June 29, 2005
That Was Disappointing
Despite the fact that we never should have unilaterally invaded Iraq in the first place (more than 60% of Americans thought that was a bad idea before the war), we’re there now and we need to win, and most Americans understand that. What we don’t understand is why - despite the handover of sovereignty, despite the elections, despite two years of training Iraqi forces, and despite all the rosy rhetoric of progress - the insurgency is getting worse.
In his speech tonight, President Bush didn't address the fact that the insurgency has continued to grow, he didn't address the poor training Iraqis forces are receiving, he didn't address the credibility gap between crowing of progress and the crows feeding on US carcasses in the streets of Baghdad, and - most importantly - he didn't present a plan to address the military and political failures of the last two years.
President Bush's plan is still to train Iraqi replacements for US forces, and to move ahead with the political process. Unfortunately, this status quo plan will not deliver a stable Iraqi democracy.
President Bush stated that there are 160,000 trained Iraqi security personnel (down from 165,000 last month and 210,000 during the election campaign). The truth is, only about 5,000 of those troops are competent enough to handle the insurgents by themselves, and only about 15,000 more are competent enough to work with US troops in support.
One impediment is that the Bush administration insists all training be done in Iraq. The effect of this arbitrary policy has been to discourage allies who want to help train Iraqis, but are politically unable to send training cadres into the country. It's also necessitated a half-assed training regimen.
We should be taking hundreds of competent Iraqi officers out of the country and away from the distractions and entanglements there so they can get the same quality training our own officers do. We should break them down and build them up into professional soldiers who are committed to working for their country, rather than a paycheck or patronage. This isn't a new concept. It's a system we've successfully used to train officers of allied countries for decades. Once they're trained to American standards and instilled with dedication to democracy, they return to their countries and spread those values and pass along their training. We're not doing that in Iraq. As of this year, only three (3) Iraqi officers have gone through US officer training courses.
As for fighting the insurgents, US strategy in Iraq is to make quick raids into the villages, then retreat to safe zones when the operations are over. This approach will never result in the locals trusting US and Iraqi forces and turning in insurgents. It only encourages them to keep their heads down, because when the troops leave, the insurgents come back. In contrast, we should be taking a lesson from the way NATO is handling Afghanistan.
NATO set up Provincial Reconstruction Teams including doctors, international aid workers, police, civil administrators, and construction engineers, all under the protection of NATO forces. These teams live with the locals out in the villages. They create networks of friends and allies among the locals, they toss out corrupt officials, they help the locals rebuild and develop, and because they stay there, they create a bond of trust that encourages the locals to turn in insurgents and have a better relationship with the central government. As more and more PRTs come online, more of Afghanistan is denied to Taliban and al-Qaeda forces.
On the political front, President Bush made the error this year of holding an election knowing that Sunnis would be disenfranchised. In his speech, Bush made a big deal about expanding Sunni representation on the constitutional assembly, but failed to mention that the Shiites and Kurds expanded their representation by the same amount. The net effect is negligible. The Sunnis are proportionally no more represented now than they were before.
Sunnis need to be fully brought aboard the political process, but the new fundamentalist Shiite-dominated government is reluctant to give more than lip service to that idea. Sunnis are being attacked and harassed by Shiite and Kurdish militias, and the Sunnis and Kurds in the government are praising those militias and refusing to disarm them. Until the Iraqi government makes a commitment to protect and respect its Sunni minority, the insurgency will continue.
Unfortunately, there really aren't a lot of options left for America on the political front. To defeat the Communist insurgency in Malaya, the British told Malayans they'd get their country back when the insurgency was defeated. That message encouraged Malays to work with British police (backed by troops), and undercut the insurgent's anti-British message because everyone knew the insurgents were the only thing keeping the Brits in the country. In Iraq, President Bush threw that option away by turning over sovereignty too soon. In fact, it was only after the handover of sovereignty that the Bush administration admitted there even was an insurgency.
