Remember those tests of perception known as figure/ground drawings? As a child I was fascinated by their magical “now you see it, now you see something else” mutability.
Here are two of the most popular—the vase/profiles one and the young woman who turns into the old hag (or vice versa, as you wish):
What does all of this have to do with politics? I was reminded of the drawings by a Mark Steyn article that contained the following pithy quote about the difference between those who advocate withdrawal from Iraq and those who feel it is of the utmost importance that we stay until some stability is attained there:
Then as now, the anti-war debate is conducted as if it’s only about the place you’re fighting in: Vietnam is a quagmire, Iraq is a quagmire, so get out of the quagmire. Wrong. The ” Vietnam war” was about Vietnam if you had the misfortune to live in Saigon. But if you lived in Damascus and Moscow and Havana, the Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will. For our enemies today, it still is.
Bingo.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
“The Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will.”
Feh. Talk about narcissism.
If you want to send a message, use Western Union.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
UB:
Feh…You knew Sam Goldwyn?
He’s dead too.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
But if you lived in Damascus and Moscow and Havana, the Vietnam war was about America: American credibility, American purpose, American will. For our enemies today, it still is.
The conclusion: stay in Iraq forever, so our enemies won’t think we are weak.
I’m considerably less fearful of whether our enemies think we’re weak, and considerably more fearful of whether we actually are weak. No one could possibly argue in good faith that the war in Iraq has made us stronger, and many, many arguments can be made that were we to leave, it would not make us weaker. Perhaps our enemies would gloat, but perhaps that’s something we should have thought about before invading a country on a shoe-string. We might have learned something from Vietnam were it not for the likes of Steyn running around “revising” history.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
We can “figure/ground” effect backwards, to the very core of what our nation is about. Starting with Steyn’s observation, we can dig backwards, beginning with:
Is Damascus an enemy? Or a friend?
and soon enough arriving at:
Is the U.S. about freedom? Or collectivism?
How can Americans look at the same fact set and see opposite facts - then swear their interpretation represents indisputable reality? How have we reached a point where we fail to agree upon what is? I’m beginning to think I know:
We disagree about what America is supposed to be. And underneath that, we disagree about what life is about.
America’s founders designed a nation according to their understanding of what life is about. Today, many Americans disagree with the American founders understanding of what life is about. These Americans consequently disagree with principles the founders designed into the nations foundational documents.
If two cannot agree on what life is about, nor what America is about, they can then look at one thing and see two different, diametrically opposite things. They can each swear their interpretation represents absolute reality.
This is what I’ve been thinking about for a while.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
It’s getting near crunch time for deciding if the glass is half empty or half full. If this link’s observations are accurate, the press has signaled it’s ready to switch from the old lady to the young lady so to speak:
“Why Was Petraeus Able To Shift The Debate On Iraq? The Media Enabled It
September 2, 2007 — 9:12 AM EST”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/media_helped_pe.php
September 4th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I think the genius of Ronald Reagan was that - regarding the matters of what life is about, and of what America is about - Reagan led. He was a true leader. In extreme shorthand, we can say Reagan said “Life is about love in action. As free will - God’s loving gift to the world - is about love in action, America is therefore about freedom, and free will, and love in action. This is America’s greatness.”
Reagan led in this most important area. He said:
America is a beautiful girl. She is not an old hag.
And we said:
He’s right! America IS a beautiful girl!
This was Reagan’s genius. He was a leader on the very most important and critical questions:
What is life about?
What is America about?
He rallied Americans to agree as to what life and America are about. This surely helped various Americans look at one thing and agree it was one thing - as opposed to arguing about what the one thing actually was. Under Reagan, our shared sense of purpose, and of reality, surely contributed to our comeback as a nation.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
“When you are weak appear strong. When you are strong appear weak.”
People are only afraid of looking weak when they suspect that they actually are.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
If two cannot agree on what life is about, nor what America is about, they can then look at one thing and see two different, diametrically opposite things. They can each swear their interpretation represents absolute reality.
This is what I’ve been thinking about for a while.
Different philosophical premises. Some people believe that the First Amendment guarantees the Second. Others believe the Second guarantees the First. Things like that.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
r4,
So, in your mind, we’re so strong we can allow ourselves a few defeats here and there? And our enemies will see our strength, and realize their victory was only by our graciousness?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
So…is that why you’re attempting to look profound?
September 4th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“No one could possibly argue in good faith that the war in Iraq has made us stronger,..”
Of course they could. You just don’t think so and because of that you assign “bad faith” to the argument.
What I wish people would figure out is that *our* cultural mindset to accept the appearance of weakness is *firmly* anchored in the teaching of Jesus Christ (as a cultural artifact, not religious faith.)
The people we are dealing with do NOT have this cultural mindset.
Why is it that I have to explain this to those who would claim a greater international and cultural sophistication than the rest of us?
September 4th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
He’s paraphrasing Sun Tzu, Occam. Though that is no proof that he wields the Art of War with skill or wisdom.
Why is it that I have to explain this to those who would claim a greater international and cultural sophistication than the rest of us?
Because it is easier to claim ability than to acquire it, Synova.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Ymarsakar,
Sure, but Sun Tzu was prescribing tactics in war, not a philosophy/psychology of life, as suggested by his closing line about people fearing looking weak if they suspect they actually are. (I love parlor psychoanalysis!)
Sun Tzu was advocating that the strong “rope a dope,” whereas we are unfortunately apparently debating with one.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
OH… took me a minute. Yes, the Sun Tzu in question is specifically about misinformation in war.
Appearing weak, is of course, to encourage your enemy to attack you.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Oh, and about the Jesus Christ thing. I was thinking as I drove to get my daughter from school that (even if that wasn’t what Sun Tzu was talking about) that humility as a virtue was in some elements of Oriental culture as well, but that we (the West) get it from Christianity in any case. Asian culture is having a larger and larger influence on ours but isn’t quite there yet.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Sun Tzu was advocating that the strong “rope a dope,” whereas we are unfortunately apparently debating with one.
Heh, indeed.
Appearing weak, is of course, to encourage your enemy to attack you.
Two variables at work there. Encouraging people to attack and expecting an attack. Encouraging people to attack and not expecting an attack. Famous John Kerry claims concerning no bloodbath in Vietnam after US withdrawal. He encouraged the North to attack and then acted like he was surprised or something. Or maybe not even that.
In the case of Vietnam, the Left is trying to get our enemies to attack America and when they do in the future, the Left will act like they didn’t expect it. If assuming they even admit that they were attacked by the same enemies that they funded and armed, instead of blaming it on Republicans.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Sorry, OT, but I just have to share:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/
September 4th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
The need to make comparisons even when they are less than useful seems to be part of the human condition. Perhaps in the comparing we hope to find rationality or solice, but I suspect that in the Iraq/’Nam comparisons, nothing but the realization of confusion of purpose is to be found. Certain things are clear: neither war was necessary; both were premised on misinformation or disinformation; both were miserably managed and prolonged beyond rationality; and both cost the lives of Americans who did not need to die ot live their lives maimed. finally, in both wars American families confronted the daily fear for the safety of their loved ones fighting in miserable places for a miserable cause, or worse, that last agony of being notified of a death or serious injury. That great Roman ruler, Augustus, pleaded with the fates when he asked for his lost legions, slaughtered in Germany, to be returned. In Iraq, with 3700 brave Americans killed and 36,000 wounded, where are the American leaders who ask for those lost divisions to be returned. Eisenhower realized that the Korean conflict had to end; Mr. Nixon understood it was enough expenditure of treasure in life and wealth and the Viet Nam conflict needed to end. Mr. Reagen knew where the horror of the killing of our Marines would lead and he ceased. Unfortunately Mr. Bush has severe conceptual limitiations that prevent him from understanding that the the Iraq ground is not ground in America’s interest and he does not understand that it is time for him to stop putting our children in harm’s way.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Neither WW1 nor WW2 were necessary.
What war *ever* was necessary? Didn’t Ghandi figure it was better for the Jews to simply let themselves be killed until the Germans got tired of it? Would speaking German be so bad? How silly to say so! Japan has a fascinating culture than many find attractive. Why did we fight them? Would it be so bad to live under either rulers? Is it really worth the slaughter of Iwo Jima?
You speak with such certainty as if certainty is possible.
Can we even say that Vietnam would have been better left unfought? Do we have a way back machine to check? And Korea? Can we say that stopping that fight where we did out of fear of China have any result other than plunging North Korea into hell for generations?
Political reality is not military wisdom. It’s not even *human* wisdom.
The human result of leaving Vietnam is not something *I’d* ever want to claim. But maybe it’s possible to only selectively see horrors. Responsibility for the paradise in North Korea is not something I’d want to claim either.
I’m serious when I said that neither WW1 nor WW2 were necessary in any case. Is one ruler better than another? Certainly it would have been more humane in every war ever fought *ever* simply to surrender and live.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Heh… we could all be Japanese.
How cool would that be?
September 5th, 2007 at 3:34 am
“People are only afraid of looking weak when they suspect that they actually are.”
