Democrats & Liberals Archives

Dustin Donica: Soldier 3000

The Independent’s headline reads: Soldier 3,000: His name is Dustin Donica. His number haunts the US. My first response was - not if nobody knows about it. My second - who is talking about it?

Specialist Dustin Donica was 22 years old and came from Spring, Texas - near Houston. He died from "small arms fire" on December 28, 2006 while on a "counter-insurgency operation" in Baghdad.

Apparently, the military did not realize that Dustin Donica was the 3000th soldier who had died when they notified his family. The family found out that bit of information on the internet after a steady stream of reporters showed up at their door.

Which brings us back to the "haunting" question. I agree, that the death of Dustin Donica is a "milestone" - at least an official one. Unofficially, it is likely we passed that number of dead troops some time ago. However, in order for this information to be haunting, the public needs to know about it. If people don't know, then there is no significance; no remembering - much less "haunting." So I did a google news search on Dustin Donica. Who was this stream of reporters and what did get published?

The Independent mentioned at the top of this article;

LA Times posted this on the "Military Deaths" page along with 12 other troops who had died:

Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Texas; specialist, Army. Donica was killed Dec. 28 when his unit was attacked with small-arms fire in Baghdad. He was the 3,000th U.S. troop to be killed in the war in Iraq. Donica was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division at Ft. Richardson, Alaska. - a Wisconsin site - had a brief piece in their editorial week in review;

At OpEdNews-PA, writer Steve Young has been writing about every 100th service member who dies;

There are several from Texas papers: Galveston; Houston, KWTX, Dallas.

Then there are a smattering from Alaska where Fort Richardson is located, and other from small papers and radio stations from other states (Nevada, Iowa, Illinois). Mostly rural America.

CNN has not covered it.
ABC has not covered it.
CBS has not covered it.
FOX has not covered it.
Washington Post has not covered it.
Washington Times has not covered it.
The New York Times has not covered it.

MSNBC included it under an article titled Sunni anger spills into Iraq streets, and the AP put out a piece picked up by some papers (ie Spokesman Review).and an array of British papers covered it.

The general pattern of who did and did not report on the death of Dustin Donica is telling. Rural America, and the home of the brigade were informed. A handful of others in the US were generally informed if you read through lists of obituaries, or through a given editorial or news story. It is clear that the controllers of the "media" don't want people to think overly much about this. They don't want the 22 year old Dustin Donica's face (or anyone else's) associated with the 3000th death. That would make it all too real.

The Donica's said that 8 or 9 reporters were at their door within an hour of the notification (Independent). So obviously this was newsworthy. It just never made the news.

The following picture of Specialist Dustin Donica is from the Berliner Morgenpost.


My condolences to the family and friends of Dustin Donica, and to all those who will never have the opportunity to know or live him. He was not just a number - which is what such deaths have become - but a young man serving his country in a manufactured war. Should his death, or any of the tens of thousands of others - U.S. or Iraqi - haunt us? They certainly should. Will they? Not as long as they are just a number with no face, no name, no life.

Note: The picture is labeled in google images as "Dustin R. Donica ist der 3000 ..." The article link is, though it is restricted to subscribers.

Posted by Rowan Wolf at January 9, 2007 7:47 AM
Comment #202148

Every serviceman/woman that has been lost is as important as #3000.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2007 11:29 AM
Comment #202153

womanmarine, agree completely.
And the wounded.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment #202158

People can’t associate emotionally with 3000 people, they have to associate with just one.

11/15/06 General Abizaid

I’ve met with every divisional commander… we all talked together. And I said ‘In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no’
12/17/06 former Secretary of State Colin Powell
I am not persuaded that another surege of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of surpressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work
20,000 more into the breech, for what? Number 6,000?
Bring our men and women home

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 9, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #202159

Adrienne: yes, I should have included them.

