* Military culture that rewards innovation and risk-taking

* Develop 21st century human resource approach

I think the Navy's new "bid for jobs" program might be a sign that someone in the Pentagon is getting with Rumsfield's program.

In re the Stryker, recent things like the announcement of the new Russian T-95 design (as well as the equivalent Chinese knock-off) may mean that we'll still have to have another heavy tank to replace the M-1. I don't think that the planned lightweight, airtransportable vehicle will have sufficient capabilities against such a vehicle for the forseeable future. It is, however, way, way to early to tell, one way or another.

Rumsfeld is an entertaining but demented man.

He's funny and he looks better than any septuagenarian can hope for, I'll say that for him. I just wish we were my uncle and that he was retired. Then what he said would be good for a laugh and would not be matters of life and death.

While some of his ideas are good, the odor is of a once-fresh, then ripe, but now rotten ideology. The idea to have free market futures in terrorism being an example of the rottenness. All out of this administration's enfatuation with deregulation, privatization and free markets. The creative destruction of capitalism.

Everything is to be done faster, lighter, cheaper. Which is why we're having such problems in Iraq. A guy like Shinseki (what does he know?) wanted many more soldiers in the occupation, always planning for the worst case scenario.

Oh, they're all for risk-taking, for sure. Like Ford Motor over the Pinto, they've probably done the cost-value risk analysis as to how they can do this occupation on the cheap, sustaining only an "acceptable" level of American and Iraqi deaths. Nationalism, humiliation, loyalty and grief are not factored in, though.

So Tom Friedman, who to his credit always said we were doing this half-assed, gets robbed at gunpoint in Baghdad. And we shoot up a couple of Iraqi policemen. As my son says, "they're just making it up as they go along." Which the soldiers as doing as well as can be expected, given the planning or lack thereof by the whiz-kids in Washington.

Yeah, his offer of Army Chief of Staff gets turned down by two generals. Are you getting it yet, Rummy? Not likely: he just purged the rest of the Army staff. "Old" Army, like "old" Europe. How to make friends and influence people.

He shoots down the raising of the death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000, cuts back hazardous duty pay, proposes the dismantling of that expensive family-supporting infrastructure in Europe to be replaced by "spartan" bases in Eastern Europe where troops will deploy without their families for six months. Not to mention the "high value target list" he has in store for our troops.

Guess what: nobody's going to enlist or reenlist. I would advise against enlisting today, at least in combat specialities. Two, three years from now there is going to be a real crisis when we have no midgrade officers or NCOs. On October 1 they're cutting the minimum enlistment to 18 months. Next (after the election, of course) they'll be talking about "national service."

Final note: I wasn't inclined to think it was about the oil, but if its not about the oil for us and it is about the oil for the French and the Russians, then why can't we cut the French and the Russians in for a slice of the post-war action so that we can get the UN resolution and the German, French and Indian soldiers that would follow?

First whack at the Pentagon Procurement Death Spiral - Shut down both the (A)/F-22 and the A/(F)-35 and redirect the bucks into transports.

Dropkick the KC-767 'Lease' and buy the things outright. Waay cheaper than how it's about to be done.

Look into outfitting a B-767 flying dumptruck to replace the B-52 fleet.

And if the Fighter Generals start squealing, fire them. Not many countries are apparently willing to come up and play so the FGs have qualitied their butts out of a job if they don't learn how to play well with others (in the Air Force and Defense Dept).

Rummy apparently didn't have a problem with bringing a retiree back into harness to get the Army under control. Perhaps he should look into resurrecting a SAC general or two and get some global vision back into the senior AF ranks.

If you recall since 9/11 we're engaged in a war, having soliders in the US military who signed up thinking it was the Boy Scouts should leave as soon as they can. WWII grunts did not have their wives and children stationed with them for years, let alone 6 months. If a solider in the US military can't take 6 months away from mommy and daddy good riddence.

Yesterdays announcement that soliders in Iraq are stationed for a year seems quite reasonable under the circumstances. How long were they in Vietnam?

"proposes the dismantling of that expensive family-supporting infrastructure in Europe to be replaced by "spartan" bases in Eastern Europe where troops will deploy without their families for six months. Not to mention the "high value target list" he has in store for our troops.