What President Bush needed to do tonight was reestablish his credibility with Americans. He needed to put forth a strategy for winning in Iraq that would increase American, allied, and investor confidence that the war is being handled effectively, and he needed to encourage Iraqis to reject the insurgents. He failed on all counts.
AP,
Was it just me, or did Mr. Bush have a look on his face like, he felt that we just didn’t understand what he is trying to do?
I think that this goes all the way back to his ascessment of the millions of war protesters before we went into Iraq.
Posted by: Rocky at June 29, 2005 12:53 AMRocky, I caught it on the radio. All I know is that he spent a lot of time preaching to the choir. Most Americans - even if they didn’t agree with it initially - want to see this thing through.
Bush just kept hammering points that most people already agree with. Of course a democratic Iraq is a good thing. Of course it’s hard. Of course we want to win. The problem is, America is losing confidence that Bush is the man with a plan to win it.
I’m sure that Bush regards those “millions of protesters” in pretty much the same way Clinton regarded the millions of protesters who came out around the world in response to his bombing of Serbia.
The truth is (whatever you think of Bush) that he is genuinely moved by the dedication, sacrifice and loyalty of the armed forces which he leads and which share with him a deep emotional bond.
Posted by: sanger at June 29, 2005 01:07 AMBTW, Kerry put forth a really good Democratic alternative in an op-ed this morning. And General Wes Clark did the same thing on FOX News (I found the video on the FOX homepage) after the speech.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 29, 2005 01:17 AMsanger,
“The truth is (whatever you think of Bush) that he is genuinely moved by the dedication, sacrifice and loyalty of the armed forces which he leads and which share with him a deep emotional bond.”
The truth is we all are. We just weren’t the one that put them in harms way.
Why is it that Mr. Bush is incapable of giving a speach in front of anybody that isn’t in a military uniform?
If we go back to last week and the Armed Services Commitee meetings, if the presentations given by Rumsfeld and his generals weren’t scripted I don’t what they were. I don’t mind the occasional reading from notes but this was just silly.
The insurgency is in the throes of what? These are throes that take 6, 8 , 10, 12, years to be completed?
Jeez, it only took Roosevelt 3 years to defeat Japan AND Germany, and without stealth technology or smart bombs I might add. Yes, there was greater loss of life but it was over.
Posted by: Rocky at June 29, 2005 01:22 AMso you want bush to say a bunch of crap to make the insergents feel better and the iraqis feel worse.
Wow. I have no idea what you’re talking about, jimmie. I’m guessing you’re not going to address anything in the article, probably because you lack the information to do so.
BTW, only a few hundred of the insurgents - out of thousands caught - are non-Iraqis. Get informed before you spout stuff like that. Otherwise you just look silly.
AP,
One of the best articles I’ve read on Watchblog. Great job!
Bush made a good case for fighting terrorists in Iraq, the foreign jihadists. Unfortunately, he barely mentioned the Iraqi insurgents. Does this mean Bush underestimates the insurgency? Does Bush understand the situation? Or is it just too complicated for the American public?
Is there a plan to co-opt the Sunni insurgents?
What surprised me was a section of the speech on new initiatives:
“We are taking three new steps.
“First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units…
Second, we are embedding coalition transition teams inside Iraqi units…
Third, we are working with the Iraqi ministries of interior and defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations.”
Ohmigosh. Is he telling us we weren’t doing that already?
would it help if i use smaller words?
No, jimmie. It would help if you actually wrote something worth reading. Perhaps something relevent to the thread.
Ohmigosh. Is he telling us we weren’t doing that already?
Yeah phx8, I thought that was wacky too. And are those really supposed to be the new ideas that crack the insurgency wide open? Somehow, I doubt it.
I was really looking for something new. Something that showed he finally understood the enemy we’re fighting and knew how to defeat him. This speech isn’t going to rally the Iraqis or our allies, and it will only cause a temporary bounce here as the insurgency grinds on and we continue to appear powerless.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 29, 2005 01:45 AMI’m really tired of the same old “trust me” speech, without any new substance. He needs to give us some objectives. Not dates or a timeline. Clear objectives that are not just generalizations like “to spread democracy around the world”.
