Michael Goodwin points out that, in their latest debates, the Democratic candidates seem to be “sleepwalking through history” about the war on terror:
What was once a bipartisan concern about the new phenomenon of lethal nonstate actors such as Al Qaeda has been reduced to denunciations of waterboarding and attacks on the Patriot Act.
The article is illustrated with a cartoon of Hillary, Edwards, and Obama as the three willfully evil-denying monkeys:
This seems accurate as far as it goes. But it strikes me that the Democratic candidates—and many of the Democrats in Congress—paradoxically see almost nothing but evil in today’s Iraq. As Goodwin points out:
The one mention of the troop “surge” came from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. He declared it “is not working,” no matter what the facts say, and Obama made a similar point without using the word.
And, of course, there’s the Congressional Democratic leaders’ continuing determination to defund the war unless they’re able to dictate a withdrawal timetable. And this despite the fact that even newspapers such as the NY Times are now regularly publishing tentatively optimistic articles such as this one, entitled “Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves” (yes, I know it’s full of “well, but’s” and “on the other hand’s”—but still, it manages to grudgingly spotlight recent improvements).
That cartoon of the three candidates could serve just as well if the sight they were denying was the good done in Iraq, rather than the evil of the terrorist threat. There are two common threads here: the first is denial itself, and the second is refusal to give President Bush and the Republicans any credit whatsoever for their successes.
Christopher Hitchens also writes about the Democrats and Iraq, noting:
What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism [about recent positive developments in Iraq]…but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased.
It does sometimes appear to be that way. Politicians’ self-centered concerns with their own electability would tend to make it painfully difficult for them to credit the opposition with policy successes, even those good for the nation as a whole.
But I’m afraid there’s more to it than that for those on the hard Left. Not all liberals, and certainly not all Democrats, qualify as being on the Left, of course. But the base to which the Party increasingly genuflects appears increasingly Leftist in sympathies and composition.
Here’s the type of thing many Leftists say—and believe. I bring you exhibit A, journalist John Pilger, speaking about Iraq in an interview on Dec 31, 2003 with the generally Left-leaning news organization Democracy Now:
I think the resistance in Iraq is incredibly important for all of us. I think that we depend on the resistance to win so that other countries might not be attacked, so that our world in a sense becomes more secure. Now, I don’t like resistances that produce the kind of terrible civilian atrocities that this one has, but that is true of all of the resistances. This one is a resistance against a rapacious power, that if it is not stopped in Iraq will go on as we now know to North Korea where Mr. Cheney and others are just chomping at the bit to have a crack at that country. So, what the outcome of this resistance is terribly important for the rest of the world, I think if the United States’ military machine and the Bush administration can suffer—well, the let’s say, quote, defeat, unquote, because it was never a complete defeat in Vietnam—but if they suffer something like that in Iraq.
The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order that the US will be weakened worldwide. And the Left doesn’t really care what the nature of that so-called “resistance” is, even if it’s a viciously totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic group such as al Qaeda, who would just as soon behead Pilger himself and all his cronies if they weren’t so very useful to them. As long as the “resistance” in Iraq is against the US, Bush, and Cheney, that’s enough to make Pilger and company embrace murderous thugs who would stomp on all human rights—and certainly on anything we know as liberalism, classical and/or modern-day—if they had their way.
Yes, I know that the Democratic candidates don’t share Pilger’s extreme anti-American stance. But unfortunately their party has too many people who do. And, unfortunately, I could rewrite Pilger’s statement from the Democratic candidates’ point of view and it might go something like this:
I think that we depend on the resistance to win so that we can be elected. Now, we don’t like resistances that produce the kind of terrible civilian atrocities that this one has, but that is true of all of the resistances. This one is a resistance against a policy begun by our enemy, Bush. So, the outcome of this resistance is terribly important for our electability, if the United States’ military machine and the Bush administration can suffer something like the Vietnam defeat in Iraq.
Note that on one point I give Pilger more credit than I do the Democratic candidates: curiously enough, he puts defeat in Vietnam in quotes. PIlger may recognize that the US “defeat” there was at least partly self-inflicted, caused by both military and political restraints, including the propaganda work of the Left itself. I’m not so sure today’s Democratic candidates would recognize that fact.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
These Copperheads are just unswerving in their support of their “Valladigham platform”. One hundred and forty years ago, they would have been just as happy to leave the Negroes in slavery in exchange for “peace” as they are today to leave anyone not as white or privileged as themselves in tyranny.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The Pilger quote is priceless, and the analysis of its significance insightful. As an aging neocon myself I was on the anti-war side during Vietnam, and recall with clarity and some retrospective shame that we expected the US to fail and many certainly desired it as well. BUT–that was because we thought the US was on “the wrong side of history.” We had, we thought, a progressive justification for the anti-war position in our useful-idiot leftism.
Learning what the price of “progress” was in China and the Soviet Union, seeing it happen again after we left Vietnam–these experiences are part of what shifted my politics. Pilger, on the other hand, knows that he is aligned with bad people, must know that their goals along with their methods are terrible–and he does not care. Any stick to beat a dog. . .
November 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I’m shocked, shocked I say! Candidates in a crowded primary field are pandering to their party’s base. Who ever heard of such complete disregard for truth, justice and the American Way?
Pardon the sarcasm, but isn’t this exactly what politicians in both parties do? Aren’t the Republicans just as mindlessly hitting their own hot button issues like lower taxes, tough immigration and family values in an effort to win a few more votes in their own primaries? Who really expects serious, cogent and insightful discussion of actual issues, especially in these contrived “debate” formats that have become little more than an opportunity for everyone involved to litter the airwaves with sound bites from their stump speeches?
As for the tendency of politicians to secretly (or not so secretly) hope that the administration currently in the White House will make a mess of their foreign policy, especially with a lame duck President, I seem to remember Republican outrage (mixed with a heaping dose of glee) when Carter dealt with Iran in the hostage crisis and Clinton was CIC while we had troops in the Balkans. Again, this may be unseemly, but it is not a fault owned by only one of the two major parties.
As to the issues of substance, the jury remains out on whether the surge will accomplish much more than a temporary reduction in casualties. Many observers are concerned that a big part of the seeming success is associated with the ever more hard edged divisions between Shia, Sunni and Kurd areas. Where these groups were previously much more integrated, today the divisions have become virtually absolute. This is not a path to long-term peace and stability … nor was it intended to be. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has not taken the opportunity this respite was designed to provide to come together and begin working out their differences in order to pull the country together. Nor has our government seriously pressed them to stop bickering and do so. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. In many ways, the current surge is analogous to the entire adventure; the military has done a fantastic job despite a wide array of systemic and political obstacles while the diplomatic front has been AWOL far too much of the time.
The long arc of warfare in the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries has been toward increased use of terror as an acceptable means of conducting war. Given that there are hundreds of definitions for terrorism and a virtually infinite number of interpretations of those definitions it is helpful to have some common agreement for what is and what is not terrorism. My own short definition is use of violence against civilians to create a climate of fear for the purpose of bringing about change in the governmental, economic or social structure. Of course, this definition could be leveled against virtually every nation including ours (firebombing Dresden and Tokyo for example), let alone would be revolutionary cadres. Oh, and don’t forget groups like the KKK.
It was my own hope in the period immediately following 9/11 that the U.S. might leverage the wide spread shock around the world to place on the international agenda the issue of how to better define and prohibit the use of terrorism. I feel that was an opportunity squandered. Instead, under the thinking of those at the top in the Bush administration, we have moved in the direction of arguing that we must beat them at their own game, in other words, do a better job of using many of the same tactics and techniques (cf. torture).
November 20th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Chris White: I can only imagine you missed this post of mine.
The sad thing, however, is that, right now, the Democratic base is far more base than I ever recall thinking the Republican base was, even when I was a diehard liberal Democrat.
The Republicans, by the way, were not happy with Carter’s failed handling of the hostage crisis, not his non-existent success in handling it. I do not remember glee on their part; I remember disgusted outrage.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Chris:
Republicans talk about “issues” like lower taxes because they work (see Northern Ireland). They talk about immigration because it’s a huge problem (see California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona). They talk about family values because they see what the destruction of the nuclear family has brought about. They’re trying to solve problems, not “pander to a base”. They criticized Clinton’s actions in the Balkans because they did no good (and we still have troops there, after we were assured that they’d “be home by Christmas”), and as Neo points out, we were disgusted by Carter’s abysmal record in “handling” the Iranian hostage crisis.
The trouble with “progressives” is that they haven’t ever realized that their policies have never worked, anywhere they’ve ever been attempted.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
If Republicans pandering to the base means ‘hitting their own hot button issues like lower taxes, tough immigration and family values’, well, pander on. Can someone explain what’s so terrible about that?
Though I imagine that what Chris White meant by ‘tough immigration’ was tough on illegal immigration.
