February 25, 2005
The Honored Soldiers of a Dishonored Command
Soldiers depend on their commanders to bring them victory. That is not to say a soldier might not act decisively in battle, but that this man or woman in uniform relies on his or her commander to put them in the right place at the right time for the right reasons.
Thus, the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The Democrats have never suggested that winning this war wasn’t a good idea. Nor do Democrats fulfill the right’s fevered fantasies of peaceniks who spit on soldiers. We are patriots. We want victory in the war on terror. We want our soldiers honored for their sacrifice.
We want them honored for their willingness to sacrifice their lives. How do we honor them so? We engage them in worthwhile battles, for causes that really do help to defend our country. They die to protect us, to protect this country. If they are to risk that, we must be certain that when we put our soldiers in harms way, it is to do just that.
Logically, that means a number of things. It means we are obligated to employ them to deal with real problems and real threats. Our facts must be straight as possible- Not merely the possible as defined by the lowest common denominator excuse for an intelligence failure, but the possible according to the evidence. It's a hard standard, but war is a difficult enterprise, so why should those trying to prove its necessity get off easy?
There are those who say that in post-9/11 times to wait until one has a good case for war means waiting too long. There is that risk, but there are also the risks that come with invading the wrong country- the loss of the time, the money, the manpower and the resource to go after truer threats. Improvements in our intelligence and analysis capabilities can lower the risks from both sides.
Our president carped about Senator Kerry's criticism of the war, saying it sent mixed messages, but isn't invading the wrong country for security reasons the ultimate mixed message? It doesn't do wonders for people's faith in our motives or morality. It doesn't encourage other people to help us. Worst of all, it doesn't discourage our enemies from attacking us. In fact, it makes our soldiers easier targets for the terrorists.
In addition to the obligation to be truthful and accurate about why we are going to war, there is the obligation to carry it out soundly. Even the most moral, most necessary war can be screwed up strategically. Here, the strategic screwup was a lack of contingencies for the very real possibility in the take-over and occupation of a country of an rebellion against occupation authority. If you think about it, it's an almost logical possibility to consider. Some folks excuse the administration by saying that such a standard is too perfectionist in its character. Well, aside from appealing to people on the basis of the need for higher standards, one should consider whether it is all that perfectionist of a standard in the first place.
Is it too much to ask to prepare beforehand for the real possibility that folks might rise up against us? It is only too much to ask if what one wants is a quick, easy war where the population does your work for you. The only point at which this has been vindicated has been during the elections, but that was during a time when security was considerably greater. We can congratulate ourselves on a well run election, and rightly speak of those who voted as brave, but somebody should ask the question: would turnout have been so great under normal security conditions?
What if we had exercise this kind of control early on, when the embryonic insurgent movements were just getting their start? In war, the general rule is to try and get things up and running as fast as you can, because the chaos of war will tend to reduce your options if you let things drag on in dysfunction.
Businesses and nations would have remained in Iraq were it not for the insurgency and the lawlessness. Trying to rebuild Iraq with the country not under our full control is like trying to lay a foundation in the torrents of a storm. Throughout this insurgency our efforts to rebuild Iraq and its government have been held hostage by the insurgent's violence. Put up lines, they're blown up. Get the oil flowing, the line gets bombed.
How long could we maintain our own economy under the constant threat of such violence? It is our law and order, our stability as a country, and the recognized authority of those who govern us which allow our civilization to flourish.
Without the necessary manpower, that is a moot point. We are spread thin, and the insurgents know it. They take advantage of it, using guerilla warfare to produce threats we have to answer, and other threats to distract us when we commit ourselves to cleaning out a stronghold. We play strategical whack-a-mole, instead of having a presence wherever they chose to run.
Ah, but Bush's people had to prove their theories about light armies. Well, what they don't realize is that an invasion and occupation of a major country is not the time to enact such experiments. You play it safe. You don't assume things will go your way and not prepare for other eventualities. That gets soldiers killed, and frustrates the missions. The weight of the campaign then falls on the average grunt's shoulder, where it should be on their commander's shoulders. Soldiers get the sense that whatever the wrong occurs, they are obligated to keep quiet, lest they accelerate the downward trend of things. That, or politically motivated superiors tell them to keep quiet.
Other obligations exist as well, and the Bush administration hasn't covered itself in glory. National Guardsmen who don't have the luxury of having the armed forces as their sole career are having their stays in Iraq extended far past their original commitment. Does it honor our soldiers to impoverish their families, to keep them in harm's way until long after they were supposed to go home, pushing their luck until it runs out? Does it honor the military to institute stop loss policies, a backdoor draft, rather than admit to the American people that they are short of troops?
Does it honor our troops to fail to get them help to readjust to civilian lives, and cope with the horrors of war they experienced? Does it honor them to leave them by the wayside in society when they come back maimed and in pain for their service?
Does it honor them to lack even a tentative timetable for attaining success in this war?
For more than a generation, despite evidence to the contrary, conventional wisdom held that the Right cared more about the armed forces than those on the Left. Perhaps it's the willingness of the Right to throw out praise of the Armed forces at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it's the more conservative politics of the soldiers. The fact is, though, the Right has resisted backing up word with deed, wisdom spoken of with wisdom acted out.
I think it's time for those who love our soldiers and who wish to win this War on Terrorism to reconsider their support for the Republican Party and for President Bush, on the basis of how lousily they've support their troops. True, the causes of fighting terrorism and freeing Iraqis may be moral causes, but moral causes can be used by the careless and unscrupulous to lead those who proudly risk their lives for their country into needlessly brutal campaigns, and counterproductive wars of choice.
It does not reflect badly on those soldiers that they do and die for their country when asked, but it reflects badly on the civilians and former soldiers of this country when we do not ask the most and expect the best from those who command them. We cannot sit here safe and sound and allow such carelessness, corruption, and dishonest from their commanders. It is our obligation, being those they protect, that we keep their commanders honest and on their toes about doing right by them.
We, as a society, must not let their sacrifices be put to wasteful or careless use, nor let our leaders worm their way out of responsibility for the actions that get them killed. There is risk inherent to war, but inherent to the proper conduct of war is a management of that risk, management that brings about the decisions that need to be decided, and creates the best result for our nation's welfare that can be had. We cannot afford to fight forever and not improve the state of things, and we certainly should have more guts and integrity than to let our soldiers get chewed up in the process.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 25, 2005 12:30 PMStephen,
I’ve said the same thing before in about 1000 less words. :-) The thought of following a commander who places his troops in harm’s way for no good reason - anyone should fear that. Bringing down a dictator and freeing the Iraqis - that’s a good cause. The questions stand:
- Did we need to start a war, or would diplomacy eventually prevail?
