. Read again!
Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 04/03/06 11:29 pm:
The noun tactics has one meaning:
Meaning #1: the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactics
For the anime, see Tactics (anime).
Tactics is the collective name for methods of winning a small-scale conflict, performing an optimization, etc. This applies specifically to warfare, but also to economics, trade, games and a host of other fields such as negotiation.
Tactics and strategy are often confused:
Tactics are the actual means used to gain a goal. The US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines the tactical level as
the level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.
Strategy is the overall plan.
An example of the difference:
The overall goal is to win a war against another country. The strategy is to undermine the other nation's ability to wage war by annihilating their military.
The tactics (told to the combatants) are to do very specific things in a specific place.
ETW,
Nope GW's strategy is not working. Our soldiers tactically execute by far the majority of the offensives correctly, no fault of their own.
George
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/04/06 1:09 pm:
Actually, the offensives, the battles themselves are not the problem. The tactical problem is with regard to protecting infrastructure against attack. The only reason that electricity production isn't higher is because of attacks against power stations and power lines. The only reason that oil production isn't higher is because of attacks against the oil infrastructure. So while tactically each individual battle is executed well, the tactics by which the infrastructure is protected is lacking, and it is effecting the recovery of the country. A tactical error, not a strategic one.
Another example: we waited for months before going in to pacify Faluja. That gave the insurgents time to gather their forces, disburse their assets, and hide themselves among the people. It gave them time to re-arm and re-deploy. Waiting for the enemy to re-deploy was a tactical error. But it was NOT a strategic one.
The plan, at the strategic level, is sound. It includes fighting the insurgents, training the Iraqi military to do the job as well, rebuilding the infrastructure and the economy of Iraq, and allowing and assisting in the formation of a democratic form of government. That plan is fine. The tactics of how that overall strategy is accomplished has seen some errors. The majority of tactics have been fine as well, but the few that have been in error have slowed down the progress in Iraq... not stalled it, just slowed it.
But as I say, the strategy is sound, and it doesn't rely on any single event, tactic or battle to succeed. That is why it will succeed.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/04/06 1:09 pm:
Actually, the offensives, the battles themselves are not the problem. The tactical problem is with regard to protecting infrastructure against attack. The only reason that electricity production isn't higher is because of attacks against power stations and power lines. The only reason that oil production isn't higher is because of attacks against the oil infrastructure. So while tactically each individual battle is executed well, the tactics by which the infrastructure is protected is lacking, and it is effecting the recovery of the country. A tactical error, not a strategic one.
Another example: we waited for months before going in to pacify Faluja. That gave the insurgents time to gather their forces, disburse their assets, and hide themselves among the people. It gave them time to re-arm and re-deploy. Waiting for the enemy to re-deploy was a tactical error. But it was NOT a strategic one.
The plan, at the strategic level, is sound. It includes fighting the insurgents, training the Iraqi military to do the job as well, rebuilding the infrastructure and the economy of Iraq, and allowing and assisting in the formation of a democratic form of government. That plan is fine. The tactics of how that overall strategy is accomplished has seen some errors. The majority of tactics have been fine as well, but the few that have been in error have slowed down the progress in Iraq... not stalled it, just slowed it.
But as I say, the strategy is sound, and it doesn't rely on any single event, tactic or battle to succeed. That is why it will succeed.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 04/04/06 3:17 pm:
Oh I think GW's intentions are well meant, just not smart. I've seen his strategy and it's proving financially costly and with redundant stays for many of the same soldiers putting them further at risk. The financial aspect I can forgive, putting our soldiers continually at risk I will never. That's not prudent. However sometimes even with a poor strategy the execution can still overcome.
George
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/04/06 4:09 pm:
George,
>>>I've seen his strategy and it's proving financially costly <<<
That is a political consideration, not a military one... and in fact, it is Congress, not Bush, who holds the power of the purse. They can defund him any time they want to if they think its the ight thing to do.
>>>The financial aspect I can forgive, putting our soldiers continually at risk I will never. <<<
Soldiers are at risk in any conflict. Does that mean we should disband the US military because we're afraid our soldiers will be at risk?
Personally, I like redundancy. I like knowing that I have a backup in a tough situation.
According to the DoD, the number of soldiers that have had more than a single stay in Iraq is less than 12% of the total US force in Iraq, and less than 2% have had three stays in Iraq. Only in very rare cases of need are soldiers being asked for a second or a third stay in Iraq.