Chris White’s definition of terrorism seems to be uniquely designed to equate ‘terrorism’ with ‘war’. It certainly isn’t my definition. While I certainly hope we minimize civilian casualties whenever possible (without jeopardizing victory), terrorist tactics require as many civilian casualties as possible while minimalizing risk of a military response.
As Chris White says, terrorists attempt to, ‘use of violence against civilians to create a climate of fear’, but they are also trying to prevent their enemy from bringing his military might to the party. This is why middle eastern countries have not lately openly declared war on Israel, but continue to use suicide bombers.
Terrorist strategy also includes hiding amonst civilians in an attempt to use the enemies moral code against him (and in mosques, etc.)
Of course, even Chris White admits his definition could be leveled against virtually every nation. It seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to equate terrorism with traditional warfare, thereby both deligitimizing war and/or legitimizing terrorism.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
US Democrats actually want American soldiers to die in large numbers so they can win decisively in 2008. Is that despicable?
It depends on your point of view. If you absolutely hate America for what it has done to the progressive’s wish for a world marching ever leftward, you might sympathize with the US Democrats.
If you want the Iraqis to have a peaceful prosperous country, you want to kick the US DP in the cojones.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I did catch the post and I do appreciate that you have had similar complaints about the Republicans.
How are “success” and “failure” defined in terms of the Iran hostage crisis? No hostages died. We did not enter a war in Iran. Iran lost far more than it gained in its relations with most of the other nations of the world. The U.S. did not give in to any of Iran’s demands. The only clear failures were a pair of ill-fated rescue attempts in which none of the casualties and injuries were due to enemy action, but rather to weather related equipment failure and human error on the part of a pilot.
One can posit a very different approach and say that we could instead have taken over of the embassy with a commando raid by special forces immediately prior to a massive attack on the country. We can go on and posit that this could have saved most, if not all, the lives of the hostages but even more could have freed the country from its new theocratic regime, thus snuffing the rise of the radical Islamic movement and bringing about a new paradigm in the Middle East. Is this a realistic supposition?
One can also make the case that we “lost face” by failing to exert our military might. On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress? Or do we join the throng of kids calling for revenge and eager to see the big guy shake it off and break the pipsqueak’s face?
If one thinks that the entire Iraq adventure has been, at best, misguided from its initial planning forward, the relative “success” of the surge, that is to say the increased troop numbers (something many military voices called for BEFORE the invasion), is cold comfort and not a valid argument for the entire enterprise.
As for the issue of terrorism, the march of history over the past 150 years has been toward ever higher percentages of civilian versus military casualties during wars. When nation states use firebombing of civilian areas as ‘legitimate’ military targets using the logic that the enemy exists within the population, the question of who or what is a valid target for whom, using what means, is the entire crux of the issue. One cannot simply fall back on the idea that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not. This is ultimately the same argument of whether we do or do not follow laws in pursuit of those who break them.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
appley Says: … If you want the Iraqis to have a peaceful prosperous country, you want to kick the US DP in the cojones.
You can’t kick what’s not there.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
The US must fail to ’save’ North Korea… what a loon…
The US is a big world problem even though we are not attacking places like [socialist] Sweden… it’s the Iraqs and North Korea.. and we must be stopped…. pffft…
November 20th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Chris White:
“Aren’t the Republicans just as mindlessly hitting their own hot button issues like lower taxes, tough immigration and family values in an effort to win a few more votes in their own primaries?”
I dont think so. You see, our candidates can answer the question of whether or not illegal immigrants should be issued drivers licenses because, 1.) our guys have a moral and practical opinion on the issue and, 2). It happens to be the same opinion as the majority of the electorate.
“This is ultimately the same argument of whether we do or do not follow laws in pursuit of those who break them.”
No Chris, it isnt. Its a recognition of the fact that if you want to “Save Darfur” or “Free Tibet”, you gotta do something more than just slap it on a bumper sticker, and that “something” in reality, often requires violence.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
The Chris Whites of the world understand, Harry.
They slap on the bumper stickers, safely knowing they are required by their own standards to do nothing more. But, by their standards, they are morally superior heroes speaking truth to power.
The other part of the country does the real work, giving the Chris Whites opportunity to complain about what meanies we are.
Win-win for them, and don’t think for a minute they haven’t figured it out.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Chris White,
I suggest you read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” to get deeper understanding of the reaction to 9/11 and the denial prevalent in Europe.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
How is it that the same people who claim Republicans are just a bunch of dumb hicks who are incapable of nuanced thought also claim not to be able to tell the difference between targeting civilians and the inevitable civilian casualties that result when targeting the enemies military?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I’m also wandering who exactly it is that has expressed the idea that ‘that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not’.
I hear this a lot so it MUST be a prevalent thought among a large percentage of Americans…
November 20th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
They slap on the bumper stickers, safely knowing they are required by their own standards to do nothing more. But, by their standards, they are morally superior heroes speaking truth to power.
The other part of the country does the real work, giving the Chris Whites opportunity to complain about what meanies we are.
Would that be something like the “Support the Troops” stickers? Or would that “real work” be something like leaving comments on this blog accusing people of being traitors?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
The sad thing, however, is that, right now, the Democratic base is far more base than I ever recall thinking the Republican base was, even when I was a diehard liberal Democrat.
This is of course a completely ridiculous statement. It’s the Republican candidates who want to “double gitmo”, practice unrestrained torture, and invade Iran, positions that are not supported by a majority of the American public. On the left, the “radicals” want withdrawal from Iraq, which I would say is a fairly natural response to four years of inconclusive insurgency and also…a position supported by a majority of Americans.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Where to start! Lets start with Hitchens. I shall disclose my conflict of interest in stating first that I detest the man:
What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism [about recent positive developments in Iraq]…but the da[r]k and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased.
Evidence of that assertion? Oh, none. Just a “dark and sinister” impression. Sort of like on this blog. And I particularly enjoyed how he tacks that on at the very end of the column, as if he couldn’t write just one column about Iraq without insinuating the critics of the war are traitors. Nevermind that the right has been consistently wrong about Iraq, and that at this point skepticism is the ONLY appropriate response to reports of good news out of Iraq.
And how shall we impugn the credibility and motives of leading Democratic politicians? By citing a relatively unknown and very left-of-center “journalist”:
The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order that the US will be weakened worldwide.
Oh, but that wasn’t good enough. Instead you “reimagined” what Democrats would really say, in Pilger’s words.
Oh, but there is a caveat:
Yes, I know that the Democratic candidates don’t share Pilger’s extreme anti-American stance. But unfortunately their party has too many people who do.
Where? Find them, and point them out to me. That does not include everyone who disagrees with you about the war, despite what you may think.
Please. The right has done plenty to weaken the United States, without the help of anyone on the left. Do you for one second believe we are stronger now than we were before we invaded Iraq? Here, let’s test that assumption: how free are we to deal with Iran? Hmmm…less free because they can react against us in Iraq. How free are we to deal with militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Oh, less free because we 175,000 troops in Iraq. Would you say that Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons or the strength of the militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan is evidence of our strength? Neither would I. “Leftists” and “Democrats” are not to blame for this because, as even you would admit, they did not start this war in Iraq.
As for the “progress” in Iraq, as a good neocon, you are probably aware that Stephen Biddle, a very sensible adviser to Gen. Patraeus, has stated that our current strategy will at best bring about eventual stability if we keep 100,000 or so troops in Iraq for the next 20-30 years. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? And do you think the American people would have signed on to this war if they knew that was in the cards? Do you think they’d sign onto it now? No, I don’t either. But I suppose that just makes a majority of Americans “leftists” or traitors, right?
November 20th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
When we do it, it is “collateral damage”, when they do it, it is “targeting civilians.” When they do it it is torture, when we do it there is a Presidential signing statement denying that it (waterboarding, for example) rises to the level of torture. It is very much an issue of legalistic semantics. When the AG nominee can’t clearly offer an opinion on whether a classic torture technique like waterboarding is indeed torture, we are on the road to defeat in the real war of ideas. I’m against it whether it is Them or Us. If that makes me a wacky idealist, that’s fine.
We, to our credit, generally discourage targeting civilians or using torture and tend to punish those over zealous soldiers who cross the line, at least when such activity comes to light. Radical groups, including al Quada, recruit the over zealous to perform such acts and they should be condemned and brought to justice for doing so.
While I am not a Democrat and find the endless political horserace less than ideal, the kind of over heated rhetoric that paints the Democratic Party as traitors wishing for U.S. troops to die so that they might win an election a symptom of a disease far worse than BDS.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Easy question. The latter, of course. Going to the teacher and tattling makes the big kid a puss …er…future liberal. Would you seriously respect the tattler? Good God. That alone speaks volumes.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Xan:
“Stephen Biddle, a very sensible adviser to Gen. Patraeus, has stated that our current strategy will at best bring about eventual stability if we keep 100,000 or so troops in Iraq for the next 20-30 years. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? And do you think the American people would have signed on to this war if they knew that was in the cards?”