- Even if war was eventually a chosen tactic, wouldn’t it have been better to bring the U.N. on board with proper reasoning? Perhaps the U.N. would attack to “free the people” or “overthrow a dictatorship” or “bring democracy to a troubled land”, the way they didn’t buy the lies of WMD, the way the American people shouldn’t have bought them. Perhaps, even the pressure of a full U.N. coalition and lasting support for it would’ve been enough for Saddam to step down. Doubtful? Maybe…but we’ll never know.
What’s done is done, and what Stephen’s article implies is, I believe, this: whatever the outcomein Iraq, Bush’s leadership is not an example to follow.
Posted by: Thomas R at February 25, 2005 02:47 PMStephen,
Not on the list of contingencies.
Security and control of the anarchy after the fall of Saddam.
Use of Iraqi contractors and Iraqi labor to rebuild Iraq.
Why did we bring in mercenaries to provide security for our contractors?
Why are we importing concrete to a country that previously exported the same product?
Why is the “Green Zone” the only really secure place in Iraq?
Why do we have such a hard time keeping the Baghdad airport open?
What are we saying to the Iraqi people when we can provide security for our contractors, but not their civilians?
Posted by: Rocky at February 25, 2005 02:58 PM“Not on the list of contingencies.”
“Security and control of the anarchy after the fall of Saddam.”
Being open minded, I am very curious about reading the documents that you have gotten this information from. I mean, the administration and US military had absolutely no plans for after the war is really major news. Could you please tell me where the proof of this comes from so that I may read up on it.
“Why did we bring in mercenaries to provide security for our contractors?”
Was it WE as in the US govt that hired the mercenaries? or was it the contractors who hired them? If the US govt was paying them, then that is wrong.
“Why are we importing concrete to a country that previously exported the same product?”
If its from the US, who cares.
“Why is the “Green Zone” the only really secure place in Iraq?”
I have not personally been to Iraq since Desert Storm, but I do have MANY friends currently over there. The quote above actually contradicts what I have been hearing from friends who are currently there. I mean be for real, this is the ONLY secure place in ALL of Iraq? I’m afraid you are wrong on this.
“Why do we have such a hard time keeping the Baghdad airport open?”
Simple. Its the major transportation hub in the area. Big target.
“What are we saying to the Iraqi people when we can provide security for our contractors, but not their civilians?”
Who really cares. If WE are providing security for OUR people then THEY should be willing to provide security for THEMSELVES.
“Why do we have such a hard time keeping the Baghdad airport open?”
Simple. Its the major transportation hub in the area. Big target.
Good answer.
“What are we saying to the Iraqi people when we can provide security for our contractors, but not their civilians?”
Who really cares. If WE are providing security for OUR people then THEY should be willing to provide security for THEMSELVES.
Bad answer. We’ve placed the Iraqis in this position of warfare in their streets. It’s like trying to rescue hostages and telling them to run across the road amidst crossfire while you’re safe behind a barrier. They were safer as hostages.
I always find personal accounts interesting. I believe you when you say that the Green Zone isn’t the only safe place in Iraq. It’s possible what the poster meant was that the Green Zone was the safest place in Baghdad.
Posted by: Thomas R at February 25, 2005 03:39 PMThomas
I too can see where Rocky could have meant Baghdad and not all of Iraq, good call if that was his intention.
I can also tell that you and I will have different ideas about the Iraqi people and I can respect that.
We may have placed them in this position but it is up to them to get out of it.
From experience, I can also say that a hostage is NEVER safe.
“Simple. Its the major transportation hub in the area. Big target”
Kctim,
It’s the only transportation hub in Baghdad.
“”Why are we importing concrete to a country that previously exported the same product?”
If its from the US, who cares.”
You’d think that we would want to build the infrastructure using Iraqi contractors, Iraqi labor, AND Iraqi materials considering it’s their country that we are trying to rebuld, not to mention it would be cheaper. Not to mention that we might help their economy by employing Iraqi’s.
Halliburton would be bankrupt if they hadn’t gotten those contracts. BTW, where did that 18 billion dollars go?
“Being open minded, I am very curious about reading the documents that you have gotten this information from. I mean, the administration and US military had absolutely no plans for after the war is really major news. Could you please tell me where the proof of this comes from so that I may read up on it.”
I got the same info that everybody else did. I got it while we allowed the Iraqi’s looted everything in sight. What we didn’t destroy the Iraqi’s did. I belive Rumsfeld said that in a free society we had to expect lawlessness. I thought that was the single stupidest thing I had ever heard.
Rumsfeld expected the Iraqi’s to welcome us with open arms, just as happened in Eastern Europe.
We may have placed them in this position but it is up to them to get out of it.
LOL!!! I’m sure Iraqis have a different viewpoint on that, kctim. In fact, I’ll bet you would too, if you were in their shoes. :)
99% of those people’s lives were never in danger from Saddam. Now they’re victims of random morter attacks and car bombings. It’s not hard to see why the majority of Iraqis are telling us, “Thanks… Now go.”
As for the post-war security plan - if the DoD had one, it was really, really bad,
Some defense officials said privately in interviews that the plan in place for security after Baghdad’s fall has been an utter failure. They said it failed to predict any significant resistance from Saddam loyalists, much less the deadly combination of Ba’athist holdouts and foreign terrorists preying daily on American troops.“Every briefing on postwar Iraq I attended never mentioned any of this,” said a civilian policy adviser.
The worst part is that the Bush administration ignored pleas by Bremmer and military commanders in Iraq to provide more troops for security after the insurgency broke out. The administration didn’t cut troop strength as much as they had planned to do, but they didn’t make any concerted effort to ratchet up security, either.
And while elections went smoothly in the non-Sunni areas because of extrordinary temporary measures like curfews and bans on driving vehicles, there were still millions of people in the insurgent-controlled areas that couldn’t vote or were afraid to vote.
Thomas R, here’s a good post-mortem of US/UN pre-war diplomacy. Had the Bush administration made the “bad Saddam” case, rather than the WMD case, it’s likely the UN would have gone along. Everybody knows Saddam was bad. But the presence or absence of WMD was a charge that needed to be verified.
From interviews and books based on access, like Woodward’s “Plan of Attack”, it’s pretty clear that Bush thought he didn’t need a new UN resolution to attack Iraq. The WMD mumbo-jumbo was just to incite the natives in America. The administration never needed anything from the UN except legitimacy - and they didn’t (still don’t) think they needed that.
kctim-
Oh, the administration had plans. Trouble is, they didn’t have back ups. We went in there with one-billion to devote to reconstruction efforts. Oil profits were to provide the left.
Okay, sounds good. Except the insurgents attacked the pipelines, and the Nations that were Iraq’s creditors had first dibs on the oil revenues. That 90 billion dollar budget supplemental- did you know that thirty of it was meant to make up for that error? Of course, that was much later in the year.
