Bush in Iraq

[GogglesPisano]

New England liberal that I am, even I was impressed with Bush on Thanksgiving.

 

[LJDRVR]

I'm gonna get flamed for this, but here we go anyway:

My first reaction when I read the newspaper today was: "cool!" as a former enlisted dude, I know firsthand how important the support of the national command authority and the public is to our young men and women in harm's way. I'm sure the predsident's visit was a wonderful experience for our troops. I just hope they were all studs and not a bunch of REMFS. (Although I suppose the location hopefully prevents that..)

While the President's visit gives the ex-military part of me warm fuzzies, I believe that the risks were not justified. Risk is defined as: probability of loss X cost of loss X length of exposure, or R=PCE . The probibility and length portions of the equation are probably pretty nominal. The VC-25A is equiped with radar and infrared ECM, not mention chaff and flares. These countermeasures are the only ones publicly known, there are probably others. I'm sure there were a variety of specialized aircraft used in conjunction with this operation to minimize probability of loss. (Passive and active survelliance/ECM, not to mention fighters.) Length of exposure wasn't too bad, although I'm sure the DHL guys weren't exactly climbing out in a shallow fashion either, and it didn't help them.

So, this leaves us with cost of loss. Not human life or a new 747, but the financial market and foreign policy/world stability repercussions of some goof with a SA-7 shooting down the symbol of this country with our leader on board. Would the American public become outraged, reinstate the draft and send over enough troops to finish Iraq correctly? or would our lazy, fat, SUV driving voters, spurred on by the press, demand that we un-involve ourselves post-haste? Come on guys, ask yourself the "which is more likely" question? So, the economic recovery is slowed dramtically, (worldwide) we fail in Iraq, and the citizens of this planet get to endure al-jazeera footage of celebrating Iraqi's with recognizable chunks of Air Force One being paraded in the street. Likely? maybe not. Possible? certainly. And all this risk for what? A feel good photo op that does nothing to hasten the end of the conflict, has no diplomatic value, and has the potential to really screw things up.

Good for President Bush. a gutsy move and good for morale, but as an American Taxpayer, (I did vote for him) I've gotta say: Not very smart George. Not prudent at this juncture. Am I the only one here who thinks this was cool but maybe just a lot stupid?

 

[Super 80]

New England liberal that I am

From your avatar; let's see...

Bad hair cut...

No facial hair...

No neck or shoulders to speak of...

Limp wrist...

Big squarish glasses...

Futuristic geeky clothes...

I'd have never guessed.

(From the Hillary thread) Besides, who said waking up to Kashmir by Led Zepplin was a bad thing?

(From another companion thread, on the one to ten scale, your avatar gets a 2.3)

Later dude. (Don't get mad, I'm jes funnin' witcha)

 

[Jafar]

... I believe that the risks were not justified. Risk is defined as: probability of loss X cost of loss X length of exposure, or R=PCE . The probibility and length portions of the equation are probably pretty nominal.

Naw. I think you're mistaken. First of all, looking at this from a mathematical standpoint, we simply don'y have values for two of the three unknowns we need to quantify risk. We have E. It's about 3 hours from what I gather, if you count from the time the aircraft entered Iraqi airspace to the time it left.

Like you said, we can make assumptions about the cost of loss. We can make assumptions about the probability of loss. But I do believe the men who made the decisions and planned and executed the mission probably have far more accurate values for those two unknowns than you and I do.

Bottom line: It was probably pretty safe, relatively speaking. It's not like he went over there and led a charge into Nasirya on the second day of the war.

He's a risk taker, sure, but that is the very nature of leadership.

 

[GogglesPisano]

From your avatar; let's see...

Bad hair cut...

No facial hair...

No neck or shoulders to speak of...

Limp wrist...

Big squarish glasses...

Futuristic geeky clothes...

I'd have never guessed.

(From the Hillary thread) Besides, who said waking up to Kashmir by Led Zepplin was a bad thing?

(From another companion thread, on the one to ten scale, your avatar gets a 2.3)

Later dude. (Don't get mad, I'm jes funnin' witcha)

No worries. Liberals don't get mad, only conservatives, as has been proven many times on these boards.

Cheers

 

[Timebuilder]

Liberals don't get mad

My nomination for what may be the most absurd position I have heard in politics. If you care about anything, you get mad once in a while.

I guess if you were a liberal with a dissociative disorder you might not get mad, but I got plenty mad when I was a liberal. I think it is a basic human trait.

 

[TonyC]

... , I believe that the risks were not justified. Risk is defined as: probability of loss X cost of loss X length of exposure, or R=PCE .

So, this leaves us with cost of loss.

You sound like some risk management geek that only looks at the world through the lense of cost of failure, without ever considering the value of success. If risk is all we ever assess, then we should never leave our own houses. In fact, we shouldn't breathe the air, drink the water, or eat the food, because they all carry risk. Never mind the fact that they allow us to live.

Would the American public become outraged, reinstate the draft and send over enough troops to finish Iraq correctly? or would our lazy, fat, SUV driving voters, spurred on by the press, demand that we un-involve ourselves post-haste?

