August 22, 2005
Support (Then eventually forget) Our Troops
While the war in Iraq, which is looking more and more, like the mess the State Department warned this administration it would be,rages on. At a time when more and more people are questioning the rationale for war. During a month that has seen dozens of our soldiers dying. As a grieving mother waits by the gate. The President is riding his bike(With super-cool Lance Armstrong), clearing brush and relaxing at his Texas ranch.
Is it me, or is that a frightening and surreal picture of the leader of The United States of America?
There seems to be no sense of urgency from the highest levels of government to the American people at large that our soldiers are in a quagmire and this quagmire is costing them their lives.
The only people who are sacrificing for this war are the soldiers and their families. Their economic status makes them vulnerable to the whims of the wealthy and their own government.
We put our yellow ribbons on the back of our cars and call ourselves patriotic.
What have we really done to support our troops?
Are we crying out to our government to bring them home?
No.
We justify our "staying the course" by arguing that we are helping the Iraqi's find Democracy. We would be more vulnerable to terroism if we pull out now. Iraq would fracture into a civil war.
The president has failed the soldiers and their families.
While college kids are looking forward to frat parties, finalizing their courses and schedules, their less fortunate peers are getting shot at in cities like Baghdad and Mosul.
Let Bush and his administration figure out what to do in Iraq. They broke it, let them fix it.We need to pull out all American troops as soon as possible.
Problem with it is they can’t fix it. While they are spending all that time and money on Iraq the real problem grows. We will have to fix it. As a concerned citizen and one whose brother is in the army I will do my part in fixing it. By voting out the neocons next election.
Posted by: zakquiet at August 22, 2005 03:08 PMBush is kind of like Nero with a chainsaw…
Posted by: tony at August 22, 2005 04:11 PMExcellent piece Andre. Maybe cycling with the 7 time winner of the Tour D’France will provide motivation for Bush and he will return from vacation completely refreshed and with a new outlook on resolving the war.
Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 04:28 PMWe justify our “staying the course” by arguing that we are helping the Iraqi’s find Democracy. We would be more vulnerable to terroism if we pull out now. Iraq would fracture into a civil war.
Right. Yeah, so what’s the problem?
Is it me, or is that a frightening and surreal picture of the leader of The United States of America?
It’s you. You and the rest of you who actively look for things you can reinterpret and spin.
You want to support the troops? Give them everything they need to get the job done so they can kill those that need killin’ and come home. When they do come home I’ll shake their hands and say “Good job, soldier. Thanks for making the world a better place.” Beause that’s what they’re doing, making the world a better place, unlike Al Queda and other murdering miscreants.
The only thing I don’t support about this whole situation is if we then DON’T go into other areas that need our help. That would be the height of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Eric at August 22, 2005 04:46 PM—-
You want to support the troops? Give them everything they need to get the job done so they can kill those that need killin’ and come home
—-
You’ll need to talk directly to Bush about that one. The soldiers have had inadequate armor for 2 1/2 years now (9 months since Rumsfield was asked directly about it…) and still nothing. He said you fight the war you are given, not the war you want… but after 2 1/2 years, you figure that should’ve solved this issue - if truly supporting our troops was their first priority.
Posted by: tony at August 22, 2005 04:53 PMThe comment that the troops in Iraq do not have everything they need to fight the war I believe was and is quite factual. I do however get the impression that it is improving. I have seen interviews with troops who have said there has been some improvement.
Nevertheless, I believe the primary problem has been in the armor protecting the HumVees and related utility vehicles. Unquestionably they need to be armored at the highest and most efficient level.
I have no idea what the relationship is between the total number of casualties and those that involved “under armored” vehicles and those that involved “foot combatants”.
Barring the relative protection afforded by bulletproof vests, etc., a group of soldiers on patrol or, helping “innocent Iraqis” are not simply targets to a terrorist suicide bomber,
they are statistics.
I realize that there have been shortages of communications equipment, etc. as well and I do not mean to diminish the importance of those.
My feeling is that even if the soldiers had everything they need to keep them from getting killed (which is reasonable to expect) we are not giving them the most important thing…the order to be agressive, taking out “innocents” if necessary to ensure they get insurgents.
We have a military force that is afraid to take a crap for fear they are violating someones rights or some treaty provision. So much so that they are willing to be fired on rather than shoot first and ask questions later.
Give the soldiers the power to end the war, support them from above and this war will be a memory very quickly.
Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 05:34 PMAndre, I agree we should bring our troops home as soon as possible. I don’t think we should expect them to fight Iraq’s civil war.
tony:
“Bush is kind of like Nero with a chainsaw…”
Yeah, Bush went to Crawford to cut brush, and Cindy Sheehan went there to set fire to it! :^)
Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2005 05:37 PMMy feeling is that even if the soldiers had everything they need to keep them from getting killed (which is reasonable to expect) we are not giving them the most important thing…the order to be agressive, taking out “innocents” if necessary to ensure they get insurgents.
And thank the gods we’re not giving them the power to mass murder civilians to “ensure they get insurgents”. You realize you’ve just complained about the US “failing” to order its soldiers to commit a war crime?
Posted by: Jarandhel at August 22, 2005 05:56 PMJarandhel,
Nice spin on re-inventing what I said. Please review my post.
I said nothing about “mass murder” of civilians.
You used that term twice in your response, I did not use it at all.
What I said was “taking out “innocents” if necessary to ensure they get insurgents”.
You sir are absolutely unbelievable at re-creating what someone has said. It disgusts me when someone takes something completely out of context to sensationalize it for their own purposes.
Posted by: steve smith at August 22, 2005 06:56 PMSteve:
I know what sentence you used. The fact is, your sentence was simply a euphemism for the mass murder of civilians, whether you realize it or not. And I used the term mass murder once.
I wasn’t trying to recreate your words, I took them in context and stated their implications. You believe that in order to get all the insurgents, we need to have the freedom to kill those we just can’t be sure aren’t insurgents. Many of whom may actually be civilians. You want us to be “aggressive”, to “shoot first and ask questions later” rather than wait to be fired upon. These policies will result in the deaths of many truly innocent civilians. That is, quite simply, mass murder of civilians. And a war crime.
Posted by: Jarin at August 22, 2005 07:05 PMAnd as for spin, do I have to repeat exactly the terms you used in order not to be accused of spin? Is it “spinning” things if to say someone stole something, if that person claims merely to have “liberated it from its original owner without that person’s knowledge”? It seems like the only way for me not to be accused of “spin” by you is to repeat your spin verbatim.
Posted by: Jarin at August 22, 2005 07:13 PMYou are arguing whether someone suggested that we turn the military loose to kill anyone suspected of being insurgents. I thought that was what the president has been saying all along. We are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here. Instead of hunting them down one by one, we chose to attack another country. To turn their country into a war zone, to create a situation where there are bombs in their neighborhoods 24/7, to kill them, to kill their children, to poison their water, to shut off their power to eliminate their opportunity to earn a living. The president has given us a lot of reasons for going to war, some of them lies….this one is probably true, the only one he has stuck by all along and is probably the worst…he is definitly a war criminal tohave intentionaly brought this on millions of people
Posted by: Craig at August 22, 2005 07:41 PMare the iraqi people better off since our elitist money hungry rulers went to iraq? hell no!! now the iraqis are about to step back 200 years and establish a theocracy. ask halliburton and exxon if they are ready to go help in the sudan. oh yeah, no oil or money
Posted by: thomas at August 22, 2005 08:05 PM“Support the troops” is only a smoke screen to avoid any disagreement or criticism by intelligent people against those who actually support them the least.
To REALLY support the troops, we would ask the question, how much would it cost to get them out of there in 6 months, and all of us make the financial sacrifice necessary to do so? If it required a sacrifice on MY part so that they could get out of there ASAP, I would step up to the plate. IMO, that is supporting the troops.
Posted by: Loren at August 22, 2005 08:17 PMJarin,
You are so incorrect in your description of what I meant and what is in my mind that it’s pitiful.
You said….
“I know what sentence you used. The fact is, your sentence was simply a euphemism for the mass murder of civilians, whether you realize it or not. And I used the term mass murder once.”
and, you said…..
“You believe that in order to get all the insurgents, we need to have the freedom to kill those we just can’t be sure aren’t insurgents. Many of whom may actually be civilians. You want us to be “aggressive”, to “shoot first and ask questions later”“
What makes you think I meant “all” the insurgents? Agressive action early in such a campaign may likely discourage people from harboring them, forcing them into the open.
I also said “taking out “innocents” if NECESSARY to ensure they get insurgents”.
You tell us please how you tell an “innocent civilian” from an insurgent.
Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 09:33 AM> You tell us please how you tell an “innocent
> civilian” from an insurgent.