Our planners in the Pentagon expected our occupation to go unopposed, captured soldiers to provide the work crews to rebuild. They expect people who had long showed little inclination to rise against Saddam in the recent times before the war to suddenly rise up against him and multiply our forces. They expected another uprising from the Shia of Southern Iraq, a rather unrealistic expectation, since we abandoned them to Saddam’s brutal reprisals the last time we enouraged them to rise against him.
They failed to plan sufficiently to secure the country. They wanted a quick and dirty invasion without major sticker shock, and for their troubles they got a long and messy insurgency.
And yes, it is a bad security situation. Maybe not uniformly across the country, but still, things are screwed up. If you want some idea of how things were as recently as November, the latest Frontline report is a must see. If you want to see what the situation was the year before that, there’s another report which is rather illuminating about how things were then. Some of the concerns in that report are positively prophetic, like those about one Moqtada al-Sadr, for example.
It should be a red flag to you that mercenary protection is necessary, that there’s a green zone in the first place, and that we can’t keep open a major transportation hub. Why is this country still such a warzone almost two years after we rained Shock and Awe down on Iraq?
Part of it is an extraordinarily ineffecient reconstruction effort. I think the point of Rocky’s question, is why we are going through the expense of importing concrete, when we could both improve the Iraqi economy and our bottom line by getting the material cheap at the source. The point is not to get Americans employed, but rather Iraqis employed Iraqis are Iraqis that have something to lose by picking up a gun and shooting at us.
As for security, I think it should be clear by now how futile it is to reconstruct a country in the midst of a war. Security for Iraqis and for our soldiers is the same thing: the neutralization of the insurgents and their supporting infrastructure. Until we do that, we will be building log cabins on termite farms.
I find that this administration and its supporters have found it very easy to talk about what other people are supposed to do, but with rare exceptions have been fairly lousy about getting them to do it.
It’s about time they plan on what happens when folks don’t take their suggestions.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 25, 2005 11:32 PMI think the point of Rocky’s question, is why we are going through the expense of importing concrete, when we could both improve the Iraqi economy and our bottom line by getting the material cheap at the source.
That’s a really good point. Conservatives are always carping that international humanitarian organizations import too much aid and expertise, and don’t allow the country they’re helping to build up capability in those areas. But when US corporations stand to benefit, they jump right in. Go figure.
AP,
And that brings us back to Halliburton and Bechtel. American companies that have ties to the Bush administration, and have been over-charging America to do what local companies could do cheaper.
It is my understanding that those concrete security walls cost $1000 per section to import and would cost $100 per section to build with local materials.
I belive that the whole point of being there was to create something out chaos. Not to screw the American taxpayer AND the Iraqis.
Some of us knew that Rummy’s experiments wouldn’t likely work, and weren’t needed to be tried on Iraq, way back in 2002.
Of course, “some of us” didn’t include many Democrats, such as John Kerry.
That’s why “some of us” voted Green.
That’s why, if not for this then other reasons, “some of us” may well vote Green again, in 2008, and not just in the presidential race.
Posted by: Steve Snyder at February 26, 2005 12:49 PMMr. Snyder-
The question is how you knew all these things. If you knew something we didn’t early on, more power to you. If this is just you doubting them for partisan reason, I don’t think such “knowledge” is of much use.
Stephen:
I’m curious, when Hillary runs in 2008 & her platform agrees with President Bush (concerning the war), would you be willing to consider her as a “dishonored commander”?
Explain something else, how can you say you honor the troops & at the same time tell them they are dying for a worthless cause? Why do the troops have so much love for their Commander in Chief?
I agree with kctim, where is your documentation? A lot of talk, but no proof.
Blaine,
Most of what has been posted here has been played out right in front of everybody.
Do you need documentation to know that anarchy reigned for the two weeks following the fall of Saddam?
That the looting helped destroy the infrastructure of Iraq?
Did you not hear that Halliburton had overcharged for services?
What more proof do you need?
Rocky:
Proof is not in the things said on these pages. Proof is not excerpts from the news media. Proof is not what democratic strategists or politicians say in front of the TV cameras. Proof is documentation that would hold up in a court of law.
Since we have a President & Congress with the backbone to begin to deal with tort reform & lawyers that may be in need of work. Give the proof to them so they can take it to the courts!
Posted by: Blaine at February 26, 2005 08:40 PMSo you want proof from right wing blog or everything is untrue, right?
Get over it.
Posted by: Rocky at February 26, 2005 09:11 PMBlaine:
Most of what has been posted here has been played out right in front of everybody. Do you need documentation to know that anarchy reigned for the two weeks following the fall of Saddam? That the looting helped destroy the infrastructure of Iraq? Did you not hear that Halliburton had overcharged for services? What more proof do you need?
Your point?? The above is normal during wartime. Mistakes and miscalculations happen. Should we take a look at the liberal war in Bosnia and see how that one is going?? You are highlighting the negative because of your political pursuation. I think you are starting from a position of being opposed to the war, and finding the information you want to justify your already made up opinion.
The elections were great weren’t they??? Did you celebrate, or find something there to criticize??
Who is the biggest crook by the way, Haliberton or the UN?? My money would be on the UN.
Craig
Blaine-
For what? She hasn’t been in charge of this war so far. She isn’t even in the majority party.
It’s telling that you don’t try to dispute what I’ve said, you instead try to claim that fellow Democrats and I are no better.
Explain something else, how can you say you honor the troops & at the same time tell them they are dying for a worthless cause? Why do the troops have so much love for their Commander in Chief?
Because good troops can be employed in a mismanaged, unjustified war. Also, I’m not telling them they’re dying for a worthless cause. The securing and democratizing of Iraq is a very worthy cause.
But the worthiness of that cause is not equivalent to the wisdom of our invasion. We may end up having chosen that worthy cause in Iraq over the equal, if not superior cause of taking the fight to our most serious enemies. And unfortunately, that may end up being detrimental to both causes.
Even now, al-Qaeda makes its disruptive influence felt in Iraq, taking advantage of our military committment to terrorize Iraqis, and of course to hit American troops that aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.
We had the chance to not just stomp al-Qaeda, but turn mash that cockroach of an organization into the floor. Having done that, our time in Iraq would have been much easier. We would have had fear on our side. It is complete bullshit that Osama Bin Laden has been free long enough for us to both lose and find Saddam Hussein. We could have had the first part of our war on terror won conclusively, no loose ends to pop-up in places like Java or Madrid. Osama Bin Laden isn’t somebody you pursue until they’re down, he’s somebody you pursue until you’ve got them captured or dead.
As for those troops who have so much love for their CINC, well, it’s not the first time somebody who says all the right things is popular with people. You might as well ask the majority of Americans why they liked Clinton. Popularity is not a measure of character. As often as not, it’s a measure of the success of one’s persona. In many ways Bush is sort of the mirror opposite version of Clinton, with both similar and complementary flaws.