He should tell us how many trained Iraqi military will be enough. How far the insurgent attacks have to be reduced before we can leave it up to the Iraqis. How much of the infrastructure has to be repaired to be enough. How much of the oil production has to be restored to be enough.
These are the things that will give an objective measurement of our success over there. The stupid reiterations of “it’s going to be hard”, and “we will prevail” are idiotic. I wouldn’t buy a car from this guy.
Tell us what we want to know! We don’t want any secrets to be revealed. We just want attainable goals that will get results and get us out of there.
The continuing link to Bin Laden is an insult to the world, not to mention the American public. We who have read our own 9/11 commission report know full well that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. But there sure is a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq now, thanks to this administration!
He continually sidesteps the real issues and questions that are being brought up every day and goes back to that same stupid rhetoric, with that same disingenuous look on his face. Then he acts like nobody gets it.
We get it, pal. More than you know.
Posted by: Cole at June 29, 2005 02:11 AMAP-
So will you continue your campaign for Kerry (as above), or are you going to switch on over to Biden? I’m assuming that’s where you got your troop strength info from as well as the suggestion to take the officers out of country (something the Iraqis have refused).
By his standard of the ability to take over for an American troop, what would be the strength of any army in the entire world? After all, and thank goodness, that’s a very high standard.
I caught Gen. Clark on the way home tonight (Sirius is cool) and he had praise for Gen Patraus (sp?). I think Biden spoke well of him too. I say let the guy do his job.
And I guess the campaign for ‘08 is in full gear now.
Posted by: George in SC at June 29, 2005 03:09 AMSomewhere back there or on another subject here on this site someone was saying that republicans wanted to go and fight the terrorists right away and democrats wanted to understand them?
That’s because the democrats usually think more long term,which the republicans seem incapable of doing,and now we are in this war we can’t seem to win,and if it would have been planned out a little better,maybe we wouldn’t have had so much trouble out there.
The democrats were talking about trying to get to the core of the problem,which is because of the lives these people live,and the way they are brought up,and the lack of education.They are taught that all their problems are because of Americans,including poverty and lack of opportunity.Two days before 9/11,Bush was discussing coercing Israel to pull out of Gaza and the west bank or suffer sanctions and maybe worse,and then at the last minute he changed his mind.Then 2 days later we were attacked.He was also warned by several whitehouse officials about Bin Laden but did nothing.
Judging by the way republicans think ahead on anything else,including global warming and trying their best to sqelsch and belittle all the scientific findings because it would of course cost too much money,it doesn’t surprise me at all when they don’t see ahead or see the big picture of anything.How much money are our lives worth?They will wait until the last minute on global warming and they will spend more and more money on Iraq thinking it was wise to go in there,and then finally figure out it isn’t going to happen because again,they didn’t think it out and plan ahead first.
I do realize tho,that in Rwanda the U.N. didn’t act enough,and Clinton completly ignored the whole thing and only took the Americans out.But not all democrats are Clinton.And don’t ask me how or why the democrats put Howard Dean up there like they did because he definetly doesn’t represent all of us.
These guys are all baby boomers.They weren’t brought up the way our parents and grandparents were.
Posted by: whitebear3 at June 29, 2005 04:17 AMI’m not sure that the 60% stat at the beginning is correct. But, in 2003 76% of the American people said the war was worth it. Today, they say only 35% support the war. If you have ever taken stats or quanitative methods, you wouldn’t listen to stats. By stats, Kerry should have won 60-40.
The insurgency is stronger today ? Who said that ?
General Abazaid said the numbers are about the same today as they were 2 years ago. Does that mean that the ones killed have been replaced with new recruits? Or, do they have a secret military base somewhere where they have an abundance of hardenned terrorists ? I don’t know. But I’m not sure where you get that they are stronger. Spin?