Guess what: nobody's going to enlist or reenlist. I would advise against enlisting today, at least in combat specialities. Two, three years from now there is going to be a real crisis when we have no midgrade officers or NCOs. On October 1 they're cutting the minimum enlistment to 18 months. Next (after the election, of course) they'll be talking about "national service."

Dang it, I want them to get rid of the maximum age for joining up. I'm 41, married, no kids, and if they would have me I'd join up. I wish I'd done it when I was younger. At least in my current job I support the military's mission, so I like to think that I'm contributing at least in a small way.

Klaatu engaged in the usual cheap shots and then wrote:I wasn't inclined to think it was about the oil, but if its not about the oil for us and it is about the oil for the French and the Russians, then why can't we cut the French and the Russians in for a slice of the post-war action so that we can get the UN resolution and the German, French and Indian soldiers that would follow?

So you have no complaints about how things are going in Afghanistan, then? I mean, obviously French and German involvement is a cure-all, right?

I beg to differ. In any case, there are several reasons why involving the UN and rewarding the French and Russians &tc is a bad idea for the U.S. (and thus a plan favored by folks like yourself:

1) They would naturally attempt to undermine what we're trying to accomplish in the region, for reasons of their own.

2) The UN tends to perpetuate problems where it gets involved rather than solve them.

3) Such troops as you recommend taking over contribute little or nothing - again, witness Afghanistan. Are the German troops going around hunting Taliban remnants? Or is that all on us? Are the French really doing a bang up job in the Congo? *laff* Success or failure in Iraq will be on our shoulders - and just as the sort of political hacks you favor complain that there are not enough U.S. troops in Afghanistan to do the job (regardless of the fact that the model they want to foist on us in Iraq is being followed there, and supposedly the "burden sharing" is happening) - having these people in to meddle for their own purposes won't be much help in doing the hard jobs in Iraq, either. In Afghanistan involving them was acceptable because the costs of their meddling is lower. French, Russian, and German interests in Iraq are not identical to ours - they conflict with ours, and not because of "oiiillll", but because they prefer the Ba'ath vision to America.

4) Moral hazard - if France &tc can screw us over with no downside for them (because guys like Klaatu will always be there to insist they get taken care of no matter what), then there is absolutely no incentive for them to behave any differently than they have - tell the French that sure, go out on a limb for Saddam all you want, even if there's a very low likelyhood of your strategy succeeding but, hey - we'll cover your bet, regardless of the odds, and make sure you don't lose anything.

If you cut me a deal like that and promise to cover whatever I might lose but I can keep whatever I win, I'll be happy to play high-stakes games in Vegas even at bad odds.

5) There's a reason why these guys are insisting upon the UN, putting a priority over who gets to be in charge (them, via the "international community" mechanisms, not us) over doing a good job in Iraq (why not ask them why they are insisting upon another UN Resolution before going in, after having already ratified one granting the Coalition authority in Iraq? Because they're high-mindedly infused with principle and we're not? Or because they have axes of their own to grind and insist upon getting their way? But I suppose for folks like you, it's ok when they do it - we should accept that and indeed support it). If their priority was what was best in Iraq, they wouldn't be obstinate. So turn your question around: why are they insisting upon being given authority, rather than offering to help us, who they call (falsely and disingenuously) their "allies"? All along, had they been more positive and willing to meet us in the middle, the offers were out there - all along - to insure their interests were taken into account. They, not we, decided to take the prick road. And folks like Klaatu see nothing wrong with this - again, when they do it. I'm not surprised that folks like you want to reward Free Riders, even if it's at our expense. Actually, especially if it's at our expense. But it's Rumesfeld who is demented. Right. . .

Joe wrote:

As for that culture rewarding innovation and risk taking, I've seen many large organizations try to implement it. This is the hardest thing of all, period, because so many of the environmental and reward systems in place work against it. Kudos to him for trying because you have to try, but I'm not expecting much.

Actually, what he might be getting at is a transformation of mindset from "peacetime" to "wartime" - in the military, at least, moving to rewarding innovation and risk-taking is possible in periods when the military is in a "wartime" mindset, see the distinction between "wartime" and "peacetime" officers made by James Dunnigan in "How to Make War"

Most of the problems with procurement are Congressionally mandated.

