John H wrote:
What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck?


How about the whole Iraq thing?

WARFIGHTING

1. Protect, promote and preserve U.S. interests in the Central Region to
include the free flow of energy resources, access to regional states, freedom of
navigation, and maintenance of regional stability.

And is any of that being accomplished in Iraq?

2. Develop and maintain the forces and infrastructure needed to respond to
the full spectrum of military operations.

And is any of this being accomplished in Iraq?

3. Deter conflict through demonstrated resolve in such efforts as forward
presence, prepositioning, exercises, and confidence building measures.

The "deter conflict" thing doesn't seem to be working at all in Iraq.

4. Maintain command readiness to fight and win decisively at all levels of
conflict.

The Iraq war has been a tremendous setback for readiness in all other
areas of operation.

5. Protect the force by providing an appropriate level of security and
safety.

Maybe that's why the Army is hiring private security guards in Iraq?


ENGAGEMENT

1. Maintain, support and contribute to coalitions and other collective
security efforts that support U.S. and mutual interests in the region.

Failure there, the few members of President Bush's little coalition are
bailing out.

2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional militaries.

Now there's *one* thing we seem to be working on in Iraq.

3. Promote efforts in the region to counter threats from weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, information warfare, and drug trafficking.

Going backwards here... no WMDs, terrorism increasing, and poppy/heroin
production booming in Afghanistan...

4. Establish and maintain close relationships with regional political and
military leaders.

Other than the ones we are threatening to invade?

Etc etc.

Seriously, John H, if you have *any* positive statements about what
Bush's invasion of Iraq has accomplished... other than the removal of
Saddam Hussein... let's hear it.

DSK