The picture above is of soldiers in Iraq celebrating the 4th of July by re-enlisting. Many of them celebrated by becoming naturalized citizens. Hats off to our brave men and women who understand better what is going on in Iraq than our pundits and agenda driven politicians. We thank God that we have a military that fights not only for our safety but for the freedom of those in Iraq also. Such nobility is not recognized often in our strange world. An Army that fights for freedom is a good and virtuous, if not highly unusual thing.Thanks to God for each and every American Soldier.
Speaking for these soldiers in Iraq today, Jesse Jones, Sgt from Olympia, Washington, stationed near Boquaba Iraq: "Today I'm just basically relaxing and refitting, getting ready to go back into the city," he said. "As much as I want to be home, I don't regret being here. This is a good place to celebrate the Fourth of July. Not only are we celebrating independence, we're fighting for independence, too."
20 comments:
From William Odon, NSA Chief under Reagan.
"To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what “supporting the troops” really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.
The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the “high crime” of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest."
I am not quite sure of what to make of this comment other than to take it at face value.
There are several issues here, which I think are somewhat unfair. First of all, I appreciate the notion that there is always a question in any military campaign regarding what is or is not in the best interest of the troops. And what supporting them may at any given time genuinely mean. Obviously it is in all of their interests to lead peacful lives and never see military action. However, the realities of life indicate there are clearly times when it is in the greater interest of the nation that some lay down their lives for others. Is this such a time? Obviously that is being questioned.
However, I find Mr. Odon's comment to be a vast over simplification of the situation. Like it or not, I think we are in a serious quagmire here, and to treat pulling our troops out of harms way and leaving as an obvious no brainer good idea is grossly naive to me. Right now in Iraq, we have an active terrorist network, that will not simply disappear because we leave. These people are ardent in their hatred of the US (and pretty much anyone who isn't Muslim). They have clearly demonstrated that they are not content to just sit over there and leave us alone. If we leave them alone, they will seek us out, to hurt us and harm us in any way they can.
In my mind, there are many compelling reasons to stay there. Really what is the alternative, pull out and let the country fall into out and out sectarian violence and civil war? Let the Sunni's and the Shias have at each other wholly unfettered? Let the Kurd's go their own way, quite possibly fracturing the country into several separate states having potentially far reaching destabilizing effects on Turkey and the rest of the region? Leave the country unprotected from Iran's kindhearted interventions? Or open to whatever faction and hard headed individual may come to power next? Would Muktada al Sadr make Iraq a better place than it is toady? How about Al Qaeda's number two man? Really where does pulling out leave us, and where does it leave the region?. To get back to the notion of supporting the troops, what do they want? I do know that some of them want to come home, but while it is certainly no scientific analyses or necessarily a represnetative poll, all of those with whome I have been aquainted, want to stay, want to continue, want to do what they can to get a stable government in place and try to deal with the sectarian vilolence and complete the rebuilding effort which is going on. I am sure some want to come home, and the media has certainly brought our attention to some of those folks, but is that really what the troops want sd s whole? Or do they want a chance to prove they can finish this job. Without being undermined by their own. I don't know how familiar you are with the mentality of the Islamic Extremists. They have little fear of bloodshed, and littel regard for human life, or loss of life. They view our attitude as timid and feel they can exploit our weak stomaches to their own end. Our waivering communications and daily cries to pull out the troops only emboldens them and gives them ammunition to rally more to their cause. And what of when we leave. Do you think these people will just breathe a collective sigh of relief and leave us alone. They have shown their determined hatred for us and they will be that much more emboldened to use violence against us, feeling that we are too cowardly to lay down our own lives to stand up to them for what we believe, only makes them that much more convinced they can manipulate us by using violence against us to achieve their ends. Many have said this is not simply a military campaign and it is not one that can be won by military strategy alone, yet I find it odd that these self same folks who recognize the cultural and psychological nature of this conflict fail to recognize that a show of will by the American people to fight to the death for what we believe will send a powerful message to our enemies both in Iraq and those of similar tendencies throughout the world. A failure to do so will also send a pwerful message, one we have been sending daily, I fear longterm to our own demise.
Anyway, while the campaign has certainly not been pretty and achieved what we would desire. While I am not happy with the Presidents failures to heed the warnings of others before him regarding the difficulties associated with military conquest of Iraq, nor with the continued loss of life, is pulling out really going to get us somewhere better?