Why shouldn’t they? After all, we’re still in S. Korea, we’re still in Kosovo. Does doing right have a time limit? Or is it that the Xans of the world are more embarrassed in the likelihood that the longer we maintain a steadfast conviction the worse off it is for Xan and his non existent moral convictions?
Yes, that’s it, isn’t it Xan?
Sometimes bumper stickers don’t quite do it do they Xan? Thats what really sets you off. You can try to turn this around, as you have, and attempt to make a “support the troops” bumper sticker the same thing, but what we support is actual freedom from oppression, not empty platitudes. Might that take 20 or 30 years Xan? Isn’t that worth it to somebody?
November 20th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
When we do it, it is “collateral damage”, when they do it, it is “targeting civilians.” When they do it it is torture, when we do it there is a Presidential signing statement denying that it (waterboarding, for example) rises to the level of torture.-Chris
I am bringing my understanding of the Left’s philosophy into play now. So isn’t it true, Chris, that the moral equivalency is only there because you believe that such actions are never justified without international approval and cooperation? In essence, America is not cooperating with terrorists or civilians amongst terrorists, and neither is terrorism cooperating with American plans, such as collateral damage or GitMo. Is not cooperation your ultimate goal for a better world? The ultimate solution to the nasty business of people dying.
How are “success” and “failure” defined in terms of the Iran hostage crisis?-Chris
Tap, if you are the same Tap as was present with Op at Bookworm Room, then you will know where this line of logic is going.
In general, what Chris brought up is the classic philosophical difference between those with a Leftist membership and those with a non-Leftist membership. By Leftist I include the Triangle of Death geometry present between National Socialism, Communists, and Democratic Socialists.
No hostages died. We did not enter a war in Iran. Iran lost far more than it gained in its relations with most of the other nations of the world.-Chris
To a Jacksonian or a conservative, winning is about gaining life and liberty over losing life and liberty. Losing is the latter only. The concept that people lose because they lost “relations” and status with other nations, is the philosophical assumption that humans, by cooperating, can ease social tensions and defuse violent situations.
This is only true if you believe in the martial virtues. This is not true if you believe in Leftist standards and values, however.
On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress? Or do we join the throng of kids calling for revenge and eager to see the big guy shake it off and break the pipsqueak’s face?
To requote this thought experiment, it is only a translation of Leftist philosophy which says that the only justification for violence or action of any kind is to call upon higher powers. And in the Leftist hierarchy of command, international approval is The higher power and authority. Authority does not come from individuals, after all, but from groups. This is opposite of martial virtues that dictate that power comes from individuals, also known as the people. It is also in direct contradiction to insurgency and guerrilla warfare, where the target is primarily people not specifically the higher authorities. Higher authorities only have authority because the people at the bottom give it to them. Raise up the people at the bottom against the authority, and the authority will cease to existence. Look at Iran when the Ayatollah deposed the Shah and also look at what the West is trying to do in Pakistan.
Isn’t trying to create global support simply an excuse to allow those ruthless enough to weld the people to them to win? I know the Left sees winning as both parties making agreements internationally. But that isn’t what happens after all. The Left does not have enough power to enforce cooperation, they only have the power to make reasonable people cooperate to their detriment. This frees up those that would target the real source of power, the people at the bottom, for carnage and violence.
Look at Petraeus’ COIN strategy to see how it treats individuals and people at the bottom. Then look at Leftist welfare and aristocratic attitudes to see who they see as the souce of power. It is simply the military’s bottom up hierarchy vs the aristocrat’s top down hierarchy. One is grassroots while the other is autocratic. Using philosophical premises and logic, this works out quite well even if the society that the Left resides in is democratic while the society the military resides in is dictatorial.
(something many military voices called for BEFORE the invasion)-Chris
The claim that many military voices called for a counter-insurgency doctrine to be implemented before the invasion, has few justifications. Did anyone hear generals and pundits talk about the need to craft stronger ties to the locals by arming them and ensuring that we fight with them to kill all enemies, foreign or domestic? There was nobody saying such things in 2003-4. Nobody that the Left would tolerate.
Even the Democrats and their Leftist allies that disagreed with the war, did so only based upon WMD, UN, and international law standards. Not COIN/Insurgency protests. Well, there was that “freedom fighter” business. Suddenly those freedom fighters are now our terrorist militia allies, suddenly. Fancy that. It just goes to show you how inverted are some people’s conceptions of what “grassroots” mean and what “top down leadership” is. They got those two mixed up.
More troops do not equal COIN. Not at all. Nor do “more local forces” equal COIN. The Iraqi face strategy doesn’t equal COIN either, as practiced by Abizaid at least. Counter-insurgency requires the building of a loyal powerbase from the ground up, individual by individual, family by family, sector by sector. This is completely mutually exclusive with the Leftist world view that people can simply be commanded to cooperate from the top down by those in the know.
When nation states use firebombing of civilian areas as ‘legitimate’ military targets using the logic that the enemy exists within the population, the question of who or what is a valid target for whom, using what means, is the entire crux of the issue.-Chris
Military necessity is not a field that the international goon squad of corrupt bureacrats have an interest in improving upon. That status quo is not going to change regardless of how many people complain about civilian casualties.
One cannot simply fall back on the idea that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not.
The moral equivalence that unintended civilian casualties are not okay while enemy intended civilian casualties are also not okay, is a philosophy bereft of free will. It does not take free will into consideration at all.
It is convenient, in a way, since the only way to get lambs and lions to cooperate together is to make them do so, against their wills, if wills they have. The Left lacks the ability to erase civilian casualties from the field of war. So they erase free will, thereby erasing the difference between intended consequences and unintended consequences. Thus murder would be the same as manslaughter. Would it then make any logical sense to say that someone thinks murder is not okay if they do it, but manslaughter is okay if we do it? What kind of logic does such statements use? A logic bereft of free will.
The issue of contention was never about whether such things were “okay” or not. The issue of contention was always “who authorizes the use of force”. The Left says the international “higher authority” cabal. I say never them. It is never okay to give into the demands of those that take more power than they actually have. Regardless of what those bureacrats actually want you to do.
Since American collateral damage is not authorized by the UN while terrorism is authorized by the UN, whether through bribery or simply ideological adherence, American actions will always be “not okay”. It doesn’t really matter whether America did something bad or not. What matters is that America does not knuckle under demands from the international community that such a magnificent fighting force such as the US Marines and US Army should be used on assignments of Sex for Food by any UN bureacrat or other internationally sanctioned group like the Human Rights Commission in need of such services. That’s what is not okay with the higher authorities.
No Chris, it isnt. Its a recognition of the fact that if you want to “Save Darfur” or “Free Tibet”, you gotta do something more than just slap it on a bumper sticker, and that “something” in reality, often requires violence.-Harry
Chris may authorize such violence. If the international community agreed to it. Did he not, after all, say that he wanted Saddam removed in Gulf War 1 because the UN had sanctioned his removal?
I suggest you read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” to get deeper understanding of the reaction to 9/11 and the denial prevalent in Europe-expat
It is not really about whether Chris is well read in the topic or not. As Op demonstrated at Bookworm Room, you can be knowledgeable about a subject but still limited by your philosophical assumptions. No amount of new reading can change someone’s basic philosophical assumptions that they have held for many years.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Ymar:
“And in the Leftist hierarchy of command, international approval is The higher power and authority. Authority does not come from individuals, after all, but from groups.”
Have a problem? Create a committee to study the problem, appoint somebody else to be in charge and pay them from the public coffers. That way if the problem continues, you can use the poor sap you hired for the job as a scapegoat for why the system failed, create another level of bureaucracy above that and pay them with more public funding, all to avoid doing something about the problem yourself.
In Oregon, you cant even pump your own gas. That would be dangerously capricious. Its better the “highly trained” minimum wage “specialist” pumps it for you.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Or is it that the Xans of the world are more embarrassed in the likelihood that the longer we maintain a steadfast conviction the worse off it is for Xan and his non existent moral convictions?
Well, actually I was thinking more about what it means for our national security that we have 100,000 soldiers sitting in Iraq for two or three decades, will insurgencies fester in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Clearly you haven’t considered that little problem, or you might think of it as conundrum more for our country than my own personal moral convictions.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Easy question. The latter, of course. Going to the teacher and tattling makes the big kid a puss …er…future liberal. Would you seriously respect the tattler? Good God. That alone speaks volumes.
And thus, the war is explained. Remember kids: for all the high-falutin’ language about WMDS, it really was about picking up a smaller country and throwing it up against the well, demonstrating that in fact our country has the biggest balls in the whole world.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am
On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress?