As for documentation of the failures of the Bush strategies- Well, I don’t know why you need it. It’s not as if I’m making a real controversial claim here-except in circles that think Bush can do no wrong, that is.
I basically laid out the errors in strategy up there. It’s pointless not to admit what even Bush’s own officials admit themselves.
Is your best defense of Bush administration policy a bad memory of it?
Proof is not in the things said on these pages. Proof is not excerpts from the news media. Proof is not what democratic strategists or politicians say in front of the TV cameras. Proof is documentation that would hold up in a court of law.
You know, we Democrats didn’t settle for a standard of legal evidence when we supported the war in Iraq. We were willing to take the word of the Bush administration on these issues, thinking that at the very least he was committed to going after the right people for the right reasons to protect America. We were willing to settle for probable cause.
Oh, but you know, your people had to make out like we wanted enough for conviction. But now you ask this standard for evidence against Bush?
Well, it seems typical of extremists on your side. You would ask a very lax standard evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq, which has so far killed almost 1500 Americans, yet criticism of our president, who has made many errors even by his own admission (see catastrophic success), must be documented like some over-argued lawsuit. It’s nice to see excessive legalism is permissable when it defends politicians.
As a Democrat, and somebody who supported Clinton to the hilt, I can tell you from experience that even our most beloved leaders can turn out to be guilty of what they are charged with. We must be open to more than just the visions in our brains of who our leaders are. We must peel away the illusions and the spin as far as we can, or else be slaves to the more charismatic of our politicians. We cannot afford false or mediocre leadership in these times because its more comforting to stick with our cherished beliefs, and worshipped leaders.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 26, 2005 11:27 PMStephen:
So basically, what your saying is that you don’t need to prove the rhetoric & since Hillary supports the war in Iraq for political reasons, she don’t count? You are also saying, the troops are as mindless as the 52% of voters because they support the President?
Posted by: Blaine at February 26, 2005 11:43 PMBlaine-
Do I need to prove something already proven by multiple sources? Do I need to justify the actions of my party’s Senators and representatives, after Bush showed them the case that he did? It’s not their fault they trusted Bush. We are supposed to be able to trust what our president tells us, right?
And while we’re on the subject of evidence, why don’t you come up with some that I’ve been denigrating our country’s armed forces. I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion, given all the efforts I have taken to place responsibility on the Bush adminstration’s shoulders. Hell, my choice of media- go watch that Frontline Report A Company of Soldiers that I posted a link to, and tell me whose side that report was on.
You’ve confused your politics with my sentiments. It’s convenient for you to think my concern for the troops is forced or my motives patronizing. But for me this is the honest admiration and concern for our troops. I am the grandson of two men who served their country in WWII, one of whom jumped into Normandy with the 82nd Airborne.
I’m what you might call a Private Ryan Democrat, a part of a generation whose grandparents were the soldiers of WWII, who bear an intense admiration for those who serve in uniform, but are hard-nosed realists about war, and its effect on people. We do not criticize to hamstring. Precisely the opposite. We believe Bush hamstrings them by not giving those who decide their deployment the whole truth. We believe he hamstrings them by sending them to fight in the wrong places. We believe he hamstrings them by not strategizing with sufficient foresight and wisdom. In short, we believe this Commander in Chief is the greatest obstacle between our soldiers and their glory.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2005 01:09 AMMr. Daugherty:
There were a lot of people in mid-2002 who:
1. Were ncredulous that a secular Saddam Hussein (albeit one adopting the mantle of “Islamism” like Republicans adopt that of the Christian right) had anything to do with a fundamentalist Sunni likely to stir up religious faction in his divided country, and who had already anathametized him. No mind-reading needed, just reasonable attention to foreign affairs.
(Unfortunately, these people appear to have been few and far between among Democrats in the House and Senate, including a Massachusetts Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee. A few exceptions, such as Graham and Kucinich, were highly outnumbered.)
2. Knew that the chances Hussein had reconstituted chemical weapons production, let alone done something with biological weapons, doubly let alone nuclear weapons, were slim and none. Both Ekeus and Blix, not to mention homegrown weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter, were already on record about this. No mind-reading needed here either.
(Unfortunately, these people appear to have been few and far between among Democrats in the House and Senate.)
3. Knew from previous history that Bush wasn’t being that sincere when he talked about giving the UN one more inspections shot. And, although I live in Texas, one didn’t have to be here to tell that much about Bush. Once again, no mind-reading involved.
Not only I, but many intelligent and articulate peace activists knew that. That’s why we marched in antiwar rallies months before it actually came.
Finally, you know why John Kerry voted for war in 2002? Because he had voted against the Gulf War and now had his eyes on the White House.
Don’t take my word for it.
One of Kerry’s own friends said so, as I reported in my blog last October.
See this Google link for all of my posts to my blog about Kerry and Iraq:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Kerry&ie=UTF-8&sitesearch=socraticgadfly.blogspot.com
Craig-
Your point?? The above is normal during wartime. Mistakes and miscalculations happen.
By that logic, head-on collisions should be considered no worse than fender-benders.
Stop concentrating on negativity. What about factuality? Some negatives can undermine the good things.
The time for Americans to celebrate will be when our soldiers come home with a completed mission, not before.
As for the UN, Halliburton has mispent more money (8-billion) than Saddam got by manipulating Oil for food. (about five billion) you could probably lose the bet just on the overcharging alone.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2005 01:31 AM“Who is the biggest crook by the way, Haliberton or the UN?? My money would be on the UN.”
Craig,
So you can overlook all the good that the U.N. has done since it was formed, in spite of recent stumbles?
Haliberton has taken money that came from your pocket pal.
That makes a hell of a lot of sense.
“Your point?? The above is normal during wartime. Mistakes and miscalculations happen.”
Give me a break!
Craig, I posted that, I am glad you are paying attention.
When mistakes and miscalculations happen in a wartime situation, people die. Lots of people. Are you so blinded by your ideology you can’t see that?
The mistakes happen if you don’t plan.
The miscalculations were only normal because we were in such a rush to get there and we didn’t have a clue what to do, when we got there.
All those problems were caused by us. We went into Iraq before we were ready, and then we fiddle-farted around after we got to Baghdad.
There is no reason that the looting shouldn’t have been put down. That was inexcusable.
Mistake? Abso-freeking-lutely!
The outcome of this “war” was never in doubt. We have technological superiority planet wide. We could have had this wrapped up long ago. We had the staging areas, we had the resources, we had the time.
We didn’t use the time.
Whether I was for or against the war isn’t the point. We all cheered when that statue came down. I am happy that elections have taken place.
Let’s not break our arms patting ourselves on the back.
Posted by: Rocky at February 27, 2005 01:35 AMCraig, I posted that, I am glad you are paying attention. When mistakes and miscalculations happen in a wartime situation, people die. Lots of people. Are you so blinded by your ideology you can’t see that?Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2005 05:25 AMPeople were dying before the war. Lots of people. There will always be mistakes in war. Actually there will always be mistakes in anything government does.