Dave1: you may think so, but I don’t. I think you don’t give your fellow man much credit.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #202164

And now, for some reason, we are mowing people down in Somalia, in the supposed hopes we kill some Al Qaeda. What about the innocent people?

the latest bright idea

Funny we couldn’t be bothered before, this feels like some kind of political stunt to me, and I don’t think it helps us any.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #202170

It’s sad to think of all the lives lost in Iraq. It’s even worse to think about why.
I cast my vote in November in hopes that these young men and women would be back with their families. If the Democrats do not bring them home, they should be voted out also.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 9, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #202172


I don’t know what you mean by : “I think you don’t give your fellow man much credit.”

We have the most powerful and effective military in history. But, they are not policemen. Powell, Abizaid, Dempsey, Casey, all say this “surge” will be ineffective, that we need closer to 500,000 troops, and the only solution is to withdraw and force the Iraqis to do it themselves. The only thing sending more troops does is provide more targets and make for more casualties.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 9, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #202175


Because of this:

“People can’t associate emotionally with 3000 people, they have to associate with just one.”

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #202178

I think womanmarine was talking about your other line:

“People can’t associate emotionally with 3000 people, they have to associate with just one”

I tend to agree with her too.
Not sure if it because I’m a vet or what, but I hurt each time I hear of one of my own dying.
But, I can see your point too.
Confusing world.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #202179


Let me clarify. I think those that care about this one, care equally about all of them. Those that don’t, also can’t identify with this one. The only exception would be those that personally know the killed serviceman/woman.

I believe, based on the people I know, that most people care about all of them equally.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #202180

Kctim: we do sometimes agree :)

Posted by: womanmarine at January 9, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #202186


If I were ever to die in a war, I personally wouldn’t want my name and likeness splashed all over the media (or the internet) for propaganda purposes… But maybe that’s just me.

What is so important to you about the number 3,000? Why should the media give Spec Donica special attention?

If I’m understanding, you are lamenting the fact that the media didn’t feel the need to sensationalize this man’s death, so you decided to do it yourself.

If you really want to show Spec Donica the respect he deserves, let him rest in peace.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 9, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #202188

Everybody’s death is a tragedy for somebody, especially when it is a young person.

The purport of your article is not the death, however. You are annoyed because this death did not become a political spectacle.

In 2005, 43,443 people were killed on our nation’s highways. That would be around 129,000 since 2003. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people under the age of 35. In my local paper I read about a young man who returned from Iraq and subsequently died in a motorcycle accident.

In 2005 16,885 people were killed by drunk drivers. Surely there is not more of a senseless death than that.

We should not make a political spectacle of the human tragedy. Maybe that is why you did not see a story in the paper when the number of people killed by drunk drivers reached 1000, 3000 or 15,000. If your purpose is truly to regret the loss of young life in violent ways, you have many places to look.

Donica’s parents evidently did not want the attention. His father made this simple statement: “Dustin had a tremendous sense of duty, both to his family and his country. He will be missed by his family and all those that knew him.”

That is enough.

The story is not news because some people had the decency not to try to make him into a political tool. Maybe we should show the same respect.

Posted by: Jack at January 9, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #202193

marine, kc,

Let me elaborate. When someone says “3000 people are dead” we feel a sadness or sense of tragedy, but it’s just a number. I think that the sadness actually diminishes as the number grows since I don’t believe people can really associate or comprehend what 600,000 dead means. In the same way we can’t comprehend that this galaxy has on the order of 500,000,000,000 stars.
Anyway, as human beings we then start to imagine the family left behind or a lost loved ones face etc… That is the “one” I refer to. “3000” is a concept with which we can react at a surface level, but there needs to be a “one” to get into your soul. Spc Donica is not worth more or less than any other casualty but diminishing his loss by comparing him to a death by DUI is insulting. Finally, I believe there is a symbolism here which we are ignoring at our own peril…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 9, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #202194

Dead US soldiers are not just numbers to me Dave1, sorry. Dying for ones country is an honor and I can’t look at it in the manner in which you suggested.
We just disagree Dave1. Its a personal feeling and I don’t think either of us is wrong.