But what if the “teacher,” after being asked for “proper redress,” then smiles benignly at the “pipsqueak” while the “pipsqueak” blithely continues inflicting violence on the “big kid” and many other children on the playground? Big kid needs to do some ass-kicking, I think.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:57 am
All the right or wrong phlosophical arguments aside, everyone seems to missing what the denial of funding for the war is going to do to the military, it is a very big deal and could set us into a tailspin for years to come.
The war will go on as we have troops in the field so the money will come from stateside with huge implications. Laying off 100,000 contactors for a start, cancelling or defering the start of many contracts for new weapons or repair of the worn out equipment we have. Then it will be parking ships and airplanes and stopping all training and refitting. I hope they dont know what they are doing, if they do, it is treasonous becuase it means the democratic party really wants to hamstring the military for years to come.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:06 am
I guess Dr. Seuss applys, I love the ending:
a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmH0c7LW3E=”>
if link doesnt work cut and paste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmH0c7LW3E
November 21st, 2007 at 2:38 am
Xan:
“Well, actually I was thinking more about what it means for our national security that we have 100,000 soldiers sitting in Iraq for two or three decades, will insurgencies fester in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
That’s you pretending Iraq isn’t a national security matter, and/or pretending that national security drives your concerns. I’m convinced that it isn’t. You’re going to have to find another excuse as to why we shouldn’t continue to fight this one out. So far, you excuses are exhausted.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:44 am
CW: When we do it, it is “collateral damage”, when they do it, it is “targeting civilians.”
The inability to make moral distinctions between accidental but unavoidable deaths in war and the deliberate attempt to maximize such deaths has sometimes been referred to as moral relativism, but it shouldn’t be — it’s really a kind of moral imbecility. An imbecility that has come to characterize ever growing segments of the contemporary Democratic Party as it continues to be bent out of any decent shape by its frenzied and degenerate left wing.
CW (after apparently giving his head a shake): We, to our credit, generally discourage targeting civilians or using torture and tend to punish those over zealous soldiers who cross the line, at least when such activity comes to light. Radical groups, including al Quada, recruit the over zealous to perform such acts and they should be condemned and brought to justice for doing so.
Some people seem to think that if you say something ridiculous and stupid one minute and then turn around and say the opposite the next, this will make you look complicated. It doesn’t. It just makes you look simple, and I don’t mean that in a good way. These are the modern equivalent of the “useful idiots” that were so helpful to the previous incarnation of the totalitarian impulse.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:14 am
X: And thus, the war is explained. Remember kids: for all the high-falutin’ language about WMDS, it really was about picking up a smaller country and throwing it up against the well, demonstrating that in fact our country has the biggest balls in the whole world.
And thus we see the extent and depth of the Lefty view of strategy — no doubt unconsciously, but quite vividly, they view the world as just a backdrop for the projection of nothing more than their schoolboy fears and anxieties.
No, X, I’m afraid there really is more to it — but, though the language isn’t really all that “high-falutin’”, you might find it a bit of a strain. For one thing, while WMDs were a serious concern, particularly given the weakening international sanctions, they were certainly not the only one. The real point of the Iraq invasion was to begin the long but essential program of draining the terrorist-breeding swamp of the Middle East, by striking at the most vicious and terrorist-supporting regime at its heart. It was, from the start, a risk, certainly, but a calculated one, and ultimately — in the terrible light of 9/11 — a necessary one, that would only have to be repeated, later, under worse circumstances, should it fail. Like all such risks, it’s had its mistakes, and even partial failures. But grownups understand that, and understand the need for the patience and fortitude to see things through. Even the need to put up with the tantrums of the arrested-development left.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:12 am
“The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order that the US will be weakened worldwide.”
that sure is warped thinking. Personally I would like a triumph for Iraqi resistance just on principle alone. After all, I would like to win if I was being bullied and trampled on in my country by foreigners. And it isn’t just Iraq. I cheer for Hamas, I cheer for Hezballah. I cheer for Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. I cheer for everyone being trampled upon by anyone else. The US is Godzilla, Israel has a sneaky hand in the roid rage…oops, I mean the war on terror. Democrates, Republicans…they pay the same piper for slightly different tunes. BFD.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:06 am
Bonnie: I cheer for Hamas, I cheer for Hezballah. I cheer for Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez.
Once upon a time you could have seen her likes cheering for Hitler, being trampled upon by those sneaky Joos, couldn’t you? Bonnie’s not a moral imbecile, at least — she’s quite clear about which side she’s on. But you couldn’t ask for a better illustration of what the deranged and degenerate left has been reduced to these days. Thanks, Bonnie.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:15 am
This is why I left the Democratic party. When an American president represents one side of a conflict and a mass murdering dictator represents the other side of a conflict…it should not be difficult to pick the American side to win.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:35 am
Uhm, I think Democrats see evil, it is just, as with the left, they pick it to prove there is no such thing. Evil is good, good is neutral, blue is green, and everything is happy, give or take. It is why they MUST choose for us to lose.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:15 am
Oh, but you all have it figured out right? All the same on conservative blogs, like you get a marching order and “talk” about it.
Anyone care to know how many military families are actually relieved about what the Dems are proposing?
Can a war be won without the support of the loved ones at home? Doubtful. But, all YOU are told is to derail the Dems and take no responsiblity yourselves for supporting the GOP who for the last 6 years provided no oversight, ran up the largest debt ever and looked the other way while only 1% fought their war. Well, ITS YOUR WAR TOO!
Serious problems with the war in Iraq are well chronicled, but I am struck by one that does not seem to trouble the country’s leadership, even though it is profoundly corrosive to our common good: the disparity between the lives of the few who are fighting and being killed, and the many who have been asked for nothing more than to continue shopping.
Those who rationalize this disconnect have argued that our soldiers are volunteers, happy doing what they signed up to do.
Hubris. GOP Hubris.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
And, Sally, just read your post. This is a common tactic among the right wing. If they don’t agree, smear them. Classic and totally transparent.
YOU DON’T get to define people. you may think that you have the power to do that, and that somehow a person’s credibility goes down the drain. The same old line from every right winger is to try and discredit. Problem is, it’s such a tired old line that you end up looking really weak.
Don’t like what they say, and derail their patriotism as if only you and your party have that base covered. HUBRIS
November 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
Finally, answer this: WHO IS “WE” when YOU are referring to “WE” are winning in Iraq? Who exactly is we?
Because it certainly isn’t YOU and it certainly isn’t YOUR KIDS and it certainly isn’t costing YOU anything now is it?
It’s easy to support a war when you aren’t the one doing the fighting. HUBRIS.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:42 am
Sally offers, “The real point of the Iraq invasion was to begin the long but essential program of draining the terrorist-breeding swamp of the Middle East, by striking at the most vicious and terrorist-supporting regime at its heart. It was, from the start, a risk, certainly, but a calculated one, and ultimately — in the terrible light of 9/11 — a necessary one, that would only have to be repeated, later, under worse circumstances, should it fail.”
I’m trying to remember which countries in the Middle East the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Oh, right, they were primarily from Saudi Arabia. But the leadership, surely that was Saddam, right? No? Oh, it was Osama bin Laden, I think I remember that now. But he hid out and got his support from Iraq, didn’t he? Oh, he flits between Afghanistan and Pakistan does he?
In the months leading up to the Iraq invasion we were inundated by the Bush administration with spurious links between the 9/11 attack and Iraq, despite the actual facts of the matter. Advertising works I guess.
Hmmm, so why did we target Iraq again? Because Saddam might possibly, in a number of years, if he got materials and expertise from other nations and continued to thumb his nose at the international community, have reconstituted his dismantled, nascent WMD program. Then, once he had WMD he could have decided to share them with al Quada, even though he and al Quada were not exactly friendly, because he ran “the most vicious and terror-supporting regime.”
I thought that regime was in Libya. Oh, right, we managed to use international sanctions and diplomatic means to change that. Wait, wait, I remember, it’s Syria, or maybe Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Golly, this is so confusing.
As this neocon vs. leftist tussle rolls along I continue to be astounded by the some of the extremes voiced in the posts. From the assertion that the Democratic Party is virtually no different than Stalinist Communism on the one side, to the “I cheer for Hamas” idiocy on the other.
The strongest correlation for the creation of terrorists seems to be among youth who have achieved a level of higher education and modest economic means but who live under highly repressive regimes that use draconian means to maintain power and order, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan. And yes, Iraq and Iran. The question is how to best drain those terrorist-breeding swamps. Having a different view of how to do that, one that does not tend toward showing the terrorists that we have bigger balls than they do, does not make me a traitor … or a puss. I believe that the invasion of Iraq has weakened our long-term security, especially because it failed to balance military might with diplomatic smarts and international support.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
Laura: This is a common tactic among the right wing. If they don’t agree, smear them.
A common tactic “among” the left wing too, then wouldn’t you say?