I worked for a company that tried to give the Air Force some parts for free. The Air Force couldn't accept them without the proper paperwork.

The parts may have been free but the paperwork wasn't.

Then you have the bidding and challenge process where no bid is final. etc.

BTW I think we should pay France for it's support in the UN. Exactly as much as they have earned. So let's see do we take out one or two of their nuke plants?

I hear they are complaining of not enough Americans in Paris. Have they requested the 101st Airborne? I'm sure we could spare a company or two. As long as the French are willing to surrender peacefully.

It is about oil.

*What the War Is All About*

First published Nov 2001.

A.R.;

The day of the main battle tank is fading, like the days of the battleships. If the enemy has just a few T-95's then it doesn't matter much. If they have a lot, that's what JDAM / area saturation / FAE / anti-tank infantry weapons are for. For instance, the new top-down attack weapons that are man-portable (or at worst, HUMVEE portable) will make it infeasible to add sufficient armor to a tank to make it resistant to US field weapons. Other nations may need an M1 equivalent to face the T-95, but the US won't.

Your assumption of air superiority is a dangerous one.

Jed Babbin on the Army shakeup.

Looks like the top Stryker-lovers are gone.

Of course, my main thought on reading the article is "why the hell isn't this sort of shakeup happening at State?"

Porphyrogenitus: is it really one of my "usual cheap shots" to note how much Rummy and the whiz kids are willing to short the soldiers, to the extent of saving a measly $6,000 per dead soldier? Well, the Army Times thinks that's important.

As for the Franch and the Germans, you disagree with CENTCOM on that one. www.centcom.mil

Hello???
Even if the French and the Germans are doing nothing but securing Kabul, they are doing important work. The truth is, they're doing more. Or would you propose that we put GIs there securing Kabul, too, keep they're evil compromising influence out.

I guess a lot of this comes from a difference of perspective: I've operated with NATO militaries (including the French), socialized with their people. I trust them. Maybe I haven't been listening to talk radio enough.

As for Shinseki, a man who had his foot blown off in Vietnam, being a "hack," I let that one pass. I only hope he runs for Senate when Inouye retires.

Ayatrollah: I expect that you will be enlisting soon. I didn't complain about the one year your, even though most "soliders" in WWII in the European theater were in combat from June 1944 until May 1945, less than a year (yes, I know that some units fought earlier in N. Africa and Italy). My point is there are not enought soldiers in Iraq now, nor will there be for some time to come, unless things improve VERY rapidly.

Klaatu wrote:

He continued with his usual cheap shots, ignoring the substance of the issue. But what else is new.

So little reason to reply except to the effect that

1) I didn't say the French & Germans should leave. However, Klaatu and his ilk treat giving them the store in Iraq as if it would be a cure-all; my point with respect to Afghanistan was to knock down this cardboard argument.

2) Klaatu's "I trust French footsoldiers" argument is a strawman. As if French footsoldiers make French policy.

As for the rest of what I said, if Klaatu had an answer for it I assume he would have given one. That he didn't shows that he's simply out to smear.

First, Phil Carter had a good post on the issue of troop compensation:

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_08_10_philcarter_archive.html#106090274730161418

Note that the underlaying assumption of Klaatu's comments is that he trusts the French government, but not the American government.

However, there is a disconnect in this - if the French are so above-board, honest, and trustworthy, why don't they simply do the right thing and send the troops? After all, as I mentioned, the UN already passed a Resolution authorizing Coalition authority in Iraq. So why aren't these folks Klaatu thinks should be there going in?

Couldn't be that they have a agenda of their own that is counter to ours, could it? But, again, that gets us back to the 4-point substance of my comment that Klaatu couldn't respond to. The good thing is I recognize cheap rhetorical tricks of the sort Klaatu is employing when I see 'em; you're gonna have to try harder.

klaatu:

"Maybe I haven't been listening to talk radio enough."

ROTFL!! nick & klaatu are reading from the same talking points! And claiming to be the ones thinking for themselves!