I am interested in hearing about this symbolism you speak of to.

Posted by: kctim at January 9, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #202225

I wrote this as a comment in another blog. It also applies here.

I am stuck in the middle on the subject of Iraq. On one side, I do not believe that we were justified in going after Iraq at that time. All of the justifications given at that time for the war turn out to have been mistakes/lies (your choice). We also had a necessary war going on in Afghanistan that has been mostly neglected since. On the other hand we have totally eliminated the order that existed in Iraq (I will grant that it was a monstrous order) and that obligates us to establish some sort of order there before withdrawing. How to solve this divide I do not know.

Posted by: Richard at January 9, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #202234

“We should not make a political spectacle of the human tragedy.”


I vehemently disagree! #3,000, the 2,999 that preceded him, and all of those still to fall were where they were because of outright lies. Comparing the loss of human life in Iraq to that on American highways exposes the psyche of the Neo-Con beast at it’s worst.

There is only one way to pay true respect to our fallen in Iraq and that is to impeach Bush. Each and every person that was involved in the lies leading up to this war must be held fully accountable. Until we’ve set the record straight on what led us into this mess there will be no true accountability in our government and there will be no accountability for the numerous American and Iraqi death toll.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 9, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #202239

This guy comes from around where I live. He didn’t have to die in this insurgency, because this insurgency never should have been allowed to get this bad. We have been fighting to bring peace to Iraq for nearly three and a half years after having supposedly won the war.

That is the significance of every soldiers that dies now. If we had better reviewed the reason for going to war, nobody would have died in an Iraq war. If we had better prepared this war, the apparent victory would have been more real, more lasting. If Bush had acknowledge the wisdom of making corrections to his policy back during the last election, we would have not seen so many die so soon for so little progress.

People like this soldier are dying because somebody wants to fly the flag and bluff our enemies into believing we’re strong, even though they have no idea of how they’re going to bring enough real strength of any kind to bring this war to a good end.

If we don’t have a viable answer to that, If our only clear purpose in continuing the war is to save the face we’d lose by giving up, then it’s not worth continuing, and the only good way to honor the memory of the fallen is not repeating the mistakes in policy that got them killed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #202241

“I hurt each time I hear of one of my own dying.”


Agreed! And it should never be made light of. Each and every death in our military is deserving of the same fanfare we pay to our Commanders-in-Chief. IMO somewhat more-so, the troops don’t get to “pick” their mission.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 9, 2007 9:56 PM
Comment #202243

50,000+ died in Viet Nam for what? We turned tail and ran from that one.Started under a DEM.Finished by a crooked Rep. 3000 so far in Iraq died for what? Now you want to turn tail and run from this one to. Maybe we ought to try and finish what we start for once!!!!!!!!

Posted by: VietNam Vet at January 9, 2007 10:01 PM
Comment #202249

“If we had better reviewed the reason for going to war, nobody would have died in an Iraq war.”


We would also not be losing one border of Afghanistan to the Iranian’s and the other to Pakistan. We’re in a world of $hit and we keep digging ourselves in deeper.

Sending more troops into Iraq is a recipe for disaster. Take a look at Russia:

If, in fact, we have less than 700,000 souls in the Army and Marine Corps, and we already have 140,000 deployed in Iraq, IF we are callous enough to disregard the human factor, we’re still headed into a huge A$$ problem. Bush may well be leading us toward our first military failure ever.

Sorry for rambling.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 9, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #202252

“Maybe we ought to try and finish what we start for once!!!!!!!!”


Does that include destroying everything and killing everyone just to win? The American military did not lose South Vietnam. Not even the American politician’s lost South Vietnam. South Vietnam only existed because of French and American intervention.

If one looks at the changes in Persian and Arab boundaries throughout the decades (or centuries) it becomes obvious why they hold such contempt for the “west”. All the wars in the world will never “end” this conflict.