Get over yourself, Laura. You’re wearing that “military family” badge pretty thin. Here’s what you need to understand: this isn’t about party politics. The war isn’t a game, and choosing sides isn’t like picking your team. This is about doing what needs to be done to stop a great evil, and about choosing sides in that struggle. If you want to argue about that, fine, do so, but driveling on about shopping doesn’t do it. And your whole “military families = victims” schtick is just unworthy of the bravery and sacrifices of those who’ve volunteered to fight in this struggle.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:09 am
You sum up quite clearly how the right wing thinks about this Sally.
Here is something for you to chew on. This HAS been a political football. For too long. The GOP has attempted to silence the rational voices on the war and laid the work on a small group of people. The lessons of Vietnam for the PNAC et al were clear…give hefty tax cuts, infuse the country with rampant nationalism, have “support the troops” rallies, show up and give speeches with the troops in the background as a great photo op, keep pictures of the fallen out of the mainstream, and tell your fellow americans that they need to stay the course.
While you might poo poo the idea of the military family’s dribble was it? You underestimate the power of the 1% of the country fighting the war; their families.
Your arrogance is astounding really Sally. Once again, easy to support something that doesn’t affect you personally, as long as you have your tax cuts and feel “safe”…People tend to care deeply about the issues that affect them deeply. This one just passes through the filter in your brain and gets cast aside. Perhaps because you know exactly why you have that knawing feeling in your gut when you see a photo of a fallen soldier, or hear of a soldier killing himself in country.
It’s called guilt. And, you Sally, are complicit in the country being far less safe. Thanks so much!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Partnership for a Secure America has this article worth reading: about the military
“Thank You for Your Service. Now Draft Me.”
by Matthew Rojansky | November 20th, 2007
November 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am
“Party Here, Sacrifice over there”
It’s a sobering read from someone deeply touched by the war. Right Left Center should read as much as they can from these soldiers. We owe it to them to support them as they wrestle with the aftermath of war.
Will Bardenwerper, an Army infantry officer from 2003 to 2007, was stationed for 13 months in Nineveh and Anbar Provinces in Iraq.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
That’s you pretending Iraq isn’t a national security matter, and/or pretending that national security drives your concerns. I’m convinced that it isn’t. You’re going to have to find another excuse as to why we shouldn’t continue to fight this one out. So far, you excuses are exhausted.
Excuses…you’re a clever one, though not clever enough to understand my point. Which is (in case you’re wondering) that although the right is busy celebrating the “victory” over al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is busy making itself very comfortable in Pakistan’s western provinces, and is having a grand time killing our soldiers in Afghanistan as well. So I would like you to explain how you can dismiss that situation and yet consider yourself someone who is “serious” about national security matters.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Sally says: “And your whole “military families = victims” schtick is just unworthy of the bravery and sacrifices of those who’ve volunteered to fight in this struggle.”
That is another common tactic, rehash the worthless words “bravery and sacrifices” and “voluteered”.
Sally, how many soldiers have been backdoor drafted? 70,000. Did they “voluteer” for that? Wake up Sally.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am
X: great post and really great website
November 21st, 2007 at 9:30 am
No, X, I’m afraid there really is more to it — but, though the language isn’t really all that “high-falutin’”, you might find it a bit of a strain. For one thing, while WMDs were a serious concern, particularly given the weakening international sanctions, they were certainly not the only one. The real point of the Iraq invasion was to begin the long but essential program of draining the terrorist-breeding swamp of the Middle East, by striking at the most vicious and terrorist-supporting regime at its heart.
Oh, I’m quite familiar with that rationale, as it is repeatedly peddled alongside the WMD and humanitarian rationales. However, I might remind you that:
a) Saddam Hussein’s connections to Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Middle East have always paled in comparison to those of Iraq
b) There were more al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq after the war then before, and
c) al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So it appears that instead of draining the swamp, we instead poured more water into it and added some more mosquitoes for good measure. The situation is now returning to something closer to what Iraq was like before we invaded (though despite victory proclamations, al Qaeda is still busy killing people in Iraq) AND the situation in Afghanistan is much worse. So not only was that rationale always insupportable, it also didn’t work. Not that those facts will change your mind.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:32 am
But grownups understand that, and understand the need for the patience and fortitude to see things through.
Oh, and one more thing…grownups understand that foreign policy is not premised on silly analogies.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:34 am
Once upon a time you could have seen her likes cheering for Hitler, being trampled upon by those sneaky Joos, couldn’t you?
It bears reminding that Fascists are on the right of the political dial, not the left. And according to many “good” Germans at the time, Hitler was only responding to the threat of Jews infiltrating and undermining the national security of the Fatherland? Does that ring a bell Sally?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
Has anyone read Podhoretz and “WW IV” to get a marvelously clear view of what this struggle is all about? There may be disagreements about appropriate tactics to use, and which battle made more sense–going after Iraq and not Iran, for example–but the conclusions cannot be avoided. One may accuse Podhoretz, of all kinds of “bad reasoning” as did the late Norman Mailer, but again, the conclusions match the data that got him there. This is a significant human struggle, no less than the fascist threats of a different era, or the false Marxist ideology of domination that followed that struggle. The horror of this, new and viscious threat is shown by its posute of no concern about MAD counters and the oft stated notion that the political state does not matter, the ideology of reward in a paradise in the sky will greet the faithful. Nothing like this has been seen since Mao’s oft cited notion that the loss of several hundred million Chinese does not matter, since a billion will be left alive in victory.
We need to ponder these things on this Thanksgiving holiday, and not forget that America is the only real protector of civil society in the world.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
What is more American, diplomacy or war? What best represents the ideals, institutions, traditions, goals and intentions of the U.S.: diplomacy or war?
The answer is obvious: diplomacy. American, unlike every other superpower through history, has relied mostly on diplomacy to maintain its security. To be sure, there have been cases where America misued its military power or other cases where diplomacy failed and military power was the only remaining option.
Given that, why do Republicans always root for American diplomacy to fail?
Why, for example, do right wingers blame American diplomacy in Vietnam for failing? Vietnam was a very difficult situation with deep, unreasolved conflicts within the country and the region. American diplomacy was certainly an incomplete success there, but why do right-wingers insist that it failed abjectly and that, therefore, the only possible recourse was war, war and more war?
When American policy was to contain Saddam Hussein, every right winger from sea to shining sea, was begging for America to fail. After 9/11, every right winger with access to a printing press or a microphone, declared that containment had failed, that American diplomacy had failed–and desperately hoped for evidence to prove the assertion correct.
We now know that the containment strategy worked. Saddam was unable to obtain WMD, even though all signs are clearly that he would have preferred to have them.
To be sure, the success of diplomacy in Iraq was incomplete, but clearly much more complete than any success the war policy can now claim.
Why is it that right wingers feel so free to root for the failure of diplomacy, yet feel that rooting for the failure of war is somehow unpatriotic?
Is it plain small-mindedness, denial or ignorance?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:37 am
Laura: thank you, and feel free to visit anytime.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:37 am
Sally says:”But grownups understand that, and understand the need for the patience and fortitude to see things through. Even the need to put up with the tantrums of the arrested-development left.”
Oh gosh Sally, really? Grownups understand that? I wonder if you have kids in high school or college right now Sally. I mean, you write about the long hard work, yet you’re perfectly comfortable looking the other way while the same soldiers keep going out over and over without end.
how long you think “we” can keep that up Sally? On the backs of so few who are working really hard over and over again so you can feel safe here at home? And, that patronizing tone “it’s hard work” crap is just that, crap. If you were really concerned about our national security, and were a true conservative, you would be highly concerned about the costs, the corruption, the lack of oversight, the debt, and most importantly PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN!
Your cheap two cent flag from WalMart and your yellow magnet mixed in with your patronizing remarks to someone WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE WAR THAN YOU DO sally, are disgusting.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:39 am
Has anyone read Podhoretz and “WW IV” to get a marvelously clear view of what this struggle is all about?
I’m sorry, but Podhoretz is mired in a fog of fear about swarthy Arabs. In no way does Iran present the threat to us that communism or the Soviet Union did, and in no way do they have the ability to dominate the Middle East as Germany did Europe. Unfortunately such fear-mongering by Podhoretz and his ilk is necessary, because no rational American would be convinced of the necessity of starting another war in the Middle East unless we faced an existential threat to our nation. But we don’t.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:46 am
X, that is indeed a must read. What scares the bejeezus out of me and many military families, and I might add THE GENERALS, is this push for war with Iran.
Iran is years away from a nuke, period. Yet, Cheney and his ilk are pounding away on the NIE and keeping it out of circulation until the dissenting intel analysts put the language in that the WHITE HOUSE wants in. Smells like Iraq to me.