So you can overlook all the good that the U.N. has done since it was formed, in spite of recent stumbles?It is the left that overlooks how inept the UN is. If the left had their way, the UN would still be fiscally raping Iraqi citizens, and there would be not democracy.
It is very likely that if the left did not have their head in the sand over what the UN had become, then this US lead war would not have happened. George Bush was one of the few people who saw the UN for what it was, corrupt and inept.
In terms of comparing Haliburton and the UN, Haliburton is under the rule of a law, the UN is in many ways above the law. The UN has certainly not proved itself above Haliburton in any way has it??
Craig
Hey again, long weekend, whew.
Rocky
“If its from the US, who cares.”
Your answer assumes I care about Iraq, I do not. And I do not place others ahead of Americans, especially our soldiers. We need to bring them home now.
“BTW, where did that 18 billion dollars go?”
I have no idea. Do you have any “real” proof that this money was squandered in any way?
“I got the same info that everybody else did”
And your info is based on partisan conclusions, not facts from these pre-war meetings, unless you were present, then I apologize.
AP
“I’m sure Iraqis have a different viewpoint on that, kctim. In fact, I’ll bet you would too, if you were in their shoes.”
I could care less of what their viewpoint is, YAWN! And I am not in their shoes am I? I am an American and no amount of liberal created guilt will ever convince me to place a foriegn person or land above that of an American or the USA.
Thanks for the post war security plan link. It was interesting read but hardly enough to damn the whole battle plan.
SD
Thanks for the frontline links. I just wish the media would air the good things sometimes also.
Stephen and AP: I have been getting this Haliburton is the only American company that could do the job line alot lately. Do either of you know if there are other American companies that should have been allowed to bid? Thanks for any help you can offer.
Its all actually quite clear what is going on:
Things in Iraq aren’t as bad as the left wishes and wants them to be and they are not as rosy as the right thinks they are.
“People were dying before the war. Lots of people. There will always be mistakes in war. Actually there will always be mistakes in anything government does”
Yes Craig, but they weren’t OUR people.
“In terms of comparing Haliburton and the UN, Haliburton is under the rule of a law, the UN is in many ways above the law. The UN has certainly not proved itself above Haliburton in any way has it??”
I suppose that you’re so used to being screwed by corporate America, that you can’t tell the difference.
But it’s ok, right at least you’re being screwed by Americans
If the right got it’s head out of it’s butt it would see that the United Nations helps the world in many ways that the United States can’t.
UNICEF, UNAIDS, UNHCR, The UN agriculture Programe, these are but a few of the benefits of having a U.N. Not to mention that America has been using their UN dues as a political football for years.
“And your info is based on partisan conclusions, not facts from these pre-war meetings, unless you were present, then I apologize.”
Kctim,
Unless CNN and Fox News was able to stage the looting anarchy for their cameras, I would find it hars to belive that you didn’t see any of it with your own eyes.
Posted by: Rocky at February 28, 2005 12:17 PMRocky
I’m not saying those things didn’t happen, I have seen the footage and spoken with soldiers there who witnessed the looting. That does not mean there was no plan laid out.
KNOWING the plan and criticizing it is one thing.
Stating there was NO plan at all because of incompetence is an outright partisan lie.
Rocky:
If the right got it’s head out of it’s butt it would see that the United Nations helps the world in many ways that the United States can’t. UNICEF, UNAIDS, UNHCR, The UN agriculture Programe, these are but a few of the benefits of having a U.N. Not to mention that America has been using their UN dues as a political football for years.
If the UN will fiscally rape the Iraqi people with the “oil for FOOD” program it will do the same with the above. It is obviously time to reform the UN, especially the security counsel.
Right now they look pretty incompetant, and awash in scandal.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2005 01:21 PMCraig,
You missed the point.
Halliburton is an American company, taking American money, and by the way, is screwing everybody, for a profit.
Yes, the U.N. is suspect right now. No, I cannot give them a total pass for the problems. They have been a source of much good in the world.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by: Rocky at February 28, 2005 01:34 PMThe UN is a global company, taking American money, and by the way, is screwing everybody, for a profit.
Is Haliburton bad because Cheney USED to work for them? or is it because they are an AMERICAN company?
Giving the UN a pass for some problems is ok but Haliburton must be held to a higher standard?
Yeah, its America’s fault, yet again. YAWN!
Posted by: kctim at February 28, 2005 02:02 PMKctim,
How about Halliburton is an American company that has overcharged the American taxpayers?
How about that Halliburton was the only company to get a contract to rebuild a country that with our help has the resources (manpower, raw material, etc) to rebuild itself?
How about that the U.N. had for years a virtually spotless record of helping underdeveloped countries?
How about that the U.N. had for years made the children of those countries their top priority?
Sorry pal, Halliburton doesn’t get a pass because their goal in Iraq isn’t humanitarian, they are there to make a profit from me and my tax dollars, and therefore you’re damn right they are held to a higher standard.
The rebuilding of Iraq could be done cheaper and faster using local resources.
This isn’t about being America’s fault, and I’m sorry if I am keeping you awake.
kctim-
I doubt KBR (the subsidiary of Halliburton involved in the rebuilding) was the only engineering firm capable of getting results, here or in Iraq.
I guess the trouble is, that it seems that Cheney and Bush are completely unconcerned about appearances of corruption resulting from proactive policy choices. The Bush administration has dropped my jaw on many occassions with conduct like this, not only through the severity of the actions, but with the fact that they were not at all discrete about the matter. When the Vice President’s former company (where he doubtlessly still has contacts and friends) gets a no-bid contract on reconstruction after a war that Cheney had a strong role in starting, some people begin to see the outlines of dark cynicism in the VP’s actions.
The UN commentary is off the mark. First, nobody is clean on the Oil for Food business. Not U.N. personnel, not Security Council members. Not only did we let these things go on, but we also let even worse oil-smuggling go on out of Iraq because of the interests of our allies in the region. Yes, there is corruption in the UN. There is corruption in any powerful organization. You, however, are overlooking our corruption so you can condemn the UN as being outdated and irrelevant. Unfortunately, if we didn’t have the UN, we’d have to invent it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2005 03:04 PMThe money the UN gets from the US is TAXPAYER money. UN members used American TAXPAYER money to get rich. And thats ok? Stealing and overcharging can be argued as being the same.
What other American company could have been used in the rebuilding?
“How about that the U.N. had for years made the children of those countries their top priority?”
Hmmmm, yes, I guess the children in Kosovo and the Congo were probably lying about being raped and everything.
“Halliburton doesn’t get a pass because their goal in Iraq isn’t humanitarian, they are there to make a profit from me and my tax dollars, and therefore you’re damn right they are held to a higher standard.”