>>>However sometimes even with a poor strategy the execution can still overcome. <<<
It didn't in Vietnam. We won every single battle in Vietnam, including the Tet Offensive, where we took our greatest losses. And that was because of excellent execution of tactics. But we lost because the strategy was faulty: it was a strategy of containment rather than victory, and was therefore flawed. Bush's strategy has no such flaws.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 04/04/06 11:29 pm:
ETW,
"That is a political consideration, not a military one... and in fact, it is Congress, not Bush, who holds the power of the purse. They can defund him any time they want to if they think its the ight thing to do."
Don't worry it will come out of yours and my pocket.
"Soldiers are at risk in any conflict. Does that mean we should disband the US military because we're afraid our soldiers will be at risk?
Personally, I like redundancy. I like knowing that I have a backup in a tough situation."
Your thinking special ops and while we obviously use units with specialized training I'm referring to the whole. No, it's not prudent to recycle the same soldiers. It not fair to them, their families and it speaks volumes about GW's poor strategy.
"According to the DoD, the number of soldiers that have had more than a single stay in Iraq is less than 12% of the total US force in Iraq, and less than 2% have had three stays in Iraq. Only in very rare cases of need are soldiers being asked for a second or a third stay in Iraq"
I wouldn't doubt it. The Department of Defense has our governments interests in mind. Even in the stats presented by Zogby's recent poll there is a clear refutation to the DoD's stats. I realize all polls can be bias and can be faulted. But even the soldier participants, which I believe was just a little less than a thousand, refuted the DoD. Those soldiers had no reason to lie for when simply being asked how many tours they've had in Iraq.
Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.
I also know that my own brother has been called upon to make his third trip back. Include his time in with Bush Sr., that makes four. My two cousins would not re-enlist because they did not want to risk being sent back again.
Iraq War Statistics - Feb 2006
2,290 US Soldiers Killed, 16,742 Seriously Wounded
For your clear and quick reading, I listed key statistics taken from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution. Most info is presented as of February 22, 2006, except as indicated.
--------------------
Spent & approved to spend in Iraq $350 billion of US taxpayers' money, plus another $120 billion requested in February 2006
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors
Halliburton Overcharges and Questioned Costs Publicly Known to be Hidden by the Pentagon from Auditors $212 million
Troops Total 157,000, including 136,000 from the US, 8,500 from the UK, and 12,500 from all other nations (other than Iraq)
US Troop Casualities 2,290 US troops; 98% male. 89% non-officers; 76% active duty, 15% National Guard; 74% white, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 22% killed by non-hostile causes. 52% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 69% were from the US Army.
Non-US Troop Casualties Total 204, with 101 from the UK.
US Troops Wounded 16,742, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)
US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home
Journalists killed 61
Journalists killed by US Forces 14
Iraqi Military and Police Casualties 4,162
Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated 40,300 to 81,700
Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated 53,470
Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed 365
Non-Iraqi Kidnapped 280, including 45 killed, 141 released, 3 escaped, 3 rescued and 88 status unknown.
US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq 47 total, 26 by enemy fire
Daily insurgent attacks, Feb 2004 14
Daily insurgent attacks, July 2005 70
Daily insurgent attacks, January 2006 75
Trained Iraqi Troops Needed by July 2006 272,566
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per General Richard Meyers in March 2005 40,000
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per US Senator Joseph Biden in March 2005 4,000
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad in August 2005 "Not very large."
Trained Iraqi Troops Able to Fight Without Major US Support, in February 2006 {/b}Zero
Iraqi Unemployment Rate 25 to 60%
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity 10.0
Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity 5.2
Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems 37%
Percentage of Iraqi HOme with Access to Piped Water 78%
Hepatitis Outbreaks 2002, 100; 2003, 170; 2004, 200.
Car Traffic Change 500% from July 2003 to Jan 2005
Registered Cars Pre-war, 1.5 million; October 2005, 3.1 million
Inflation in 2005 20%
Children Enrolled in Primary School 2000, 3.6 million; 2004, 4.3 million
Telephone Subscribers pre-war, 833,000; September 2005, 4.6 million
World Bank Estimate of Iraq Reconstruction Costs $55.3 billion
Results of Poll Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)
Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%
Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%
Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation - 67%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multinational forces - 72%
Iraqis who rarely have safe, clean water - 71%
Iraqis who never have enough electricity - 47%
It didn't in Vietnam. We won every single battle in Vietnam, including the Tet Offensive, where we took our greatest losses. And that was because of excellent execution of tactics. But we lost because the strategy was faulty: it was a strategy of containment rather than victory, and was therefore flawed. Bush's strategy has no such flaws.