You wait he fire at you first.
Yes, that risker than simply shoot down every innocent civilian/potential insurgent.
But that’s a more effective way to be sure you mostly kill only insurgents. And innocent civilians won’t hate you because their relatives were mass murdered during a wedding/suspect terrorist secret meeting at the border or whatever…
You (I mean US) *choose* to declare war to Iraq. You’re not defending there, *you*’re the attacker. You should be the one to take all the risk, not the (unfortunate) civilians.
Oh, sorry, Geneva convention don’t apply anymore these days. I forgot. Again.
Obviously, there is an alternative, quicker exit solution:
a) move boys back home
b) nuke the whole iraq
c) declare war over (all insurgents were killed, right!?!)
d) live with “US is evil”. Afterall, why do you care that much about the World opinion!? You’re supposed to be the good guys here, right?
You know you’re!
Steve,
“we are not giving them the most important thing…the order to be agressive, taking out “innocents” if necessary to ensure they get insurgents.”
Sounds like “kill em all let god sort em out” to me.
We are Americans, we’re supposed to be the “good guys”, remember?
This war is causing Americans to question whether they sanction torture,or accept attacking innocents to get to the terrorists. I never thought I would see the day that American citizens would not be outraged by this but to actually debate whether they were usefull tools to protect us from our fears is truly tragic.
steve:
Sure, you said “if NECESSARY”. But you seem to have a really interesting definition of “necessary”, since it involves our boys shooting first and asking questions later rather than waiting to see if they’re fired upon. Exactly what is “necessary” about shooting a person before you’re fired upon, if you don’t even know if that person is an enemy or a civilian?
By the way, the shock tactic you’re describing, of aggressively taking out unknown targets whether they’re insurgents or civilians, in order to “discourage” folks from harboring the insurgents (with the implication that if they continue to be harbored, innocents will continue to be killed) is not only mass murder of civilians, and a war crime, it’s also an act of terrorism itself. It aims to terrify the civilians, through the use and continued threat of violence, into complying with our demands that they not harbor the insurgency.
Can you imagine if a cop in a violence-riddled inner city neighborhood just started shooting first and asking questions later, taking out “innocents” to get the bad guys, rather than waiting to be threatened first, because he had no way of telling the criminals from the law abiding citizens and he wasn’t going to wait to be shot at?
Posted by: Jarin at August 23, 2005 01:36 PMSteve Smith, you are a quintessential neocon. You insinuate mass murder and are now trying to slither out of your own words by attempting to redefine them after the fact.
Thank you for providing us with a perfect example.
Posted by: Sleemoth at August 23, 2005 01:37 PMI can appreciate the complexities of this issue, but I think there is a “time-out” needed. As a US Marine I definitely feel for our military family over there, but I’d like the following points addressed.
1.Does anyone really think that we can just pull out of there and leave the mess in place that our illustrious leader has fathered? I read the talk about the burden we put on the Iraqi people from invading their country, but wouldn’t leaving it as it is now plunge them into a hell of a civil war with our names written on it?
2.It is pretty much a forgone conclusion that we are not going to win this war using the current policies, but this shouldn’t surprise anyone; we have always hurt ourselves with rules that no one has to follow but us. That is indeed a formula for casualties since the “bad guys” know they can use that against us.
3.I think that our leaders on the hill need to get back to the basics of diplomacy when dealing with situations like this because this was clearly not a “military as a last resort” example. Our leaders need to understand that ground troops exist for one reason and one reason only: to wipe a designated enemy off the face of the planet after diplomacy has failed! Soldiers and Marines are not trained to be nor should they be used as police. If we lose that mentality, then we stop losing troops at the rate we are losing them. As far as civillians go, there are going to be casualties. My heart goes out to the civillians because they didn’t ask for this, but if it is a toss-up between Iraqi civillians and our sons and daughters, I’ll willingly accept all of the guilt that comes along with siding with our sons and daughters.
Lastly, I’d like to address all of those who put our troops last under the guise that “They signed up for this.” Ours is indeed a volunteer military and everyone who currently serves joined by choice.
I acknowledge this.
I also acknowledge that some of these young people joined for the benefits, the prestige, because of family members who were vets, or maybe a soldier or marine is all they ever wanted to be.
But please consider this…
While everyone of them had the control to say yea or nay reference joining, the ones who ultimately signed up did so with the understanding that they could depend on our elected officials to use them in their deadly capacity ONLY as a last resort. That is the one aspect of the whole thing that such an individual could not control. But if the president let our troops down, then so to did the members of Congress who gave him his war on a silver platter!
