VP Cheney is scolding the Democrats for failure to “support the troops” simply because they’re disinclined to give President Bush an indefinite amount of money for an indefinite amount of time…in other words, because they won’t let Bush do whatever he wants. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned about this president, he HATES it when someone stops him from doing whatever he wants.
The thing is, when I think of supporting the troops, I’m thinking of supporting their right not to be mired in an ill-defined mission that treats their lives as easily disposable commodities. I support their right to keep sucking oxygen. I support their right to an honest government that should admit they were sent over there on a political pretext, to search for weaponry that wasn’t there, and is now operating on fumes in the middle of an ongoing civil war that’s going to be waged whether we’re there or not.
As opposed to Cheney, for whom “suporting the troops” is code for “giving Bush carte blanche.”
I think I’ll take my definition over Cheney’s, thanks.
PAD
• 
Meanwhile, Halliburton is preparing Cheney’s Dubai mansion, and Stephen Colbert is the new Captain America. (Although we could certainly do worse, like this fellow: http://www.dvandom.com/drawings/nascap.JPG)
Of course, anyone wanting to bring the troops home wants the terrists [sic] to win.
Bush wants the Iraq authorization bill passed with “no strings attached”.
That’s because he’s the decider, he decides what should be done. You see, he’s been President for six years. The new majority in Congress has only been in power for a few months. They don’t understand how government works. They should just defer to his years of experience as dicta…President and do whatever he says.
Peter, Peter, Peter, haven’t you learned anything from watching ‘300’? If we don’t send unlimited amounts of men and money to support an illegal war, then that means we’re secretly traitors in the pay of a foreign power, and we hate freedom and democracy and all those other things! It’s just that simple!
Oh, and if you don’t kill hunchbacks at birth, they’ll just grow up to be lecherous traitors. Better to just get it over with early.
It’s the same tired bs from the right: Democrats present a plan, and the Republicans say the Dems have no plan, they don’t support the troops, blah blah blah.
It makes you wonder how long the White House can keep crying wolf before even hard-core right-wingers say uncle.
I wonder if Vice President Crash Cart also considers this to be supporting the troops:
The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq
http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/?source=rss
“As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.”
It’s too bad that the Dems are repeatedly spineless when it comes to standing up to Bush. What’s the biggest thing they’ve done so far? They passed a non-binding resolution saying they disagreed with sending more troops to Iraq. Bush promptly gave them the middle finger and ignored them.
Bush has historically been giving everyone the middle finger- the Air National Guard, the State of Texas ( governed by a Yank from Connecticut who hides behind the Homestead Act pfui), the Electoral Process, the United States Constitution and our own troops. I say we all give it back to him in spades. Let’s start a grass roots of FU Bush- post pictures on your blogs, YouTube et al. of yourself giving the Decider the bird. Exercise your digital rights!
huh-frikkin-zah!
All we have to do to stop all this warring, is to go back to the days of old, when leaders led their troops into battle. If Bush had to be in “harm’s way” to go to war, we probably wouldn’t have ever even fired a shot. Bush, the “christian” President doesn’t mind ignoring “thou shalt not kill” so long as he can line his pockets with green.
It’s amazing so many people were behind this war (and I’m not saying anything against the troops, they are following their orders), when no one knows why Iraq would be tied closer to Al Quida(?) then say, Saudi Arabia…but Saudi royals are the Bush’s friends so they don’t want anything bad happening there….
George Bush…please stop pushing our will on the cultures of others at the cost of innocent lives (ours and theirs), while you sit back with your prompter in your ear to tell you what to say next…
I’m always amazed that for some folks Criticism of the President (and/or his Policies) = Criticism of the Troops (and/or Hatred of America). I just don’t get it and I don’t think I ever will…
I agree with you, Peter. I think this whole “not supporting troops” statement the Republicans keep making is scurrilous at best. Does it even still work? I think the Democrats should follow the Republicans lead in supporting the troops–slashing veterans benefits and making sure the VA hospital system offers sub-standard care to our returning soldiers. Heck, the Democrats just want them home, out of harms way and reunited with their families. Obviouisly they aren’t doing enough.
I’ve been a regular lurker here for years so I’m sorry for throwing my two cents into this. I’m a conservative Republican and local elected official but I thoroughly enjoy the debates I witness.
I strongly believe that Congress has a role in the declaration and cessation of armed hostilities. The assymetrical War on Terror poses a lot of confusion though on this issue. It is very difficult to sign a peace treaty with a set of rogue actors who are determined to do your people great harm with no apparent willingness to compromise in their mission. John McCain recently stated that “If we lose this war, and come home. They will follow us home.” I don’t believe that any withdrawal of US forces from Iraq will deter Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in Iraq or in other nations from continuing to launch attacks on US interests or individuals inside or outside American borders.