With all due respect to the the former NSA chief, does anyone really think the President is so dull as not to realize this war is hurting him? What possible "personal interest" could this be serving? Whether you think this war and our continued presence there is ill advised or not, I think one thing is clear this war and our continued presence there is a blight on the Bush Presidency and is serving no "personal interst" of the President whatsoever. Right or wrong, I think it is clear the President is there and staying there because he is of the conviction that it is in the best interest of all parties involved that we do so. Not because someway somehow there is something for him to gain by so doing.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mr. Brian
Mr Brian, thanks for joining this discussion.
two things
1. my picture of the Marines is gone. Should I be paranoid? :) I'll get another one.
2. I am strongly of the opinion that the politics of America has done more to motivate the "bring the troops home" mentality, than reasoning about what is good for the region or good for the country. I truly believe that if Bill Clinton had sent the troops, the press would take a different view of things.
Our president is doing all he can to be as unpopular with as many
Americans as possible. His latest foray into immigration policy only removed the majority of his base from his side. His political clout at this time is almost nill. For that reason, I fear for our troops and our nation. Who will have the guts in congress to stand up for what is right against the out-for-blood left trying to appease their anti-war base, the left-wing press, etc?
The reality is, this isn't viet nam. The left and the press were able to work together to get us to be weak while we fought that war, and pull out early, leaving behind millions of people who were slain by an evil regime. What happened next? Americans didn't care. They were able to forget about Cambodia and Laos and all the blood on our hands because we pulled out. Instead, we just watched "Welcome Back Kotter" and "Happy Days" on t.v. and forgot that South East Asia ever existed.
WE will not be able to do that with Iraq. If the left and the press bring about a premature end to this war, we won't be able to act like Iraq isn't there. Oh no. Instead, the Islamic radicals who have made no secret of their desire for our demise will take it as a victory (and they should) and will increase in strength.
Most of the anti-iraq rhetoric is fueled by an irrational and overblown "bushahobic" mentality.
there. I put my picture back.
and that was "bushaphobic" not bushahobic. although that's a cool word too. :)
It isn't the "left wings" fault that the Bush Administration was sildly incompetent in excecuting the war. It isn't the "left wing's" fault that civil war has swelled in Iraq. It certainly is not the "left wing's" fault that Bush has no plan for Iraq, other than hang in there for 20 years or more.
You seem hell bent on labeling anti war people as left wing, when in reality the majority of the nation is anti war.
They recognize now the corrupt nature of the Bush Administration. Bush and Cheney blatantly lied to the American people and the Congress about intelligence reports and their real plans for Iraq. I could drag out numerous quotes if you want, but we all know its true.
If Bush and Cheney had been the least bit competent or honest, you might possibly have a leg to stand on.
Your position on Vietnam is also revisionist. 47,000+ US deaths changed the mind of the masses a lot more than the liberal media did.
It is time we stopped making up left wing bogeymen and dealt in reality. Bush is lost approval for the war because he lied about its need and its execution.
Maybe the American people weren't prepared for a long drawn out, expensive occupation because we were promised otherwise.
To quote somebody famous who's name I can't remember, "The truth has a liberal bias."
I posted Mr. Odom's comments (it was Odom, not Odon, sorry about that), because there is NO WAY you could paint the former NSA chief under Reagan as a liberal, or as somehow uninformed. Yet you found a way to dismiss his views.
Brian, I appreciate your points.
It would have been wonderful is Bush had needed to advice of EXPERTS and planned for these contingencies you mentioned.
Who is to pay for his mistakes? Innocent Americans? Hell no.
Who are we fighting over there right now? What is our objective? (be specific, not the great ole "bringing freedom to the Iraqis" nonsense. That might be what the troops think they are doing, but it isn't the goal of Bush and co.
Mr. Odom suggested a real and honest dialogue in our government and among its people, not the same old grandstanding. No more accusing people of not supporting the troops, or saying BS like a win for the Democrats is a win for the terrorists. That stuff is childish nonsense. (not saying you said this, saying this is how our political leaders debate these days)
revising the Viet Nam war? Hmmm.
2,000,000 dead men, women, and children in South VietNam, Cambodia, Laos? Revision? 2 million people.
I'm not sure you have any idea about Viet Nam or what happened.
As for the lies you say I know about, I don't. Hillary, Al Gore, Biden, all of them said the same things before and after Bush was elected.
No, I don't think there were lies. Just rabid hatred by the left of Bush.