We all need to acknowledge that mistakes were made and the best we can do now is to try to limit the bloodshed and learn from those mistakes so as not to repeat them.
I know this disertation solves nothing, but thanks for letting me get it off of my chest.
Posted by: cnw at August 23, 2005 02:38 PMcnw:
What would “winning” this war look like, at this point? Occupying their country until the populace is “pacified”? Peace brought at the point of a gun?
Yes, at this point if we leave it’s likely they’ll descend into civil war. Do we have the right to prevent that? Do we have the right to impose peace on them, if they don’t wish it themselves? My sense is that if they’re ever going to come together as a unified nation again, they’re going to have to do so on their own, not with us forcing them into it. They’re going to have to find their own leaders to act as diplomats, and peacemakers. Again, IF that is the route they want to go. Currently, it looks more like they want to enter a civil war with one another. What gives us the right to treat them like children and stand in the way of it?
Posted by: Jarin at August 23, 2005 02:48 PMFor lack of a better response I’d have to say that “winning” this war would equate to pacifying them. The problem is there are so many groups that there is literally no way to pacify them all. They are ultimately going to have to define what direction they want their country to go and then fight to acheive it-just like every other country.
It is very possible they will end up in a civil war in spite of US action and if that happens then someone will have to tell me what all of this was about. I’d like to think they could do the civil war thing all by themselves, but then I’m reminded that they never asked for our help in the first place.
Posted by: cnw at August 23, 2005 03:24 PMcnw -
Thanks… that was one of the best posts I’ve read in a while. I agree, it’s ugly, it’s deadly, and no one gets out of this clean or easy… We will loose more people on the ground, and I think (in this case esp.) that borders on criminal. There’s no easy out, and we’ll never know what works or doesn’t until it’s all over and we’re out of there.
We could leave today - or leave in 4 years, and the end result could be complete civil war no matter what we decide.
I feel like we’re the idiot who decides to get rid of the hornets nest with a tennis racket… no way to put the nest back together, and all the bees are pissed. How many stings are we willing to takes before we leave…
Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 04:03 PMJarin - Craig - Phillipe - Andre - Sleemoth
Phillipe and Jarin have a great idea. You tell an innocent from a terrorist by waiting until he fires first.
I pray every night that the people leading our troops are not instructing them accordingly. That opinion would conflict with those who feel we don’t have the proper armor.
Sleemoth - I am not slithering out of a single word THAT I WROTE. I am clarifying the mis-interpretations that Jarin has contributed.
Jarin - By your own admission, we have made demands that they not harbor the insurgency. How do you think we can enforce/ensure that those demands are met without making them seem like idle threats?
Here is a simple way to determine/identify innocents from insurgents. I posted this earlier on another thread.
I can tell an innocent civilian from a terrorist as well as anyone. The innocent civilian is wearing a full length robe,(the robe covers the bottom half of his face) sandals, has his head wrapped with whatever they call that accessory and covers all but his eyes. Sometimes he is carrying a prayer rug which does not have a weapon concealed in it.
Under another theory appearing in a post by Jarin, the final determination is that he shoots first. Oops, I mean FINAL DETERMINATION.
Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 04:15 PMcnw,
Well said.
I’d rather not lose any of these young men and women fighting in Iraq. I say we pull them out and use diplomacy to deal with the possibility of civil war by utilizing the U.N., other Middle East countries to broker a peaceful resolution.
Out soldiers should not be there.
I can tell an innocent civilian from a terrorist as well as anyone. The innocent civilian is wearing a full length robe,(the robe covers the bottom half of his face) sandals, has his head wrapped with whatever they call that accessory and covers all but his eyes. Sometimes he is carrying a prayer rug which does not have a weapon concealed in it.
This is so insane that it requires a response, but I’m probably not the best one to do so because I can’t even begin to grasp what your words are supposed to mean. Surely you are joking, right? You don’t seriously believe that all innocent Iraqis wear robes and carry prayer rugs, do you? Have you seen any of our limited news coverage about Iraq? All those children our troops give candy to qualify as non-innocents by your definition…as do the many secular Iraqis—many of them Kurds. Your classification is as inane as someone saying that they can identify a Republican because he’ll be a racist white man carrying a bible. Please tell me you are joking…and if you are joking please use a “smiley” or something next time. Geez!