I believe this is an important debate occuring in Congress right now and shouldn’t be hamstrung by any callous political catcalls (plenty of time for that in 2008). I remember when President Clinton appeared on television back in the late 90’s and charted out why we needed to intervene in Kosovo because Milosevic was going to become the next fascist leader that would engulf Europe into war. I’m a student of history and my response was “that’s a load of b.s.” to his comparisons to pre-World War I Europe. It was laughable that a third rate country like Serbia that got its nose handed to it by the upstart Croatians during the breakup of Yugloslavia could launch any war of conquest against their neighbors.
As I said, I don’t have the answers. I don’t know how Congress can legally reign in the Imperial Presidency, especially so many years. Congress, as an institution, is complicit in its diminuation when it comes to war powers via its conduct during the FDR administration in World War II and the LBJ administration in the Vietnam War.
Scott, I came in to post exactly that bit about our wounded vets. It’s bad enough how they get treated at Walter Reed (the parts turned over to that oh-so-perfect “free market” the Right loves to crow about as the best solution to everything), but we’re going to send them back into the war zone while physically unfit for duty? Now who’s supporting the troops?
Bush has an approval rating in the 30’s, the Dems swept congres, why the hëll are they still acting like scared rabbits, afraid of what the President and Fox News will say about them? They need to stop with the empty gestures and actually DO SOMETHING. And not be afraid to punch back when the Right Wing Spin Machine starts tossing mud.
The issue I have with “time-table” talk is that it does have the possibility to hurt the troops. Right now you have people in Irag hearing that we might back out before the area is stable, not knowing which side could be in power if that happens. So if you side with the Americans, they leave and those who are un-friendly to America get into power that’s bad news for you, you might be more open to siding with those who would do harm to the troops. Playing arm-chair QB, sure we shouldn’t be there, but now that we are, we need to leave quickly without notice or stay and finish until it’s stable.
I never understood how “supporting our troops” means that we must send them to a foreign country for a pointless and baseless war so they can die in vain.
You have to remember, this is Cheney talking. Whenever he says something, you have to take the exact opposite as being truth.
“We will be greeted as liberators” means “We will be greeted as invaders”
“The insurgency is in its last throes” means “The insurgency is just getting started”
And so on. Heck, even when his friend apologized to him for being shot in the face, that meant Cheney was apologizing to his friend for shooting him in the face.
So what he’s actually saying is by not supporting Bush, the Democrats are in fact supporting the troops.
I will continue to criticize any President who puts the troops in “harm’s way”. Any government who puts so low a price tag on human life. I believe that every life taken on either side over there, will be one more point on Bush’s ride to Hëll in the end. The only type of person who could have a clean conscience of his actions, is someone who can truly not sympathize for others and how things effect their families for years to come. If only one of our soldiers was over there in harm’s way, it’s our duty to get them out, not leave them to marinate. The only thing Bush is doing now is lining his pockets with Tank contracts from his investments, and putting our country more in the red.
The one thing most Americas, I think, do not acknowledge, is that the culture over there was/is the Iraqi culture. As much as we would like to think that our ways, are “the” ways, it’s not always true. The media gave us a spin how all these Iraqi’s are thankful for democracy being brought to them. Riddle me this…if someone came in and took over our country and wanted to impose their beliefs on us, do you think we would just sit still? Yes, by our standards women over there were treated badly. We must allow ourselves to think outside the box, and realize that their cultural values, may mean that that is how a lot of them think it should be. Forcing them to change their ways, can be a dangerous choice to make…
“The assymetrical War on Terror poses a lot of confusion though on this issue. It is very difficult to sign a peace treaty with a set of rogue actors who are determined to do your people great harm with no apparent willingness to compromise in their mission.”
It is necessary to distinguish between:
Assymetrical war
Terror
rogue actors
Willingness to compromise.
It is a mistake to lump al this together. Not all of the groups using terror in Iraq right now are motivated by the same reasons — they are not all Al-Quaida — and therefore there are differences in their willingness to compromise. The fact hat there are multiple groups with comlex agendas makes the possibility of compromise difficult. But this whole thing is difficult.
Al-Quaida, or like minded groups, will continue to want to hurt the US regardless of success or failure in Iraq. An American withdrawl will ’embolden’ them, but so would the Americans remaining. It’s a win win situation for them. But this does not mean that after withdrawl from Iraq ‘they’ will follow you home. Some will remain to deal with the situation in Iraq, or continue fighting in Iraq, others might go to their home, others might seek other conflicts to join, and some — the more hard core Al-Quaida — will seek to specifically attack the US. It all depends on the motivation.
What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?
What if they believe that by calling for the mission to end, you encourage the ones they are there to fight and kill to keep fighting, when a resolute country would send quite a different message?
What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?
From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the “timeline” and “pull-out” dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we’ll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a “pull out” justifies more attacks.
