Why so inconsistent, Mr. Rosen?
Mike Rosen’s column of Oct. 5, “The dollars and sense of war,” raises an interesting question but does not answer it. He points out that the burden of the Iraq war is fairly light, and should remain so. (He rejects calls for a draft and new taxes.) But in an earlier column (“Terrorism nonsense? Not so,” July 20), he said, “I believe our national survival is at stake.”
The question is, why isn’t Rosen in favor of a World War II-level of sacrifice on the part of the public? Why isn’t he calling for conscription, ration books, price controls, gigantic new defense programs — a true national commitment to defeat this mortal enemy? He says he opposes conscription “nless this Islamofascist war against the civilized world mushrooms.” Well, if our national survival is at stake, hasn’t it already mushroomed?
Why the inconsistency?
I suspect Rosen, like most of the pro-war “conservatives,” vastly overstates the threat because he wants a continuation of the current policy of an active and growing military empire around the world; but he realizes that if the public was ever confronted with the kinds of sacrifices that a war for national survival would entail, many would begin to question the extent of the threat, and come to realize that our national survival is not in the least at stake, and that the entire neo-con imperial program is a giant scam.
Paul Menger, Aurora
oh nice job paul and since you like the inconsistant stance have you looked at your buddies. I voted for before I voted against it?
you might also try and find out the true meaning of neo-con and it is not all that bad. it refers to all of the liberals who have taken their heads out of their butts and become conservative in their thoughts.
also your idea of establishing a world military would have some merit if it wasnt always someone on the far libeal left wanting to start the draft up again. the majority of who enlist now want the life style the military provides, and there are some who went in so they could just get the benefits and now that they have to do their job the military has nothing they want except out. i guess they found out they might have to work to get their benefits and not jus hold their hand out.
I challenge the right-wing contingent of the frequent visitors here to to actually answer this person's questions without personally attacking him or any views he may or may not have.
To summarize, we shouldn't draft troops or increase taxes or any of those activities associated with past wars unless this gets really serious. But at the same time, we're told that our national survival is at stake. Doesn't that count as serious enough for some changes? Why does Rosen not believe that the one condition necessitates the other?
As an unaffiliated voter who can be swayed in either direction, I await your reply.
Posted by Ready . . . go! on October 22, 2007 06:11 AM'04' Iraq-NAM War supporters: St. Elway packed off his kids to Stanford and Arizona State. Mastermind (passed on NAM), packed his boy off to Tampa Bay. The only IED that Kyle has experienced is an NFL losing record. Owens (illegal congressional page deferred by Cong. Bush) packed off his son to college in Texas. Ooops! My bad! Owens boy is a convicted felon. Ooops! My Bad again. In violation of our military and nationalsecurity clearance laws, Bush recruits soldiers who are convicted felons, gang members, and kids of criminal illegal Mexicans.
ENUFF! My bad again. Bush (PHONY AIRMAN) is a UCMJ-felon; AWOL, deserter, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge.
PHONY SOLDIER: USSC Affirmative Action (AA) Alito. He pimped and exploited taxpayers for 7 years free education (JD/undergrad degrees) in the US Army's ROTC program. UCMJ-felon (AWOL, deserter, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge). AA Alito blew off his 11 years obligated military service, just like "W". Felon hires fellow felon. If they were black, they would already completed their SuperMax or Ft. Leavenworth marriages.
Bush is the Worst President Ever
Posted by on October 22, 2007 07:46 AMBecause Rosen is a douchebag.
This has been another episode of easy answers to easy questions.
40 days of Iraq dollars would have paid for SCHIP program. The GOP has really screwed the country.
Posted by just sayin' on October 22, 2007 08:38 AMAnd the dollars from WWII could have financed a socialist utopia.... And Jimmy Carter was the worst President. Mr. Bush has to work harder to attain that goal.