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 23, 2005 05:15 PMCharles:
Actually, I believe Steve’s point is that a non-insurgent looks just like an insurgent. (Duh. Same as a non-criminal looks just like a criminal.) Because of this, he seems to feel it’s fair to shoot them all.
Posted by: Jarin at August 23, 2005 05:31 PMCharles Wager,
To be honest, I am sick and tired of everyone talking about don’t harm the innocent civilians. I have asked a thousand times how is it possible to identify an innocent civilian from an insurgent or terrorist.
In posts this very day above commentary in Phillipe and Jarin’s posts seems to suggest that as a US soldier you are to wait until the potential innocent or insurgent fires first.
If you think what I said is insanity I suggest you consider this :
You are a US soldier and encounter an Iraqi person in an alley, you say “OK if you are an insurgent, you fire first, if you miss, please remain where you are because then it’s my turn”
Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 05:32 PMsteve smith,
There is no logical conclusion to that train of thought other than that you approve of the mass killing of every man, woman, and child in Iraq (including many foreigners that happen to look Iraqi). You may as well admit you’re all for the idea of nuking Iraq until there’s no life left in it. In fact, if we kill every man, woman, and child in the US while we’re at it we’ll guarantee that we get all the “embedded” terrorists here as well. What you’re suggesting is total insanity, and it’s truly disturbing that you aren’t joking. Even if you never actually use the words “mass murder” you are still most clearly proposing it, so don’t pretend that others are just putting those words in your mouth.
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 23, 2005 05:54 PMSteve Smith-
If he pulls a gun on you, shoots at you, or tries to blow you up, he’s an insurgent. I don’t see what’s so wrong about not alienating people with scorched earth tactics.
It’s obvious that a lot of you have never been to war. You can not usually tell an insurgant from an innocent civilian. Having never been to Iraq, I was in Vietnam and the
viet Cong were often our friends by day and shooting at us at night.
The way you find an insurgant is to run patrols usually based on some type of intellegence. Unfortunately, the insurgant will see you before you see him and he WILL shoot at you first. It’s not like the shootout at high noon on main street.
Our combat troops are the best troops the world has ever seen. And they are the best equipped.
They not only need our support, they DESERVE it and have earned our respect.
Posted by: tomd at August 23, 2005 08:27 PM—-
They not only need our support, they DESERVE it and have earned our respect.
—-
I agree. We all agree. Haven’t met a person yet who would disagree.
Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 09:04 PMCharles Wager,
Reference your post of 8/23 at 5:54
The conclusions drawn in your post are completely inaccurate. The comments include character judgementsassination and, in the opinion expressed that I am mentally unstable.(Insanity was the word used).
It is truly a gift to be able to tell exactly what a person means from the words in his text.
I, like tomd was in this war at a different place at a different time. Those folks not only were as he describes but their appearance was even more deceiving. Most/many were so small they had the appearance of children.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Stephen Daugherty,
If you advocate waiting until he shoots at you it will be too late. I shoot when I see what looks like a gun.
Steve Smith-
I’ve said it before: Paranoia is a waste of good suspicion. Truth is, it pays to distinguish friend from foe. It’s not foolproof, but there’s nothing foolproof in the other strategy either. Alertness and experience count for more than perception by itself.
I’ll agree its a fine and difficult line to walk, but in practice, It’s the one people can endure the longest. Otherwise you burn people out. The brain is not meant to be in a constant state of anxiety, constantly feeling under threat. If it goes on for long enough, a person’s memory and emotional health can be adversely affact in a way that sticks with them afterwards. It can even start to kill their brain cells in those parts of the brain.
A soldier that doesn’t find some way to negotiate things there to their satisfaction might just end up taking a downward spiral. Do we really need that in our society?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2005 10:45 PMsteve smith:
The conclusions drawn in your post are completely inaccurate. The comments include character judgementsassination and, in the opinion expressed that I am mentally unstable.(Insanity was the word used).
How are my conclusions inaccurate? Please elaborate. What exactly am I supposed to infer from your statements other than “if a person is not wearing a robe and carrying a prayer rug then they are an insurgent and should be killed”? Also, to be accurate, I said “what you are suggesting is insane” NOT “you are insane”. This is critiquing the message not the messenger, so how do you get character assassination from that?