Oh, the irony!!!

Porphy: about klaatu's argument about French soldiers, I think you meant it's a "non sequiter", not "strawman".

Igor: non-sequiter is probably more apt; I think the point's clear either way.

Also, don't you know? Invoking talk radio is a magic spell for the Left - say "talk radio" or "Rush" or "Limbaugh" and it's like waving a magic wand: any argument you don't like *poofs* away so you don't have to deal with it. It's like Jeanie crossing her arms and blinking away things, or Samantha's nose-twitching - it's a way of magically disapearing a problem so it doesn't have to be dealt with on normal intellectual grounds.

But, yah, it is a riot seeing these guys (and so many others) pulling the same schtick, and then claiming they're the people who are thinking for themselves.

(I mean, really: as if Nick listens to Rush regularly and thus knows enough to say that all the arguments he didn't like were derived from Limbaugh or Ailes; basically, he proved the point contrary to the one he was trying to make: he has heard others characterize Limbaugh and/or "dittoheads", and is just parotting the line. . .not thinking for himself).

Btw, regarding the UN: it did pass another Resolution today ratifying the situation in Iraq.

So now the French, Germans, Russians et al should be going in as Klaatu says. After all, the situation is sanctioned by the "international community", so that's all they wanted, right?

Oh, it isn't enough (though they keep saying that's all they want) and they aren't going in?

What I said, then.

Wrong about the V-22

I think you are dead wrong about the V-22 and use unfair comparisons of cost versus the EH-101.

The EH-101 may be a fine helicopter but it does not have adequate performance to replace the CH-53. Not even close.

And if the USMC were forced to drop CH-53 performance a whole range of USMC equipment, from LAV's to Artillery, could no longer be transported by USMC airlift, reducing operational flexibility.

That is the usual flaw in comparing proposed helicopter substitutes for the V-22. The focus is always on what could replace the CH-46 and ignores the need for replacing the CH-53.
A large part of why the V-22 is so expensive is because of the need to fill the CH-53 role.

Nowhere do I see a comment by Rumsfeld (or others) concerning the protracted and continued high level use of Nat'l Guard troops as a significant augmentation player for active duty forces. This to save $$, rather than create additional regular active duty combat divisions.

Many Nat'l Guard units have been on continual 'active duty' assignments for 18 months or longer, with no end in sight.

Also, there's a game being played by the gov't with our Nat'l Guard troops - that game involves what can be referred to as the "magic 179 days" policy. Guard troops can serve on active duty for up to (but not to exceed) 179 days without becoming eligible for full military benefits (medical, etc.) as are regular active duty troops. Doing this saves lots of $$.

The game that's being played is to have Guard units serve up to 179 days (either Stateside but many overseas like Iraq, etc.), then send the unit "home" for a week or two, then re-activate the unit for another 179 days, and run this cycle repeatedly. As defined, that break in service to go "home" can be as much as an actual trip home, but as little as a 1-week break in service "vacation" somewhere near the area in which the Guard unit is currently deployed (i.e., they don't really get to go home).

I know of at least 4 Nat'l Guard units that have gone thru this cycle three times so far (a total of 18 months of service with 3 1-week breaks) - it's killing marriages, costing folks their houses (lack of income), and putting a significant damper on Nat'l Guard recruitment and reenlistment rates.

Seems to me like there should be more discussion on this issue. I could be all wet on this, but don't think so from what I know personally and from what I've heard from many Veterans with Nat'l Guard service or contacts across the U.S.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support the military. I enlisted for 4 years (US Army) and served 18 months in Viet Nam myself (combat infantry unit), and would do it again today. However, our Nat'l Guard units are not intended to be used as they are at present - good for a while, but not as the stead diet.

LVK
C-1-18 1ID
RVN (class of '66-'67)

LK,

I said the following in my post "U.S. MILITARY -- BACK TO THE FUTURE!" at this link:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003631.html

"These are the truths we face.

1. We are burning out the National Guard and Army Reserve support troops from repeated deployments. Retention and recruiting for both are crashing.
2. Contracting out nation building to multinational NGO's or corporations like Brown & Root or Dynacorp won't work without a secure environment, something which only American troops can provide.