As for Odom, perhaps you haven't been around the military much, but there are hundreds of ex-generals out there. You can always find one that is anywhere you want politically. That the left rolls out Odom as their hero because he said what they want is really not a big deal. I could deal out quotes from generals that go the other way. it's not hard.
Wizard, I don't doubt the purity of your thought nor your integrity. We come from different worlds and have different opinions. No more, or no less.
Well, there you go. You took the debate to that ridiculous place it always goes. You degrade and marginalize opinions you don't like, rather than consider them.
To suggest Odom is now a "left wing hero" is absurd.
The left dislikes Bush because Bush thinks we are to be ignored. The Great Divider has succeded in divinding this nation, and you are complicit. Your disrespect for fellow Americans is - for lack of a better term - wildly unpatriotic.
I know as much about Vietnam as you do. Neither of us was old enough to understand it while it was going on.
There will always be people against war, knowing it for what it is. Shall I name a few famous ones?
Okay, Wizard, you're taking this too personally.
We don't agree on Viet Nam nor Iraq. I think you're wrong. It's not personal, really.
Accusing me of being:
"wildly unpatriotic"
or "degrading opionions" I don't like. I find these odd things to say, especially the latter. degrading opinions you don't like is your specialty, my friend. I don't say it to hurt you, but anyone who argues with you would agree, I'm sure.
Brian gave you a respectable argument. you respond by saying, "
don't give me that bringing-freedom-to-the-iraqi's nonsense." That's very dismissive, even rude.
you accuse my ideas on Viet Nam as being "revisionist." i guess with that label, you don't have to take them seriously. Do you see? this is your standard practice of debate.
It is odd that you see it in everyone else when really, you are the main person who does it.
Mr. Brian and Mike have made some great points. As a soldier who has deployed to Iraq, I want to give another perspective. I spent a little over a year in Baghdad. I was based at Camp Liberty and travelled to many of the outlying FOBs. After some time, a satellite was setup to get us TV news from home. We were all shocked at what we saw. Total lack of confidence in our mission, and even the insulting pity of certain people on the left. I watched as news reporters filed their reports from the balcony of their hotels in the green zone, cherry picking their stories from information they were given that day. While the biggest event may have been a school construction project being finished and children being given books, pencils, and paper, all you will hear reported is the death count for the month. Good news is skipped for the more sensational bloodshed. These reporters rarely even leave their hotels, and when they do, they search for carnage. They seek to use you as a tool to push their personal anti-war agendas by asking you loaded questions about "how much do you miss home," and "don't you wish you could be with your family right now." I had a reporter approach me and ask me to do certain things for the camera so they could get the shot they already decided they wanted. They have no interest in reporting news, just pushing an angenda. One night after a soccer game, which the Iraqi team had won, Baghdad erupted with celebratory gunfire. This is common for the region when the people celebrate. The next day I saw a news report with the reporter describing this gunfire as the base coming under attack and that the number of casualties were still unknown. This is what we deal with. If you only listened to these reporters, you'd swear violence, death, and the sacrifice of soldiers didn't exist in this world until 2003.
I have friends who chose to re-enlist for a third deployment to Iraq and plan to stay for even more after that. Some are thinking of going career. The basic point is that this is an all volunteer Army. Those serving now fully understand what it means to raise their right hand and swear to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Pulling out now would be a slap in the face to myself and my fellow servicemen.
Anonymous, thanks for your service. You make your nation proud. I thank God for the internet. My dad didn't have that advantage in Viet Nam, and his side of the story went untold, as Walter Cronkite told Americans what he wanted them to think.
May God bless your mission.
Well, Mike, twist away. You sit on the fringe of American Society - the right wing fringe. And your days are fading.
There really is (sadly) no way to discuss anything with you.
I didnt accuse Brian of using the "bringing freedom to the Iraqis" nonsense. I simply asked him not to use it if he made points to justify the war. There is a difference.
Calling something revisionist isn't dismissive. Revisionist is a key element of any right wing debator. If the facts don't support my argument, I can just change them. That seems to be the Bush Republican motto.
Those 2 million people who died after the US left Vietnam... can you say for sure they wouldn't have died anyway? How long and to what end should the US have stayed there? How many casualties was it worth?
You have no quams about the 100K+ innocent Iraqis killed. You dismiss that (in earlier posts) as necessary.
What I had hoped when participating here (originally, way back when) was for a reasonable discussion on issues. I still wish we could have it.
I make a point, or in this case quote a reputable government official who is not in any way left wing to show you that there are other VALID poitns of view on the war.
But we must pretend that isnt so. We must dismiss, dilute, and marginalize anything we can.