It can only be solved politically.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 9, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #202254

Vietnam Vet-
Americans have not abandoned support for either of the wars out of fear for their own safety. We should indeed finish what we start, and be willing to finish it rather than perseverate on it in a way that won’t improve things. I know it’s shitty that we’re at this point, but I place the blame for that failure right where I place the blame for failure in Vietnam: on the architects of the war.

We’re at a point now where most Iraqis don’t want our help any longer and most Americans don’t want our help going on forever. Even with the surge, we’re not getting enough soldiers in to get control. If the surge is short, it won’t do any good, if it’s long, with these numbers, it doesn’t do any good. Bush simply got this idea far too late in the game to actually do anything good with it.

He had opportunities, he let them go by so he could save face and get reelected, and now our soldiers pay for it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #202257

Kansas Dem:
“Sorry for rambling.”

But you weren’t. Good posts.

Stephen D, you too.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 9, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #202263

I believe that every death is significant, and in case of this war, a murder, because we launched and illegal war on false pretenses. Each death (including Iraqi deaths) is important. The administration has made every effort to keep this war impersonal, to keep the deaths and injuries out of sight of the public.

Dustin Donica’s death is particularly significant for its symbolism - number 3000. Three thousand is the urban myth number (or “rounded” number) of those who died in the World Trade Centers. It has been bandied about to the point that if you asked most anyone “How many people died on 9/11,” most of the public would likely respond “3000.” Therefore, this death marks the number that equals that tally. Except that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Specialist Donica’s death marks the 3000th death in revenge for a crime launched against a nation that had nothing to do with the crime.

I intend no dishonor to Dustin Donica. Nor do I disregard or minimize the others lost and damaged in this war.

Posted by: Rowan Wolf at January 10, 2007 12:04 AM
Comment #202265


I’m not making myslef clear, as I’m probably not too clear on it myself. I’m trying to say that we mourn each individual, but at some point it becomes “just numbers”…How can we feel for thousands of people beyond in terms of abstraction?
We are avoiding talking about this tragedy of policy failure out of rspect for the individuals. But these men and women who have sacrificed for our nation need to be respected and remembered in some way. As a nation we have sacrificed too much for lies intended to get control of 75% of Iraqi oil and the symbolism I’m talking about is 3000 is about how many died on 9/11, the “political capital” used by Bush to start this war.
This war really friggin pisses me off. His lies are unforgivable.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 12:35 AM
Comment #202283

I find this whole post to be disturbing. While its important that we do remember the fallen, I get incredibly sick of seeing my brothers in arms made a propaganda tool of the left. I remember that the 2,000th Soldier killed in Iraq was a benchmark too. A lot of handwringing and hoopla was made of this. Anybody remember him? I had an uncle who served in Vietnam who was heartened to see the people on the news calling for him to be brought home. He thought they actually cared about him until a few people spit on him as he was leaving the airport in his uniform. This wasn’t everybody then, and it isn’t everybody who opposes the war now, but the bodycount strategy didn’t work for us in Vietnam, I fail to see why the left enjoys turning it around now, except as a cynical tool to advance their defeatist agenda.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 10, 2007 3:24 AM
Comment #202294

“I’m trying to say that we mourn each individual, but at some point it becomes “just numbers”…How can we feel for thousands of people beyond in terms of abstraction?”

I think its just how we view our own personal beliefs of the matter Dave.

“We are avoiding talking about this tragedy of policy failure out of rspect for the individuals.”

I don’t believe this is true. “Policy failure” is all we ever hear about, all else is ignored.
Is policy failure part of the problem? Yes.
But it is our enemy who should be held responsible for all of our losses.

“But these men and women who have sacrificed for our nation need to be respected and remembered in some way.”