The run up to Iraq was very much the same. Same song and dance routine. The hubris lies in the FACT that Iran will retaliate. It’s like the same old crap we saw with Iraq, “greeting us like liberators” lasting “weeks not months” and “the war will pay for itself”…these people would rather construct the war with big business, BIG OIL, and a few neocons from PNAC and leave all the experts scratching their heads.
Imperial Hubris, plain and simple.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Laura: Your cheap two cent flag from WalMart and your yellow magnet mixed in with your patronizing remarks to someone WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE WAR THAN YOU DO sally, are disgusting.
Laura’s yelling and name calling are right up there with X’s “who’s got the bigger balls” level of international conflict analysis. Both could do with an injection of, you know, ideas, thought, reflection, etc., but neither seems capable of anything close to that, being too caught up in their partisan zeal.
CW and JS at least give evidence that they’re able to think, when pushed to it, but both seem stuck on some elementary school civics class level wherein “diplomacy” is a magical word that can conjure away any conflict, and only Black Hat Republicans (”Rethuglicans” anyone?) lust for war at any cost. If only it were true.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:11 am
What a transparent cheap shot Sally. It’s okay, I get it, you are defensive.
As if I don’t know what’s a stake Sally?
Your posts do a better job of enlightening people on the winger mindset than any rebut from me. Please keep posting and reveal yourself while I keep my own understanding from the perspective or zeal is it? that I have come to know. You go do whatever it is that you do to keep you “informed” and don’t forget to “support the troops”!
Now, go out and do the right thing?
November 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
My, my, they’re certainly out in force today.
Jack:
“When American policy was to contain Saddam Hussein, every right winger from sea to shining sea, was begging for America to fail. After 9/11, every right winger with access to a printing press or a microphone, declared that containment had failed, that American diplomacy had failed–and desperately hoped for evidence to prove the assertion correct.”
Right wingers could only say those things when they happened to be true, not as a reflection of a desire despite the facts. Thats the difference between liberals cheerleading defeat in Iraq, and right-wingers accurate portrayal of a “containment” system that routinely shot at our aircraft, attempted to assassinate a former US President and successfully nullified economic sanctions with European assistance. All the while liberals were blaming their own country that this “containment” policy was depriving Iraqi children food and medical supplies at the rate of 5,000 dead babies a month. So even while we were doing what you now are saying was the right thing, we were the bad guys even then.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:34 am
Laura, I am sorry to say this, Laura, but you really are starting to sound like an hysterical moonbat, Laura, using typical leftwing shrieking and insult to silence your opponents, Laura, and, myself, I really am getting tired of your playing the “I’m in a military family!” Laura. They’re very good for educating us on the leftwinger mindset though, Laura.
I’m sorry, but I think venting and ranting are all you have to offer at this point, Laura.
Now, go out and do the right thing, which, in your case, I think would be splashing some cold water on your face, and taking a nice nap.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
The replies to Podhoretz’s “WWIV” in this month’s Commentary are well worth reading:
“What Kind of War are We Fighting, and Can We Win It”?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/What-Kind-of-War-Are-We-Fighting–and-Can-We-Win-It–10959
“The issue here, moreover, is more complex than “neoconservatives versus realists.” I am a conservative who does not fit in either category. Contrary to the realists, I agree that democracy promotion is in our long-range interest and stability by tyranny is not. But, with due respect to my neoconservative friends, a healthy respect for democracy worthy of the name recognizes that (a) it calls for a cultural transformation that cannot be brought about quickly, (b) it is of dubious value as a counterterrorism tool, and (c) it may be an impossibility in a society committed to maintaining an Islamic identity.
On the last two points, it is noteworthy that jihadist atrocities are commonly planned and carried out inside Western democracies. There are a variety of good reasons to promote democracy abroad, but protection against jihadism is evidently not one of them. Further, the principal root cause of terrorism is Islamic ideology, not a want of the benefits democracy affords; so the premise that democracy would eradicate radicalism is flawed. Finally, we conflate democracy with liberty, but the two are saliently different.”–Andrew C. McCarthy
November 21st, 2007 at 11:18 am
The New (quoting Andrew C. McCarthy): But, with due respect to my neoconservative friends, a healthy respect for democracy worthy of the name recognizes that (a) it calls for a cultural transformation that cannot be brought about quickly, (b) it is of dubious value as a counterterrorism tool, and (c) it may be an impossibility in a society committed to maintaining an Islamic identity.
Well, finally a critique of neoconservatism — or at least of a version of neoconservatism — that actually makes some rational points. I think the first point, especially, is important and accurate — the full transformation takes time, but like any process it has to have a start. The second two are more debatable, and are linked. First, if a democratic culture of any sort is impossible in an Islamic society, then I’m doubtful that Islamic societies can survive for long in a modern world. But, second, if a democratic culture is possible in such societies, it would represent the sort of transformation needed to turn them against the state-supported, oil-funded terrorists in their midst, without which support the foreign jihadis would soon wither. The point is that Islamist terrorism doesn’t occur in a vacuum — it represents the extreme reaction of a hierarchical, tribal-based culture to the very existence of the modern world, of which liberal democracy is a key aspect. If the latter triumphs, the former dies — and the jihadis are well aware of that.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:37 am
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
Dear Sir,
We, the undersigned, would be grateful as all hell if you would muster out Laura’s son so she would quit bleating about military families and the war and could go back to crocheting or whatever she did before her son joined up.
Sincerely,
Occam’s Beard
Any other signatories?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:45 am
Laura, please cut with the “military family crap” in your arguments. You really demean yourself and your loved ones. You sound like Cindy Sheehan. The more you write, the less you convince.
My father was in the military, and he would have been ashamed if I had whined and moaned like you do.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:50 am
Occam’s Beard–
I’ll sign your letter.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Oh little pets, you are so unaware of what you sow. It matters not to me if you are convinced or not.
I am working with thousands of other military family members to bring this issue to the fore. PTSD, SUICIDE, all have been making the main stream news. you won’t find that in a neo con blog or Rush, HANNITY et al, as this is news that they don’t want you to know. Sadly, it’s not NEW news.
The military is broken. In part because of a policy by Bush and others to make it as pain free and sacrifice free as possible. All of you are complicit in that.
When it does break, you won’t have Clinton to blame but yourselves and your support of his policies. You did nothing. The draft will come with the next admininstration, guaranteed. I will applaud the first brave soul to bring it about, in part to protect our country and in part to make everyone in this country a participant in our country’s foreign policy.
For now, enjoy eating your Turkey or whatever it is that you do on Thanksgiving. And, don’t forget that thousands of soldiers won’t be home, because they were drafted, again.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Uh, Laura, perhaps you were so busy studying nuclear physics to assess Iran’s program that you forgot to notice that in the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka, “There ain’t no draft, son.”
And there hasn’t been one for over 30 years.
But thanks for the Betty Crocker analysis on the military. The loss of Gen. Petraeus’ staff is our gain.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Some of this complaining would be valid if this were a war of choice.
During the Cold War, we could choose to not fight, or to fight, or to engage diplomatically, or ignore.
If we fought, we could choose to end in a draw–Korea–or a loss–Viet Nam.
The point, though, was to have a net winning percentage calculated with an infinite number of factors. Which, of course, provided fodder for a near-infinite number of arguments.
We could not choose to ignore or lose them all.
Today, we have the same situation. It may be possible to ignore/lose the Iraq war, but still need to win on an aggregate basis. But if we need to win in the aggregate, we have to fight someplace. Why not Iraq?
The Kay and Duelfer reports are clear that reinstituting the WMD industry was Saddaam’s goal. Having left him alone with Oil for Food, end of sanctions, no UN inspectors, he would have.
The complaints of one poster above that things aren’t going well in Afghanistan are composed to let us believe that he/she would be all on board for fighting in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. It’s bogus. Wherever we fight, we shouldn’t. To keep up some kind of seriousnes cred, they pretend they’d be okay fighting over there, not here. But that’s a lie. Were we to dump Iraq and increase the effort in Afghanistan, there would be a neck-snapping one-eighty about how awful it is to beat up on those poor farmers who …..
I think the left will have a hard time livng down dem congressman Clyburn’s statememt that good news from Iraq would be “bad news for us.” By “us” he means the dems, not America.
Clyburn told the truth. The rest of the lefty noise is nothing but an attempt to distract the discussion from Clyburn’s truth.
And that’s one reason I don’t choose to engage such as X as if he/she had the slightest good faith. They lie and they know they lie and I know they lie and I choose not to waste my time.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
They Lie? Right. If you were really concerned about national security, you wouldn’t look the other way on Afghanistan.
this war in Iraq is all about oil, and 9-11, WMD were the necessary reasons.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Laura’s yelling and name calling are right up there with X’s “who’s got the bigger balls” level of international conflict analysis.
Sally, attributing other people’s arguments to me is not actually that clever.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Laura Says:
“November 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
And, Sally, just read your post. This is a common tactic among the right wing. If they don’t agree, smear them. Classic and totally transparent.”