Where are they (the terrorsts) getting support ? Honest question: If Kennedy states that this is a quagmire like Vietnam. If Durbin states that US soldiers are like Nazis. If Pelosi states the important issue is border security and not Iraq. If Biden states the president is a liar. Do these events help or hurt the war effort ? Do they make the terrorist want to fight or quit ? Our government can take care of problems without running to the press. If you have proof the president lied, impeach him. But, don’t run down to the street and hold a press conference that recruits a 1000 more suicide bombers.
Are Durbin’s comments still being played on Al Jazira throughout the Arab land ?
Elections without Sunnis ? They were invited. They refused. To the Shite and the Kurds, your comments of inclusion, would be similar to 1950 Germans saying “We need to include the Nazis in our new government” Of course they’re (kurds) not pleased about working with the people (sunnis) who attempted genocide on their people. But the offer is being made. Do you have any idea the diplomacy it must have taken to get the Shites and the Kurds to offer the olive branch to the Sunnis ?
The democrat leaders don’t give a shit about stopping terrorism. All this talk about “he needs to admit his mistakes” The president nevers publically admits to mistakes. You must have no understanding of world politics to think otherwise. Which is why it is difficult to understand why the democrat leaders (who do understand world politics) would call for the president to do such a thing. ???
I can’t believe that Pelosi said this morning that the border is our biggest problem. Didn’t she rip Arnold (like just 2 weeks ago) for saying that the borders need to be secured ? What happenned is they ran a pole and the polers said people care about the borders, so Nancy ran out with those comments.
Bush doesn’t do those sort of things. He does what he thinks is right. Is he always right? Is anyone always right?
General Petreus, is a good man. And Abazaid is truly a man amoung men. I know them both. Let them run the show and the ending will be good.
Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 06:42 AMLet’s see… Wasn’t this speech titled something like “A Message to America”? What was his message?
He mentioned 9/11 5 times and gave an Army recruitment pitch. Other than that, nothing new. Just the usual “trust me” and an “Uncle Karl wants You!” thrown in.
James,
Good point. Bush43 does what he thinks is right (so does Pelosi, you just don’t agree with her)and no one is always right. Unfortunately, it’s just a wish that Bush43 be right more often than not.
—-
The truth is (whatever you think of Bush) that he is genuinely moved by the dedication, sacrifice and loyalty of the armed forces which he leads and which share with him a deep emotional bond.
—-
…then why aren’t our troops properly protected? Why do I still see make-shift armor on vehicles?
“You don’t fight the war you want, you fight the war you are handed.” Of course, if it’s been 2 years, and the soldiers are still rummaging through the trash to find metal for armor, well… it makes me wonder what this administration really wants. I can’t see that they want these soldiers to die, but at $12k per soldier in death benefits - I guess it might be just a cost-analysis sort of thing.
And if Bush truly values their sacrifices, why does he completely avoid publicly honoring those who die? If you rubber stamp signatures onto soldier’s death notices, it’s kind of a hard thing to ignore.
Posted by: tony at June 29, 2005 07:51 AM—-
Bush doesn’t do those sort of things. He does what he thinks is right. Is he always right? Is anyone always right?
—-
Has he been right just once?
Dave,
So when Nancy Polosi rips Arnold for calling for border security and then less than a mon th later she rips the president for “NOT” calling for border security, you’re contention is “she is doing what she believes in ??
I agree with you, she is doing what she believes in, only problem is, she doesn’t give a damn about border security.
Posted by: James at June 29, 2005 08:12 AMJames,
We must remember to seperate Politics from Beliefs for Dems as well as Repubs. E.g. Bush43’s politics are abhorent yet you still believe in his agenda.
Posted by: Dave at June 29, 2005 08:18 AMTo jump off of Dave’s comment…
We also need to seperate the facts from the fiction. The facts are slow to be actualized, the fiction is rampant. Our sources for the true facts are limited, but sources for everything else are plentiful…
The key is discernment…and there is very little of that going around today…
Posted by: Cliff at June 29, 2005 08:54 AMAP,
Very nicely written article.