Posted by T on October 22, 2007 09:13 AMThe blood and treasure costs of the war are significant but quite light in perspective. The treasure cost is less than 10% of the fed's budget. The blood cost of the war to date is about the same as six weeks of our nation's highway casualties.
Look past the hype and it is apparent we're in Iraq because the UN is too fractured to enforce its own resolutions. The US doesn't do all the police work it could: Rwanda, Cambodia, North Korea. But it takes on those it deems have the highest cost benefit ratio, or those the press annoints as important: Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia. Of course, it is unpleasant work, but less unpleasant than the results of not doing it.
Is US national existence at risk in the Global War On Terror? Perhaps. Certainly Al Qaeda is a threat to take out a US city with one of Russia's missing suitcase nukes.
Would a WWII style national effort save the US and the rest of the west. It seems unlikely that such huge amounts of military power would be necessary.
But onerous amounts of security at home may be necessary to protect ordinary citizens; ubiquitous use of biometric IDs, security cameras blanketing public spaces, detailed databases on as much of the world's population as possible, more communication monitoring, demographic profiling, huge bureacracies gathering information on domestic and international security issues, and all the rest 1984ish stuff.
The security regime we have now (and bellyache heartily about) is light compared to what will be necessary if terrorists are increasingly successful at hitting free, open, and largely trusting societies like us.
Yes, if one believes that for America to be America, it must be free and open, then our national existence is indeed at stake.
Paul, Ready .. go!,
The reason is that, unless U.S. cities go up in a nuclear cloud, the same kind of sacrifice just isn't needed anymore.
Back in WWII, things like ration cards weren't issued just so civilians could feel the pain, but because the military needed the supplies instead. Today, the military is much more efficient with what it has than it was back then, and because of that efficiency it doesn't even want the draft.
And when the federal government looks to spend about $3 trillion on everything, including bridges that don't go anywhere, it's not as if it has no money to spend on defense.
Posted by Dave on October 22, 2007 09:34 AM"40 days of Iraq dollars would have paid for SCHIP program"
Except the new, expanded SCHIP program isn't a provision in the Constitution, nor is the original SCHIP program that's still in place and still being funded.
Posted by KW on October 22, 2007 09:56 AMAnd, predictably, no one has yet to step up to the table to Paul's or "Ready...Go's" challenge. I was looking forward to a nice, concise answer to Mr. Rosen's duplicity. Can anyone out there answer this question without talking about Clinton, socialism, Monica Lewinsky, or whatever other straw man is typically used to dilute the discussion?
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 10:28 AM6:10AM:
You said, "The majority of who enlist now want the life style the military provides, and there are some who went in so they could just get the benefits and now that they have to do their job the military has nothing they want except out. i guess they found out they might have to work to get their benefits and not jus hold their hand out."
That was an absolutely disgusting comment. These people are getting their limbs blown off in service of the war YOU support! You're a despicable scum of a human being, you worthless slug. If you know so much about what it means to "work for a living", get out of your house off your fat flabby butt and ENLIST!!! Or are you the typical right-wing cowardly chickenhawk, you sick freak?!
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 10:33 AMDan - I think Dave (9:34) already answered that question rather precisely.
The circumstances and economics surrounding WWII and Iraq are vastly different.
And Dave did his without attacking anyone.
Posted by KW on October 22, 2007 10:37 AMLetter writer Democrat Paul Menger wonders why we do not call for a "WW II effort of sacrifice "in the war in Iraq.Let me educate this stupid Democrat.It is not needed.All we need is for you Democrats and your media friends to stop giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.The only reason Mr. Menger and his Democrat friends want a "WW II effort of sacrifice" is in hopes that the American people will become upset and want to pull out of Iraq.It is just another attempt by the Democrats to help their terrorist friends win in Iraq.
Posted by An American on October 22, 2007 10:38 AMKW--
Actually, he didn't. Nowhere in his answer does he acknowledge the "our very survival depends on this" rhetoric. Also, he ignores the real issues of troop exhaustion, repeated tours, and under-supplied military.
