General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:06:45 PM)
Three retired soldiers slam Rumsfeld's policies at a Democratic hearing in which the party tries to take the offensive on the war in Iraq.By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer September 26, 2006 WASHINGTON — Adding to criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq, a retired senior general who commanded an infantry division in the conflict said Monday that requests by commanders for more soldiers were repeatedly turned down. There simply aren't enough troops there to accomplish the task," said Batiste, who has previously called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. "It's a shell game we're playing in Iraq, and we've been doing it since day one. And we're still doing it today." "Many of us routinely asked for more troops," retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste said, contradicting statements by President Bush and his senior aides that the administration had given the military all the resources it had asked for. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqpol26sep26,1,617751.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:18:13 PM)
At what point were the requests denied? Between Division and Corp, Corp and Command? There are 3 or 4 levels between a General commanding a Division and CentCom in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan, and The Secretary of Defense. Those requests could have been turned down anywhere along the way. If Aberzaid had requested more troops and that request had been denied then it might hold more weight, If Casey had requested more troops and it had been denied it might hold more weight, But division commanders are always asking for more, it's part of the nature of the beast.

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:26:42 PM)
Where does the buck stop? It has been apparent for a long time that things have not been going well over there.

IslandHeat -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:30:24 PM)
Another pet peeve of mine, is that on Dec. 7 1941, we lost 2,400 people at Pearl Harbor, and on Dec. 8th there were lines stretching around the block at recruiting stations. Some young men committed suicide because they were found unfit to serve! Sept. 11, 2001 we lost 3,000, mostly civilians, in a sneak attack that made what the Japanese did look like an ethics class! Sept. 12th, the recruiting offices reported an increase in calls requesting information, mostly from veterans who'd served in Desert Storm wanting to know the prospects of coming back in! Sometimes, I wonder if we as a nation DESERVE to get our asses handed to us! And BTW, what Archer said is correct!!

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:31:33 PM)
Where does the buck stop. at the bottom or the top?

UtopianRanger -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:36:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Three retired soldiers slam Rumsfeld's policies at a Democratic hearing in which the party tries to take the offensive on the war in Iraq.By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer September 26, 2006 WASHINGTON — Adding to criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq, a retired senior general who commanded an infantry division in the conflict said Monday that requests by commanders for more soldiers were repeatedly turned down. There simply aren't enough troops there to accomplish the task," said Batiste, who has previously called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. "It's a shell game we're playing in Iraq, and we've been doing it since day one. And we're still doing it today." "Many of us routinely asked for more troops," retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste said, contradicting statements by President Bush and his senior aides that the administration had given the military all the resources it had asked for. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqpol26sep26,1,617751.story?coll=la-headlines-nation No offense to any of the posters here.....but I hope this administration keeps listening to Rumsfeld and Cheney, instead of the generals. lol! The quicker we go completely broke and the people become destitute, the longer their memories will be. And maybe if one day they are reduced to soup and potatoes.....things might change. - R

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:40:18 PM)
As with any job there are levels at which the various bucks stop. In a Command it stops at the top of the command for things like troop requests. Runsfeld and Bush ask Casey "Do you need any more troops or can you do the job with what you got?" Casey says I got it handled with what we have, Now Casey's opinion may not agree with the Division commander's but since Casey outranks him Casey tells the General "Sorry I think you have enough troops to get the job done." If Casey was being denied troops he wass requesting we'd hear about it. loud and long. But we're not hearing that we're hearing subordinate generals after retirement saying They wanted more troops for their division, but they were denied. And media and political operatives will try to make hay out of those denials without telling us that the denial came from their supervisor based on the fact that the supervisor thought they had enough troops to do the job.

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:40:35 PM)
You nihilist! Unfortunately I have a child that is going to inherit this mess, and I am sickened by it all, but material wealth never meant much to me

Chaingang -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IslandHeat Sometimes, I wonder if we as a nation DESERVE to get our asses handed to us! Yes, we do - so long as we blindly follow corrupt leaders like Roosevelt who apparently knew about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. A good soldier knows when to fight and also when not to fight.

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer As with any job there are levels at which the various bucks stop. In a Command it stops at the top of the command for things like troop requests. Runsfeld and Bush ask Casey "Do you need any more troops or can you do the job with what you got?" Casey says I got it handled with what we have, Now Casey's opinion may not agree with the Division commander's but since Casey outranks him Casey tells the General "Sorry I think you have enough troops to get the job done." If Casey was being denied troops he wass requesting we'd hear about it. loud and long. But we're not hearing that we're hearing subordinate generals after retirement saying They wanted more troops for their division, but they were denied. And media and political operatives will try to make hay out of those denials without telling us that the denial came from their supervisor based on the fact that the supervisor thought they had enough troops to do the job. If a war is going bad and has been for a long time, where does the buck stop? All these rationalizations, projections of blame on everyone else, never taking responsibility, never apologizing or admiting mistakes.. who ultimately takes the blame for a lost war? All the pieces come together when a war is lost, some battles are decisive, but it takes the big picture to fight a war... why aren't those at the top finding out what happens at the bottom? If they are not getting the information they need to win their war, whose fault is that? These are valid questions, I expect no answer because if it were an honest answer then there would be blame at the top, and there seems no willingness to put the blame there. The reason only retired generals are speaking out is that active ones can't... Pass the buck... nothing new there... some people never take responsibility for the little pieces that lead to failure

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:49:11 PM)
To put it in civilian terms lets see. A retired line supervisor in charge of ONE line at a plant for GM says he requested multiple time that his line get more people and that would save the entire production for all GM Plants in the US. Yet The Plant manager or the Regional Production manager turned down the request before it got to the Board of Directors for GM.

UtopianRanger -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:52:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You nihilist! Unfortunately I have a child that is going to inherit this mess, and I am sickened by it all, but material wealth never meant much to me Yes...But there's a purpose behind my brand of nihilism.....but the nilhismn of the neocons is much different and.... never ending [;)] - R

DomKen -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 10:53:32 PM)
Defending the President and Rumsfelds claims is absurd. We didn't put enough troops on the ground to secure the borders and known ammo dumps much less control even the major towns at the end of the invasion. Since then we've barely been able to keep a small area of Baghdad reasonably safe and have had to invade and destroy several nearby towns because the rebels had gained control of them. When GWB and Rumsfeld started making these sweeping pronouncements that the commanders on the ground in Iraq had not requested mnore troops Abizaid and Casey should have corrected them that their subordinate commanders had made such requests. If they didn't then it was a serious failure by these men to do their most basic duty. If they did then Rumsfeld and GWB are liars which I personally would find absolutely shocking considerin their long track record of absolute honesty.

CrappyDom -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/26/2006 11:00:30 PM)
Archer, You ever ran the Big Red One? Are you really this expletive deleted? I have to ask, at what point would a clue penetrate that skull of yours? When Shinseki testified before congress and said we would need 300 to 600 thousand troops, he WAS in charge. I could care less what drivel you spew today I have no doubt you were calling him a chicken shit or some other ignorant jackass insult. I bet you were cheering on a chickenhawk CIVILIAN who testified before chickenhawk Republicans that silly cowardly Shinseki had made a mistake and that less troops would be needed for the occupation than for the war. You know how many Republicans laughed THEN that a civilian with ZERO fucking military experience was correcting the Army Chief of Staff? FUCKING ZERO. So climb down off that high horse you are on, step away and look back. Perhaps you will get enough perspective to realize it is a pile of cow shit a mile high and under it are the bodies of loyal but very very dead American soldiers.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 2:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer To put it in civilian terms lets see. A retired line supervisor in charge of ONE line at a plant for GM says he requested multiple time that his line get more people and that would save the entire production for all GM Plants in the US. Yet The Plant manager or the Regional Production manager turned down the request before it got to the Board of Directors for GM. Surely then if the regional plant is found to be underperforming, it's the Board's duty to investigate and if necessary fire the regional manager for not doing his job properly. They wouldn't last long if they simply said "Oh that's the regional plant's problem".

ViborgHerre -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 2:49:21 AM)
Well The question are is two sided: 1) Is the manegment of the fight/war done correctly? And if an officer is asked to do something he can't, he should do his damm'ste to do it anyway. Not whine afterwards. 2) Is the war just? Maybe not - however now it is a matter of supporting a popular elected goverment to prevent total caos? Regards Peter

Archer -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 3:28:23 AM)
LOL Crappy nice try. Militry family, Military service as an Officer, best freind is in Iraq for the second time. Your silly little attempt to push my buttons has failed again. Amature

Level -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 4:09:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer At what point were the requests denied? Between Division and Corp, Corp and Command? There are 3 or 4 levels between a General commanding a Division and CentCom in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan, and The Secretary of Defense. Those requests could have been turned down anywhere along the way. If Aberzaid had requested more troops and that request had been denied then it might hold more weight, If Casey had requested more troops and it had been denied it might hold more weight, But division commanders are always asking for more, it's part of the nature of the beast. Well, one thing is for sure: if the higher-ups did not know about the requests at the time they were made, they sure know about them now, so there is no excuse to keep ignoring them. And I fully believe they've known about it all along.

meatcleaver -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 4:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ViborgHerre 1) Is the manegment of the fight/war done correctly? And if an officer is asked to do something he can't, he should do his damm'ste to do it anyway. Not whine afterwards. If something can't be done, it is stupid to ask someone to do it. The officers might have told their political masters at the time but they can't publicly speak out whilst serving, otherwise they become political. 2) Is the war just? Maybe not - however now it is a matter of supporting a popular elected goverment to prevent total caos? Yes, it serves no one to let chaos reign but it is incumbent on the electrate to hold their political leaders to account. One can be the conscience of a nation or complicite in its wrongs. It is a choice we all have to make.

juliaoceania -> RE: General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied (9/27/2006 7:55:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Archer At what point were the requests denied? Between Division and Corp, Corp and Command? There are 3 or 4 levels between a General commanding a Division and CentCom in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan, and The Secretary of Defense. Those requests could have been turned down anywhere along the way. If Aberzaid had requested more troops and that request had been denied then it might hold more weight, If Casey had requested more troops and it had been denied it might hold more weight, But division commanders are always asking for more, it's part of the nature of the beast. Well, one thing is for sure: if the higher-ups did not know about the requests at the time they were made, they sure know about them now, so there is no excuse to keep ignoring them. And I fully believe they've known about it all along. I agree Level, but my military expertise is not very good. I do remember many military analysts that complained that we did not have enough troops years ago. I heard them on programming such as Democracy Now. The thing I find odd is that if you mismanage something you are usually held accountable. The administration threw Brown under a bus over Katrina too, after they gutted FEMA. It just seems like their shit is always running down hill and it stinks to high heaven... when DO they take responsibility for their mismanagement of this country?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875