Such could only have been said by someone who has led an amazingly sheltered life.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Ambivalence of perception works only for artificially constructed objects, for which no additional information can be obtained and you have to judge them only on the basis carefully adjusted content specifically made ambiguous. For real world situations you can always get additional information to decipher which of the conflicting interpretations is true.
But the very concept of truth became odious to modern relativist phylosophy, prevalent among leftists. So they never actually seek the truth, prefering to play games with ambivalence and choosing their variant of reality on purelly subjective basis (which makes them “feel good” about themselves). This is one of textbook definitions of narcissism.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Perception is not evidence or justification, and is frequently simply wrong, because what is perceived is colored by notions, not reality. World War II was forced on us by real bad people; we did not go to war to save the Jews (we did not save any of the 6 million); nor to save the slaughtered Poles, Czechs, Soviets, Dutch, Brits, or anyone. We went to war because the Japanese agressors miscalculated and attacked Pearl Harbor. During WW II, slaughter reached new meanings and every day of that war, every day, 29,500 people were killed. But America went to war because the Imperial Japanese empire killed 2200 Americans at Pearl Harbor on that Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, some 100 of them on one battleship, the Arizona. More people were killed (3100) when the Twin Towers fell in New York than were killed at Pearl Harbor. And it was perfectly appropriate for America to go after those behind the attack, Bin Laden and his protectors, the Taliban. Mr. Bush’s and his administration’s miscalculation was to divert efforts and go after what was left of the miserable Iraqi government and for that, there was little or no justification. Iraq had been contained. There was little or no evidence that the looney and evil Iraqis in charge had anything to do with 9/11, and Mr. Powell was completely correct when he observed, “if you break it, you own it.” We now own a non-functioning and broken state. Fortunately in Viet Nam, Mr. Nixon, as disfunctional as he was as an ethical person, realized that the loss of 55,000 American dead soldiers and 250,000 wounded was a wasted legacy of stupidity by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Johnson. One worries that it will require a new administration to mend the harm done by Mr. Bush, but ata cost of hundreds more of our young men and women.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:22 am
In the case of Vietnam, the Left is trying to get our enemies to attack America and when they do in the future, the Left will act like they didn’t expect it.
(yawn)
This is the best argument you’ve got?
September 5th, 2007 at 9:26 am
But the very concept of truth became odious to modern relativist phylosophy, prevalent among leftists. So they never actually seek the truth, prefering to play games with ambivalence and choosing their variant of reality on purelly subjective basis (which makes them “feel good” about themselves). This is one of textbook definitions of narcissism.
What’s the deal with the term “leftists” here? I can’t figure out if this is a disparaging way to refer to liberals, or you people mean real leftists, who you appear to know nothing about.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:38 am
x. The difference, in practice, is what?
WRT humility. There’s an interesting weekend’s read–if all you do is the prologue and epilogue–called “Black Lamb and Grey Falcon” by Rebecca West. She investigates the origin of the western requirement to be the victim. It was written during the Blitz when the lessons of her travels in pre-war Yugoslavia came shatteringly true. It’s also a hell of a history of the region, and is written beautifully, as she did everything she wrote.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Did thousands and thousands more dead make those killed at Pearl Harbor alive again?
I don’t think so.
Would Japan have invaded the continent? Not likely.
Just in human suffering alone there is no way whatsoever to justify not letting Japan have the Philippines and even Hawaii, certainly Guam, and how did it matter to us if they moved into Korea and stayed there?
Saying as how leaving Vietnam was good because a few thousand more Americans didn’t die while ignoring the horrific slaughter that followed is… vile.
Leaving the people of North Korea to generations of near starvation and oppression isn’t so laudable either.
War is not *ever* about justification, btw. Even putting it in those terms makes no sense. War is about national self interest. “You broke it you buy it” is cute but the truth of it is that leaving things broken, as the allies did quite deliberately to Germany after WW1 directly brought us WW2. Heck, those wars are probably to blame for the middle east today what with the fellows with the world map and box of crayons afterward.
All “you broke it you buy it” means is that we have come to realize that misery breeds discord. We likely could do a hit and run on Iran without either a moral or practical need to occupy and rebuild because Iran is a different situation, an enemy *state* rather than an enemy ideology.
Attacking Afghanistan as retaliation for 9-11 is not noble. Just because people can say it is justified does not make it right. All retaliation gets us is eternal war because no one ever stops fighting.
The only legitimate reason we had to attack Afghanistan was as a lesson to those who might tolerate their country used as a base for the ideology/terrorists attacking America. The most legitimate reason for attacking Iraq was to put a little of the crazy in our eyes and demonstrate that *everyone* has self-interest in protecting the United States because once we get going there’s no telling if we will stop or not.
Everything else is gravy.
Stopping Saddam’s torture and genocide of his own people was gravy. The potential for a self-governed Afghanistan is gravy. The possibility of a pluralistic and reasonably democratic nation in Iraq is gravy. Not that any of these things are trivial, and Iraq has the potential to be an incredible weapon against the rot that created Al Qaida and the Taliban if we don’t lose our nerve.
But people don’t see that because all they want to see is the (supposed) justification of vengeance.
How twisted is it to call everything else illegitimate and pour the love on the most base motivation only?
September 5th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
What’s the deal with leftists who bitch about being called “leftists”?
September 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
What’s the deal with leftists who bitch about being called “leftists”?
Well Lee, you didn’t answer my question. Try again.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Heh… we could all be Japanese.
How cool would that be?
If it means Kennedy, Reid, and Murtha falling on their sword, then sign me up.
But America went to war because the Imperial Japanese empire killed 2200 Americans at Pearl Harbor on that Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, some 100 of them on one battleship, the Arizona. More people were killed (3100) when the Twin Towers fell in New York than were killed at Pearl Harbor.
So essentially you are of the Roman punitive expedition mentality. If barbarians kill one of ours, kill more of the barbarians, eh?
Such a proto-typical view from non-humanists.
And it was perfectly appropriate for America to go after those behind the attack, Bin Laden and his protectors, the Taliban.
The Taliban weren’t on the planes, it was the Saudi Arabians.
Iraq had been contained.
Japan was contained. That didn’t stop you from advocating the killing of more Asians.
This is the best argument you’ve got?
Not an argument. Just a statement of reality.
What’s the deal with the term “leftists” here?
You have much to learn Xan.
Check my name link for a lesson on Iraq.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Y, I read your post, and it’s basically a lengthy argument for why we needed to engage global Islamic jihad in Iraq, despite the fact that there were no WMDs and Saddam Hussein himself posed little threat to our nation. As such, it smacks of post hoc justifications that indulge in hyperbole, misunderstanding/revision of history, and paranoia. But at least you make the argument in good faith. Your use of the term “leftist” is not in good faith, nor is it explained by your post, as your comment above would seem to imply.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Jesus! There he goes again..
Is it some sort of talking point or something? Another one of Occam’s truisms, or something? Why do lefties feel chafed when lefties are described as “lefties”?
September 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Why do lefties feel chafed when lefties are described as “lefties”?
You already said that. Try again.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
In truth of course, the Japanese Empire did invade America. They in fact occupied part of the Aleutian chain of Alaska. This move was meant to relieve pressure on the Japanese military elsewhere and if we had not done so well at Midway and later, there would have been a real problem to our North. The Japanese also killed Americans on the West Coast. In a rather idiotic move, they released thousands of balloons dangling explosive packages in an effort to inflict terror on our citizens. In fact they “only” killed a few family members on on outing, in Washington State I believe. Yes, the Japanese empire was very bad, experimented in germ warfare on Chinese and Americans, did horrid things to the people of Nanking, and remember the Bataan Death March. Yes, World War II was justified and needed, but I suggest the isolationist influences in America, Congressional and otherwise (Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford and others who admired Mr. Hitler), would certainly have kept us away from this just war as long as possible. Similar to the Japanese, Hitler and crowd had “revenge weapons” in mind for use against the U.S. and was sinking ships off of New York, never mind landing agents on Long Island.
Compared to the Axis, the loonies of Iraq were just “minor” murderous thugs. The loonies of Iran are not overtly thuggish so much as believers in a thuggish ideology that threatens us all, especiallsince they are within a breath of a nuclear candle. The difficulty for us is that Mr. Bush and his mavens of ignorance have badly mniscalculated and squandered our military much as Agustus’ General Varus did in Germany so long ago. The loss of 40,000 effective troops in a professional and small army of about 500,000 (less than 250,000 combat) is very much a parallel situation. At the height of the empire of Agustus, the Roman army that dominated the world was smade up of some 500,000 as well. The real likely enemies are the loonies of Iran and the resurging Taliban of Afghanistan, not the disputatious clerics of Iraq.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Oh, and since we’ve totally abandoned the subject of Neo’s post… I just wanted to say that the observation that what we view as defined by Vietnam or Iraq others may view as defined by America… and we can’t just quit that can we.
Anyhow, it’s a profound and highly interesting observation… makes a person think.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Someone the other day said that no one can argue in good faith that the war in Iraq has made us stronger.