Either Dave or you need to try again.
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 10:43 AMWhether you have Bush or not, there's no reason to destroy the ecomony to make a political point. Tax revenue has increased dramatically over the years because the economy has done well. Here are the total collections for the last four years.
2003 $1,650,372,248,000
2004 $1,738,702,169,000
2005 $1,998,850,893,000
2006 $2,238,287,182,000
Rosen, And the rest of the NEO-CONS don't want to WIN the WAR. They just want to use it as a way to STEAL OUR MONEY. W is a fascist and if you support him, YOU are
1. A FASCIST TOO!
2. Just a clueless follower of the NEO-CON drivel.
3. Or a complete fool. If you picked three, when do you get out of grade school?
Posted by Bluesone on October 22, 2007 10:55 AMDan - Our very survival may be at stake depending on ones viewpoint. I consider 3000 people being murdered on 9/11 a catastrophic event that demands US military intervention anywhere there are those who would commit such atrocities against us.
Others have loudly voiced that we needn't worry so much about an insignifigant number of deaths from terrorism.
There IS a definite need in for extreme focus on terrorism to defend against another 9/11, BUT due to the vast military and economic differences between WWII and Iraq, the sacrifices being called for on the left are not necessary.
As for more funding to provide better military equipment and forces, I'm all for that AND the US has the financial resources without the draft or other sacrifices being called for. Yet the same people complaining the troops are underfunded are the same calling for no additinal funding for the war.
You can't have it both ways.
Posted by KW on October 22, 2007 10:59 AMhey danny you same pea brain child.
I did my time in johnsons war for oil and came home to a bunch of people shouting baby killer. if you are old enough I am sure you were one of them. oddly enough now you stand up for the military as it was a Republican who stood up to the terriorist and not you coward draft dodging billy boy clinton.
and yes dan some members of the military are being killed and having limbs blown off, but they are the ones who understood this and enlisted anyway. they in no way act like jessie mcbeth who all the libs love as he talked of years of service after being kicked out on his fat liberal butt after 44 days.
just remember in the military that all gave some and some gave all. and they did it for morons like you, to allow you to live free and say what ever you can dream up.
KW,
I also consider 3,000 people murdered on 9/11 a tragic event. I also belief military intervention is not only appropriate, it's absolutely necessary. Where we disagree is the battleground. My concern is the Iraq Occupation has wasted vast resources and exhausted our stalwart military for very little "return" in terms of national security. I would like to see a different strategy.
As for sacrifices, many of the men and women in our military are now on their fourth or fifth tours of duty. The Webb Amendment was supposed to alleviate that, but was shot down because then a draft indeed would have been necessary.
The concern is there is too much INEQUITY of sacrifice. The men and women who serve us and defend us are shouldering too much of the burden. There are too many out there who say "We support the troops" when so little is done in actually supporting them.
KW, you and I agree that it is imperative Al Qaeda be defeated. Do you truly feel Iraq is the appropriate strategy to use to eliminate them?
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 11:38 AMDan,
Writers who don't know what they really think find themselves unable to remember what it was they wrote five minute ago, as exampled in this forum. Rosen is a ultra right wing type guy and has a hard time following what his spiritual mentor, Bush, is saying from one day to the next.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 22, 2007 11:42 AMAllen,
Excellent point.
"Our very survival may be at stake depending on ones viewpoint. I consider 3000 people being murdered on 9/11 a catastrophic event that demands US military intervention anywhere there are those who would commit such atrocities against us."
Here again we see the far right attempt to imply a relationship between 9/11 and Iraq.
We of course know that despite these repeated attempts nothing could be further from the truth.
"The blood and treasure costs of the war are significant but quite light in perspective. The treasure cost is less than 10% of the fed's budget"
this is yet another right wing rationalization that falls short. When you consider that this war, unlike any other in our history, was pre-emptive...and needless...it becomes very difficult to try to justify the loss of ANY life, the spending of ANY dollar.