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 23, 2005 11:46 PM
This mis-conception that the kids starting college and looking forward to frat parties, somehow have peers that are “less fortunate” is ridiclous. There is not a SINGLE person in the U.S. military the does not want to be there. Not a SINGLE person that does not feel that what they are doing is important. These men and women need to be celebrated not morned. We need more people in this country with their convictions and backbone. And it is more and more clear EVERYDAY, that they are not coming from the left!
Posted by: Zach Allison at August 24, 2005 06:29 AMZach said: “here is not a SINGLE person in the U.S. military the does not want to be there. Not a SINGLE person that does not feel that what they are doing is important.”
Tell that to the GI’s who have deserted. Tell that to the more than 5,000 AWOLs since 2003 in Iraq. Tell that to the counselors of the maimed returning to VA hospitals, many of whom can’t find a voice because of their dependency upon the military for their rehabilitation.
I would agree with you if you used the word ‘Few’ or ‘Not Many” instead of “Not a single one”. The data simply contradicts your ‘Not a Single One’ statements. Fact is there are quite a few who wished they were not there which is why so many went AWOL.
And if the military would permit independent polling, I am confident, having been in the Army during the Viet Nam war, that quite a number would say their efforts in Iraq are a waste of time and lives if the goal is a peaceful, democratic, and unified Iraq. It’s just not in the cards, and there are a lot of very smart GI’s over there both in support of being there and not, who would agree it is just not in the cards.
Our GI’s over there, by and large are insulated from the population and the differences between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. They are insulated by their close proximity to the their own and the Iraqi military who of course, are betting their lives that it is in the cards.
But reports and polls show the Iraqi population largely does not even know what the hell a Constitution is, nor what the rule of law means, nor what the interim Congress is attempting to do. Our GI’s get their news from the Armed Forces Media and from command, and for morale reasons which are obvious, that news is going to be less than full spectrum for a great number of our GI’s.
All things to consider when making universal statements about a diverse population in the military. One can safely say they all volunteered for service. Beyond that, trying to cast all GI’s in Iraq out of the same mold, is fraught with pitfalls.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 24, 2005 06:55 AMResponse to Zach Allison at August 24, 2005 06:29 AM
Good point, David (who responded first).
Not to hang Zach out to dry, but his statement was way off. Having “been there, done that” as a marine I can say with great confidence that there is PROBABLY a majority over there that is in direct conflict with having to be there, especially with the way things have gone and how bleak it looks for the immediate future.
Let’s be realistic people: No one WANTS to give their life for any military cause! Plain and simple. Yes we do what we do for the most noble of reasons in many cases, but do you have any idea just how many young Americans join the military without a single clue as to just what they might be getting into? Aurguably, most.
That’s right, most!
Don’t get me wrong; 18-22 year olds can have the strongest sense of patriotic duty as any vet, but can we agree with the ascertion that a sense of patriotic duty is only half of the issue.
The other half is asking yourself if you can deal with an Iraq, Afghanistan, Somolia, or any other military blood and guts campaign. Tell me, honestly, what concept does that same age group have of such things. This is America afterall and our way of life is both positive and negative. Freedom, prosperity, and religious preference might be the most positive aspects, but our policies and military have done an excellent job of keeping us isolated from some of the ills of the world (and yes, that does take 9\11 into account). The only concept most of our young people have of “war” is due primarily to Hollywood and that “does not a warrior make.” The battle scenes in Blackhawk down are some of the best I have ever seen, but at the end of the show it was just a movie.
And armed with that our young people go off to a foriegn land to fight an enemy who has known war and armed conflict as a way of life since he or she was a child. The enemy has already adjusted physically and mentally. They already know how not to sweat the small stuff in a battle zone. Perhaps most important though, they are fighting for something they both believe in and, in many cases, have believed in for decades or more.
We go over with the intent to dictate our policy so that we can go back home.
It really doesn’t compare.
So who exactly is our modern military? Well we know about the vets; they are the ones who could have gotten out, but didn’t for whatever reason (God bless ‘em because we need them). The meat and potatoes though are the kids in that exact same age group because war is indeed a young persons game (I’ll resist getting on the topic of how old ass men get us into wars, but it’s the young ones who die in them.) They are the ones who fight and they are the ones who die.
So again I have to disagree with the assertion that there isn’t a soldier over there who doesn’t want to be. Believe me, they want to be home with their loved ones; they want to raise their children; they want to suit up for next weeks game; they want the chance to experience their youth before it is gone.