Haliburton is a business, of course they are there to make a profit. But at the same time they are there to help rebuild that crappy country.
Haliburton is rebuilding so kids may live and the UN was stealing money so kids would starve. Sorry, that doesn’t make sense to me. Both are guilty of something.
Please don’t get me wrong Rocky, it is not you who is keeping me awake, I enjoy your comments.
It is the different standards for different political parties and constant blaming of corporations, republicans and America that gets tiring.
SD
I have heard that Haliburton was the only “American” company that could handle the rebuilding at this stage. That was why I asked if you all knew of any others. Thanks.
I seriously question the whole Haliburtion deal also, but I cannot state absolutely that it is wrong based solely on what things “seem” or have the “appearance” of.
“You, however, are overlooking our corruption so you can condemn the UN as being outdated and irrelevant.”
Sir, you are totally wrong on this. I know we have corruption everywhere and I know it is our(we the people) own fault for allowing it to get this bad. But I will not fault America over anybody else for the same corruption.
I do not condemn the UN, it does a good enough job in condemning itself.
Outdated and irrelevant? I think anti-America and bad for the rights of all Americans is a better fit.
Posted by: kctim at February 28, 2005 03:20 PM
“I think anti-America and bad for the rights of all Americans is a better fit.”
Kctim,
I know that you are an “America first” type of guy. The U.N. has to look to the big picture, that was their mandate. The U.N. as a whole, had supported our positions for quite a while. We aren’t the only member of the security council.
“Hmmmm, yes, I guess the children in Kosovo and the Congo were probably lying about being raped and everything.”
I also know that you are smarter than to think that rape is in the U.N. charter. You can’t blame the U.N. for some of it’s peacekeepers human failures. You may as well blame the countries that those folks came from as authorizing rape.
Posted by: Rocky at February 28, 2005 04:34 PM“You can’t blame the U.N. for some of it’s peacekeepers human failures.”
But yet, we are to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for the soldiers “human failures” at Abu G.?
Rocky, you and I agree on alot more things then what you may believe. The main thing we differ on is that I do not make excuses along party lines. I try to see the whole picture, apply the same standards to both sides of the arguement and then try to make a sound judgement.
Posted by: kctim at February 28, 2005 05:09 PM“But yet, we are to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for the soldiers “human failures” at Abu G.?”
I would remind you that there was a cover up. That these abuses took place almost a year before they were announced.
I am not a Democrat, I never have been.
I don’t, however, have to taste feces to know that it’s feces.
BTW, with a nod to Groucho, I don’t think that I would want to join a group that would have me as a member.
Posted by: Rocky at February 28, 2005 05:34 PM“I would remind you that there was a cover up. That these abuses took place almost a year before they were announced.”
Before they were made PUBLIC. Wasn’t the military looking into these abuses long before they were made public?
And that brings us full circle, back to the title of this post: Honored Soldiers of a Dishonored Command
The left is free to have the thought that the soldiers have been dishonored by this administration and I have no problem with that. Those in the military disagree with them greatly. In fact, the speed of victory and low casualty rate have given this administration a boost of confidence from the military. (I know, there are a few lefties in the military who disagree)
clinton dishonored the military. Greatly. I threw away 10 years of service because of that jackass and I don’t regret it at all.
Honor is in the eye of the beholder.
kctim,
Why haven’t those that should have known what was going on been prosecuted?
Surely the guilt wasn’t confined to just the lower ranks.
kctim-
I see. You think the left is guilty of calling troops dishonored. And so, in your Perry Mason summation, you masterfully neglect that my title explicitly makes a distinction between those who lead us into this war, and those who fight it. I did not write of dishonored soldiers of a dishonored command. But hey, you got to accuse me of being a disloyal troop-basher somehow. I guess it doesn’t matter whether you miss my entire point in the process.
Those soldiers fight for our country, and Democrats respect them for that without reservation. They don’t fight for one man, and one man’s political fortunes do not determine whether they live or die with honor. They themselves decide that, and I have no doubts that they will continue to make us proud, regardless of how badly their commanders screw up the foreign policy.
Honor is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the response of a person faced with a choice of how to deal with the deepest truest realities of our world. Honor is not some relativistic product of perspective, but the culminating combination of conscience and action. It is more than good intentions and better P.R.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2005 11:27 PMSD
“The left is free to have the thought that the soldiers have been dishonored BY this administration”
In no way did I say your posting was about dishonored soldiers.
“you got to accuse me of being a disloyal troop-basher somehow.
How is that? Of all the liberals on here (although I personally believe you to be a Democrat and not a liberal), I would say you probably have the most respect for the military. I always look forward to reading your posts.
Your last paragraph is quite interesting though. One man’s reality is different from anothers and one man’s perspective is also different.
Honor IS in the eye of the beholder.
” I guess it doesn’t matter whether you miss my entire point in the process.”
I really dont believe I missed your entire point and I think I understand exactly what you are saying, which is why I included the clinton ref.
Posted by: kctim at March 1, 2005 09:29 AM“Why haven’t those that should have known what was going on been prosecuted?
Surely the guilt wasn’t confined to just the lower ranks.”
Your absolutely right Rocky, all involved should be prosecuted accordingly. But do we know how far up the chain of command it goes? do we know that the military is NOT still investigating?
No we don’t and we can’t go casting blame without facts. Innocent until proven guilty, right. One is not guilty just because they are a Republican.
kctim-
I misjudged your post’s wording.
I’m just sick of being told that I’m putting down the military when I criticize the president. You can take my other strong wording as being unwarranted in your case.
As for honor? I believe that it has a personal side, but also an archetypal, transcendant side that emerges from our common needs and desires as human beings. In the Japan of yesteryear, ritual suicide was the proper act of a defeated samurai. In Roman, suicide was a permissable act in the face of shame or defeat. In Muslim and Christian cultures, suicide is not considered honorable at all- in fact, it’s considered sinful- self-murder. But all these cultures could recognize the virtue of a hopeless last stand against an enemy as an act of great honor. In all cases, what a warrior chose in the face of death mattered, as it related to their strength of character.
The question of honor here is who is turning to face the challenges before them, and who is simply trying to avoid their duty, for whatever reason or agenda they have in mind.
Another important point here is that I believe that honor relates to ones own actions. Bush can bring disgrace on our soldiers (as can soldiers and superiors like those at Abu Ghraib), but he cannot take their honor from them. That he can only test, as they deal with his policies. Honor is what you carry inside.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2005 01:45 PMYeah, after going over my post, I can see how you came to that conclusion. My bad.
“The question of honor here is who is turning to face the challenges before them, and who is simply trying to avoid their duty, for whatever reason or agenda they have in mind.”
Now this makes perfect sense to me, because, as with this particular war, the challenges before them may in fact include avoiding their duty.
Its not their duty if it is illegal and I still have not been convinced otherwise.