One last thing, I’m sick of hearing the word “Quagmire” in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
Anyway, thats my opinion take it or leave it.
I for one appreciate your comment SSG H
If any of the timelines were true or accurate, we would have pulled out in 2004 at the latest:)
I will say that I see some of the same nastiness to those that disagree here, and the same unwillngness to see those who disagree with the opinions of the majority of those who come to this bog as good honest people who disagree, as I see complained about here regarding the administration and its supporters.
From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the “timeline” and “pull-out” dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we’ll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a “pull out” justifies more attacks.
Agreed (and that’s speaking as someone opposed to Iraq action). It’s clear that no one, on either side, has given much thought on whether it’s even POSSIBLE to withdraw gracefully from the area, without causing more problems (and I think that it isn’t possible).
Just curious that no one has specifically mentioned this… (Dave elluded to it, however)
http://www.gulf-news.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10110825.html
(US oil services firm Halliburton’s announcement that it will move its corporate headquarters from Houston, TX to Dubai has drawn criticism in America.)
Am I the only one that sees all kinds of conspiracy theories here???
Posted by: spiderrob8 at March 13, 2007 02:34 PM
What if the bulk of the troops want to be there (or think the troops should be there-obviously to some extent everyone wants to be home) and believe in the mission and think you are wrong for wanting them home?
That is their right. But the U.S. is not a military dictatorship. Quite the opposite: in the U.S. the military is under civlian control. The Congress is supposed to have the sole power to declare war (although everyone seems to have forgotten that), and the president is the Commander-in-Chief. Both Congress and the president are answerable to the people. If the majority of citizens want our troops home, then the civlian government should order our military to leave. The military should then follow those orders.
What if they believe that by calling for the mission to end, you encourage the ones they are there to fight and kill to keep fighting, when a resolute country would send quite a different message?
Then I would disagree with them. Micha, who actually lives in the Middle East and understands the cultures better than the vast majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has pointed out in numerous threads that many Iraqi insurgents will fight like hëll no matter what “message” we send.
What if their values and beliefs are largely quite different than yours?
Frankly, I don’t think we can truly know what most of the troops are thinking. It’s not like a scientific poll is feasible when people are engaged in all-out combat. And even if it was practical, the military chain-of-command would never allow it.
Moreover, any soldiers with grave doubts about the war may be less likely to express them for fear of reprisal from their commanders and/or fellow soldiers.
Besides, spiderrob8, in a prior thread you actually dismissed the value of individual troops’ opinions when someone else pointed out that many military commanders have disagreed with Bush’s Iraq strategy — and in some cases even disagreed with the decision to go to war in the first place. Well? Which is it, then? Do the opinions of the military count or not? You cannot have it both ways.
Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM
From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the “timeline” and “pull-out” dates. it allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we’ll be gone. Also every attack that puts more strain on our politicians and gets them to talking about a “pull out” justifies more attacks.
You are in Iraq because of a decision made by the civilian government of the U.S. In a democracy, we are responsible for our government whether we like it or not (or, for that matter, whether we “feel” we have such responsibility or not). Because you are doing a job for your country, and I am a citizen of this country, I cannot draw a distinction between “your” enemy and “mine.”
I am staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq. I have been since it was just a gleam in our president’s eye. But that doesn’t mean I don’t know which nation I call home.
That said, I believe you are wrong about our enemy’s motivation. Micha, who lives in Israel and understands the Middle East much better than most of us do, has pointed out that there are a number of different factions with different agendas. Many of the insurgents don’t give a šhìŧ about a timeline or lack thereof. They’ll fight just as hard whether we swear to leave tomorrow as they will if we say we’re going to stay until Kingdom Come.
Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM
One last thing, I’m sick of hearing the word “Quagmire” in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
Your analogy is invalid. We occupied West Germany but there was no insurgency. My father was with the army during the Cold War, stationed in Germany. He can tell you from personal experience that he was involved in NO active combat. Two totally different situations.
Posted by: SSG H at March 13, 2007 02:39 PM
Anyway, thats my opinion take it or leave it.
I disagree with your opinion but am glad you have taken the time to express it.
I disagree with your views, and I disagree with the Iraq war. But, again, I know where I live. The U.S. is my home. I pray for a resolution to this war that allows you to return home safely. And thank you for your service to this nation.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at March 13, 2007 02:49 PM
I will say that I see some of the same nastiness to those that disagree here, and the same unwillngness to see those who disagree with the opinions of the majority of those who come to this bog as good honest people who disagree, as I see complained about here regarding the administration and its supporters.
And yet in the post immediately after the one I’ve quoted above, an opponent of the war expressed agreement with a supporter of the war on a specific issue. Your confrontational attitude is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Put more simply, you’re causing the very problem you claim to abhor.