I hope that when Bush goes, this new American divisness goes with him.
As for the soldier (I have my doubts) who posted, does he know the military blocks him from reading anything but pro war pro Bush propaganda?
Okay wizard, no original material here. all familiar words:
I "sit on the fringe of American society" --you need to get out of Philadelphia.
"But we must pretend it isn't so" --I think the word is patronizing. I'll let it go. but for the record, I know there are other points of view.
"New American divisiveness" to go with Bush? On so many levels I wonder what that means. first, Bush hasn't got a strong backing from me. I don't like his spending on socialist things like prescription drugs, kennedy's education bill, etc. didn't like the immigration thing, that's for sure.
as for divisiveness, check your clintons, gores, reids, boxers, etc. They are the most divisive people out there. don't believe, try opposing their ideas and hear what they say.
And as for your insult of the soldier, questioning his credibility, dare I use the word arrogance? I can accept that you are certain I don't know what I'm talking about, but now you have more insight into what the war was like than a guys whose been there? Where'd you get that insight? Michael Moore?
you need to get out more, really. Your life in Philly, under the tutoring of the Inquirer and Drexel university, et al, is not the rest of the country. Fortunately. It is those "fading fringe" who always be there to fight to keep you free.
By the way, Wizard, I do like the name: Fading Fringe!
I might have to start a new blog with the title.
:)
"As for the soldier (I have my doubts) who posted, does he know the military blocks him from reading anything but pro war pro Bush propaganda?"
Do not patronize me. Being a soldier does not make me a fool. We are not restricted to "propaganda" networks. We have access to the same news outlets you do, only with the benefit of witnessing the stories before they are reported. What I see with my own eyes carries more weight for me that any opinion from some talking head in the comfort of his news room. I have no problem with people being against the war. I do have a problem with people who believe soldiers are stupid.
I guess the 71% of Americans who dissaprove of Bush,and the similar number who oppose the war, and specifically its execution, all need to get out of Philadelphia.
I don't need a geographic change to know what is right and what is wrong. Where I live is irrelevant. For a point a clarification, I live in Bucks County, PA, a very conservative area. I work for a conservative organization, in a conservative business culture.
The attack dogs are on the right, Mike. This is just a simple fact. Look at how Bush campainged in 2006. "If you elect a Democrat, the terrorits win."
Deny it, i will pull out at least 5 quotes to prove it. How about (5 deferment) Cheney? A mushroom cloud in a city near you if you elect (decorated veteran) John Kerry. Isnt that what he prmomised.
How about assanine Fox News, who today boldy asked "National healthcare: Breeding ground for terror?" It was actually ON THE SCREEN, those exact words.
Please, spare me. As you said, old story. But I know where I developed my beliefs, and they weren't in a vacuum.
As for the "soldier", if you really are a soldier, then bless you. Be warned, you are being used by the Republicans for their own purposes. I don't question your integrity, bravery, or intelligence. Just the morals, judgement, and intentions of those who sent you there.
Wizard, What took you so long to answer? I thought I'd lost you!
Interesting how, as I've commented before, we trust and distrust different sources.
anyway, thanks for the discussion.
peace.
oh, and by the way, he is a soldier
he emailed me after the post and told me who he was. he's a personal friend. a good man.
I sent that post days ago. I guess Google ate it, then decided to give it up.
Well, if he is a friend of yours, then I apologize for doubting it. Anyone can be anything on the internet, and I suppose I am getting a bit jaded on that part.
My message: keep safe and I hope you get home soon.
FYI, a complete and immediate withdrawal would not have been my idea of the best solution. I would have preferred, when it appeared things were going less than ideally in Iraq, that Bush had listened and considered a broader set of idwas. There have been some good ones floating around, and some clunkers.
Bush seems adamant on doing things "his way." The old "you are with me or against me" theory. Well, if I have to chose, on this one, I am against you. That is really what it boils down to for me.
for me, if the strategy needs to be changed, I'm okay with that.
What I am not okay with is defeat. This isn't about American pride, either. It is about wisdom. The enemies of radicalized islam aren't going away. If we leave, Iran, Al Queda, et al, will claim victory, be emboldened, etc. Also, Iraq itself might go backwards quite a few steps, and the people would never trust us again if we let that happen now.
I don't care how we do it, but we must win.
Remember, it took years to stabalize Germany. We have bases there to this day, in fact. Now, Germany has the third best economy in the world. We need equal commitment here.
Post a Comment