But they wear a uniform and they fight because they are obligated. They signed up because the needed an opportunity for a better life (and the military is a great place to start as long as there is no war, right? Some wanted the benefits so they could go to college. Some found parenthood a wee bit too soon and took the military option so they could handle their responsibilities. Some are genuine “Billy Bad Asses.” Some only think they are.
And some are honestly patriotic and will do what is asked of them in the name of God, country, and corps.
In the end they are simply human and American.
None of us should forget that.
Zach,
“We need more people in this country with their convictions and backbone. And it is more and more clear EVERYDAY, that they are not coming from the left!”
Why not from the left?
Why the sweeping generalizations?
Why “Left” vs. “Right”?
I notice that some of the people who support the war and this administration cling to the “Left” vs. “Right” divide strategy just as this administration does. The divide is their tool to avoid accountability. Just as the Bush supporters use it to avoid debating the real issues.
If the war was and is a positive and meaningful tool in the war on terror, a path to Democracy for the oppressed citizens of Iraq and sound policy by this administration, why not come up with fact based points to argue your position?
You’ll never have a need to say “Left” or “Right” again.
CNW:
Thank you for your honesty and your service from the bottom of my heart.
One of the best posts I’ve seen on here.
Posted by: womanmarine at August 24, 2005 01:54 PMThanks right back at you womanmarine.
I said all of that because I don’t think it gets enough attention. It certainly doesn’t from the media and non-military America pretty much go by what they get from the media unless they happen to be associated with a military family in some way.
I just want it known that there is a human side to each individual over there and I know they ALL miss home.
‘Nuff said.
Now Andre….
I feel you on the “Left vs. Right” thing, but two words sum up that whole buch of mess: That’s politics!
Our entire government structure is based on taking sides. It doesn’t matter if you name them left or right, or liberal or conservative; everybody has a side. And less you think that perhaps you don’t because you might not adhere to any of the examples above, well you just chose another “side” since there is already an established group out there that feels the same way. Fact is if you give a damn, you have to pick a side. Some might not like it, but not making a decision IS making a decision!
Personally, I think what is needed is the ability and discipline to step away from all of the bureaucratic BS and become objective using your own merits.
This is only the second day that I have been participating in this forum and it seems to me that not only do the people in this tread have something to say, they are also pretty intelligent (for the most part).
I don’t think we saw much intelligence last election.
Where was the objectivity from the voting public?
Now I have never been a Republican, but I DID feel like President Bush was “caught out there” with the events of 9\11. Be honest: that is not something any “President” can train and prepare for (under the circumstances at that time). He had to do something, the American public wanted blood, and we at least had intelligence to suggest that we might get you know who if we went into Afghanistan. That was a good move, but he couldn’t substansiate the same claims for the Iraq invasion. Still, he was our leader and he needed to be heard since he was the one at the reins at that time.
And when I say objective, I mean just that. Just because I’ve always voted Democrat doesn’t mean much during an election year. During an election year we have to find a way to ignore party lines so that when we hear what candidtes are saying, we actually LISTEN! There were simply many things that Bush said that didn’t make good since when it came to the war and if you went back to the previous election, well it was just too much for me to give him a vote of confidence.
I listened to him, but I never got past the fact that he actually started a war! Now unless my history is off, that had never been done before. Four years later he’s talking about “staying the course” with no end to that conflict in sight and Americans acted like the previous 4 years never happened.
Now I don’t know how much the President was reading his own press, or if he was just trying to carry out his daddy’s agenda, or if he really believed what he was shoveling, but IF anyone considers his reelection to be a mistake, he is not the one to blame for that.
The voters are.
IMHO I kinda feel like we as a country did a dis-service to the world by allow Mr. Bush another term. Why? Because this country knew that the war in Iraq was unjust. We were aware of the whole WMD debacle. We knew that we were at war because for whatever reason our President wanted this war.
But we allowed him to be re-elected and to carry on at least 4 more years of this thing and why?
Because he came down on gay America like a cloak of darkness and to the majority of the country (or at least the voting public) that was more important than an unjust war!
We just jacked up everything with a war and it’s impact on terrorism, world economies, race relations, and even gas prices, but at least we know that our gay Americans can’t marry and get benefits! And if this ruffles some feathers so be it; 90 some odd percent of voters stated that is why they ultimately voted to keep Bush in office!
Now if i am being a bit sensitive, I do apologize, but I don’t think so. The whole gay rights issue is a topic for another day, but if there was objectivity there would have been a clear understanding of what was the most important issue of the last election.