You’re right, Donald, that the disputatious clerics in Iraq (and personal power players who aren’t clerics) don’t particularly threaten us. However, considering your list of “real” likely enemies (which I don’t dispute at all) means that a success in Iraq puts us in a regional position of strength. Geography still matters strategically. In this our presence in Iraq (and hopefully stable democracy in Iraq) makes us stronger.
Still, maybe, this is a case where we should just go ahead and let people say how we’re over extended and weakened in order to hide our strength.
Other things Iraq has given us (and YES I know that they speak Farsi in Iran) is a large number of soldiers didn’t know Arab culture or language before and now they do. There are a large number of soldiers and officers who are more expert in the culture over there than anyone sitting in a classroom as student *or* teacher over here.
One might say this education has been too expensive but this education exists none-the-less.
And that is just cultural education. Again, “real practice” at war for the sake of getting experience is vile, but the fact is that we’re there and if we should be or not our soldiers are, in consequence, by far the most experienced and effective in the world. Yes, many of them are injured and many of them died, but bodies lost aren’t the definition of strength or weakness in a military force.
The personal tragedy is infinite for those it touches… I’m not arguing anything different from that. Only that considering our military *cold*… our military is not made weaker by the loss but vastly stronger by the experience gained.
We’ve gained personal experience for now and organizational experience that will persist. We’ve gained a new set of heroic role models as well, which can’t be discounted from a military stand-point.
I’d suggest, too, finding someone who can talk about the geographical issues that make Afghanistan worthless to us strategically. All war is logistics. It’s only on television that troops and equipment appear where they are needed as if by magic.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I thought I posted about “lefty”… did it get eaten by a moderator bot?
September 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Excellent points Synove, indeed. However, a real concern is that the machines of war we need to compensate for the lack of manpower in the limited military we have designed for ourselves, are being chewed up at an alarming rate. It does not matter that this is the best trained and equipped force in history if that person power, training and equipment are wasted. It does not matter if we are so much more efficient than we were in Viet Nam, another place where stubborn policy outpaced the shape of the battlefield. It does matter that our forces (yes, our children in military uniform) are being wasted in a miserable place for no reasonable cause. It matters to me that there sequestration in this place is at the direction of leaders who so assiduously and creatively avoided the battlefield in their time, but have no problem sending our children to die or be maimed.
Less than adequate replacements have long been sucked from the Reserve and Guard base, and this depletion is happening at a time when the machines may be needed. The rotation of human force will certainly make for change in numbers by next Spring, and that, together with a lack of sufficienf machine force, places us in a miserable position. None of this is new of course and all of it has been “gamed” by military and forewarned by the think tanks. It is the direct short-sightedness of the administration and inability to adapt, never mind shift course, that will add to the burden of our military.
It is a mess.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Compared to the Axis, the loonies of Iraq were just “minor” murderous thugs. The loonies of Iran are not overtly thuggish so much as believers in a thuggish ideology that threatens us all,
So essentially your position is that Hitler wasn’t a threat in 1932, because he was small fry. Saddam was a small thug, in your words. He needed time to grow, time you would have given Hitler and Stalin, yes?
September 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Not to mention Donald can’t even get his WWII history correct.
The invasion of the Aleutians wasn’t to relieve pressure on other theatres, it was designed as a trap for the American carriers as part of the overall strategy to take Midway. Which itself was a defensive strategy to expand their perimeter from the Japanese islands after the Doolittle raid of April, ‘42. By attacking American territory, it was felt the carriers would be forced to respond. After sailing north, the invasion of Midway would then bring them south, to defend the greater threat to Hawaii, into the waiting arms of their carrier force. Unknown to the Japanese, however, we had cracked their naval code, JN-25, so the trap was ignored, bringing the defeat of their carrier force. The Aleutians were of no strategic value to either side, and eventually abandoned by the Japanese.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I tend to view the lack of manpower and machines, both, as due to the *last* administration’s failure to think ahead.
But then I served during the Clinton draw down. It sucked.
When I consider it, I’m impressed that we’ve been adding back troops and equipment at approximately the same rate as it was reduced during the “peace dividend” years. I can’t imagine how it could have gone faster than that, starting with processing recruits. They need drill instructors and facilities and it’s not possible to just wave a wand and have what we had before with the capability to process in the numbers that we had before.
In the mean-time we go to war with the army we have, not the army we wish we had.
We don’t get to decide that we need to take military action and then take 5 or 7 years to prepare.
We’re still adding active duty troops in such numbers that the Army is now facing a housing crisis. Where to put them? Where to put their equipment?
And I wonder, this war will be over soon… is someone going to come along and say we don’t need all those men and machines any longer and dismantle it all again?
September 5th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I should say that I was trying to be excessively conservative with the 5 to 7 years thing. They say it takes at least 10 years to make an NCO. Such things do move faster in wartime but it’s still necessary to have that mid-level officer and particularly the NCO element and that takes time. It doesn’t work to add privates in huge numbers and call it good.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:45 am
There is no substitute for real combat in making army stronger, and non-fighting army enevitably get weaker, as a year ago IDF have learned in Lebanon. As for proposal to call leftists “liberals”, I strongly object. There is nothing liberal in modern leftist philosophy, it is antithetical to basic liberal values such as personal responsibility, freedom of speech, self-reliance and so on. Every brand of socialist thought is manifestly antiliberal, and always was.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Just as an aside, on June 3and 4, 1942, Dutch Harbor and Fort Mears (Alaska) were bombed by carrier based aircraft of the Japanese Navy. The Battle of Mindway took place June 4through the 6th and Nagumo’s defeat and loss of Kaga, Soryu, Akagi and Hiryu was a turning point. The fatal flaw for the Japanese planners was the attempt to lure the Americans into “big” naval battles where the super Japanese battleships and superior carrier numbers would destroy the American forces.
Midway was planned as a big battle, not as a perimeter expansion. Yes, Nimitz had knowledge from the breaking of the Japanese diplomatic codes as early as 1941 (”Magic” as it was known) but it wasn’t until April 24, 1943 that U.S. Army invasion forces bound for Attu sailed from San Francisco. The troops of the 7th Division landed in dense fog on May 11. The Japanese abbandoned Kiska on June 8.
On other matters, it may take 10 years to make and NCO, but indeed, war makes them faster and I have a 22 year old NCO now deploying with 55 year old Chinooks. It once took longer to make a Major, but I have a 25 year old West Point Company Commander who saw the war from Kuwait to Mosul with the 101st and was over for a year and now trains the new recruits who are sent over. Whether Iraq makes a better staging area for projection of regional power (in combination with carrier battle groups) or Kuwait, is an interesting juxtaposition. But it is certain, if one listens to Congressional hearings related to force rediness, the wear factor has taken an enormous toll on machines from the M1A1 to Apaches.
Finally, no one realtically believes oir ever believed that the late looney thugs who ruled Iraq were a threat to anyone or anything. The lines of containment and the choke hold of weapons and supplies had locked them into the box they made for themselves. Their greatest damage capability was good, old fashioned stealing money and gangster crimes of thuggery on their own people.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:11 am
And nearly 10 years of virulent hatred of the United States for insisting on the “containment” and killing thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children.
Dead babies, in world opinion, laid directly on our doorstep, used to foment hatred of the United States and cited by Bin Laden as reason to attack us.
Yet another bit of History that has gone *poof* into the ether.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Synova. It appears the dead babies, to the extent it really happened, were the fault of Saddaam’s holding onto his loot gotten through smuggling and the allowed trade, and later, through Oil for Food.
However, dead babies were necessary for the left, who never saw one they didn’t like–if the US could be blamed–and so Saddaam provided them. It was the left who provided the insatiable market for dead babies. Saddaam only did what a reasonably competent merchant would do. See a niche and fill it.
IMO, the perception of Viet Nam is flexible. Whatever is needed to teach today’s lesson is what “actually” happened in Viet Nam. Conservatives, as it happens, have more facts on the side of their perception. Lots more.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Sorry, Donald,
Your assertion is the Japanese were a continental threat to America. They were not. Luring the American carriers into a “big battle” was for the purpose of eliminating them as a threat to Japan, demonstrated by the Doolittle raid. Taking Midway was to expand their perimeter as a cushion for similar raids. We seem to agree on the dates, and the forces used, but not about the purposes. Their strategy had always been the elimination of the U.S. fleet, which they considered the only threat to their expansion into S.E. Asia and China, not North America. Magic was reading the Japanese diplomatic codes, JN-25 was the naval codes.
After 9/11, it was time for Saddam to go, “contained” or not. Even by the leftie propaganda notions that he had no WMD’s or no connection to terrorists, it makes no military sense committing resources to “contain” one enemy while fighting another. But it is clear he had terrorist connections, and the WMD’s thing was of his own making for bluster; it was Saddam who tried to juggle having no WMD’s while threatening he still did. Thus, we are there. Will you abandon them now? It has taken 4 years to get most of them on our side. Now that the people are saying “we believe you, we’re with you”, NOW you want to tell them “Sorry, Charlie, time to go”?