I have suggested this to you before and will do so again: lose the attitude. You are a hothead, but you are also an intelligent person with worthwhile opinions to share. Why let the one aspect of your personality overshadow the other, better, part?-
Sigh… four posts in a row. Gee, looks like I have a life… not!
Spiderrob8, I just want to make one clarification: when I say “lose the attitude,” I don’t mean “lose the contrary opinions.” I’m just saying there you can express contrary opinions in firm, confident, but non-confrontational ways.
Given our past interactions, I’m guessing this will upset you. I truly am sorry about that. My suggestions really do come from a place of goodwill. You are indeed in the minority here and it’s nice to see the minority view represented. I hate to see you drowning your own views out, however, by getting into fights needlessly.
I said this a long time ago and will say it again. Any president or veep that to drags us into a war with lies, should be required to lead the charge. How many people believe we’d still be there if tin man and shrub were required to lead the charge like Leonidas.
Yeesh.
Y’know, Cheney, it IS possible to be completely against the war in Iraq, yet also support the troops…as long as they’re there, they should be properly equipped and cared for, and once they return, have easy access to full veteran’s rights and benefits. I don’t think they ought to be there in the first place, but since I’m not in charge, I’d much rather they do it under somewhat humanitarian conditions.
I mean, how hard is it, if you know someone stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, to just send them care packages and letters all the time? It won’t do a hëll of a lot of good in combat, but you wouldn’t believe how much it helps their mental state. Trust me on that one.
That’s “supporting the troops.” But I’m still against the war. Oops, I guess that makes me a terrorist.
My Post:
“One last thing, I’m sick of hearing the word “Quagmire” in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.”
Response by Bill Myers
“Your analogy is invalid. We occupied West Germany but there was no insurgency. My father was with the army during the Cold War, stationed in Germany. He can tell you from personal experience that he was involved in NO active combat. Two totally different situations. “
Sorry Sir, I disagree that my analogy is invalid. The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited, amount of insurgent type combat only validates my point further. It took 10 years to turn the reigns of government back over to a sovereign state that had a socialogical history of democracy (yes I made op the term) and next to no insurgency… yet with Iraq we only get what 3 years and its a “quagmire” a lot of us hear this on the news and are left with a WTF look on our faces.
the other (very nitpicky) thing that pìššëš us off(me and my squad anyway) is how often the news people get ranks wrong when interviewing soldier (or airmen/marines/sailors). I know its a simple thing but how can I trust the rest of their reports when they can’t be bothered to ensure that a simple think such as rank is correct.
“I support the firefighters… I just don’t want them fighting that brushfire because I don’t like the guy who started the fire. Also, I want them out if they don’t have the whole thing under control by Wednesday.”
Yeah, that makes heaps o’ sense.
Posted by: Doom Shepherd at March 13, 2007 04:21 PM
“I support the firefighters… I just don’t want them fighting that brushfire because I don’t like the guy who started the fire. Also, I want them out if they don’t have the whole thing under control by Wednesday.”
Yeah, that makes heaps o’ sense.
It doesn’t make sense because it’s a straw man argument you’ve created.
Besides, a better analogy for the Iraq War would be a forest fire that’s burning out of control. Would you send firefighters into the raging heart of that fire, knowing they have zero chance of putting out that blaze and that most of them will surely die in the attempt? Or would you allow them to make a strategic retreat and protect those areas where they have at least a chance to succeed?
Iraq may well be a raging fire beyond our control to put it out. It may be a blow to our national pride, but I’ll put our national security and the lives of U.S. troops over our pride any day of the week.
One last thing, I’m sick of hearing the word “Quagmire” in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
What does this have to do with Iraq?
1)The troops in Germany aren’t being shot at & killed on a daily basis. Nor were they between 1945 & 1955.
2) Germany declared war on us & was actively attacking other countries. Iraq wasn’t.
The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited
Which is in no way equal to the open warfare occuring today.
To emphasize and separate out a sentiment covered above:
“Supporting the troops” and “supporting the mission” are not the same thing. There’s some overlap, but it seems that the administration is all about the mission without really supporting the troops very well. If the troops were being supported, they would have gone to war with the army they wanted, not the army they had. There would have been body armor, vehicle armor, proper supply trains, etc.
The administration wants troops in Iraq, but doesn’t seem to care much what happens to them while there. That it’s not a COMPLETE sinkhole is a testament to the hard work and talent of the people actually running the ground effort in spite of all the crap the administration is responsible for. The people who manage to keep vehicles on the road despite lack of supplies, who keep men in action despite lack of armor (or the men who buy their own armor online). Etc.
Maybe if the government supported the troops as much as they support the mission, we wouldn’t have anything significant to complain about.
“One last thing, I’m sick of hearing the word “Quagmire” in relation to Iraq. We occupied Germany for 10 years, until 1955, before we fully turned the government back over to Germans. And here we are 66 years later with troops still there.
What does this have to do with Iraq?