Listen to what the candidates say they want for the country, for you, and for the world, not how they speak for their party line. If you think about it, WE should be running this country, not the politicians. They are just the people we elect to carry out our wishes. Sure you can’t take that last statement literally, but there is such a dividing line between “We the people…” and what goes on up on Capital Hill that it is a shame!
They spend so much time fighting to do it the Democratic way or the Republican way that no one seems to want to put the focus where it truly belongs: on how to do it the Right way (or at least what’s best for the time being).
Now who can tell me that starting and supporting this war is what’s best for the time being?
The prosecution rests.
cnw,
I agree wholeheartedly.
That is why we must avoid the labels “Right” vs. “left.”
I realize that sides are taken but if a person chooses a side without researching and understanding the issue they’re not “Left” or “Right”, they’re a jackass.
We have way too many jackasses in our government.
I have views that are considered conservative and some that are liberal.
I am against the war based on information that is readily available. People are not gathering information and basing their voting decisions on this information. They treated the election in 04 like a sporting event.Choose your team:
Liberals(Dems)are gay loving abortionists, why? because some biased news channel or their buddy at the water cooler said so.
Conservatives(Reps)are tough on terror and morally superior, why? Same thing.
It’s not about sides. It’s about choosing the candidates who have the most credibility, not who has the most financial backing, or the more powerful friends.
Our government has lost its true purpose and that is the equal representation of all the people not just those who are wealthy or agree with them.
cnw we need you to run as an independent in 08.
I’d vote for you.
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful insights.
—-
Now who can tell me that starting and supporting this war is what’s best for the time being?
—-
I guess this is my problem with the Iraqi war, now that the imminent threat of WMDs has turned out to be bunk. Why now?
With all that we were facing - at the start of the war, and all that we face now… why Iraq? We’re facing historical debt, economic downturn, OBL and the threat of terrorism… What solution did Iraq hold for us?
And now we’ve lost 1900 Americans - very close to the number of Americans who died on 9/11, yet the one who attacked us is still out there - and the President said himself
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
“I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,’”
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
“…Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he’s maybe in control of a cave. He’s on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we’re going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that’s what’s happening. He’s on the run, if he’s running at all. So we don’t know whether he’s in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open — we just don’t know….”
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Andre, if it was just that simple!
But I’ll tell you this: If a conserted effort to get people on the same page is made in time for the next election, then maybe we can get a congress and President in there that will really do some good. Folks need to educate themselves on the issues. Okay, so you don’t have a degree in International Relations. Do you really need one to point out what’s wrong in Iraq? Do you need to be a Political Science major to know when you are being conned by congress?
Allot of this stuff is common sense!
But if the bulk of it is still too much to get a handle on, how about just starting with the same thing the founding father’s of this country started with, The Declaration of Independence.
I just know that we as American citizens cannot pull the “head in the sand” routine everytime our top officials on The Hill misrepresent us to the world.
I might be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think we have really begun to see the fallout on the world stage that is going to result from this war. Don’t think for one minute that China, North Korea, Iran, every two-bit terrorist on the damn planet, and every country that has had a beef with the US isn’t chompin’ at the bit these days since they know whatever response we’d have would surely be limited stretched as thin as we are. It’s quickly approaching “middle-finger” time where we’ll find that our threats don’t carry much weight and our past allies look at us with a raised eyebrow.
And Tony’s statements about Bin-Laden are on point. If nothing else those quotes should serve to tell everyone that our elected officials are not above telling you what they think you want to hear if it means they can get what they want.
Once again, that’s politics!
Posted by: cnw at August 24, 2005 05:46 PMZach Allison-
I don’t doubt that there are some dedicated soldiers over there, who think this war is a necessary one, who want to fight it to the bitter end. I also don’t doubt that on the whole, you’re wrong about this being such a unanimously loved war among the soldiers. These men need to be celebrated and mourned.
We do need people with convictions and backbone. We also need people who are aware of what they’re doing, and willing to correct it and not count the political cost. Unfortunately, that’s not the kind of person we have in the White House.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2005 10:00 PMWell, the problem is, it’s a lose-lose game. But bringing our troops home is the better choice, I agree. If you really want to support them, then try to bring them home, instead of wasting their lives on a hopeless cause. Our “strategy” already ruined what hope we had. “Rose-petals.” Meh.
Posted by: John at August 25, 2005 10:30 AM