The resulting slaughter, should it happen, will be on the left, just like Vietnam.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Synova is right. For ten years, all the lefties screamed “Stop the sanctions! 5,000 children a month!” But when the build- up for Iraqi Freedom was occuring, suddenly it was “Give the sanctions more time to work!”
Pathetic.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Lee. Another thing that’s pathetic is that the left doesn’t think they’re being seen through.
Not enough to be morally vile. They have to be stupid, too.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Richard, I do agree with you. We are in agreement. Really.
My point was essentially (in my typically less than explicit way of making it) that while Saddam was “contained”, the situation itself was used as a weapon against us. An effective weapon.
Of *course* it was Saddam killing Iraqi children, but that’s not the way it played.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I suspect that a superficial read ignores the fact that the point made was that Japan attacked the U.S., not that Imperial Japan planned to occupy San Francisco. However,t Imperial Japan did annex or occupy American territory. They did occupy parts of Alaska, and that is American, n’est pas? They did occupy and annex the Philippines. The Philippines was American territory as a prize of the 1898 war and remained American territory until 1946. Interestingly enough we fought Moslems in the Philippines for a long time–an insurrection that came to a halt in the face of Japanese annexation.
They (the Japanese Empire) did attack Hawaii–remember Pearl Harbor? They did attack the mainland U.S. also. Those folks killed by the thousands and thousands of balloons with explosives released by the Japanese were the victims. Perhaps they wanted to push their perimeter to Chicago.
Unfortunately, although the Iraqi loonies periodically provided open house for terrorists os all kinds, even Abu Nidal as I recall, Sadam and his sons were quick to sever those ties when needed. They did arrange for Abu Nidal to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head 4 times or was it five. He did like Yassir “Ugly” Arafat, who along with other PLO folks enjoyed sharing in the rape of Kuwait. But, really, gimme a break. Boxed in by F-15 and F-16 sorties and no fly anywhere zones, all that was left for the thugs was to steal oil money and hide in banks outside Iraq, now to be shared by his wife (or is it his two wives) and any other family members he did not kill.
Iraq was a failed state that never was a state and remains a failed state that will never be a state. The actual threats to regional security is Iran and its new associate, Syria. Wasting our political and military capital in Iraq is simply foolish and very typical of a failed administration with a less than cogent world view. Perhaps Mr. Thompson or Mr. Romney will do better.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
So, Donald, your solution would have been to allow that “failed state” to fester? Your assumptions are still pre-9/11 thinking. Only those states with ICBM’s and Backfire bombers can possibly pose any kind of threat to us? A guy with a few bucks in his pocket proved that Sierra Leone “could” be a threat if it wants to. Yet keep your head in the sand and tell yourself a soverign state like Iraq posed no threat.
“They DID attack this, they DID attack that..”
So did the terrorists, with Saddam’s support. When we’re done there, we’ll deal with Iran and Syria. Like the Taliban and Saddam.
Unlike the Japanese, who wanted to instill some terror to prove they couldn’t be beaten, finally reduced to floating ineffectual bombs on the jet stream, this enemy is intent on coming here to establish the one true god. That’s hard to prove to the masses while “The Great Satan” sits in “god’s territory”. What part of that don’t you understand?
Your historical perspective is flawed, as are your current events. Note that all effort went to retaking the Phillipines, not Attu and Kiska. The muslims may not have fought Japanese occupation, but the vast majority sure the hell did. Keeping an entire army tied down in garrison. A garrison we didn’t have to face in the Solomans, or New Guinnea, or Enweitok, or Saipan. Thank you, Filipinos.
Iraq is the new Phillipines. Will you abandon them?
September 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Great post Donald. I agree completely. Do people in this country not understand that this is exactly what makes us the most vulnerable? Use up all those bullets and manpower and THEN…
September 6th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
So sayeth the masters of destiny. Others disagree with such a petty notion of predestination.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Iraq was a failed state that never was a state and remains a failed state that will never be a state.
In reference to that.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Wasting our political and military capital
The axiomatic reason why you believed WWII was not a waste is because the US won. Victory is all you care about, because it is the only thing that convinces people like you, regardless of what your surface arguments.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Actually an American invasion force retook the captured Alaskan territory in 1943, as I noted in a previous post, before we retook the Philippines. Often forgotten of course is that the first attack on the continetal since the War of 1812, occurred on June 22, 1942 when a Japanese ship shelled Ft. Stevens in Oregon! This was an act of aggression, not an act of desparation by a very powerful enemy with a far superior tecnological edge in military “machines” than we could muster.
Macarthur’s war ending counter attacking campaign to island hop was meant to avoid as many Japanese garrisons as possible and leave them stranded, while pushing American airpower closer and closer until the B-29s could finally devestate the Japanese home islands and the then might of the American Navy could not be deterred. This might was forseen by the then dead Yamamoto, who although he ordered the attack on pearl harbor, opposed the war.
In a like fashion, despite the advice of our brilliant modern general staff, we continue to waste $10 billion a month, 3700 dead and some 30,000 wounded, many horrendously, in a military effort that any rational review of the evidence was unnecesary and unjustified. Yamamoto was correct in foretelling the failure of Imperial Japanese policy, just as our own generals and admirals were correct about this misguided effort. The real enemies we will need to confront remain and are strengthened by the failure of this administration’s flawed policies. That marvelous iconclast Clarence Darrow said,”History repeats itself; that’s one of the things that’s wrong with history.”
September 6th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“So, when the Japanese send a submarine on a raid, or hold strategically worthless territory until they need the garrison elsewhere, it’s “the greatest threat ever”, yet the twin towers and 3,000 people weren’t so bad in comparison, huh?
Recaptured after Japanese forces voluntarily retreated from the Aleutians. As long as you continue to bring it up, I will continue to refute your assertions about the relative differences between the threats to the country.
By the way, the Axis never shelled the Pentagon.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Justify all you want. How the hell do you think we can achieve “success” when the people who live there have their own axes to grind, with EACH OTHER!
Our learned leaders continue to forget that these people are not attacking each other because they hate one another. Most of the killings involve total strangers. What they are doing is attempting to exterminate another sect. It has nothing to do with having or not having a democracy or a dictatorship or anything. As long as there are enough weapons and opportunities, this behavior will likely continue.
The Sunnis had their chance… now the Shiites are retalliating. The 21st century, if it continues as it is now, will probably be known as the “Get Even” century. Iraq got even with Kuwait… the USA got even with Iraq. Al Qaida got even with the USA… the USA is getting even with Al Qaida and Iraq. The Kurds are getting even with the Turks… the Turks are beginning to respond. We have decided to repeat the cold war and put missiles by Russia… Russia starts up their Air survaillance. We respond by putting nuclear missiles on our B52s.
Because we are only seven years into the new century, and because we have been spending $400 billion a year on new ways to destroy living beings, we might be digging a hole nobody will be able to get out of, but I guess important folks have decided “getting even” is more important than the survival of this planet… IMHO
September 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Laura is trapped in the cycle of violence. She can get out but only through American Total War philosophy.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
in a military effort that any rational review of the evidence was unnecesary and unjustified.
A rational view of the evidence of the costs of WWII would have proved that it wasn’t worth it, especially without the information concerning the Nazi’s experiments and death camps. A rational view only means that you see what you want to see, what you are able to see.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Clearly, no rational view would hold that WW II was not worth the effort, so Ymarsakar’s comments are seem unreasonable. The U.S. was directly attacked on its territory and citizens killed by Imperial Japan. U.S. Territory was annexed by a hostil power and the mainland was attacked for the first times since 1812 and territory occupied by hostile forces. The Nazis empire declared war on the U.S. shortly thereafter, including Nazis allies such as the Italians and others, and began military operations against U.S. interests. The U.S. did not go to war because of Nazis or Japanese death camps, torture factories or the killing and maiming of innocents. The U.S. went to war because it was attacked directly or war was declared on this nation. The cost in lives and wealth of WW II was of a scale not seen before or later. Each day, 29,500 people died as a direct result of the war, almost 1 million people a month! Cost of the war had little to do with inception or the determination to gain victory.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“Justify all you want. How the hell do you think we can achieve “success” when the people who live there have their own axes to grind, with EACH OTHER!”
This is what makes me ever more optimistic about the world. People are people the world over with serious axes to grind and petty squabbles. But time after time after time they find a way to put the past behind them and go forward. Old enemies become friends and better lives are forged.
The idea that civil strife and religious hostilities are immutable is not upheld by the lessons of History which show the exact opposite.
The cycle of violence and war never solves anything items of faith are modern, and unsupported, items of faith.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“Cost of the war had little to do with inception or the determination to gain victory.”
It had almost entirely to do with the control of information.
Which no longer exists.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
On cold matters and elsewhere: not to beat a dead polar bear, but that “worthless” Alaskan territory seized by Japanese forces cost the lives of hundreds of Americans and Canadian troops and thousands of Japanese troops. Captured during the invasion, Americans were shipped to Japan, most to die there. The U.S. Army Air Force dropped almost 27,000 bombs on Japanese positions on Attu and Kiska. In the end, the U.S. and Canada committed 144,000 soldiers to the region, so concerned were we about the northwestern frontier.