I have been unable to have a conversation about facts regarding a public policy with a leftist for years now. They always push it down in the muck about the [bad] intentions of ‘right wingers’… Even all your Hubris posts are essentially that (a personality judgment)… Not just about Iraq. About anything… Its always the right wingers being sell outs (re: its about $$$) or evil or whatever…
Projection Sally. Projection.
Bottom line, war was badly planned, too expensive, and it has been hard on the military. But they still want to be there (from the polls I’ve seen) and the surge seems to have helped. Maybe we can get out in a year or two and ‘win’ / not have screwed up Iraq / made it better than under Saddam… this might cause a domino effect and really screw with the other dictatorships in the ME… which would be a ‘win’ on the next level…
November 21st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Laura.
Where’s my oil?
I will give you credit for accidentally hitting on a point, although you haven’t figured it out. If Saddaam had a lock on the ME oil–his, Kuwait’s, Saudi Arabia’s by conquest and the rest by intimidation–he’d have more money than was good for him and for us. And the less wealthy countries, over a barrel, so to speak, would be in chaos.
And if you are still taking CBS seriously, you get what you deserve.
The suicide and PTSD issues have been dissected. The suicide rate in the military, corrected for age and gender, is slightly behind that of the civilians.
The increase in PTSD claims at the VA is coming from Vietnam-era guys, almost half of whom have no record of being near combat, or even in SEA.
It also comes about because of an expansion in the definition.
I know vets of WW II who are still troubled by their experiences, but who came home, raised families, got their kids educated, paid their taxes, and in general looked like normal people but who haven’t had a good night’s sleep in half a century. Or who can’t talk about one thing, or another, even today without getting emotional. We’d consider them to be suffering from PTSD, if we thought about it. But we didn’t then and we don’t now.
When it becomes politically useful…now everybody’s an expert.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Laura, I am sorry to say this, Laura, but you really are starting to sound like an hysterical moonbat, Laura, using typical leftwing shrieking and insult to silence your opponents, Laura, and, myself, I really am getting tired of your playing the “I’m in a military family!” Laura. They’re very good for educating us on the leftwinger mindset though, Laura.
Laura, just be aware that if you were pro-war and the mother of a son serving in the military, these guys would be carrying you on their shoulders right now and resting laurels at your feet…while at the same time bitching out “leftists” who have the nerve to complain about cuts for services for veterans. Instead they want-in a time of war-to have your son kicked out of the military. So, “support the troops” and all that from the REAL patriots…unless you disagree with them. If you’re not careful they’ll be hunting down your son’s myspace account and staking out your house.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Some of this complaining would be valid if this were a war of choice.
And it’s downhill from there. I suppose I need to remind you that since Saddam didn’t invade us, then it actually was a war of choice…except in the minds of right-wingers who, busy conflating Sunni/Shiite terrorists with Saddam Hussein, thought that the attacks on 9/11 were merely a “first strike” or something like that.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I know vets of WW II who are still troubled by their experiences, but who came home, raised families, got their kids educated, paid their taxes, and in general looked like normal people but who haven’t had a good night’s sleep in half a century. Or who can’t talk about one thing, or another, even today without getting emotional. We’d consider them to be suffering from PTSD, if we thought about it. But we didn’t then and we don’t now.
When it becomes politically useful…now everybody’s an expert.
And there it is! Back in the good old days, people were tougher and stronger, and dealt with the trauma of war by being tough and manly and sucking it up and never crying in public. Or actually, they shot themselves, drank themselves to death, killed their wives and kids and then themselves, became criminals, became homeless, or got addicted to drugs. Either way since they were nicely hidden from view and nobody talked about PTSD (because everybody thought guys who were scarred by combat were weak or cowards) then it wasn’t a problem, like liberals want to make it nowadays.
Or in reality, PTSD has ALWAYS existed and WILL ALWAYS exist because war is in fact hell, and the only way some men can get through killing other humans is by having no consciences, or having the consciences imparted over decades by society rapidly dismantled in the midst of a war. It’s just nowadays, in our more liberal and understanding society, we’d prefer to take care of these guys and not tell them to quietly go drink themselves to death.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
the only way some men can get through killing other humans is by having no consciencesi>
Do you mean Che Guevara wasn’t all peace and light? Or did he just get used to it, once he got the first few hundred executions out of the way?
November 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Thanks X. The Iraq war model will be disected is it? not that far from now as a terrible mistake. WWII is no comparison; we were all in it together, and the troops went in, and came home. They weren’t subjected to tour after tour with hardly any training in between. The common man, and woman was invested.
And, let’s not forget the profiteering. What was it that Roosevelt said about profiteering in WWII? Everyone from Rosie the Riveter to the women who volunteered to take care of Rosie’s kids while Rosie constructed airplanes for her husband Joe, to the little lady down the street saving her bacon grease for the war effort. America was invested.
That is not the case now. Disecting the data on suicides? And where may I ask did you get THAT info? Right, a right winger. Do you personally know someone who has taken their life after their deployment? I do, more than a few, and the aftermath is hell. The soldier is no different from America’s soldiers past; they still carry the same baggage. Its just this time, they carry the load of 99% of the country who makes not a single sacrifice in the war that is supposed to make us safer at home.
We say things like “thank you for your service” but do nothing about the policy to keep them there beyond their end of contract date. We keep silent and break down the statistics because it is such an ugly truth that we can barely stand to recognize it, and put it off as only a “few” soldiers have this problem, but not the majority.
Smedley Butler, the mose revered soldier to have ever served with the Marines was vilified when he truthfully said that “war is a racket”. He’s absolutely right.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Moving a Nation to Care.
How to do that? Find out
November 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I guess there really ISN”T a problem right?
Defense officials plan to have new counselors, charged with guiding wounded troops through the complex military and veterans health systems, in place and working with patients early next year.
Veterans support groups called the move an important first step, but said making sure the new recovery coordinators can fight on behalf of troops and families will be key in the success of the program.
“They have to be able to bust through the bureaucracy and have the authority to manage these cases,” said Jeremy Chwat, vice president for policy at the Wounded Warrior Project. “This will only be as good as the authority they are given.”
The new posts were one of the top recommendations from the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, put in place after complaints arose about the quality of troops’ care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center earlier this year.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I guess if you are a conservative and you sort of dismiss the sacrifices of the soldiers, then perhaps you have some problem with the way the war has been handled from a fiscal standpoint No?
The largest outlay of cash, 20 billion, are to “unkown” entities for “misc” expenses. Now, I don’t know about you, but if you lost 20 billion dollars, do you think that your board would think you are doing a good job? Or if your number 3 told an senator that yes, some of the money lost ended up in the hands of terrorists along with thousands of lost weapons that kill our soliers?
Or about how the first time in our nation’s history that we have had no bid contracts for work in Iraq and that those contracts went to Bushco contributors?
Or how about the credit crunch and connecting the dots so to speak on Ameriquest predatory lending CEO being Bush’s top contributor in 2004, paving the way for all the others to make millions on the backs of working people and then being rewarded cushy jobs as embassadors?
You aren’t a real conservative if you aren’t outraged at the president, his admininstration and his handling of his job as an elected official.
Tis okay. the next president will have sweeping powers made posssible by Emporer Bush and perhaps then you will want to wake up and pay attention.
tisk tisk
November 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Ah. Laura’s mask slips. She’s not just a concerned, rather dim-witted mom, as she had appeared to be. Nope. She’s got a political ax to grind quote apart from the military families schtick. She’s more clever than comrades X or CW (faint praise I know), and considerably more so than the hapless, cognitively disenfranchised Bonnie. Only now does Laura’s agenda become clear. This has nothing to do with her son in the military, assuming she even has one. That was just a vehicle for offering Democratic Underground-style “analysis.”
November 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
X
I am not telling you what I think you don’t know.
I am telling you that I know better, so you don’t bother me any more.
PTSD is up because of two reasons. An increase, for reasons not clear, in Vietnam-era vets, and an expanded definition.
The new numbers don’t mean anything is different. If things are different, the difference remains to be demonstrated.
The expanded services are an indication of expanded concern, not an indication that this war is different and worse.