I take exception however to the 2nd paragraph of your article where you say that Bush didn’t address issues that you indicated. IMO he did address those issues but in the POSITIVE.
Now granted, I am a Conservative Republican and voted for Bush. I do not happen to think that he has done everything right however, I believe that he has stayed the course that he has outlined many times. Certainly some adjustments had to be made but he has not wavered.
Bush or Bush policy opponents will differ but I got the distinct impression that I made the right choice. I felt that whatever else he may be or be accused of being he is a LEADER. (Please don’t lower yourselves and come back with that Judas goat crap).
There is no question in my mind after watching that speech and the emotion he displayed that he is a man that will get the job done and in the end, we will all be better off for it.
I believe that his reasons for not establishing a time line are absolutely correct. IMO he is deeply distraught for the men and women who have been lost and, their families.
Posted by: steve smith at June 29, 2005 10:02 AMAfter hearing the snippets of Bush’s speech last night I could see a man who became a president twice but is yet to know the basics. I saw a man who seemed scared, hardly confident and was rattling away. If you see his walk, posture, stance, facial expressions you will notice all the above mentioned. Not to mention the fact that there actually was no PLAN in his speech after all.
I can’t believe this guy got elected the IInd time … I just cannot. Like someone in an earlier post mentioned that the President never accepts his mistakes and never should. To me it almost seems like the american people have done the same thing by re-electing him maybe to prove something to the world even though they knew he was not the right guy.
What was really disheartening was that he brought up the topic of Bin Laden … someone who should have been caught/killed by now. Imagine the sorrow in the minds of those thousands of people who’s loved ones died on 9/11. Fighting and justifying a personal battle in Iraq based on such memories shows very little conscience.
Someone mentioned that the death benefits to a soldier is $12,000. That’s it? Who takes care of their families after that? A normal 9 to 5 job fetches more than that. Buying additional life insurance will not help since even life insurance premiums are higher for soldiers, firefighters etc. That’s wrong … the soldiers and their families deserve more.
Waging wars for personal vendetta and threatening to use the veto power (instead of having the power to convince) makes one wonder who the real dictator is ?
Posted by: WorldMember at June 29, 2005 10:12 AM“Someone mentioned that the death benefits to a soldier is $12,000. That’s it?”
NO.
SGLI was $250,000 in 97 when I got out.
Re Afghanistan – if not for Iraq, the foreign fighters and their money would be pouring into Afghanistan. We all love the multinational nature of the Afghan operation, but maybe we should figure out what percentage of the combat troops are American before we get to misty eyed about it.
Re Elections – if you waited for perfect conditions, you could never have an election. The election was a great victory for democracy and a vindication of the Bush Administration’s faith in the process. How soon we forget.
I agree with you about the need for training, but we have to recognize that things take time. The Malaysian example only goes so far. The British were the masters of Malaysia for a century before the insurgency. They had plenty of time and experience to bring to the situation. It still took a long time to get it right.
Finally, we have a problem with the definition of insurgency. There is no insurgency with a reasonable chance of overthrowing and replacing any government. There is not even an insurgency capable of initiating action against U.S. troops even on a small. What we have is a group of people capable of murdering Iraqi civilians. What we have is a group that is trying – so far unsuccessfully – to provoke a civil war. This is very deadly and difficult to eradicate, but we have to get straight what we are talking about. By the standards we are using to describe the situation in Iraq, the Oklahoma bombing or bombings of abortion clinics are insurgency in the U.S. You could even argue that 9/11 was an insurgent act by foreign fighters who infiltrated the U.S.
The “insurgents” are eager to murder civilians from their own country. The civilians are not unintended victims; they are the targets. Say what you want about the U.S. in Iraq, the most of the people we are fighting are not Iraqi patriots in any sense we would recognize. If a foreign army invaded and occupied the U.S., I would expect Americans to fight back. But I wouldn’t expect them to fight back by killing American civilians, by bombing hospitals and schools, or by killing indiscriminately. We hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we should at least recognize that the people we are fighting are really bad guys. They are not patriots and they are not doing what we would do in a similar situation.
kctim:
“Someone mentioned that the death benefits to a soldier is $12,000. That’s it?”NO.