Yes, but each and every one of them should be, not just the ones who reach a “milestone” which can be used against the justifications for the war.
We are at war. Debating the rational behind it is fine, but we shouldn’t use the deaths of our troops to make a statement. Their deaths should only be honored.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2007 9:44 AM
Comment #202297

Sorry, LT, but “defeatist agenda” is empty talking point rhetoric. What matters next is how we deal with the fact that the most senior and experienced military men in our country say Iraq is totally screwed. We talk about duty to country but what about the Presidents obligation to the men and women you serve with? What good does 20,000 more do? Casey, Dempsey, Abizaid, all say “nothing”; you say the left is ‘defeatist’ by being against it but to throw more troops in just seems irresponsible.


But it is our enemy who should be held responsible for all of our losses
The enemy killed our troops, but it is the policy that is failing us. The enemy is just that, an enemy, and they are fighting for a cause they feel is justified. Our armies job is to kill them until they give up and visa versa. To expect otherwise is naive. I know it sucks when put into such simplistic terms, but that is what war is.

No one is using the “milestone” as an excuse. Many on the left have been against the war since before it started. 3000 is really just another (very sad) stone added to the wall. The title I see on that wall:

Iraq War II Memorial, Bushes Folly
Their deaths should only be honored.
Their deaths should be mourned, it is their lives that should be honored and the duty that led them to their sacrfice should be honored.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 10:07 AM
Comment #202311

While simplistic, it is a great way to put it. But it is still the enemy who is responsible for our troops deaths.

“Many on the left have been against the war since before it started”

Yes they were and they wrongly still act like they are still trying to prevent the war from happening.
As I said, debating the war is justified IMO. But, we are still at war and we cannot forget that.

“Iraq War II Memorial, Bushes Folly”

That is because you are partisan and it doesn’t seem like you can seperate your dislike of Bush from our troops actions and accomplishments.

—-Iraq: In honor of the fallen—- would be a more fitting, non-partisan memorial.

“Their deaths should be mourned, it is their lives that should be honored and the duty that led them to their sacrfice should be honored.”

Again, our personal views on this are different. Not sure if its because I am a vet or was raised differently.
Everybody mourns death but, IMO, a US soldiers death in battle is different.
Serving ones country is an honor and dying for ones country is an honor and should be honored.

Some choose to view Bush as the enemy and by doing that, they forget about the troops.
Some choose to view those we are fighting as the enemy and by doing that, we may place our troops on a pedestal, but I don’t think its wrong.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #202317


“While its important that we do remember the fallen, I get incredibly sick of seeing my brothers in arms made a propaganda tool of the left.”

We get sick of seeing the GOP and especially this administration admonish everyone who questions Bush’s disasterous policies. We get sick seeing Bush and the GOP using the nobility of the soldiers fighting to shield this un-noble cause.
If we question the justification(lies), failed policies, decisions and management of this poorly planned, illicit debacle this administration hides behind war widows, parents of soldiers and the soldiers themselves in hopes that we associate the bravery, hard work, dedication and loyalty of these men and women with this cowardly, power-mad, greedy administration of bumbling idiots and right-wing elitists.
We will not be bullied by blow-hard rhetoric. Call us unpatriotic, pretend we embolden the enemy, tell us we’re against our troops. Nobody buys it anymore.
This administration and most of our government are completely detached from these brave soldiers.
Democrats don’t want to bring them home because of how they will be perceived in 08? They have no souls.
Republicanss are responsible for the slaughter of 3,014 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. They are evil and should be held accountable.
If either party does not support withdrawing our troops they should lose office.
Those who put them their should be jailed.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 10, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #202329

Dave, well said.
Andre, agree completely. If the Dems don’t work as hard as they possibly can to end the Iraq war for the sake of our troops and our entire country, I won’t be voting for them in ‘08.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #202345

Dave 1,

I wasn´t talking about the troop surge, I was talking about using false “milestones” such as the 3,000th Soldier killed as talking points.