1)The troops in Germany aren’t being shot at & killed on a daily basis. Nor were they between 1945 & 1955.
2) Germany declared war on us & was actively attacking other countries. Iraq wasn’t.
The fact that there was a very limited, and I do mean VERY limited
Which is in no way equal to the open warfare occuring today. “
Same mission, different OPFOR. Which is why I’ll never understand us having LESS time to accomplish in Iraq what we did in Germany.
At any rate no more time for this, last post. Take care.
Look, I’ve said it before. There is no doubt that terrorists view the debates about the war as an encouraging sign of weakness. But the alternative is to live in a society in which there is no debatem and in which a policy, good or bad, is continued without question until the leadership says otherwise.
The war is not going badly because the US is not sending the right message, or because of lack of confidence at home. It goes badly because it was mismanaged by the people leading it.
When a leadership leads a country to war on false pretences, and then does a bad job running the war, it has no right to expect that its policies will not be questioned and criticized.
Even people who support the war should question how it is being conducted. Even those who oppose the war must realize that it is too late to question the decision to go into Iraq, and must deal with the situation as it is, in all its complexity.
If the American army would have been fighting Nazi insurgents 3 years after the end of WWII, and had no effective strategy to deal with the problem, it would have been considered a quagmire. The 10 years between 1945 and the foundation of an independant West Germany were not required in order for the US to gain control of the country. Conversly, if the US army had established full control of Iraq and complete cecession of violence, and then needed ten years in order to rebuild the country and protect it from outside threats, nobody would have begrudged them the time. But this is not the case right now.
I am certainly not an expert on Iraqi factions. I can’t claim to have much knowledge about the complexities of Iraq at all. But I know it is complex. It is important not to lump together all terrorists into one template and to understand the gradients and complexities.
Sarge, sorry to see you go, but I must again state that the occupation of Germany was in no major way comparable to the invasion of Iraq. For starters, we have yet to “occupy” Iraq; there is no zone in that country, outside the Green Zone inside the US base in Baghdad, that US forces control. They patrol other regions, yes; and the locals snipe at them from concealment, plant bombs, and in many other ways demonstrate that we do not hold the streets.
In Germany, within weeks of the toppling of the existing regime, the Allies owned every major city in the country, and pretty well controlled things outside the cities as well. There was a very small, extremely limited insurgent movement, one quickly quelled by the Allied forces and the local police (who were reestablished at the first opportunity). Contrast this with Iraq, where what passes for local defense forces mostly seem to moonlight for one or another of the militias.
In Japan, which we also occupied for a considerable time, the Allies forced a constitution on the Japanese people. Had we done so in Iraq, and had we persuaded the locals to adopt it, a good deal of unpleasantness may have been avoided. (Of course, it was considerably easier to impose a constitution on Japanese society of the time, accustomed as they were to regarding whoever was in charge as at least semi-divine. It’s easier to take orders from a stranger who’s standing in for the Gods than from a stranger who just happened to get elected to his position, even if he thinks he is a God.)
I would further submit that declaring war on a tactic, which is all terrorism is, is sublimely ridiculous. You can’t shoot terror, you can’t arrest it; it has no homeland to invade, no capitol to bomb, no international standing to discredit. It is a concept, purely and simply – and as we humans have proven time and again through our history, you can’t kill a concept.
“From the soldiers perspective, I have a problem with the “timeline” and “pull-out” dates. It allows the enemy (my enemy, maybe not yours) a sense of hope, that all they have to do is hold on a little longer and we’ll be gone.”
See, I’m not so sure about that. I think that depends on which enemy in Iraq you’re talking about and what their ultimate goal is. The groups that we’re fighting in the Middle East are not one large group with the same goals, desires and ideas on how to get them.
Lets look at the world as seen through the eyes of George W. Bush for a moment. He and Cheney keep claiming that “the enemy” hates our freedoms and that they are trying to stop democracy in the Middle East. They also keep saying that we will stand down when the government of Iraq can stand up. When it’s on its feet, then we leave.
Well, now lets look at that worldview through the lenses of reality. The Prime Minister of Iraq has ties to terrorist groups in his past, most man on the street interviews that come out of Iraq as well as talking to friends who have family there pretty much make clear that the average Iraqis’ definition of “freedom” isn’t quite the same as the average American’s definition and there are already signs that Iraq is going to become, basically, another Iran.
The fight to stop a Western style democracy in Iraq is likely already halfway won without any real fighting on the enemy’s part. It wouldn’t be all that hard to tip Iraq into their preferred direction after we’re gone under the Bush plan of “stay until the job is done”. If all they wanted to do was stop Bush’s pipedream, all they would have to do is back off, stop the attacks, let Iraq stand up so we can stand down, watch us leave once the job is done and then let Middle Eastern nature take its course. We’d be out of the way and the forces that already seem to be aligning over there would pull Iraq into the direction they want it to go within a decade.