Thanks for taking the time with me on this Stephen, as a vet, this issue really strikes home.
One thing to keep in mind, after watching the latest Frontline: What I’m talking about in terms of Bravery and Cowardice is not in denying the human effects of war.
There will be many people in this war who fight a battle within themselves to deal with what they have seen, with the fear, anxiety, and horror. That is a battle that has to be fought as well, and I think there is a culture that has developed that like the credit card culture, like the political culture of perpetual tax cuts and overspending, is based more on wishful thinking than any real confrontation with the real world.
There are economies to the human mind, different debts and reserves that affect how people function and don’t function. Even the toughest soldiers cannot brave war’s chaos forever without internalizing some of that darkness.
Conscience is the oil in the engine of tough decisions. If a person is carrying a burden of past problems, or accruing new ones, their perspective, however well-intentioned, will not get any clearer.
We got to give our soldiers an honorable way to let out the pain, the suffering, the anxieties, and the worries, so they will be cleansed for whatever path they choose: back into war, to face death, or back into the civilian world, to face life.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2005 11:15 PMStephen,
Sadly, the perception that those suffering from battle fatigue, or PTSD were just malingerers, still exists today, though not to the extent of previous conflicts.
Mr. Bush’s proposed budget cuts of VA services means those that are the most in need may not get the treatment they deserve.
This from Operation Truth
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=pressReleases&htmlId=1550
”
Iraq Vets Group Slams Proposed VA Budget
Underfunded VA is “slap in the face” to those who served
NEW YORK - Responding to the President’s proposed budget for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, released today, Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq veteran and Executive Director of Operation Truth, released the following statement:
“The overwhelming majority of the Veterans community had high hopes for how this administration would treat us, following the State of the Union, but theproposed budget by the President is a slap in the face to those of us who have served this nation.
“With many of those patriots in Iraq about to return home, now is the time to fully fund the VA budget request - not force it to cut back on services to Veterans. The President’s budget will force the VA to cut staff and services, and will limit access to care among the current and soon-to-be Veterans. This is anything but ‘supporting the troops.’
“We were pleased that the President chose to notbe cheap when it came to calling for an increase in death benefits to the families of the fallen. Today, the administration has shown those in uniform it doesn’t really care about you unless you die.”
Operation Truth is the largest group of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans in the nation. The national, non-partisan group’s mission is to give voice to those who have served in the current conflicts, and connect the American public with them.”
God help us if we can’t even stand up for those, that stand up for us.
It’s the modern corporate attitude towards those who are not productive. People are treated like parts to be worn to the nub and replaced, rather than like parts of a community that works together. People need to understand that there are limits to human endurance for even the toughest minds, and that you can’t simply berated, insult or threaten a person out of their natural responses. Will must be complement by good sense.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2005 01:51 PMIn fact, the speed of victory and low casualty rate have given this administration a boost of confidence from the military.
kctim, nobody is saying military screwed up with the invasion. It was brilliant. But the Pentagon has acknowledged that it was unprepared for the chaos and the insurgency afterwards. I’m not sure what you’re arguing about.
AP
I am trying to say that the excellent war plan created by this administrations Pentagon staff has given the troops reason to fully support this administration and what they are doing.
They are not armchair quarterbacking, they see firsthand how things went and how things are going now and they stand behind this administration.
Stephen is right, REAL Americans HONOR our soldiers. I just dont think the troops feel as if they have been DIShonored by their command.
I will believe the firsthand knowledge saying that the war was needed, went great and that the clean-up, even though slow and hard, is moving along also before I will give any credence to the armchair quarterbacks in the media that have a political axe to grind.
Posted by: kctim at March 3, 2005 11:40 AMkctim, the troops are well trained and doing a great job - though I think the Guard troops could stand a little more support and honor from the administration for the sacrifices they are making.
But the Iraq adventure was neither necessary nor successful. It had absolutely nothing to do with our national security, and according to the CIA it just created a new boot camp for international terrorists where none existed before - unless you think the CIA are partisan hacks.
And the Iraqis just elected an Islamist government. The Iraqi people could have elected a secular government, but they overwhelmingly chose the Islamists. Say goodbye to human rights. You may not have noticed, but the State Department’s human rights report just slammed the Iraqi government hard for state-sanctioned torture, rape, extra-judicial killings, and unlawful detentions. And say goodbye to women’s rights. They’re not allowed under Sharia law.
Hoorah for removing Hussein, but an Islamist, pro-Iranian Iraq is not a success for America.
Posted by: American Pundit at March 4, 2005 01:06 AMkctim-
Excellent war plan? That depends on what you wanted out of it, and how complete the success you desired was.
As an conventional invasion alone, it was a spectacular success. But the beating of Saddam’s army and his fall from power were not the only things we needed done. We also needed to take control of that real estate we just bought, prevent major resistance, reconstruct the country, and reform their goverment, in that order. Because Bush failed to secure the country, everything else has been like pulling teeth, and everything else has cost more lives than the initial invasion.
They have not given the soldiers reason to support them. They’ve given them plenty of reason not to. They’ve extended their stays in Iraq far beyond their initial commitment. They’ve allowed a horrible security situation to develop. The troops were the first to know there were no weapons, no terrorist training grounds (not at least until we invaded)
I think the soldiers are caught between a rock and a hard place. They sympathize with the people. Can’t say I blame them. They want to win. Again, can’t blame them. Do they all agree that their leaders are leading them in the right direction? They may not. You can’t know at the moment, because freedom of speech is not a hallmark of military service. These soldiers can be court-martialed for saying the wrong thing, for insubordination. I’d say, wait until the Guardsmen and women are home. The picture may end up far less rosy than you would like.
Take Fallujah. We invaded, pulled out, and for six months did nothing, then invaded once again, this time finishing the job. However, we didn’t intercept the terrorist leaders or insurgents fleeing the place. We denied them a place to work from, but not their freedom of movement. Would you advise that if your aim was to win a campaign against guerilla fighters?
This isn’t a political axe to grind for me. I have alway supported our troops, never blaming them for their leaderships problems. You won’t see me calling our soldiers baby-killers. You won’t see me advocating an immediate, unresolved end to this war, at least not until things get much worse than this.
My trouble here has been with a president who diverted our attention from the pursuit and destruction of al-Qaeda, the enemy I know you cannot deny we set out to fight in this war in the first place. That is my axe to grind. Is it a high standard? I don’t think so. I think it was a fairly basic obligation, given that 3000 Americans died within our borders by their actions. Had we taken care of that, freeing Iraq would have been a much easier, much simpler affair. Instead, he’s put us on the defensive against the terrorists, forcing the investment of troops, equipment and flexibility that could have been used to pursue al-Qaeda where we knew them to be. He wasted the goodwill and initiative we had before the war in order to finish the Neocon’s unfinished business.