3. Military allies can't provide long-term security in occupied areas either because their interests and ours are too likely to diverge, though their forces can help immensely during and immediately after a given conquest.

4. If we must deploy large numbers of American occupation troops anyway, which can't be our existing, expensive and limited ground combat specialists who are needed for further operations, we must create a new force structure as cheaply as possible -- AKA draftees -- to provide the staying power we need for long-term nation building."

Brad, I uased the EH-101 as an example, not a recommendation (though it could replace the 1960s-vintage Ch-46 Sea Knights in the medium-lift role).

If you Yanks need to replace the CH-53s, why not just initiate a program to create an updated version? Most of the design is done, procurement time would be short, and costs both lower and more certain. Which = more VTOL assets at the end of the day.

And P... I always though Samantha's nose twitching was damn cute. Please don't spoil it by associating it with the Left.

Porphyrogenitus:

Oh, I thought I did respond to some of your points, e.g. about the Germans and French in Afghanistan. Wasn't the rest of what you said just generic Frog-and-Fritz bashing? And you haven't told us your position on the death gratuity and danger pay.

We could, with a little diplomacy (note to Rummy: look up "diplomacy," "tact") structure a UN resolution and mandate to give us command of the Iraq operation. See "Korea," "Somalia."

The administration might have to cede a little control, give a few economic concessions, cut Halliburton's take, but I bet we could end up with French forces pretty much under US or British command.

You raise the spectre (or is that S.P.E.C.T.R.E?) of some French conspiracy to subvert what we trying to do in Iraq, what ever that is. Why would they do that?

Big power politics should not be driven by pique, by schoolyard threats. What's past is past. The French may have been heavily involved with Saddam, but he's gone, so they have to drive on. The Germans may have followed along with the French, partly because of pacifism, partly because as Joshka Fischer told Rummy "I can't convince my people to go to war on this evidence." They have to drive on, too.

We have to drive on and try to get the best possible result in Iraq.

Yesterday in the NYT:

U.S. ABANDONS IDEA OF BIGGER U.N. ROLE IN IRAQ OCCUPATION

"The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,' said an administration official. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but right now the situation in Iraq is not that dire."

Not that dire? Notice how nobody around here on this blog talks about Salam Pax anymore?? (I admit I once said he was a hoax, but I guess his existance as an Iraqi is verified.)

It's because he's been writing about how messed up things are. I do get some communications from son of klaatu, and amid some pleasant interactions with Iraqis, there is a fair amount of blood and brutality. No finger pointing here at the soldiers on the ground: Just what happens when you have an numerically inadequate presence of hot and scared soldiers rubbing up against a hot, scared and partly hostile populace.

The more boots on the ground, the better. Yes, a French or German soldier can provide the presence and the peacekeeping about as well as an American can.

We just need all the help we can get, as LVK says, we are burning out our active duty, Guard and reserves. Does anyone think that the draft that Trent says is coming would be a good thing?

Igor: "Oh the irony" ??? Obviously you don't recognize irony even if it bites you in the ass.

But about talk radio I was referring to: Today I was gagging as Rush "Anal Cyst" Limbaugh once again describing Kerry as "reputed Vietnam veteran John Kerry." What, Rush, don't have the balls to use the word "alleged?" I guess it would have to be "reputed" for Rush, as he would have had no chance to actually have seen Kerry in Vietnam, 'cause of the aforementioned saving Cyst.

klaatu dissembled:

"Oh, I thought I did respond to some of your points, e.g. about the Germans and French in Afghanistan."

Specious non-sequiters about knowing some French people and trusting them personally don't count.

"Wasn't the rest of what you said just generic Frog-and-Fritz bashing?"

Nope - but people like you, who refuse to deal with the merits of an argument you don't like honestly, typically do dismiss things as such as a way of delegitimizing points you can't otherwise deal with.

"We could, with a little diplomacy (note to Rummy: look up "diplomacy," "tact") structure a UN resolution and mandate to give us command of the Iraq operation."

That incorrectly assumes that it's simply a matter of language rather than conflicing interests, and also that whatever problem there is rests solely and completely with us.