I agree. Bush's strategy has it's own flaws. Another thread getting long. It's your post and enjoy the last opinion.:)
George
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/05/06 1:20 pm:
George,
>>>Don't worry it will come out of yours and my pocket.<<<
Yep. I'm still paying less in taxes than I was under Clinton. What's your point.
>>>Your thinking special ops and while we obviously use units with specialized training I'm referring to the whole. No, it's not prudent to recycle the same soldiers. It not fair to them, their families and it speaks volumes about GW's poor strategy. <<<
The military is high on redundancy. It has to be. Frankly, I'm not sure what your problem with this is. Redundancy is what makes sure the job gets done, even if something happens that would normally keep it from getting done. In other words, the more redundancy, the quicker the job gets done, and the sooner the troops will get to go home. Which part of that do you oppose?
>>>2,290 US Soldiers Killed, 16,742 Seriously Wounded<<<
An average of 763 killed and 5,580 wounded per year. As compared to an average of 3,883 killed and 8,533 wounded per year in Vietnam. So the cost of this war isn't quite so high as other historical conflicts, even in human costs.
>>>Spent & approved to spend in Iraq $350 billion of US taxpayers' money, plus another $120 billion requested in February 2006<<<
That equates to roughly $1,183.50 spent per person in the United States, and another $405.77 per person approved to be spent. I would pay a lot more than $1,600 over 4 years to protect my family from terrorism. Wouldn't you?
>>>Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors<<<
2.7% shrinkage? That's a lot better than most manufacturers in the USA do. Shrinkage is actually the second-highest operating cost for most manufacturers (roughly 15-20%), right after salaries. Frankly, its right in line with shringage in most retail industries in the USA (2-3%).
>>>Halliburton Overcharges and Questioned Costs Publicly Known to be Hidden by the Pentagon from Auditors $212 million<<<
0.1% in questionable funding or overcharges? I think Haliburton is a pretty honest company if only 1/10th of 1% of Iraq funding is questionable.
>>>Journalists killed 61
Journalists killed by US Forces 14 <<<
Damn. The US troops need to work on their aim.
>>>Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated 40,300 to 81,700 <<<
Let's take the high figure, shall we? That means an average of 27,333 per year. In Vietnam, civillian casualties (for South Vietnam only) averaged 166,667 casualties per year. I think our troops are doing a marvelous job at limiting civillian casualties.
>>>Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated 53,470 <<<
Yup. And the estimated number of them left is about 17,000. That is progress. Or at the very least, a good start.
>>>Daily insurgent attacks, Feb 2004 14
Daily insurgent attacks, July 2005 70
Daily insurgent attacks, January 2006 75 <<<
How many are successful? How many are stopped before they can do damage?
>>>Trained Iraqi Troops Needed by July 2006 272,566
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per General Richard Meyers in March 2005 40,000
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per US Senator Joseph Biden in March 2005 4,000
Trained Iraqi Troops, Per US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad in August 2005 "Not very large."
Trained Iraqi Troops Able to Fight Without Major US Support, in February 2006 {/b}Zero <<<
Wow is that skewed. First of all, Biden has no idea what he's talking about, and neither does Khalizad. The number of trained Iraqi troops is closer to 140,000, with more in training now. Approximately 40,000 are capable of handling missions without any US support at all. The others still require our support. But that's what we're there for.
>>>Hepatitis Outbreaks 2002, 100; 2003, 170; 2004, 200. <<<
It's a good thing that their water and sewer systems are being built by us.
>>>World Bank Estimate of Iraq Reconstruction Costs $55.3 billion<<<
I think that's an underestimate. But its money well-spent.
>>>Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%
Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%
Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation - 67%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multinational forces - 72%<<<
A recent poll by the British Ministry of Defense seems to claim otherwise. 53% feel that security is better now. 65% feel that their lives are better now. So I'm confused by the results you have posted.
>>>Iraqis who rarely have safe, clean water - 71% <<<
And yet, above, you mentioned that 78% of homes are connected to the water system... this seems to be a contradiction.
>>>Iraqis who never have enough electricity - 47% <<<
Probably true. But the number continues to improve.
>>>I agree. Bush's strategy has it's own flaws.<<<
Care to discuss what they are?
Elliot