"Look past the hype and it is apparent we're in Iraq because the UN is too fractured to enforce its own resolutions. "
This right wing talking point has too impliciations. One, that Iraq was worthy of a nation-building, police action...and Two that the UN was ineffectual at keeping Iraq from becoming a threat...or that more importantly...that such action was even necessary.
Like before...we know that nothing could be further from the truth.
"they are the ones who understood this and enlisted anyway"
This might be the most pathetic rationalization yet for needlessly putting our soldiers in harm's way.
Remember people, Repubican policies (according to our own military and intelligence experts) in Iraq have made us less safe, destabilized the middle east and made us less secure fiscally.
There is no way the far right is going to spin their way out of that track record....so you might as well save the credibility and not even try.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 11:56 AMRosen's expertise proves as follows: What depends on individual point of view?
1) What is good and what is evil;
2) Common sense;
3) Rational;
4) Reason;
5) ... ;
And, of course, an individual's point of view is determined by his bias and prejudice. For example: George W. Bush's approval rating is 24 percent and whereas I complain that it is too high others will complain it is too low. And the melee continues.
Deicide Corner: Whereas Rev. Crimmons claims the proposed federal hate crimes law is an evil and vicious law making it an illegal act to do what he is doing I claim it will stop him from preaching hatred as Rev. Phelps is so fond of preaching along with Jerry Falwell's son, Jonathan.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com on October 22, 2007 12:09 PM10:46 gave the following stats for revenues since 2003:
2003 $1,650,372,248,000
2004 $1,738,702,169,000
2005 $1,998,850,893,000
2006 $2,238,287,182,000
Here are the government stats on the national debt since 2002:
2002 $5.9 trillion
2003 $6.4 trillion
2004 $6.9 trillion
2005 $7.6 trillion
2006 $8.1 trillion
2007 $8.6 trillion
Today the figure is over 9 trillion, more than 50% what it was in 2002.
Obviously, the sunny outlook on revenues looks great but it isn't coming close to paying for the increase in the national debt. It took over 220 years to get to the point where we owed $6 trillion and in just 6 years, it went up $3 trillion more. That's VooDoo economics for you. Enjoy the bright economic spin but open up your eyes to the big picture.
Posted by Stan B on October 22, 2007 12:44 PMReady...go:
I'm not an economist, so I won't comment on the tax portion of the argument. I will offer some input on the draft idea, though. As a veteran of the Iraq war (B Company 1st Batallion, 8th Infantry Regiment) I would say that the last man I'd want next to me while fighting the enemy would be a draftee. Today's military consists of volunteers who are fully aware of what they're getting into when they sign that contract, and are much more effective than men who were forced into the service and whose only wish is to be discharged.
You should consider the high level of training that soldiers receive today. It makes no sense to put someone through four months of basic training and AIT (in the case of infantry anway, time frames will vary for other jobs) and all the other schools soldiers may attend (airborne, air assault, SERE, Ranger, NBC, etc.) if you're training someone you know will get out at the first available opportunity.
The military today is not all about numbers, it's about having highly trained and motivated specialists. Put a squad of 10 of today's professional infantrymen against a company size element of draftees in any training exercise and it doesn't take a genius to figure out who will win.
A draft would cause the military much more harm than good. No veteran would want to put his life in the hands of a man who was forced to serve against his will. I had good, reliable men next to me for my year long tour in Iraq, and I hope if I'm ever recalled to active duty that is still the case.
Dan:
Yes, a lot of soldiers sign up without expecting the duration of a unit's deployment rotation to suddenly change. We are also perfectly aware that it can be changed at any time. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law anywhere that states the Army can't adjust deployment cycles in any way it sees fit.
To Paul Menger and Ready...go,
You folks put out a straw man and expect people to go after it. World War II was a different war than the current one is.