So I could of course dismiss your specious point as "America bashing", which would be about on the same level of discourse that you're able to manage; but note that I take a more serious view of things. Everything is not just a matter of smoothness and glibness; if it were, then Clinton wouldn't have faced the same problem in '98 trying to get the French, Russians, and Chinese to support a strong Resolution on Iraq.

Look at it this way - will just the right sort of negotiation and tact get Tom Daschle to support Bush's tax policies? Or does Daschle oppose them on grounds that aren't going to be overcome with a few soothing words? That is, Daschle has a fundamentally different view, and disagrees with Bush's tax policies, and no amount of negotiating over language will matter, because the disagrement is one of substance?

Btw, coming from you, dismissing my substantive points as "bashing", when all you do is bash the people you don't like, that's rich. You and Nick should get together - you share a lot of personality traits.

By the by, the U.S. did "negotiate" a new UN Resolution, as I pointed out - and it passed. Since your position is that all these noble folks (for Klaatu, only American policy and American government can legitimately be criticized - any critical perspective on governments that aren't supporting America can just be dismissed as "bashing", so to avoid getting accused of "bashing", I'm accepting what klaatu insists upon - the French, Germans, Russians et al are acting solely out of high principle and noble purpose) - just wanted a UN Resolution sanctioning things in Iraq before they came in, Klaatu now needs to answer why they aren't sending their forces, since there have now been TWO post-war UN Resolutions with their language negotiated & passed by this diplomatically unsophisticated and tactless administration authorizing Coalition authority in Iraq - the very thing Klaatu says we should do but claims we haven't.

Thus, again, if the noble French government is simply acting out of high principle and would go in without trying to create trouble for us if only such a resolution were passed in the UN, giving us the authority over the operation there but sanctioned through a UN mandate, then why aren't they going in, klaatu?

"Why would they do that?"

That's been gone into before, but this is a rhetorical trap on your part - any accurate, rational explanation of French policy in the region, their support for Saddam and opposition to the U.S., the confirmation in, for example, the Financial Times quoting French (and other) politicians to the effect that the negotiations over Resolutions in Iraq were ostensibly about Iraq but "really" about the role of the U.S. in the world, quotes by French (and other European) politicians that make whatever tactless remarks Rumesfeld might have said seem like the height of diplomatic tact, well, re-stating all that would just cause Klaatu to dismiss it all as "French bashing" (as he has already).

"Big power politics should not be driven by pique, by schoolyard threats."

You should tell that to the French and the like, who are essentially holding out over petty reasons. Oh, that's right: it's ok when they do it, and criticism of them is then "bashing". Their behavior should be rewarded, while you reserve your contempt solely for America's. Ok. Whatever.

As for where I stand on danger pay &tc, I notice that you're still relying on reports that the Pentagon has denied.

I suppose your response to Igor is representative of that tactful diplomacy and non-bashing that you're talking about.

Talk the talk. . .can't walk the walk. Again, what else is new? Your not really here to make serious arguments, you're just here to hurl verbal stinkbombs against targets of your petulant ire. And you claim that it's others who can't grow up.

Again, you still haven't dealt with the substance of my arguments in a serious manner. I think it's because you simply can't. Your posts are clearly driven more by spite than thoughtful analysis.

Porphyrogenitus writes: "That incorrectly assumes that it's simply a matter of language rather than conflicing interests, and also that whatever problem there is rests solely and completely with us."

Exactly. That is his naive assumption and the core point. And because of circular logic - one he can never support.

P-P:

You can get all kinds of quotes from French and German officals, including Chirac, de Villepin, Schroeder and Fischer saying that they want the US to succeed in Iraq.

Well, the world being what it is, maybe there might be some sort of quid pro quo for French participation. So what? I never said that the French were acting on high principle, but I don't know what would get them on board in Iraq.

I think it's a cut of the action, oil concessions. I gather you think they wish us ill across the board, want to sap our power.
We just disagree on that.

Assuming I'm right, the only question is, would the quid pro quo they want be worth it? And the answer is: it depends, but since we don't have enough troops to do it almost alone, it's probably worth a lot.