I believe you are naive to think that there are only these two possibilities. An oversimplistic analysis of the possible outcomes makes it impossible to count the cost of the those outcomes. Your estimate of the cost is unrealistic because you lack the vision to see the likely outcomes.

Come on guys, ask yourself the "which is more likely" question? So, the economic recovery is slowed dramtically, (worldwide) we fail in Iraq, and the citizens of this planet get to endure al-jazeera footage of celebrating Iraqi's with recognizable chunks of Air Force One being paraded in the street. Likely? maybe not. Possible? certainly. And all this risk for what? A feel good photo op that does nothing to hasten the end of the conflict, has no diplomatic value, and has the potential to really screw things up.

Since when does an SA-7 passing the wing of Air Force 1 equate to "we fail in Iraq"?!?!? Good grief. And in the INCREDIBLY unlikely event it were shot down, do you REALLY think for a second that the U.S. troops on the ground would allow one single shred of a destroyed Air Force One to even be TOUCHED, must less paraded or filmed? Give our guys a LITTLE bit of credit, will ya?

I've gotta say: Not very smart George. Not prudent at this juncture. Am I the only one here who thinks this was cool but maybe just a lot stupid?

Nice play on Daddy George, but it doesn't float. There's more to the equation than risk. There's payoff, which was huge. From the standpoint of troop morale, from the standpoint of world respect, from the standpoint of National Pride, from the standpoint of respect from the new leaders of Iraq - - from many more standpoints as well - - the President's bold appearance in the capital of Iraq is HUGE. The payoff was well worth the risk. Besides, I don't believe you or I have nearly enough information to determine that risk.

Are you the only one who thinks it was "a lot stupid?" Probably.

 

[Caveman]

LRDRVR,

I agree with you completely. Which is exactly why this was such a great act of leadership. The higher the stakes, the bolder the move.

Message to the world:

Beware. We can go anywhere we want, when we want and there isn't a d@mn thing anybody can do to stop us. Don't piss me off. Signed, GW.

 

[dispatchguy]

gw

EWW-FRIGGIN-RAH!

At least we now have a C-in-C worthy of the title, as well as worthy of the respect of the US Military...

EWW-FRIGGIN-RAH!

 

[Timebuilder]

Al Queda and the Sadam loyalists must be having fits!

The leader of the "great satan" not only came to their land, but sat and ate a meal with alacrity and left without incident. Ah, the indignity of it all!

 

[Typhoon1244]

Would you libs rather NOT score for the US...

Look, fly, if you're not smart enough to read my posts and figure out I'm not one of "you libs," then just stop replying to them, okay?

On the other hand, I guess it's a question of scale: compared to you, I probably am a liberal. (Compared to you, Liddy, North, and Limbaugh are liberals too! )

 

[flywithastick]

On the other hand, I guess it's a question of scale: compared to you, I probably am a liberal. (Compared to you, Liddy, North, and Limbaugh are liberals too! ) [/B]

Liddy?!

 

[enigma]

Liddy?!

The "G" man himself.

regards,
enigma

 

[bart]

The leader of the "plumbers". G. Gordon Liddy.

 

[flywithastick]

thanks - I'm familiar with Mr. Liddy. I was just puzzled that Typhoon would think Liddy is liberal compared to me!

 

[skypine69]

I think the whole was kind of silly, but I am sure that it motivated the troops over there. I thought it was interesting that some Iraqi dude said that if Bush really wants to know what the Iraqis think of him then he should announce his arrival. Also, apparently it is extremly bad taste in the Muslim world to arrive unannounced and then leave with out taking part in the hostpitality of the host. Whatever, he of course is not going to do that, but the thing I find interesting and have yet to see someone asking the question, is how come they coulod keep this secret for almost 2 months, but they can't find out who leaked the name of a CIA agent to the press? Seems like he has control over his people only when it suits his agenda.

 

[Timebuilder]

but they can't find out who leaked the name of a CIA agent to the press?

Sure we can find out.

All you have to do is convince Bob Novak that our national security is more important than the identity of his source.

I don't think he'll see it your way, though. Bob didn't even stop to think that someone might be in danger if he published this info, so I think he will probably see himself and his secret source as being more important than our security.

And I guess whether or not this unannounced visit could be considered "bad taste" depends on who you think of as the "host". I think it was our soldiers, and Bush certainly took part in the hospitality.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Nice one Timebuilder, blame the media (who I'm not a huge fan of either) instead of the person in the White House that leaked the info. Admit if it were the Clinton White House, you'd point at the source, not the media.

BTW, I think the Bush trip was a good thing for our troops but I think LJDRVR has some valid points.


Mr. I.

 

[spanky2]

Excellent grade for GW #43. Class act, cool move, troops love it. The difference between doing the right thing and doing things right. Media is PO'd cause they did not know and they think they know or need to know, EVERYTHING. Know need to even go into the "mis-uses / abuses" of AF1 done by WJC.

Republican does the right thing...Democrat places blame...offers no action or solution.