As one of the Soldiers you praise so eloquently, I think I have a right to say that I think its bullshit how their deaths are cynically used by some. I don´t recall calling anybody unpatriotic, but you´ll forgive me if I question the purity of intent behind some of the peaceniks I´ve met. Question why the war was started in the first place, I do. But don´t use their deaths as talking points. Does anybody know the name of the 2,999th soldier killed? If the answer is no, that doesn´t surprise me. I find it amusing that in their very attempts to try and put a face on Iraq, these people dehumanize the fallen into just numbers.

Of course, history is replete with the accomplishments of peaceniks. Had they been more persuasive after the Battle of Cannae (50,000 Roman deaths) maybe Carthage would´ve won and we could all be sacrificing our first born children to Baal. If they had been around for the Civil War, we would´ve quit after First Bull Run and we might still have slavery now. Too bad they weren´t more persuasive in 1941, we might have avoided 600,000 plus casualties of war and all we would need to do is worship pictures of Hitler. Of course, that´s a small price to pay I´m sure.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 10, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #202362


You accuse the “left” of being “peaceniks”, which is just as constructive as me assigning the moniker of “war hawk” to the right.
Our government as a whole does not care about the men and women who fight for this country. Our military is a commodity to our government. The Americans who fight for us are no better than oil, money and raw materials to both parties.
Both sides do not care. It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a class issue.
Once we have a draft and the wealthy have a a real investment in foreign policy beside monetary gain, we will see a new respect for our military.
Those who buy our government and dictate policy do not serve in our military.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 10, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #202364


Last point; you seem to think I’m some kind of “democrat first”. I am not. I’m fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Basically a moderate realist with people first, business second, politics last, and no party affiliation (In fact, i blame the two party system for most of the problems we have in politics today).
Having said that, On 9/10/01 I was against Bush’s policies, but not the man although I don’t believe I ever really trusted him, his politics were disgusting. Anyway, on 9/11/01 I put aside those differences and looked to Bush to stand up. When he invaded Afghanistan, I was satisfied. Even though I thought his fiscal and social policies were a disaster at least he had seemingly met the sterotype of a Republican as good in international affairs and he had done nothing to shake me of a (nieve) belief that no matter was said in the political arena, a President would always put America first.
It took a long time, but by the time we invaded Iraq I was convinced that Bush was doing everything as politics first and policy second. Everything from the lies about WMD, Niger, K-Street, Gitmo, etc… etc… etc… pointed to an adminstration and party out of control and a President out of touch.
You claim that the enemy is responsible for our troops deaths but that is true only in the narrowest of views. We are in Iraq for a failed policy by a failed administration. It is that administaration which is the root cause of the deaths.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #202368

1LT B,
I find your blind faith and loyalty in Bushco and the Neocons tragic.

Re: “Peaceniks”
“Too bad they weren’t more persuasive in 1941, we might have avoided 600,000 plus casualties of war and all we would need to do is worship pictures of Hitler.”

Speaking of Hitler, I guess former Reagan Aide Paul Craig Roberts has now become a “peacenik.” In a recent article for the libertarian website he wrote:

Bush is like Hitler. He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy. Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion. In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin.

By manipulating Bush and provoking a military crisis in which the US stands to lose its army in Iraq, the neoconservatives hope to revive the implementation of their plan for US conquest of the Middle East. They believe they can use fear, “honor,” and the aversion of macho Americans to ignoble defeat to expand the conflict in response to military disaster. The neocons believe that the loss of an American army would be met with the electorate’s demand for revenge. The barriers to the draft would fall, as would the barriers to the use of nuclear weapons.

Here’s another quote from this staunch Reagan conservative:

When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the “surge option” of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” It is a clear sign of exasperation with Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions.

Here’s the link to the full article:
The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?
I think you really need to read it, and quit talking trash.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #202384

Those who are reading this thread may find this map and other info from the Marine Corps Times interesting.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #202395

1LT B-
The number is a bit of red herring. We strap the soldiers into head to foot Kevlar with chestplates to stop the rifle rounds, and attack with the world’s most sophisticated military technology.