The smart American (e.g. Tom Friedman) will recognize that failure in Iraq is very possible, not to mention what's happening to the readiness of the military overall. You have to do what you can to avoid failure, even if it requires oil concessions to Elf-Aquitaine.

If we're not willing to sacrifice a few concessions to succeed, we should get out. Funny that when we talk about "sacrifice" it always has to be the troops sacrificing everything up to their limbs and lives. Can't be US cell phone companies or petroleum companies who give up a little piece to the French.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether Elf-Aquitaine gets a cut of the Iraqi oil, or whether Exxon-Mobil and BP get it all. None of them are going to be thinking of Mr. klaatu when they set gas prices. I'd prefer that order and services in Iraq be restored, so that Americans and Iraqis stop dying.

Yes, I did cite to some personal experience with NATO military personnel in making an argument. I did say I know these guys. I worked with the French during the cold war in Germany, off Beirut and in Albania during Kosovo. Plus the Germans and Italians. I'll even admit to having lived in Germany and Italy and having a fondness for their food, culture and women. Hang me for treason.

I guess part of the problem in this dialogue is that you just don't know enough about how military operations in an alliance work (why don't you join up or at least read "Waging Modern War" by GEN Wesley Clark) and the current scope of, say, French and German support to our operations in Afghanistan and the war on terror.

zum Beispiel: When I was in East Africa last month, I saw German Navy MPA aircraft at an airport. I found our that these guys have been there for months, patrolling the Horn, the coastwise trade between the Gulf and Africa, coordinating with surface vessels looking for al-Qaeda.

Now, I know these guys are good, as are the French Navy guys operating out of Djibouti, or the French and German Army guys in Afghanistan. Why? As you say, because I've met them and worked with them. Sorry you haven't had the opportunity.

But we can't invite them in and have a much more internationally legitimate (like it or not, it's how most of the world thinks) ROBUST operation, because, as the "administration official" says, the situation is "not dire enough."

I'm reading "The Fall of Berlin -1945" by Anthony Beevor. A part about how alarmed the Russians became when they found out how many economists, civil affairs personnel, medics, etc, the US forces were sending in, how comprehensive their occupation plan was. But those US guys were New Dealers.

By the way, what's your solution to the manning problem?

And you can get all sorts of quotes from Bush, Cheney, Powell, and (yes) Rumsfeld talking about what good allies the French and Germans are.

"I don't know what would get them on board in Iraq."

You're certainly acting as if you do.

"By the way, what's your solution to the manning problem?"

I've written about it pretty extensively, actually. Perhaps you should check out my archives rather than speak out of ignorance.

"I think it's a cut of the action, oil concessions."

I'm pretty reliably reformed (and don't bother to make specious assertions about how, but I neither can nor will say) that all that was on the table, but they chose to oppose rather than support. They would have had their interests taken care of, as you suggest - but they chose to go another route. Their choice, thus their problem - not ours.

"I gather you think they wish us ill across the board, want to sap our power.
We just disagree on that."

Wish us ill across the board? No.
Are opposed to what they call "American hyperpower" and insistant upon getting a veto over it? Yes. Again, if you're curious about my arguments, I direct you to my rather extensive archives over at my site. But I think you'd rather make snide remarks than actually look into why I reach the conclusions I do and the supporting evidence I have for having reached such a conclusion.

Do the French (or German or whatever) people hate America and wish it ill? No - but when you characterize my opinions in that way, you're putting words in my mouth and setting up a straw man (there, Igor: I used it right) so you can knock it down - rather than deal with the substance of the point.

They have their reasons for their position and, as I've pointed out (for example in a post that was in reply to something Armed Liberal wrote on the subject), their position vis-a-vi America's role in the world ("hyperpower"), their policies in the Middle East, and what policies towards both is in their interests (arguably, and certainly they are better able to determine what is in their best interests than we are - though that isn't something they'll grant us, when it comes to determining ours). However, if and when their interests and ours conflict, that doesn't automatically mean they are right and should get their way and we are wrong, acting out of pique, &tc. &tc.