They likely know that. So what’s some of the other motivations for some of the killing going on over there with some of the groups doing the killing? Well, for one, despite Cheney claiming that there is no civil war going on over there, there’s a civil war going on over there. We can argue about the size and scope of it, but there is one happening over there. Guess what, they’ll kill each other, as they have for centuries, over religious, tribal or other nitpicks for at least several generations more whether we’re there or not. Pulling based on “jobs done” VS timetables won’t change that a bit.
How about this one? We know from their own internet, radio and television broadcasts that a big factor in the desire to go into Iraq and kill Americans is, for some, just to go in and kill Americans because they’re there and that makes them easy targets and close to fill-in-the-blank’s homeland. The short version of this? Some of the people coming in to Iraq right now are basically just there BECAUSE we’re there. We leave and their target of choice leaves.
And, no, that it no way backs up Bush’s claims that we’re fighting them there to keep from fighting them here. Most of the people fighting us there would not come all the way over here to shoot at Americans on our home court. The ones that would will likely do it whether we’re there or not. If Bush is to be believed at all, then we’ve stopped several attacks from happening in the U.S. by catching the culprits after they got here and started their plans in motion. The simple fact of Bush and his supporters boasting about these stopped nonevents that were in play on U.S. soil puts the lie to his claim that we’re fighting them there so as not to have to fight them here. We’re fighting them there and we’re fighting them here.
Is this slightly over-simplified? Yeah. I don’t have ten pages to devote to each of the above options and I don’t have that much typing time right now. But it does get the short, kind of summery POV out clearly enough. Later, when I’m not ignoring the work I should be doing to play on the net, I’d love to debate some of the finer points with you (or anybody else) and even to see where we might have some common ground that could create better ideas on both ends.
For now, especially if your active and getting shipped over there, keep your head down and stay safe. Be nice to have another civil poster with an active military POV around here to play verbal ping-pong with on both the agree and disagree threads.
🙂
“Which is why I’ll never understand us having LESS time to accomplish in Iraq what we did in Germany.”
Maybe because this war was sold to the public, until the first shot was fired, as a war that would last, “six days, six weeks. I doubt six months,” by this administaration. We were told left and right that this would be over and done with in no time flat.
We were also told that this would cost us next to nothing. The administration and administration toady line was that as soon as this quick little war was done, the Iraqi oil supply would be turned back on to full gush and that the shiny new American style Iraqi democracy would pay us back in full for our war costs.
We were also going to be loved, hailed as heroes, have flowers thrown at us and all that jazz.
Now, before someone points out the obvious, Bush did not make any of these statements. I know that. But Rummy, Rice, Cheney and others were making those statements and others like them in the higher positions of the 02 and 03 Bush administration on a regular and repeated bases. Bush never stopped his people from saying those things when speaking on behalf of his administration and he himself never made a single statement to contradict those predictions until after we started the charge into Baghdad. If you let your underlings speak for your POV for that long and as publicly as they did without ever putting a stop to it our saying that their personal views do not endorse the official administration policy, then you are, by default, approving their statements. Those in the media that were promoting the Bush administration “go to war” talking points then repeated them endlessly until the start of the war with, again, no official rebukes from Bush or his top people until after the first shots were fired.
Guess what? All of that turned out to be, like so many of the justifications for going into Iraq, so much hot air and bull patties.
Then there was the ever-changing reason for why we’re over there. Old reason fell apart? No problem. Put forward a new “The-Main-Reason-We-Went-To-Iraq-Is” press statement and hope that people don’t remember the last “real’ reasons we had to be there.
People were sold a bill of goods and now they’re having buyer’s remorse. Sad thing is, guys like you are now caught in the middle of a lot of crap on several fronts.
Beyond that, there’s just the general publics lack of understanding of war and the real world. Most people who haven’t fought in a war or who don’t have close family who did and shared some of that knowledge with them don’t have any idea what a real war is like. Hey, this is the same country that thinks that C.S.I. is a realistic show and that our forensic teams knock every case out of the park with that much ease to the point that it’s actually creating problems in court cases where juries have to be exposed to real forensic procedure and evidence and don’t think that its “real” because it’s not like C.S.I.’s evidence. And the Average Joe gets to see more police and police work in their life then they see of soldiers at war. This is a country that talks about how real 24 is and how it’s the perfect example of why we should be doing some of the things that we shouldn’t be doing because they don’t actually work out like they do on 24 without a script writer to control the outcome.
They also don’t know what the Middle East is like or what stepping into Iraq was going to be like. What was most American’s exposure to Iraq and Saddam prior to this? Iraq was the country on the news that was broken and poor and that we stomped a mud hole in years ago. Saddam was the butt of jokes in movies and TV. He was the clown who couldn’t shoot straight in Hot Shots and other live action films and he was having a gay relationship with Satin on South Park. He was a chump, a loser and a wuss. He wasn’t nothing. We could take him and his country without breaking a sweat.