SGLI was $250,000 in 97 when I got out.
Correct. The 12k, I believe, is a burial benefit afforded to those killed in “war time.”
Steve: I agree with you that Bush43 appeared distraught. However, IMO, it’s because he knew how badly this crusade of his is turning out. When the architect of this fiasco says we will be there up to 12 years or more, you must admit even they know cataclysmic mistakes were made.
Jack said
There is no insurgency with a reasonable chance of overthrowing and replacing any governmentYou’re only part right. Each attack is bringing more and more tit-for-tat executions between Shiia and Sunni. These will shortly bring Iraq to complete civil war, similar to what went on Lebanon and Somalia. But, it’s not likely that the existing guerillas will replace the gov’t.
kc: Isn’t SGLI voluntary and paid for by the soldier. Don’t you think KIA insurance should be higher and automatic?
Posted by: Dave at June 29, 2005 11:33 AMJames-
We’ve been told to wait on better times for the last two years. In the meantime, the insurgency has gone from isolated resistance to a nationwide guerilla effort claiming hundreds of Iraqi lives a month. The attacks aren’t slacking up, and the insurgents don’t seem to be feeling the pain.
Progress has not only not been made, but we’ve been going backwards from a startlingly quick military victory ever since Spring 2003. Setbacks, setbacks, setbacks. I’m sick of hearing everyday that it’s our place to persevere. What, and wait as things get screwed up further? I can understand human fallibility, but Bush has become too consistent in his failures for us to credit that rationalization.
If he’s such a leader, why did he let this war get so out of control? If he’s such a leader, why did he break off the attack on Fallujah and wait through six blood soaked months to go back and clean out the terrorist’s presence there? If he’s such a leader, how come he can’t manage at least a graceful change of mind, and change course in a war that we’re obviously not winning.
If he’s such a leader, why does he have to encourage people like you to put down others for their criticism of him? There has never been a more hypersensitive president to criticism in that White House. What leader takes half of America and encourages it to alienate the other half and the world. Bush isn’t a leader, he’s the center of a cult of personality.
Trouble is, this is not some third world country where people can be forced at gunpoint to accept the pleasant fiction of a supreme leader. This is America, and Americans enjoy taking leaders off their pedestal as much as they enjoy putting them on it. Bush, by clinging to the pedestal, and not accepting his waning popularity as the sign that it is, only makes it worse for himself. If Americans love humanizing regular leaders, they love to humble arrogant ones even further.
Bush’s duty is not to protect his image. It’s to the constitution and the people of the United States. He obligated to change course when the approach he is taking is bringing harm to our nation’s interests and security. If perseverance were a virtue in this war, things would be improving. They are not.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2005 11:37 AMI felt that whatever else he may be or be accused of being he is a LEADER.
Hmmm, do you really think he listens to advice from his inner circle and leads …. or listens to what they say and goes along cause it sounds good to him? Just a thought about leadership.
Posted by: Tom G at June 29, 2005 11:52 AMDave
“kc: Isn’t SGLI voluntary and paid for by the soldier. Don’t you think KIA insurance should be higher and automatic?”
Yep, but everyone gets it.
Mandatory but voluntary is pretty popular in the military.
12k for burial, higher pay for dangerous or hostile duty, TDY pay, there are alot of benefits given.
Burial ins. is not KIA ins. I am pretty sure just comp is given for KIA and will try to find more info on it.
I know when I was there, a popular saying was “worth a 100k to our family and not worth a dime to our commander” lol.
Just a thought from The New York Times:
“No one wants a disaster in Iraq, and Mr. Bush’s critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris, its terrible planning and its inept conduct of the war in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here. The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years, cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it.”
Posted by: tony at June 29, 2005 02:01 PMFantastic article, AP! As phx8 said, one of the best! Filled not just with opinions, but with good ideas, and a real understanding of the situation we are facing.