In 1944 and 1945, the Japanese launced more than 9,000 “fire” balloons toward the U.S. mainland with the intent of starting massive forest fires and other damage. This program was fortunately mostly a failure, except that more than 300 reached the mainland, started some fires and managed to killfive children and one woman.
Elsewhere, in 1942 a Japanese submarine repeatedly launched a seaplane that dropped incendiary bombs near Brookings, oregon causing little real damage. However the pilot was lauded as a hero in Japan and later was a planne for deadly kamikaze attacks.
Finally, the book, The Three Power Alliance and the United States-Japanese War, written by Kinoaki Matsuot, a member of the Black Dragon Society, set out the Japanese war plans for coordinated invasions of the Panama Canal Zone as well as Alaska, Washington state and California. Reality or dream, it is fascinating and fits well within a “contingency” framework.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Cost of the war had little to do with inception or the determination to gain victory.
Oh, so if you are given gifts and billions of dollars, you would value this more than if you had to sacrifice women men and children to gain such benefits?
Cost is the only thing that matters to humanity, other than victory and defeat.
You don’t value victory in Iraq because you’re too cheap to want it. Miserly people always see expenditures as a waste. To obtain great benefits, one must risk great things. Even if you were given such benefits, you would not value it. That is why Iraqis value American power but you wish to conserve it for yourself and your goals.
but that “worthless” Alaskan territory seized by Japanese forces cost the lives of hundreds of Americans and Canadian troops and thousands of Japanese troops.
But you said Iraq gets less valuable the more lives are sacrificed there. Then you say that Alaskan territory was worth it because of the lives that died there. So which is it?
Clearly, no rational view would hold that WW II was not worth the effort, so Ymarsakar’s comments are seem unreasonable.
Logically, anything that disagrees with your view would seem unreasonable. Can you not use logic? For this is obvious.
The Nazis empire declared war on the U.S. shortly thereafter, including Nazis allies such as the Italians and others, and began military operations against U.S. interests.
Africa and Iraq didn’t declare war on the US, so why were US forces in the Middle East and Africa instead of Italy and Germany?
You already know that the first forces that attacked the US were French. If the Germans declared war, why attack the French?
September 7th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Small Wars Anatomy
Some aspects of the war in Iraq are hard to fit into “classical” models of insurgency. One of these is the growing tribal uprising against al Qa’ida, which could transform the war in ways not factored into neat “benchmarks” developed many months ago and thousands of miles away. I spent time out on the ground during May and June working with coalition units, tribal leaders and fighters engaged in the uprising, so I felt a few field observations might be of interest to the Small Wars community. I apologize in advance for the epic length of this post, but it’s a complex issue, so I hope people will forgive my long-windedness. Like much else, it’s too early to know how this new development will play out. But surprisingly (surprising to me, anyway), indications so far are relatively positive.
To understand what follows, you need to realize that Iraqi tribes are not somehow separate, out in the desert, or remote: rather, they are powerful interest groups that permeate Iraqi society. More than 85% of Iraqis claim some form of tribal affiliation; tribal identity is a parallel, informal but powerful sphere of influence in the community. Iraqi tribal leaders represent a competing power center, and the tribes themselves are a parallel hierarchy that overlaps with formal government structures and political allegiances. Most Iraqis wear their tribal selves beside other strands of identity (religious, ethnic, regional, socio-economic) that interact in complex ways, rendering meaningless the facile division into Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish groups that distant observers sometimes perceive. The reality of Iraqi national character is much more complex than that, and tribal identity plays an extremely important part in it, even for urbanized Iraqis. Thus the tribal revolt is not some remote riot on a reservation: it’s a major social movement that could significantly influence most Iraqis where they live.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
When I was young, I had a substantial stake in another war we did not have to fight. The clarity of World War II and its dynamic has been so muddled by the history of the post-war that it is difficult to reall what “just cause” means. Unfortunately, I have a fairly substantial stake in this “war” in Iraq, a nation that is not a nation, and did not declare war on us. I am no different from any other parent who has been asked to provide children to kill other people’s children and possibly die in the effort, except that we have provided four who serve this nation. We, the parents, have been asked to do this by an administration that went into this war with less than valid reasons to risk their lives and expend this nation’s wealth, ans seriously impact our readiness to confront real threats to our security. By any measure, this administration is very nearly as awful as that of Mr. Carter and his Iranian debacle, that wsted other American lives. It will be a close race to see who will hold that place as the least regarded Presidency in modern times. Both Presidents were guilty of hubris and not minding the considered advice abundant in their administrations.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
As a counter-narrative, Donald’s protests concerning Japan’s actions have one relevant detail that is overlooked. Japan was able to do what they did because they were given time, time to acquire the allies and resources as well as time to consolidate conquered provinces to move onto new places.
This is important concerning Iraq because Donald would rather we took on Syria, Iran, and Iraq without a reliable base in the region (except in small Kuwaitt and various air bases in the Gulf states reliant on local politics for usability). This would waste US resources extremely quickly through divided fronts, trying to contain and deal with Iran, Syria, and Iraq working together without any territorial intervention between Syria or Iran. Iraq would be given more time to prepare and strenghten themselves against US counter-action, while we would be divided not between Syria and Iran over our safebases in Iraq, but up against a united Iranian, Syrian, and Iraqi coalition.
Resources and manpower would be wasted, for time lost cannot be regained. What you might have once taken for little gain, now must require the use of resources you otherwise could have saved for something else. In essence, wasting what you might have conserved. Thus if you give your enemy time to become stronger, you cannot take that gift back. Instead of facing Iraq alone or as an ally against Syria and Iran, Iraq would be sheltered by the Iranian nuclear shield and forced into alliance against the US because the US is the far greater threat to such people as Amanie or Saddam.
The Japanese stratagists responsible for Pearl Harbor needed to knock out America’s Pacific Fleet in order to consolidate Imperial gains in the Pacific and spheres of control. The Japanese leaders knew that they could not face the full power of the US giant when it is mobilized. Perhaps in time the US will sue for peace and focus on Germany alone, had the Japanese Navy achieved stunning victories against a weakened or annihilated Pacific Fleet. However, Midway and other Japanese actions gave the US time. Time to become stronger. Thus, was the resources used in Pearl Harbor a waste because it failed to prevent the US from growing stronger as an enemy? No. And neither is the use of resources in Iraq a waste when the US has successfully destroyed Saddam’s future ability to grow in power.
A defeat is often a waste of resources, though not always. What is a waste is trying to create defeat for the US in Iraq because you want money and manpower funneled to where you wanted it to be. Many people may wish to wield the power of the President, but here in the US, only one man can do so at any one time.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
We, the parents, have been asked to do this by an administration that went into this war with less than valid reasons to risk their lives and expend this nation’s wealth, ans seriously impact our readiness to confront real threats to our security.
You are asking future generations to do what which you don’t want to do, but are forced into doing for the choice was never yours to make.
The WWII generation make the sacrifices so you didn’t have to. Thus you are grateful and feel it was justified. But when it comes to Iraq and making the sacrifices so that future generations will have fewer enemies to fight, now it is unjustified in your view. It makes perfect logical sense, although logic is not always correct in the ethical sense.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
“not to beat a dead polar bear,..”
Well, it ought to be a bloody pile of pulp by now.
Wow! 144,000 Americans and Canadians, covering the land mass of 1/2 the lower 48. From Nome to Vancouver, and the Aleutian chain, and other coastal islands. The Americans were the 10th Army, Simon Bolivar Buckner, jr. commanding. The only U.S. general to die in WWII, on Okinawa.
Compare to Normandy, where similar numbers were committed to 5 small patches of beach.
“27,000 bombs.” Dropped over “how” long a period of time? June, ‘42 to Nov., ‘43?
Operation Cobra, the breakout attempt from Normandy, July 29, ‘44, used the entire weight of the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces to deliver 3,300 tons one ONE DAY, for an attack front 7,000 yards wide. That doesn’t count the 144,000 artillery rounds used. Or the First and Third Armies.
Never said it was “worthless”, said it was “strategically worthless”. Morale wise, it was “bothersome”. Politically, it was “important”. They got around to it, when they felt it could be done at little cost best spent elsewhere. After the Japanese abandoned it, leaving only small delaying forces behind on Attu, because the Aleutians were “strategically worthless”. The only reason they were occupied was a trap for and diversion from the main objective, Midway. They were retaken when the Japanese lost interest.
“That plane BOMBED us! All day long!” The British burned the White House. The terrorists, supported by Saddam, and Imams, and Emirs, and Princes, took down the Twin Towers, and hit the Pentagon.
They don’t “compare” to Imperial Japan in it’s day?