Then reality stepped in. Oops.
You also have to realize how many people were scared spitless after 9/11 and just curled up into the fetal position and let Bush say and do anything he wanted to so long as he promised that he wouldn’t let that happen again. Fear, for most people, doesn’t last forever. Even the level of fear displayed by some after 9/11 and played upon so well by this administration. Lots of people who backed Bush before woke up and saw what they were allowing to happen. Again, the result is that guys like you get kinda stuck in the middle.
That sucks for you and it sucks for anybody who has a brain in their head and can see that. But there’s not much that can be done about that because the debate as to what option is going to be the best long term solution in iraq has started to hit full roar and it’s not going anywhere.
“At any rate no more time for this, last post. Take care.”
Hopefully, you just mean for the rest of the day.
I’d like to point out that we’re having a spirited disagreement that is remaining largely civil. No one on the anti-war side has been disrepectful to SSG H, and he has not been disrespectful to us.
We have liberals and conservatives, soldiers and civlians here. We have people from different countries participating here, like Micha, our token Israeli! (Just kidding, Micha. Your point of view is invaluable and always educational. You are a good and thoughtful man.)
People like spiderrob8 who claim this board is one-sided and unfriendly to opposing points of view are just plain wrong.
After all these years—YEARS DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!—in Iraq, the troops still don’t have the proper equipment for fighting.
They still lack proper personal armor.
Their vehicles still lack proper armor.
They are still understaffed.
They are still being put back into action before they are ready.
They still don’t have enough interpreters.
When is Bush/Cheney/Rove truly going to start supporting the troops? Wen?
And why are they understaffed? Because those in favor of mass killing are too cowardly to enlist.
Chickenhawks=neocons.
(And don’t tell me to enlist. I’m too old and physically incapable.)
…And then along comes Alan Coil to prove me wrong.
Never mind. I’m going to bed to shake a head cold. Hopefully I’ll have something to say worth saying tomorrow.
“Oh, and if you don’t kill hunchbacks at birth, they’ll just grow up to be lecherous traitors.”
Gods, imagine if THAT’s who they had to save in Trek IV? (“SANCTUARY!” “No, SAN FRANCISCO!”)
Seems to me I remember reading somewhere that the military was updating their tactical training for urban combat and conditions. Too bad those in charge are still trying to fight with the OUTdated plan book.
1Can we add to that list the right of our troops to proper medical care after they’ve come home after being shot. Also I support the right of our troops to be properly trained and provided for and their familes to be provided for and if we the people and by that I include Bush’s base have to pay more taxes to acheve that, i don’t have a problem with that.
As Dave said, “”Supporting the troops” and “supporting the mission” are not the same thing. There’s some overlap, but it seems that the administration is all about the mission without really supporting the troops very well. If the troops were being supported, they would have gone to war with the army they wanted, not the army they had. There would have been body armor, vehicle armor, proper supply trains, etc.”
That’s pretty much what I was trying to say, only with better word-things. 🙂
Posted by spiderrob8
Oh, yeah. (rolls eyes)
The “bulk of the troops” who have seen what a thorough-going mongolian fire drill is going on over there and just how much the Iraqi People love us (not) think it’s a good idea to saty over there and get shot at for a cause that was lost even before The Decider made the Decision to lie and manipulate us into it.
Ain’t what i hear from my son-in-law (what little he is willing to talk about).
Posted by SSG H
But anyone who has eyes to see – and actually like, ya know, looks, knows that a US pullout is inevitable, and that it is inevitable sooner rather than later on a real-world political/historical time scale.
We cannot sustain this sort of thing in the Real World of today – economically, domestically politically, or in terms of international relations.
Well, yeah. But that was an “occupation”. What we have in Iraq is not an occupation.
(Unless you’re Halliburton and your occupation is collecting as much money for as little actual work on no-bid contracts, anyway.)
I seem to have missed the reports of daily battles with roving guerrilla bands in the streets of Berlin in 1954.
And, at least until the Shrub shoved us into this stupid war and international opinion began change, a lot of Germans actually thought our being there was a Good Idea, and that our troops were actually there to help defend their country. (Well, anyone who actually looked back at how WW2 went probably realised just what a mess Germany was going to be if we fought the Russians there, but, still…)
Posted by Bill Myers
Those were merely generals, who don’t know anything about the war or how it ought to be fought. (Or, not fought, as the case might be.)
One last question, *SSG* – and i’m not being nasty here, but i’m honestly wondering – have you served in Iraq? Or Gulf 1?
My own service was Viet Nam (era and place – though non-combat in a Navy shore establishment), and, while a lot of “the troops” felt that the Opposition back home might be going a little far, by the time i set foot in the place, there wasn’t much doubt among the guys that i knew that the party was over.