In other words, exactly what America was hoping for from our president last night, but didn’t get.
(btw, still thinking of running for office in Calif? I think you should go for it.)
You wrote:
“I was really looking for something new. Something that showed he finally understood the enemy we’re fighting and knew how to defeat him. This speech isn’t going to rally the Iraqis or our allies, and it will only cause a temporary bounce here as the insurgency grinds on and we continue to appear powerless.”
That is the word right there — powerless. That is exactly what I thought Bush’s speech conveyed last night. That he is powerless in his inability to lead this nation, or to make or execute a well thought out plan that will extricate us from this quagmire of his own creation.
The basic message once again was: Stay the Course. Freedom is Great. Nobody Can Shake His Will. Unfortunately, the latter seems to include the opinions of the American people who are being held in thrall by his powerlessness.
You know, so much of what I have read about the war we fought in Vietnam reminds me of our current situation. That it was ill planned and ill waged at the expense of our troops, and none of our leaders wanted to face that fact — but instead, kept saying we were turning corners even though we were’nt.
Perhaps once again it may have to come down to average Americans finally reaching the conclusion that they’d better get out in the streets with the demand that our soldiers be brought home. When more people than not are awakened to the idea that we can’t keep allowing our troops to fight and die on an indefinite basis while under the command of leaders who have never tried to understand exactly who and what they are fighting.
PS. Rocky and Cole — good posts.
Posted by: Adrienne at June 29, 2005 02:41 PMTony,
What’s your conservative take away from that quote?
Rocky:
Can’t argue this one.
Was it just me, or did Mr. Bush have a look on his face like, he felt that we just didn’t understand what he is trying to do?
Are you kidding me? That’s the same curious George expression he has always worn, is it me or doesn’t he really resemble Alfred E. Newman, The face on the cover of every MAD magazine since it began publishing. I guess the Apocolypse Is Upon us.
kctim:
The death benefit is $12,000**
Payable only to service members Next of Kin(NOK).
Unmarried soldiers who have no family, NOK are actually at the Mercy of their respective Branch.
Isn’t SGLI voluntary and paid for by the soldier?
SGLI is Voluuntary, and paid for by individuals cost $3.25 per $50,000 coverage
You are correct the ServiceMembers(SM’s)Group Life Insurance(SGLI)is available to SM’s in increments of $50,000 at a cost of $3.25 for each $50,000 or 16.25/a month for the entire($250,000) amount. This insurance is available but pays out only if you have opted into it, and only to the people indicated on your DD Form 93.
Don’t you think KIA insurance should be higher and automatic? I know of no such “KIA” insurance I think that you have confused the death gratuity and insurance Which BTW Is not Automatic. Occassionally you’ll find a ServiceMember, who has no Living Relatives and opts out of having any SGLI.
Posted by: Wayne at June 29, 2005 05:27 PM“This is America, and Americans enjoy taking leaders off their pedestal as much as they enjoy putting them on it. Bush, by clinging to the pedestal, and not accepting his waning popularity as the sign that it is, only makes it worse for himself. If Americans love humanizing regular leaders, they love to humble arrogant ones even further. ” - Stephen Daugherty
“I can’t believe this guy got elected the IInd time … I just cannot. Like someone in an earlier post mentioned that the President never accepts his mistakes and never should. To me it almost seems like the american people have done the same thing by re-electing him maybe to prove something to the world even though they knew he was not the right guy.” - Worldmember
As an outside observer looking into the US, one who is well disposed the that great country and its people, I have never understood how Bush II managed to win over the American people. It seems from the outside, that Americans hold their President in some awesome respect, as if Watergate had never happened. Or is it that Watergate has been forgotten? Maybe so, and that would explain how Vietnam has been forgotten. The real and frightening dilemma is this, there is no apparent successful conclusion in sight in this Iraqi quagmire, where the police in Basra are not following their chain of command, but local religious leaders. Particularly frightening is although more of the same clearly isn’t working, a pull out would be disastrous for Iraq, for the region, and for the US, and probably also the rest of the Western world. in short, we are damned if you don’t pull out, and damned if you do. Isn’t that a classic no win situation? Saddam was bad, but what may follow may make him look like a grizzly old uncle.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at June 29, 2005 08:27 PM—-
Tony,
What’s your conservative take away from that quote?