As far as having French and German troops in Iraq: sorry, just as in Afghanistan, that won't mean, as you assert, that American troops will stop dying or that we won't be the ones facing the greatest risk. Just as with the Polish, Azeri, Italian, and other troops being dispatched, they will likely be given the safer sectors and missions (vast areas of Iraq are only moderately dangerous), while it will be American troops tasked with the risky missions. Why? Is that a slight on French - or Polish - troops? Not really: it will in part be an insistance of the political leaders of those countries (again, it is they, not the French military, that will make the decisions) and in part because of different capabilities.

Or are you now going to claim that these other militaries are up to our standards, that they've invested as much in equiping and training our troops, and that those troops will be as capable (and suited) to undertaking the most dangerous aspects of the mission in Iraq, holding the sectors most infested with OpFor and conducting strikes against them?

That, sir, would be an incorrect assertion, would you try to make it. No, just as in Afghanistan, the more dangerous roles will be left to us (and to a degree to the British), and our soldiers will remain the ones most exposed to risk; so we will not, as you falsely assert, avoid casualties, and "Americans and Iraqis will stop dying" (just as Congolese have stopped dying now that the French are in the Congo, eh?)

If you were honest and forthright, you would conceed that the French soldiers often complain to an even greater degree than American soldiers do about the rules-of-engagement constraints their political leaders put on them. But you're not really here to be candid.

One closing thing: I was waiting for you to take the intellectual coward's route and disparage me, as you have others, inquiring as to when I will sign up.

I was waiting for that because it only proves you don't have a clue who you're talking to, and you simply cannot handle arguments on the merits. So, just as with this:

"The smart American (e.g. Tom Friedman) will"

Where you prove that you and Nick are reading from the same set of talking points, by disparaging everyone who disagrees with you as unthinking or stupid, playing that "serve or shut up" card with me only proves your ignorance (by the way, if you're trying to claim that I don't think we can fail, again, you only prove your ignorant of what I have said and written and the concerns I have. But, of course, you're the intelligent, well-read one who doesn't jump to conclusions, you're not the one who's uninformed. Laugh).

I have served. My sister has served. My father served in Vietnam. My two cousins have served and one is currently serving (she's a West Point grad, like her father, who was in the Special Forces and served in the infantry, including a posting to Ft. Irwin in the '80s, as XO for one of the OPFor battalions), she (the cousin) is married to a West Point Grad. My aunt's first husband served, and so did her (current) second husband. My Grandfather served in Korea and before that in Europe during WWII (where he fought in the Battle of the Bulge as an artillery officer with the 17th Airborne), and he parachuted across the Rhine (the 17th was under Montgomery's command). In the postwar period, he was stationed for a time in Germany (my mother spent part of her childhood there as a result). You can run that crap past others - it's a common tactic of people of your ilk when their arguments are weak on their merits to instead pull the "chickenhawk" card, but don't run that fecal matter on me. It doesn't cut any mustard.

By the way, klaatu the "P-P" insult shows about the level of argument you're capable of. Is that yet another example of avoiding pique and childish, schoolyard taunts? Another example of the tact you're talking the talk on but incapable of walking the walk?

Or, to go to the flip side of the coin, you were in the military and that's the best insult you can think of? Pretty laughably pathetic.

(oh, and Klaatu, before you ask: no, I'm not going to go provide links from my archives for you. For someone who wasn't such a insulting, contemptuous sphincter orifice - see, that's how you insult someone, Klaatu - I would gladly help out. But you go do your own digging, and come back when you're less uninformed and ignorant about what I've written on the subjects you're questioning my credentials on. You'll have to go do your own digging. You might even learn something as a result, though I figure you're far too close minded for that to happen. None the less, though I think the chances of that are slim to none, it's worth a try. Go read what I've written on both the subject of our troop levels overall & troop levels in Iraq, my concerns about our success, and also the rather voluminous posts I've made examining French &tc foreign policy vis a vi America over on my site, <a href="http:www.porphyrogenitus.net. So far, everything you've said to mischaracterize and misrepresent my views only shows you're completely and happily ignorant and uninformed about them.)

(To other readers: what do you all think the chances of Klaatu actually going and reading my archives are? What are the odds of that happening? Or do you think the odds are higher that he'll pop smoke and aviod it, while putting the onus of his ignorance on me? 25:1? Higher? Lower?)