The media myth is a red herring, too. The media didn’t seriously question the war until quite some time into the war, long after Bremer and Bush’s errors threw gasoline on the fire of Iraq. I remember it wasn’t until Katrina that public opinion about the war went south of fifty percent and stayed there.

The media would have had nothing to report and our military would not have been in the frustrating position now if this President had made better decisions, or had been willing to follow what works rather than what covers his ass. There should never have been a post-war war in Iraq. This should have been a done deal years ago.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2007 6:02 PM
Comment #202406

It was Democrats who got 50,000 soildiers killed in Vietnam. I find it quite irronic that the left screams about a service man who gets killed in a war, but doesn’t give a damn about the millions of unborn children killed through abortion. I don’t condone the war in Iraq I think Bush was wrong but support the troops mourn their deaths but lets not turn tail and run like we did in Vietman
By the way Kan.dem WE DID NOT WIN IN VIETNAM or did you forget about the fall of Siagon.

Posted by: Viet Nam Vet at January 10, 2007 6:37 PM
Comment #202427

So, vet, you believe we would have won VN after how many more escalations?
What would it take for you, specifically, to say “We must withdraw, we will not win?”

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 10, 2007 8:30 PM
Comment #202433

Let the military do their job. Keep politics out of it. Politicians lost Nam they will lose in Iraq.

Posted by: Viet Nam Vet at January 10, 2007 9:04 PM
Comment #202463


That wasn’t my question. Do you really believe it is impossible for us to lose this if politicians were to step out today?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 11, 2007 12:29 AM
Comment #202551

Vietnam Vet-
Ultimately, you’re wrong about two things.

First, note who has the real control, and therefore the real responsiblity: Bush. He set the policy, Congress rubberstamped it, and only his sensitivity to criticism could possibly have influenced things. Bush has been and remains the decider, the CINC.

Second, regardless of what happens in this or any other war, control of the military rests in civilian hands. That means politicians.

I’m no more a fan of unwarranted interference of politicians and Bureaucrats than you are. In fact, I believe that this is largely responsible for our troubles. The Armed forces has much the right idea about what it would take to invade and occupy Iraq. It was Rumsfeld’s interference from above, his insistence on the use of light, mobile military forces, and his bureaucratic strangling of outside department’s involvement (like State) which brought us to this undesirable point.

But he couldn’t have done that if the Bush and Cheney wanted otherwise.

You keep on blaming us, but we had little power to change Bush’s mind or his policies. We could change the Public’s minds, but that was by and large dependent on the Public’s perception of the war, and the problems that made that perception worse preceded the media’s broadcast of our troubles, and in fact were their cause. The media is supposed to report on things, good or bad. It’s unrealistic, wrong in fact, to have them be cheerleaders. The facts are what matter.

If the Bush administration had turned things around, we’d be doing human interest stories, or stories about troops coming home, nice heart-warming stuff.

The time has come to face the fact that knowledge reassures more than secrecy, and that if you want positive news from war, the easy way to bring that about is positive results. Everything else is just political vanity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #202651

Stephen D your right the politicians do run the military. It’s to bad they haven’t learned anything since WW2. Maybe if some of those politicians would listen to the Military brass the wars we have been in since WW2 would have gone better. Dave1 sending in more troops now is not the answer. I would have done it in the beginning and kept hammering. Maybe we need another Patton or McArthur in todays military

Posted by: Viet Nam Vet at January 11, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #202761


We all know now that Shinseki was correct when he said “hundreds of thousands”. In fact, many people knew it back then; it was just not politicaly expedient for Pres Bush, the politician, to admit it would be an expensive war. So the President lost the war the moment he decided political capital was more important than our nation.

The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O’Connor (1925 - 1964)

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 12, 2007 9:29 AM
Post a comment