—-
ummm… I think there are 2 tonys posting here (Tony and tony - I’m the later.) I’m not aware of a single conservative bone in my body - thought at one time I did, but it was just gas.
tony (lowercase t);
That explains alot, I’ll be sure to look at the capitalization next time.
Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2005 07:51 AMWayne
Thanks for the info.
“Which BTW Is not Automatic.”
No its not, but it is was mandatory but voluntary. Ah, the military. lol
“Occassionally you’ll find a ServiceMember, who has no Living Relatives and opts out of having any SGLI.”
I’m sure you are correct, I just never knew any when I was in. They wouldn’t need it anyways so it shouldnt be an issue.
As I said in my second post on here, I know there is a difference between the two, I just wasnt sure about KIA money.
Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2005 11:01 AMWhat I am trying to figure out is why when terrorists hit the world trade centers everybody was all for going to war with any country that helped Bin Laden, but now that we are actually doing something about it everybody wants to complain about it.
Posted by: jess at June 30, 2005 04:34 PMkctim:
mandatory but voluntary,
If you came in during the middle 1990’s I can understand why you think that way. If your Drill Instructor/Sergeant tells you something you did it, No questions asked. How I long for the Old Days.
AS Always,
Wayne
What I am trying to figure out is why when terrorists hit the world trade centers everybody was all for going to war with any country that helped Bin Laden, but now that we are actually doing something about it everybody wants to complain about it.
The answer is quite simple. Iraq wasn’t involved with 9/11!!! Sheesh!!! I guess sometimes we have to remind people who we are supposed to be fighting. I guess the president is also one of these people.
Posted by: JJ at June 30, 2005 05:31 PMI think the people we should be fighting are Bin Laden and the Saudis… those are the ones who perpitrated 9/11.
And please, do NOT bring up the fact the Saddam was a bad guy and attacked his own people, etc. I’m sure he was a horrible person, but that hardly justifies destroying Iraq. If it does, then there’s a huge world out tyrants out there who we need to busy with.
After all “I don’t the America should be in the business of Nation Building.”
Posted by: tony at July 1, 2005 12:37 PMJust before the 2004 election Bush was asked if we could win the war on terrorism.He said “I don’t think we can win ‘it’”.For once I heard him say something intelligent.
Because it’s true,we will never end terrorism;because it’s a different kind of enemy,where you never know when and where they will strike;and they are getting young people who don’t have much oppurtunity in life to blow themselves up.And they are doing it to poor families a lot of the time,and telling the families they are going to get compensated for handing over their children,and blessed by God.It will never really stop,but what we needed was somebody who can help us beat it back,and I not only believe Bush isn’t the one,but I don’t think he honestly cares.They’re pumping the oil out of Iraq as we speak,and meanwhile Bush is systematically taking down our rights as Americans,and playing to the conservatives in this country who believe he is somehow an honest man,and if they had their way,they would make every American a conservative Christian.They believe this country was somehow “founded”on Christianity.Call me crazy but I was taught differently.
Bin Laden is an ex-CIA operative.In 1999,a group of people got together and decided to sieze the presidency and the government,and use it as a tool to get oil from every country they could.Dick Cheney was one of these people,and so was Donald Rumsfield,who was also in the oil industry,and Condoleeza Rice,another ex-oil executive.They were first going to put Jeb Bush in there,but decided to put George instead,for some reason.Then they figured out how to rig the election so it would go the republican way.I got all this information from the Democratic Underground,on a link from there,if you want proof.
Anyone who can call these people “Christians” I feel really sorry for,because they sure are gullible.
Posted by: whitebear3 at July 2, 2005 04:12 AM