How much refined petroleum did you buy today, Donald? Steaks all wrapped up in plastic tight enough for you? Typing away on plastic keyboards, for a plastic cased computer? Ipod? TV? Carpeting? It’s not Bush, it’s not the “Seven Sisters”(five now?), your sons and daughters are there because of you. Want your sons and daughters home? Get off your oil, and let them do their jobs.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Ymarsakar says:
“But when it comes to Iraq and making the sacrifices so that future generations will have fewer enemies to fight, now it is unjustified in your view. It makes perfect logical sense, although logic is not always correct in the ethical sense.”
Donald is conveying what MOST military families at this point are experiencing. I am one of them. In WWII, the whole country sacrificed. Every single American was invested in the war effort. Less than 2% of the population are engaged in THIS war.
How much refined petroleum did kids all over Iraq die for today? Your responses are patronizing at best. You have no clue. When you want to put skin in the game and INVEST yourself, and your kids, then you will be making a sacrifice.
The only war worth fighting for is one that you are willing to send your own sons and daughters to fight.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
So, that makes WWI worthless because Wilson only had daughters. Korea, worthless. Truman had a daughter. Kennedy’s kids too young to serve. Nixon, daughters. Clinton, daughter. Guess pretty much every war wasn’t worth fighting, by your standard.
Is that all your son means to you? His decision is your trump card for “moral” authority?
Get off your oil, Laura. The sooner you stop funding the ones who want to and can kill your son, the sooner he’ll be home.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Less than 2% of the population are engaged in THIS war.
I thought most people prefered less people to engage in war. Since Global Wars such as WWII only occur because small wars that could have stopped Hitler and Stalin were never fought or were fought and lost.
It’s a priority depending upon what you care about. Do you care more about how many people have died and will die because of your beliefs and actions, or do you simply care about how many people are experience the same misery you are. One is liberal while the other is not.
As for what Donald may or may not be conveying, I am searching for his reasons and motivations. Not simply what he says on the surface. Understanding what he has said superficially as a statement of fact should not at the same time convey agreement with the interpretation of said facts.
Your responses are patronizing at best. You have no clue.
Laura, you cannot even scratch the surface level of the reasoning and logic I use in my arguments. You agree completely with Donald, you have said. Best to leave it at that.
The only war worth fighting for is one that you are willing to send your own sons and daughters to fight.
As I mentioned before, not every child is a parent’s to send. There are such people as individuals that make choices for themselves, rather than simply leaders of machines sending in their cogs.
It is a natural human inclination to try to keep family members safe. It is rare for family members to send their own into danger for others. Asking for such is counter-productive to human nature, and often requires draconian police powers to accomplish. It is a beautiful ideal, is it not, that requires a child to sacrifice her parents to the secret police? For if wars are worth fighting when parents send their children, then what might you achieve if children are willing to send parents into the grinder?
But alas, logic is unmerciful.
Both Presidents were guilty of hubris and not minding the considered advice abundant in their administrations.
Donald will forever talk about Presidents and other people above his pay grade. It is after all, much better than offering alternative plans concerning Syria or Iran. Such plans requires the gift of creation rather than the talent for destruction. I have seen much of Donald’s views concerning WWII and how Iraq is a mistake. But never did I see his alternative plan that would have saved US manpower and treasure for something better and more noble. What would have Defended the US against the “real threats” as he terms it. If such threats are “real” as he means it, then why does not Donald give concrete examples of how Iraq directly affects the defense against such threats? Onless both the threats and the plans to defend against them are nebulous are best. Is it simply the target of Iraq that Donald disagrees with, and would have agreed if Iran had been the target of the invasion? There’s only so much give and flexibility in history, based upon the existing actors and the previous events at the time. Without an invasion and an attempt to take and hold Arab ground, we would be in about the same situation we currently. Which is Iran acquiring a nuclear shield so that they can take American and Western hostages with impunity. Course, they already do that so they might wish to raise the stakes and requires a nuke shield to do so. This constant talk about what the US does over ando ver, underestimates the cunning and intelligence of our enemies. They are not the frozen pigeons that people make them out to be, forever reacting to US actions without a will and a life of their own.
Real threats requires real details. Details, however, are far harder to figure out than the simple broad brushes with which people paint entire periods of human suffering over into their own preferences. Petraeus and Kilcullen have spent much time on the details of COIN. What has Donald to offer as a weapon against the “real threats” in comparison to the fruits of Iraq?
September 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Let’s cut through the crap. America is not making sacrifices. You are not making any, unless you would like to enlighten all of us on exactly what that is. American soldiers, and their families are at war. America is at the mall.
Until that changes, and until each and every one of us feels the pain of war, then this will continue. Unless of course we run out of people to fight the war.
And, most parents do have to consent to their sons and daughters serving, especially now that that have lowered the age to enlist to 16. 16-17 year olds have to have their parents consent in order to sign the contract.
If it is so nobel a goal, Iraq and “the fruits” of Iraq, then why aren’t more people invested?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
So, now your assertion is that “most” soldiers serving are 16 and 17 year olds?
How much gas did you pump this week, Laura? You seem to think your son’s decision was “your” sacrifice. You don’t own him. Those “children” still need to be HS graduates, or GED equivalency. While 16 yr. olds can sign up for “delayed entry”, one must be 17, with requirements above, before induction. Apparently some parents figure their “children” are “adult” enough to let them decide their future.
When you stop blaming others for your actions, which your son stood up to fight for, and get off your oil, Laura, he can come home sooner. It won’t end when “everyone” has felt some sort of pain, but when you get off your addiction to lifestyle.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Notice the draft you clamor for isn’t to provide the numbers necessary for victory, but to spread the misery so more will call for withdrawal, and defeat.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Laura is on target. America is at the Mall, and has certainly blanked out attention to the war, except that in all polling, the nation is unified against the war, bringing the troops home, negative on Mr. Bush’s capability and accomplishments, and more negative on Congress. The minth of August has been another bloody month in Iraq, while the Iraqi parliment vacationed or abandoned the government. September will be more of the same. After listening to the Congressional hearings and General Jim Jones and his commission, as well as the GAO report, the failure at nation building in Iraq is palpable and the price paid in American lives and wealth too great.
There is a marvelous town, Roswell, where many of the “foil hat” crowd hangs, shielding themselves from Z-Rays and waiting for the next landings, perhaps ready to bring insight to the Bushites. Perhaps, with the departure of Mr. Rumsfeld, now nicely ensconsed at his farm north of Roswell, and “Wolfie,” banished from the World Bank with his companion, and Mr. Rove, after avoiding the Plame nonsense which promised to burn his butt, the Roswellian landing party will bring new hope to the Bushites and the waning days of Mr. Bush’s depleted administration. Not only has Mr. Bush managed to land this nation in a quagmire of declining expectations and fewer accomplishments, foreign and domestic, but single-handedly he has seriously injured the conservative movement in the U.S. while elevating the left far beyond their wildest expectations. There is almost no area, from mine safety to homeland security to negative impacts to our military, to a runaway illegal problem, to a declining science base, to a bloated budget, that the Bush administration has piled failure on failure. It is unclear whether a Thompson or Huckebee or Guliani or any combination of erstwhile candidiates will salvage what remains of the conservative movement.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
oh forgot
Actually Lee, the bombing attaks at Attu And Kiska were over a day or two or three I believe
the 144,000 troops (about the number in Iraq, presurge) was directed at the Japanese bases and associated areas, expanded outward after the region had been retaken
the Alcan Highway project was intended to cover the need to move forces as was the later Eisenhower Interstate Highway effort..lots learned from the Romans
One must distrust Presidents and staffs who so assiduously avoided their war obligations as did Bush and Cheney (who said he had a different agenda) or Clinton (who seems to have really been a jerk about serving). To his credit, Rumsfeld flew jet off carriers; Powell was a hero; Wolfie avoided even loud voices; Truman was a hero of WW I by the way. Wilson was too old; Kennedy was a hero; Nixon served; Johnson even flew some dangerous missions when he did not need to; lincol served in the Blackhawk wars and hated war and even said the War of 1848 was illegal.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
“Dropped over a day, or two, or three..” So the “vitally important Aleutians” were worthy of a few sorties, over a (not really sure) period of time. When you figure it out, get back to us, won’t you? Regardless, that leaves nearly 400-500 days they weren’t bombed at all. The Pas de Calais was bombed daily, just to DISTRACT Hitler from Normandy. Not counting the daily bombs used AT Normandy during the same period. Or the strategic bombings taking place daily.
Yep, the 10th Army pushed out eventually. At Okinawa. Name your plethora of other “Japanese bases” engaged between August ‘43 and April ‘45 by these forces. Plans were made against the Kuriles, but never implemented.
Laura’s point was not to say “if you served, the wars you call for are justified”, it was “if you haven’t donated a family member(which wasn’t her choice, either), it’s not worth it”. By the way, Lincoln was wrong about the Mexican War. Provoked by Santa Ana, and the invasion of Texas, and quite legal. Guess he’d learned his lesson by 1861. And none of Lincoln’s sons served in the Civil War.
I notice your talking points have been taken to heart by Osama, too. I’m sure he would agree with you that Imperial Japan was a greater threat to us than he ever will be.