So take your faux alarm off to some group of gullible where you might make some progress peddling what we both know is nonsense.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Attacking the patriotism of their opponents is a hackneyed, tried & died tactic of American conservatives for decades, therefore the paranoid (another unfortunate conservative trait) drivel about Dems & liberals wanting defeat, & wanting as many troops to die, etc. There’s no reputable person who holds these views, yet the right wingers continue to build these strawmen, knock ‘em over effortlessy, then exclaim in self-satisfaction that they’ve actually made a point, silliness. What I usually find is when conservatives encounter real thought & debate from libs they resort to these tactics–I’m not saying some of the lefties don’t have similar tactics, but I’m not writing about them right now. Hitchens has what a lot of late-arriving neo-cons have–an affliction I call “Dennis Miller Syndrome.” 9/11 so scared the beJeus out of them that they’re willing to hand over any civil liberty and approve of any torture tactic, any invasion, for a few seconds of “peace” of mind–losing all common sense in the process (”We had to destroy the village to save it.”). Conservative novelist Tom Clancy has a brilliant essay on this phenomena, Clancy, BTW, was one of a few American conservatives who warned against the Iraq invasion months before it happened. To have reasonable discussions about the war, taxes, elections, etc., you have to agree that we are all Americans holding relatively similar values–neither side is that far off, but the occasional chasm appears, & in those instances the temptation to build strawmen, assign absurdities, question patriotism, and adopt paranoid notions of your fellow American opponent often are too great.
Why anyone takes the neocons that seriously since they’ve been spectacularly wrong about nearly everything is beyond me–Kristol (”What do you want me to say now, Daddy?”) & Perle both have so much egg on their faces, they look like they’ve been in a hatchery explosion. But, many times its easier to hold on to failed views then admit your misjudgement, pride is death to the man.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
focus.
Good words about discussions. Problem is, they only go one way.
Only the conservatives fear. The liberals aren’t Stockholmed.
Only conservatives need to enter the uncertainties of war to feel certain.
But why do we need to believe the two sides are anywhere near close?
Have you forgotten that this is the twenty-first century and Clyburn’s comment is NOT going away?
Explain that in terms of both sides being somewhat close. The dems need to lose, they need a catastrophe in Iraq and they are bustin butt to have it.
The NYT opined that a genocide might well follow our withdrawal. But they were okay with that. The issue isn’t that they’re okay with that–we knew it–but that they, in their infinite wisdom foresee a slaughter.
So the dems are working toward a slaughter.
I’m going to ask only one question. Why should conservatives think this is a good idea?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
drivel about Dems & liberals wanting defeat
How about the House majority whip, Jim Clyburn (D-SC):
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”
Washington Post, July 30, 2007
November 21st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
The expanded services are an indication of expanded concern, not an indication that this war is different and worse.
Well, that’s pretty much what I said. Please read more carefully.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Explain that in terms of both sides being somewhat close. The dems need to lose, they need a catastrophe in Iraq and they are bustin butt to have it.
Not only do you people not understand foreign policy, you don’t understand politics. The Democrats don’t need to lose this war. The GOP has already demonstrated quite convincingly that they can’t be trusted with national security or foreign policy, and the eventual outcome in Iraq will not change that. The Dems have already “won” the political dividends of Republicans being so incompetent. The difference is one of principle, something you might appreciate were the right not so careless with the words “treason” and “traitor.”
November 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
How about the House majority whip, Jim Clyburn (D-SC)
He’s obviously referring to the Patraeus report, not actual conditions in Iraq. It was anticipated, and rightly so, that Patraeus and Crocker would put the most positive gloss on the situation on the ground in Iraq, and they did. Clyburn is talking about the political implications of such a report on Democrats who either are more inclined to agree with continuing our presence in Iraq, or are too afraid to admit that most Americans still want a draw down in Iraq. He was obviously concerned that such a report would draw those Democrats away from the Democrats who favor withdrawal, thus stifling legislative efforts. So, in other words, you missed the point of what he was talking about. Or, dishonestly spun it as you saw fit.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Amen X, you hit the nail on the head. They can’t be trusted with most things.
Actions speak volumes more than sound bites.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Great post Jim Focus. I like the way you think.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
X
Actually, Petraeus told the truth.
Which is a big problem for the dems, since they needed news of catastrophe. And Petraeus didn’t give it to them.
And that’s a problem for the dems, at least until the primary and they can quit pandering to the nutroots. Presuming the nutroots haven’t actually captured the mainstream dems, which seems likely.
Good book, “Savage Wars of Peace” which, among other things, gives us a brief bio of Smedley Butler. None of his combat duties were of the collection agent type which he lamented about later on. The author suggests that he was either trying to placate his Quaker family or that he had actually come to their view.
In any event, the savage wars of peace, so to speak, were not a racket.
Profiteering? Somebody’s going to make money. What’s new?
Halliburton’s subsidiary, KBR, got its first no-bid under Clinton. There’s a reason for that, it being that few companies can do what they do and do it immediately. If you think lack of competition is a problem, find somebody who’ll do it better and cheaper.
X knows better.
Laura is consumed and doesn’t know better.
Both are wrong.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Utter nonsense, on every level.
Where to start? First, the war is not lost. Quite the contrary.
It’s the Democrats that no one trusts with foreign policy, which is why Hillary Clinton has been tacking right, and why Ned Lamont is still (mercifully) a private citizen.
And even if that weren’t the case, any “dividends” are ephemeral at best. You may recall a little unpleasantness in Vietnam - a Democratic production through and through - didn’t prevent the election of Carter (ptui) or Clinton.
So try again, comrade, that bit of agitprop doesn’t wash.
And what exactly do you understand by the word “treason” and “traitor?” Who would qualify, in your estimation, and why?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The overwhelming majority of Americans are against the war primarily due to its mismanagement & the exposure of this adm.’s breathtaking incompetence–that’s why the GOP is headed for defeat again–Who cares what one Dem Congressman said, it’s not that relevant–you guys need to look at the bigger picture rather than cherry-pickin’ a slim fact here or absurdity there–whoops! You neocons already did that, didn’t cha? What I hear is most war opponents, Dem & GOP, want a controlled withdrawal over a year or 2–hey, if things are going great now, let’s start leaving–of course that’s not what the neocons really want–they are determined to est. a permanent military presence in the ME w/ Iraq the anchor–hence the ongoing building of mega-bases & the bloated Bagdad Embassy. Neocons pushed for another Iraq invasion as early as 1992, 10 years before 9/11. Paul O’Neill states in his book that invading Iraq was a prime agenda item during Bush’s first cabinet meeting, led by Rummy & Cheney, months before 9/11. They mocked what Clinton had told them days earlier as he left the WH, Bin Laden would be their biggest problem at the start, but Saddam was fairly contained. “They were obsessed w/ Saddam,” remembers O’Neill. Clymer’s statement, I admit sounds indelicate, but he was talking more about getting GOP back benchers to abandon the Pres. & vote w/ them on the war. The surge still has not accomplished its main goal: to provide enough stability to facilitate a political solution to the sectarian fighting–still hasn’t happened.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Care to guess why the dems on digging their heels in on funding?
Dems in both houses have been flooded with emails, phone calls and faxes reminding dems to keep the pressure on…from soldiers and military family members!
What? you ask? How can this be? Well, I guess you might start to get it when the military sees a blank check as “more of the same”.
Bout time I say!
Occam, you are okay with millions in waste and call yourself a conservative? You really must be kidding.
Ask a marine what they think of Smedley Butler. More on that after this…
November 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Laura. You’re supposed to capitalize “Marine”. Little things trip you up. Happens all the time.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
A marine friend writes:
“But why can’t we win? Why can’t we lose?
We can’t win or lose because this isn’t a game. There are no points to put up on a board. We’re not counting bodies, or acres, or treasure because this isn’t a conquest. It is a military operation with a set of specific mission objectives set forth by the Department of Defense.
To merely utter the words “winning” or “losing” is to exclude the existence of those objectives, and to do that is to hinder the thought process, and to allow oneself to forget that progress in Iraq can be evaluated empirically, and that accomplishment or failure is not simply a matter of faith or perspective. It is a matter of facts.
Let us abandon the use of these words, winning and losing, and demand that our leadership speak in precise terms when referring to the progress of our military in Iraq, and relate their estimates to precise mission objectives and their corresponding operations. In that way, we will better be able to determine for ourselves whether or not we agree.
It’s easy to say we’re winning or losing without clarification. Don’t make it easy. Make it hard. Make them speak explicitly. Make yourself think explicitly. That’s difficult to do without knowing the facts—and that is exactly the point.
From this moment forward, I will never use the words winning or losing when discussing the War in Iraq. I encourage everyone else to do the same.”
November 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
jim, we may lose yet. Keep a good thought.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
A Marine officer who served in Iraq, resigned his commission after his second tour. The reason? He loved the troops more than the mission.
“His name was Major General Smedley Butler.
In the Marine Corps, there are few names so deeply revered as his. He is one of only two Marines to have ever won two Medals of Honor. That is an impressive feat, and for that his name is recited ad nauseam throughout the barracks’ of recruit training. Every Marine, of every rank and age, on every base, in every clime and place, knows his name.
I’ll guarantee it.
Smedley Butler spent a lifetime in battle. He was reputed to have deeply loved his Marines. He knew more of war, and spent more years in it, than any officer in the Armed Forces today. He died in 1940. At the time, he was the most decorated Marine in United States history. And when he was done fighting, this is what he had to say about war:
“War is a racket! It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle