Since It Worked So Well In Iraq

by sarabeth at 9:30 am on August 4th, 2006 in War on Terror

The lessons of history are clearly wasted on the know-it-alls who make decisions for the decider.

Meanwhile, the State Department said the United States plans to help train and equip the Lebanese army so it can take control of all of the nation’s territory when warfare between Israel and Hezbollah eases.

The program was approved by Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to take effect “once we have conditions on the ground permitting,” spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Or let’s put it into Rumsfeld-speak, that charming habit of communicating by asking and answering rhetorical questions. Did we try this in Iraq? You bet. Did it work? Goodness gracious, no. Is there any hope of it working in Iraq even if we give it an infinite amount of time? Not a one. Do Rice and Rumsfeld have the beginnings of a clue, or any common-sense whatsoever?

(Yes, I left that dangling. Why should I do all the work here? Go ahead and supply your own answer.)

Let’s turn it over now to Gen. Abizaid:

Gen. John Abizaid, who heads the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday the Lebanese armed force “needs a significant upgrade of equipment and training capability that I believe the Western nations, particularly the United States, can assist with.”

Abizaid also said he believes Lebanon can extend government control over the entire country if it gets sufficient help, including an international peacekeeping force with a clear mandate, cooperation from the Lebanese government and “robust rules of engagement.”

Asked what he meant by “robust rules of engagement,” Abizaid said the commander of the peacekeeping force must be able to use “all available means at his forces’ disposal. And I think, in the case of southern Lebanon, it’ll have to have capabilities that are just not minor, small arms, but would include all arms.”

It’s not clear whether Gen. Abizaid means for the Lebanese government to stand in line behind the National Guard for that “significant upgrade of equipment”.

And doesn’t it sound like he just said that Lebanon can extend government control over the entire country if it gets sufficient cooperation from the Lebanese government? In my opinion, that’s the kind of statement Rumsfeld would be well advised to stick to in future. Much less chance of getting into trouble.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Since It Worked So Well In Iraq - by: sarabeth on 04 Aug 2006 at 11:20 am

    […] Since It Worked So Well In Iraq - by: sarabeth The lessons of history are clearly wasted on the know-it-alls who make decisions for the decider. Meanwhile, the State Department said the United States plans to help train and equip the Lebanese army so it can take control of all of the nation’s territory when warfare between Israel and Hezbollah eases. The program was approved […]Source: Since It Worked So Well In Iraq - by: sarabeth - Terror [Feed] […]

  2. Since It Worked So Well In Iraq - by: sarabeth on 04 Aug 2006 at 11:49 am

    […] Since It Worked So Well In Iraq - by: sarabeth The lessons of history are clearly wasted on the know-it-alls who make decisions for the decider. Meanwhile, the State Department said the United States plans to help train and equip the Lebanese army so it can take control of all of the nation’s territory when warfare between Israel and Hezbollah eases. The program was approved […]Source: Since It Worked So Well In Iraq - by: sarabeth - War on Terror [Feed] […]

Comments

  1. Ross Petersen wrote:

    OK for a start I am an australian, and therefore I may well be biased about our soldiers.

    But it seems to me that there seems to be a cultural problem within the US Army & Marines.

    When you look back over the different conflicts where both Australian & US troops have been involved, such as Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq, the areas where Australian troops have been involved in have been a lot more successful than where the US troops have been based.

    I think this is due partly due to the different modus operandi employed and also that Australian troops seems to have a lot more “common sense” than the average US soldier and they go out of their way to treat the “locals” with respect.

    This is no doubt a controversial point of view, but I think that the facts speak for themselves.

    Ross Petersen

  2. matt wrote:

    I think that the facts speak for themselves.

    they may, but you haven’t provided any.

  3. sac wrote:

    I would say that Australia has provided back-up troops, although they have indeed engaged in serious combat, and have not taken the lead responsibility in terms of troops, strategic decision, or money, in any of the conflicts where joint US/Australian troops have been involved. Therefore, Australia can avoid blame when convenient, and claim success in the same.

    This is not to denigrate Australian troops and the country itself. The US has no greater friend, along with the UK, then Australia.

  4. matt wrote:

    The US has no greater friend

    this statement betrays an alarming level of anti-semitism. i’m shocked and saddened.

  5. sac wrote:

    I was drunk when I typed that. I’ve checked myself into a rehab in Malibu.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*