September 8th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Sometimes things are not as superficial as they may seem at first glance. One Lincoln son died at a very young age–Willy, as I recall. The other, Tad, was too young. The oldest Robert, was early prevented from joining as he waised, by his mother and he was at Harvard but pressed the President to allow him to join. Lincoln relented and Robert, much to his pleasure, served with Grant.
Santa Anna is a complex character with a long history, finally dying in 1876. Not to belabor the point, I would direct you to Samuel Elliot Morrison’s excellent history. Suffice it to say, after the “victory” at the Alamo (200 against 3200) and the murder of all the “rebels” Santa Anna was defeated at the battle of San Jacinto–good old Sam Houston. The battle of allowing Texas to become a state was a long one and centered on Texas entering as a slave state. Mexico outlawed slavery in 1831 by the way. Various people occupied the Mexican presidency and annexation was in the air. The Mexican War of 1848, settled as a I recall by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago as I recall, was a complex affair. Santa Anna was in fact returned from exile in Cuba (he was captured by Winfield Scott’s forces I believe) by President Polk I believe after he promised to sign a peace treaty with the United States annexing lots of places. He actually was duplicitous and fought on instead and was exiled again, after he lost a leg. In any event Lincoln opposed the war, always opposed the war, and saw it as a perpetuation of slavery with Texas a slave state. Reading the Letters and Writings of Lincoln compiled by his secretarys is fascinating. By the way, Santa Anna was finally allowed to return to Mexico, where he died in poverty, virtually unknown in 1876, having outlived Lincoln. The Mexican War was significant because the West Pointers who fought included sucj folks as Lee, Grant, Davis, Scott, Sheridan, and many others who fought on both sides during the Civil War.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Wow. He actually got one thing right, while I was wrong. Robert Todd did serve, on Grant’s staff. Notice he wasn’t in the Iron Brigade, but far to the rear. Tally the score: Lee: 72, Donald: 3.
So now the great visionary Santa Ana held the moral high ground because he opposed slavery, huh? I also note that as “complex” the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo was, you failed to mention that Mexico was paid $15 million dollars(not pesos) for the land annexed.(Throw in the Gadsden Purchase, it comes to $25 million)
Are you suggesting in your conspiracy theory there that Santa Ana was our boy? Surreptitiously put in power by us to foment war? What does that say about his “moral” stance against slavery? Wonder what Lincoln’s secretaries thought about the “abolitionist” who was willing to preserve the institution of slavery if it meant the preservation of the Union?
So, which was it? Lincoln merely “opposed” the Mexican War, or he considered it “illegal”? History doesn’t exist for you to “cherry pick” it’s contradictions to suit your “argument du jour”.
So, by your (varying) standards of legitimacy, perhaps Imperial Japan should have destroyed us.
September 8th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Lee says: Laura’s point was not to say “if you served, the wars you call for are justified”, it was “if you haven’t donated a family member(which wasn’t her choice, either), it’s not worth it”.
No Lee, Laura did NOT say or mean that. The point of my post is quite clear. It’s easy to say “stay the course blah blah” when you aren’t wearing the ruck sack or waiting at home. I see you as the kinda guy that thanks a soldier at the airport while he’s home for two weeks from hell, then feel real proud that you “support” him or her. You still don’t get it. IF THIS WAR MEANS SO MUCH TO OUR FUTURE, THEN WHY AREN”T MORE PEOPLE INVESTED?
Look, it’s pretty clear, and I have always felt this way; if we are going to be there, and we need to win, then we need many many more people to do the job. The unfortunate reality, and I hear it from soldiers all the time, we CAN’T do it with the manpower we have. You are ignorant for you to say that I want to “spread the misery”; I knew damn well what we were up against when my son joined. His first deployment was to Kosovo as a peace keeper. We all were very somber in the knowing that something was going to happen and soon. So, I wasn’t naive at all Lee. I know what war looks like from my years as a young girl and my friend’s dad not coming home…shot out of the skies over Vietnam. I know what I was supporting when my son decided to serve. I support him more than you think. I support him enough to speak out to people like you who shake soldiers hands, put your magnet on your car and then go off to Home Depot for your weekend projects. You look the other way when you hear about soldiers with PTSD, or call them weak. You delude yourself into thinking how nobel it all is. If it were that nobel, then WE WOULD ALL BE INVESTED. Funny how you say that a draft would only “but to spread the misery so more will call for withdrawal, and defeat”. Why would more people call for withdrawal and defeat if they were doing something so important for our national security?
September 8th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
America is not making sacrifices.
Iraq’s a small war that is conserving US resources. If you wish for a greater allocation to military funding, beyond the 4.5% GDP range, then you’re going to have to involve the US in more and larger wars. There’s only so much water that can fit through a straw at any one time. People need a justification, if you can’t find any wars, to have such a large increase in military spending.
A good start to sacrifice would be to increase military spending. But would you increase military spending, Laura? And what would you spend it on, if you were to increase the funds?
Until that changes, and until each and every one of us feels the pain of war, then this will continue.
Well, until the nation is geared economically for war then… yes, we will continue to have a peacetime economy, Laura. How prescient of you.
And, most parents do have to consent to their sons and daughters serving, especially now that that have lowered the age to enlist to 16.
You’re not a legal adult at 16. You make it sound like Bush is sending in teenagers to the front lines, like olden days. A mischaracterization, regardless of whether it is purposeful or not. It just isn’t legally valid for a 16 year old to sign a contract and then when he is 18, be bound by that contract. The military still needs the signature of the adult, before they can recruit them into the military for 4 years active, 2 years reserve. That’s the normal length of contract last time I checked. The parents can guide, lessen, or increase the chances for a person to join the military, but I don’t really believe that the parent can sign on the line for her child, to give her child to the military for 4 years minimum. That’s not really legal in all senses of the word. I have never heard of a 16 year having the legal power to sign away 4 years of their life, and have the contract be enforceable. (in the US)
As the case may be, I don’t see why you are talking about contracts signed by 16 year olds as if they are the same ones signed by 18+ year olds.
If it is so nobel a goal, Iraq and “the fruits” of Iraq, then why aren’t more people invested?
We’re not using nukes and destroying Iran or Syria. That’s why more people aren’t invested. Small limited wars require small and limited resources. If you wish to commit more resources, then I am fine with enlarging the sphere of engagement to other enemies and nations and armies in the world. Although, this would be hard to justify in your case, because you don’t really believe the goal is worth it. So you would not agree to allocate the resources. You don’t seriously expect to convince yourself that if Bush spent more men and treasure on Iraq, that you would suddenly believe that the cause was suddenly worth the cost. You can do better than that as an argument for your case. This is the bandwagon appeal, you know. If Bush only sends more people to Iraq and drafts Americans into his war effort… then it would be “worth it” in your view? That isn’t a very good way to judge the benefits and detriments of war, though.
It is unclear whether a Thompson or Huckebee or Guliani or any combination of erstwhile candidiates will salvage what remains of the conservative movement.
What a Greek tragedy, Donald. You should think about writing plays.
He actually got one thing right, while I was wrong.
What Donald got is a need to talk about World War II because the present is a far more difficult subject for discussion. There’s too many traps and pitfalls in the here and now.
It’s easy to say “stay the course blah blah”
The surge is not the course, since Bush has always been told he needed more troops by … folks and the surge is more troops, thus it was not Bush’s course. Until now. But I suppose that kind of information is not critical for folks.
IF THIS WAR MEANS SO MUCH TO OUR FUTURE, THEN WHY AREN”T MORE PEOPLE INVESTED?
You still don’t get it. What don’t you get? The fact that you are making a false argument. You wouldn’t support this war for liberty and future military alliances for the reason that 50 million Americans are fighting in it. I wouldn’t think that pure numbers alone, would convince you that a cause is worthy, Laura. So why should numbers should convince you that a cause isn’t worthy? The Spartans had 300 defending Thermopylae while the rest of the Spartans were invested with religious ceremonies which prevented them from mobilizing for war. Thus was the defense of Thermopylae “not worthy” because the entire military might of Sparta was not allocated? Of course not, and of course it was worthy.
Besides, it is a logical fallacy that the more people that agree on something, the more right that “something” becomes. You can get the majority of people to agree on many things, but it doesn’t mean that’s the right course of action to take, regardless of how many people repeat “we agree to…”.
The Soviets tended to say that “there is a quality to quantity all on its own”. While true, it is not really a strategic objective one should try to reach.
then we need many many more people to do the job
So is this why you wish for less people to be in Iraq rather than relying on Petraeus’ surge? Wouldn’t you expect that this would mean you agree with Bush and Petraues, in the surge? Bush has more people to send, if you don’t like how he is refusing to send more soldiers to Iraq at any one time, then why would more Americans being drafted change Bush’s actions?
If it were that nobel, then WE WOULD ALL BE INVESTED.
Let’s try a different tact. Nobility is based upon individual actions. The nobility of one individual is not marred by the actions of another villainous individual separate in time, space, and causality. Thus the nobility of America’s actions in Iraq do not depend upon what individual Americans do alone, Laura, but rather it depends upon the aggregate actions both noble and villainous of Americans. So since most Americans, in your view Laura, is not doing anything, then essentially America’s nobility is shown and represented by the US military, which nets us a positive in Iraq. Which should be expected, of course, given the quality of US armed forces.
Your logic, stated in your bold, would force the Special Forces motto “De Oppresso Liber” to be meaningless, because most Americans don’t even know about the existence of operations by the Special Forces and SOCOM. The proper syntax argument is, “if it were that nobel, then we should all be invested”. But that doesn’t happen a lot if at all, for humans are flawed and interested in things other than nobility and heroism.
Why would more people call for withdrawal and defeat if they were doing something so important for our national security?
Because humans are flawed, as we saw in Vietnam and the protests over the draft there. People stopped caring when the draft stopped. They started doing that when Nixon instituted a draw down in the drafting. The Left doesn’t care about national security, so there is nothing that would trouble their conscience to fight for withdrawal if you drafted them or threatened to draft them. After all, Democrats introduced the draft bill in order to create hysteria and panic amongst grassroots America, for political purposes. They attributed the draft effort to the Republicans and thus the Republicans are naturally leery of talking about instituting the draft, because their natural polical enemies have already tried to attack them with this.
Vietnam, is again, a primary behavioral conditioning episode in the American psyche. Those that lived during VIetnam, in whatever capacity, were affected by the event people achieved. The point is, Laura, am I correct in believing that your logic also applies to Vietnam? That it was not a worthy effort for the US to undertake because people eventually divested themselves of the conflict?
I am hoping that Vietnam might shed some more light on what your beliefs are concerning Iraq. We got the Petraeus/Surge/Bush question, but that isn’t enough.
September 8th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
“Why would more people call for withdrawal,..?” For the same reasons the very same people called for withdrawal from Vietnam. According to you, the “upper classes” are under-represented now. Do you think a draft is going to fix that? When we had a draft, the cry was “the upper class is under-represented”. The left has always clamored for what they want. When the left gets a draft, then they can say “We TOLD you Bush would reinstste the draft!” By your own words, this war is not vital to our national security. Yet you say a draft won’t be resisted because it’s vital to our national security.
I’m not the one driving to the mall to buy plastic; YOU are. My solution is simple, and requires everyone(you included) to sacrifice: Get off the oil. Stop funding the enemy. Let the military defend us, specifically, and freedom in general, from the “religion of peace”, which has been at war with difference for 1,400 years.
You have a stake in this: you are a doting mother. Understandable. You selectively listen to those who share your point of view. You ignore the many others who say they can, and will, finish the job. Does it seem strange to you that Bush’s highest support is the military? The very people you claim are being “used up” by him? Is this your Kerry moment? They’re too “stupid” to see the truth, like you? The “experts” I defer to are there, at the broken end of the bottle every day. The “experts” you defer to are back here, with you. At the mall, holding rallies, drinking lattes. Driving and flying across the country to tell us it’s all about oil.
September 8th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
The issue is not energy. Iraq’s oil does not reach the U.S. Indeed, more than 400,000 narrels a day are stolen and end up on the oil black market (no pun–it is black gold at $78/bbl) making its way to Turkey, Jordan and even Iran..
We are energy rich. There is lots of untapped oil in North America by the way, except we can’t drill off Florida, Long Island, the Arctic, California, etc., or it is locked in tar sands and oil shale. Proven reserves of the latter two sources amounts to about a 400 year supply at least, perhaps 600 years at present consumption. Similarly U.S. coal reserves total about 3 times the BTU reserves of Middle Eastern oil, and of course we do not exploit that sufficiently. Then too, the U.S. is one of the leading (perhaps number 2 or 3) in uranium reserves, but of course, we do not exploit those resources.
There is nothing at stake in Iraq other than more dead American kids, more of a failed policy in a war that was not necessary, and with little prospect of success in any measureable terms that make sense.With perhaps 500 billion dollars already expended and a military depleted in machines and personnel that matter, Mr. Bish’s failures impact us all, but especially our soldiers and their families. 3700 dead is a price too high for Mr. Bush’s hubris; 30,000 wounded is a price too high for Mr. Bush’s hubris and another 20,000 with serious emotional difficulties is a price much too high for Mr. Bush’s hubris. One would take solice in the fact that this administration is almost at an end, and that much of even the Republican Party support has slipped away, except that more of our sons and daughters will die or be maimed before the end of this mess.
Ironically it will end much as it began: the Kurds will go on intact and secure; the Shiites in Basra, already on their own with the British withdrawal will strike their deals with Iran and continue the internal struggle for control. And Baghdad will be as it was, corrupt, polluted, strife-ridden and dangerous until some entity emerges to create order by force. Not much will have changed.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Iraq oil may not reach us, but Saudi, Emirati, and Iranian oil sure does. So, it’s an issue when “Bush profits”, but not so much a deal when “Donald buys” it.
I’m sure by Donald’s situational arguments, he’s not worried about global warming, until someone tries to implement Donald’s solution to tap our domestic capacity. Oil is a fungible resource; once it’s pumped and sold, wether legitimately, or on the black market, it’s available to the world.
And Donald is ready to abandon the Iraqis to their fate, because they were better off under Saddam. But keep on pushing those leftie talking points, like Osama.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Ah, so the world has turned around. Lee is now with Bin laden on global warming and I suspect his concerns for the American credit crunch as well? I hope Lee has inversted in “Just for Men” products–the secret message of Bin Laden’s colored beard seems to be that Moslems males at least can colr their beards as a disguise, perhaps? One is reminded of Clark Kent, and the power of eyeglasses to keep his I am Superman secret. Unfortunately, the market place of ideas and information has escaped Lee and Bin Laden and more significantly, Mr. Bush and his supporters in this horrible effort to waste American lives and wealth in a failed effort. Iraq, as all reports indicate is a failed state that never was a state and never will be a state. The Biden idea, of a separate and loose federation of interest areas to the north, central and south, is just where we were before 3700 Americans were killed and 30,000 maimed and hundreds of billions wasted.
By the way, I am fortunate to be able to select and purchase local oil products from our home-grown oil fields, wells and refinery. But, now we have strayed to global warming and it is interesting that the warms gaseous emissions from Washington have, as recent research indicates, Mars, where the temperature is increasing and the ice caps are smaller, as well as Jupiter and Neptune where measurements also indicate increased temperatures. So size does matter at least with regards to Solar flux. But we stary and I will end with the notion that in a world that is 4.6 billion years old, and inhabited by living forms for about 3.7 billion years, the climate of the last 8-10,000 years is not “typical” and in fact, there is a difference between “climate” measured in all its variation over tens of millions and indeed billion of years, and “weather” wherein recent confusion and debate resides.
September 9th, 2007 at 11:59 am
You see history and current events only in the filter from which your self-righteousness allows, Donald. All the facts in the history of the world will not change the interpretations of one on a preset course.
September 9th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Did I say I was with bin Laden, agreeing with him that global warming is man-made? My point, illustrated so well by your post, is you will argue for or against, depending on your situational stance of the moment, Donald.
Not sure which fantasy land region you live in, but oil is oil. It is purchased on commodities exchanges, it is not labeled “Alaskan oil”, or “North Sea Oil”, or “Product of U.A.E.” like tomatoes, or avocados. Yet you “know” the gas and plastic you purchase is pumped, refined, and sold “locally”. Doesn’t work that way. If you are paying higher prices for “terror free oil”, you are a gullable sucker.
By the way, the Monarchies of the world said the same things about America: “It can’t work. They need us to survive as a nation. It’s a failed state.”
Not to mention I haven’t been the one parroting his talking points. You and Laura have been. The lamest attempt at projection I have ever witnessed.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Now I understand. How foolish of me. Iraq is worth 3700 dead American soldiers and another 30,000 maimed, and another 20,000 emotionally wounded, so that America can have a steady flow of plastic disposable diapers and platic trash can liners. I knew I went astray somewhere. Of course the fact that Mr. Bush has managed to virtually destroy the republican Party as an effective voice and wast all those lives and almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars by some calculations is just what is necessary to keep Lee in platic trash can liners.
Self-righteous, perhaps, but more likely angered by the utter lack of capability of this administration in virtually every sector from border security to natural disasters to the disaster that is this Iraqi quagmire. I claim the right to be indignant as can any American and especially those of us who have a bit more at stake than worrying where the next barrel of oil in Iraq will go. I would suggest that we just giove control of the northeastern Iraqi oil fields to the Kurds and Lee’s flow of Iraqi oil will continue, although I am not sure where. As a matter of fact, more than 400,000 barrels of this oil are stolen every day, that’s 2,800,000 barrels a month, that end up on the “black” market. Is this purloined oil the reason for which 3,700 American soldiers died and another 30,000 maimed, or is the real reason that an incompetent administration is incapable of accepting blame for stupidity and stop the loss of American lives. I am sure we can find a substitute for Lee’s platic needs if we leave Iraq.