And would the last person out please turn off the light at the end of the tunnel.
But, boy howdy!, do i ever agree with you on one thing – the fact that people can’t get ramks right. I, personally, have only a limited understanding of the ranks and structures of the Army, Air Force or even the Marines, aside from counting stripes to see who ranks who, but i promise that if i were either interviewing troops or writing about them, i would make it a point to at least get it right on paper, even if i didn’t exactly grasp it to the fullest.
I still twitch and grind my teeth when i hear some journalistic type – likely as not a Brit, at that – refer to “Princess Diana”, which is just about equivalent to calling a sergeant “Colonel”…
“Hopefully, you just mean for the rest of the day.”
yeah, I wasn’t “taking my ball and going home” I just have limited time/access. I usually just lurk around here, I like a lot of PAD’s books, but in the past I’ve kept myself out of discussions. I disagree with PAD’s (democrat) politics on a number of levels, though I also disagree with a lot of republican politics as well, I’m about at the point where I think political leaders should be chosen from a lottery and there should be no “political career field”
Mike Weber:
“Ain’t what i hear from my son-in-law (what little he is willing to talk about).”
A lot of the people hate us, a lot like us (or our money), and a lot could give a s*** less and are just waiting till we leave for the next shoe to drop. There is no question that our cultures are not compatible.
Also keep in mind that a significant percentage of the EPW and enemy KIA are from outside Iraq, which means that a similar percentage of insurgents are from outside Iraq. Whoever mentioned that the insurgent issue is complex was really understating the issue.
“One last question, *SSG* – and i’m not being nasty here, but i’m honestly wondering – have you served in Iraq?”
Yes I have. But I am a 31B MP and not 11B Infantry so that might color my viewpoint some.
“Or Gulf 1?” no.
“But, boy howdy!, do i ever agree with you on one thing – the fact that people can’t get ramks right. I, personally, have only a limited understanding of the ranks and structures of the Army, Air Force or even the Marines, aside from counting stripes to see who ranks who, but i promise that if i were either interviewing troops or writing about them, i would make it a point to at least get it right on paper, even if i didn’t exactly grasp it to the fullest.”
LOL, I feel the same way about Navy ranks… I don’t know If I’ll ever understand them.
Just to clear the air, I took no offense to your questions. For one its the internet, I could have just as easily “tagged” myself CSM or LTG, no one here has any proof that I’m really a Staff Sergeant other than my word.
Bill Myers –
Micha … has pointed out that there are a number of different factions with different agendas.
Well, with no offense intended to Micha, it doesn’t take somebody living in the Middle East to see what’s really going on in Iraq – it just takes somebody who is willing to not automatically assume that anybody fighting US soldiers in Iraq as terrorists.
The simple fact is that some of these people fighting our soldiers simply see us as an invader that needs to be forced out of the country. But, the ‘freedom fighter’ concept (which is I’m sure how some native Iraqis view themselves) has been completely ignored by Bush & Co. in favor of political expedience: that everybody must be a terrorist working for Al Qaeda, when it simply isn’t the truth.
SSG H –
yet with Iraq we only get what 3 years and its a “quagmire”
Last I checked, once “mission accomplished” was announced in Germany, the war was over. The war is not over in Iraq.
3000 US soldiers didn’t die in Germany after WWII was declared over. US soldiers didn’t have to take and retake cities because the Germans wouldn’t stop fighting.
Your view of Iraq and dislike of the term ‘quagmire’ is, imo, very strange indeed. But then, I question why you would compare Germany and Iraq in the first place when there really is no solid comparison to be made.
Now, Vietnam, on the other hand…
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 14, 2007 10:49 AM
Well, with no offense intended to Micha, it doesn’t take somebody living in the Middle East to see what’s really going on in Iraq…
The only reason I brought poor Micha’s name into it was to counter spiderrob8’s assertions, which seemed to have as their premise the idea that the soldiers in Iraq have a better perspective than us civilians. I was trying to point out that merely being in Iraq isn’t the same as understanding the culture, history, politics, and economics of that region. Hëll, most of our personnel in that region don’t even speak the local language!
Moreover, I’m not sure you’re correct that “it doesn’t take somebody living in the Middle East to see what’s really going on in Iraq.” If Micha has taught me anything, it’s that the cultural chasm between the U.S. and the nations of the Middle East is larger than most of us imagine. We tend to see the world in what we believe to be a perfectly obvious and rational way, but a lot of what we consider to be “perfectly obvious” is seen through the prism of our own cultural biases.
Want a “for instance?” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has covered the Middle East extensively and has many contacts there. He pointed out that in the U.S., people tend to be more truthful with you in private than they are in public. In the Middle East, people tend to do the reverse. That seems counter-intuitive, but that’s their culture. I therefore don’t think any of us can really understand what’s going on in that region without understanding each of the cultures at play.