Whether we succeed in Iraq, or not, we have given our worst enemies the opportunity to regroup, rearm, and recruit, and have handed them far too many propaganda victories. It gives me hope to see that a Democratic government might well develop, and that a shift may have started with that. But I know all too well, recalling the disappointments of the early 90’s with Yugoslavia, Post-Gulf War Iraq, and the Tiananmen square protests, that Democracy, especially of our nation’s quality, is not an easy thing to bring about.
I think this administration needs to get their act together, and stop creating all this friction by making every foreign policy endeavor a pissing contest with either the enemy or their political rivals here at home. They are wasting our nation’s energies and resources on divisive and counterproductive policies, at a time when we need clearer heads and clearer direction more than ever.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 4, 2005 09:26 AMGuys, I am not defending this war. I don’t think any other country, or its people, is worth even 1 American life.
The WAR plan was brilliant. Exceptionally low casualties and victory in a very short amount of time.
We are free to armchair all we want, but one fact remains:
Due to the success of the WAR, President Bush now has the overwhelming support and respect of the troops.
They do not feel dishonored by this administration and feel their mission is just.
“They have not given the soldiers reason to support them. They’ve given them plenty of reason not to.”
But yet they do Stephen, alot. Now who do we believe, the people nitpicking over everything Bush does or the soldiers who are actually there?
“These soldiers can be court-martialed for saying the wrong thing, for insubordination.”
Its really not that easy Stephen. I refused to perform base honor guard duties for clinton and refused to join UN duties as directed by that bastard. I was not court-martialed and was able to leave the service with a honorable discharge.
“I’d say, wait until the Guardsmen and women are home. The picture may end up far less rosy than you would like.”
You could be correct on this and I know the left is hoping beyond all hopes that this happens but what I would really like is for not one more American life to be given for that crappy country or its people.
Posted by: kctim at March 4, 2005 10:42 AMkctim, you and I are in complete agreement on the WAR. But it’s not nit-picky to expect the administration to listen to and take seriously the military planners who warned that post-war operations would require more troops.
In fact, the State Department had a very detailed plan for post-war Iraq. It was dismissed as too big and complicated. Well, wars are big and complicated, aren’t they. Planning for nation building by the seat of the pants doesn’t cut it.
I had big problems with the whole Iraq invasion - specifically, lack of justification and lack of legitimacy. Success would have made me shut up. But the adventure wasn’t a success, and now I have a bunch more problems with it, foremost being that Bush created an anti-US, pro Iranian Iraq at a time when we don’t need that kind of complication. It and the world-wide enmity it created hamstrings us on just about everything we need to do to make the US secure.
kctim-
The war plan was brilliant from a standpoint of defeating Saddam’s conventional military. Did it allow us to establish our control over that territory, much less the law and order that would discourage the terrorists, bandits, and criminals from setting up shop.
Due to the success of the WAR, President Bush now has the overwhelming support and respect of the troops. They do not feel dishonored by this administration and feel their mission is just.
I think you’re trying to make the point that because of the success of the INVASION, the WAR is won. Doesn’t work that way. The INVASION succeeded, alright, but it didn’t set up the conditions for real victory, which would be the smooth transition of power to us, and then back to the Iraqis without the constant presence of disruptive guerilla activities.
You presume an awful lot about our soldier’s opinion of this war and this president. I would say without hesitation that you are right that most of them think the mission is just. After all, their mission now, as defined by those above them, is to bring democracy to Iraq.
But do most of them think the way this war was waged was good? I would advise you to check out Stars and Stripes and read the letters. Sure there are people who love Bush, but I think there are many, especially among the National Guard and Reserves, who don’t think all that much of their leadership.
I will not claim all soldiers find this war badly run. I will claim, though, there are plenty who do, with good reason.
Ask yourself about Fallujah and Najaf. Why the hell did we leave those cities half-retaken in the first place? what would justify the mixed message, losing all the soldiers to take part of these cities, only to pull out? I can’t find any work that really explains to my satisfaction why we left these cities unconquered, much less left them alone with their hostile forces for half a year. And I think there are quite a number of soldiers who are asking questions like that in both the aftermath and on the second offensives.
This isn’t about nitpicking. We’re not concern ourselves with minor issues, but with more major ones. The Armor was a serious logistical problem, still unresolved. Soldiers are still cruising around in vehicles with “hillbilly” armor. The incomplete taking of Fallujah and Najaf and the insufficient numbers of soldiers were major strategical errors, as is our inability to get Iraq secure against the insurgent threat. These are preventing us from moving on properly, getting the necessary tasks of rebuilding Iraq and creating a solid government in the place of the old regime done.
It is sad that conservatives and independents are seeing Liberals, Democrats, and the press as the folks making this difficult. There are a lot of things that this adminstration is refusing to face properly, and that is doing more to impede our war efforts than any dissent ever could.
Its really not that easy Stephen. I refused to perform base honor guard duties for clinton and refused to join UN duties as directed by that bastard. I was not court-martialed and was able to leave the service with a honorable discharge.
I guess I need to ask you some questions. First, were you asked to do these things on a voluntary basis, or were you ordered to do them? Second, did your choices cut you off from further service in the military?
I think your dislike of the left is clouding your perspective on our actual feelings concerning this war, or rather the diversity of such feelings. You automatically assume that the most extreme voices among our party speak for us all, and don’t take a few lines of questioning to determine whether we agree with those people in question. We’re always being dealt with as liberals, as the left, never as ourselves. We’re not automatons. You know better than anybody, having read my posts that not everybody on the left thinks the same. Kerry’s tack in his presidential campaign should tell you something else: the left has a substantial voting base that does not have a problem with military action. Heck, that very draft dodger you refused to be honor-guard for used the military on an near constant basis throughout his eight years as president. His Vice President voted for Desert Storm, and pushed for military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo.
For better or worse, the generation that swore off war after the Vietnam debacle has either left power or relented on its earlier pacifism.
I think its time your side and Bush’s recognize that the image of this war has not been what’s been getting in our way, it’s reality of how it’s been planned and carried out. The Responsibility lies with Bush and he should stop trying to dodge it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 5, 2005 10:43 AMSD
“I think you’re trying to make the point that because of the success of the INVASION, the WAR is won. Doesn’t work that way.”
Well, the war was won, but that is not the point I am trying to make.
My point is, the troops overwhelmingly support this administration because of the success of the war.
Plain and simple, the troops do not feel dishonored by Bush.
A soldier can volunteer or can be selected to perform honor guard duties. And then, based on performance, you are assigned details. Presidential duty is a great stepping stone in ones career but I could not sacrifice my integrity to do it for a person like clinton.
Also, my choices did not affect my re-enlistment choices. My papers were there for me to sign if I wished. It was a total lack of respect for clinton and his blatant contempt for the military that drove to out.
Integrity, honor and respect are what you strive for as a soldier, clinton had none of these.