It is akin to two people's lives being at risk from cancer. In the first case you have found it very late in the game and it has spread. The treatment here would be drastic. In the second you are finding it early and you can take very specific steps to kill the cancer before it spreads. I guess the left would have us ignore the cancer in the second case because it isn't as bad as it was for your grandfather.
Freedom is not free. Peace has a price.
To all who do not see the reason for fighting in Iraq, would you rather continue the fight on our soil? It was announced about a month ago that the Intelligence community thwarted over 26 planned acts of terrorism on our soil. (I know, you will say it was right-wing propoganda. However, you wouldn't believe a Republican, so the only way to prove the terrrosim was planned would be to have the plan work. Then, after many more Americans are killed, you would be screaming that we should have stopped it. Can't have it both ways.)
The majority of intelligence that Bush relied upon when determining there were WMD in Iraq, was gathered during the Clinton administration. It was faulty (not blaming Clinton admin, as further intel. after his watch seemed to confirm existence of WMD). However, upon closer inspection, no WMD were found. Does this mean the premise for invasion was wrong? Or, just that the premise was incorrect? ("Wrong" being a lie, "incorrect" meaning based on faulty intelligence.)
I don't believe everything any Republican does is correct, just as I don't believe everything every Democrat does is wrong. But, I believe (as I imagine Rosen believes) that overall, Republicans do more good for the country as a whole than Democrats do. Substantiated by recent Republican actions? Not in my mind, but I believe a Democrat administration and congress would do more harm for the county as a whole. I will continue to support the Republican party, and try to educate Democrats.
Posted by Think About It on October 22, 2007 01:29 PMWhy in the hell was bush using 2 year (at least) old intelligence to determine Iraq had WMD?
Posted by on October 22, 2007 01:40 PMjay, "Repubican policies (according to our own military and intelligence experts) in Iraq have made us less safe, destabilized the middle east and made us less secure fiscally."
jay has repeated this theme in at least two other threads. I've pointed out the flaws in that argument, but he keeps parroting them anyway.
As to "destabilized the middle east", how is it possible to destabilize something that was never stable in the first place?
As to "made us less secure fiscally", compared to the amount of money in the federal budget, let alone the GDP, the amount spent on Iraq is chump change.
Posted by Dave on October 22, 2007 01:52 PMThink About It. A 50% increase in the national debt in just over 6 years.
"I believe a Democrat administration and congress would do more harm for the county as a whole."
The Republicans couldn't do any more harm than they have, that's for sure.
Posted by Stan B on October 22, 2007 01:55 PM"jay has repeated this theme in at least two other threads. I've pointed out the flaws in that argument, but he keeps parroting them anyway."
I'll ask again that you do some research on the NIE's and the US Counterintelligence Unit.
PLease do so...they both validate my positions.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 02:10 PMIt's very, very simple. IF you say this war is about "national survival" - or however you choose to phrase it - and IF you are between the ages of 18 and 40 and IF you are haven't already served yet are sitting in the States reading this... well you don't really believe, do you?
Before you ask: I think fighting terroism is important (but not national survival important) I think that battle is being totally screwed up, I already served in the early 1980's, and I tried to re-join in 2002 but was told I was too old.
Revenue and spending are different issues. The letter writer is espousing policies that would wreck our economy. Revenues increase in a growing economy, even with tax cuts, so why ruin it to make a political point? Unless you would like even bigger deficits, and more national debt.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 02:39 PMIf the threat is vast and dangerous as many in the current administration claim, isn't it worth a risk to the economy? If not, then they should tone done the rhetoric.
Posted by Mac on October 22, 2007 02:45 PMThanks for your response, Eli. I guess the point is, and you would be more qualified to answer this as an Iraq War vet than any of us: Do you feel the American people and leaders are doing enough to support the military, those that are both in and out of the war?
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 03:22 PM"Do you feel the American people and leaders are doing enough to support the military, those that are both in and out of the war?"
You mean like not sending body armor or armored vehicles or not giving them the number of troops necessary for success? How about not supporting them by sending them needlessly into harm's way?
Supporting them like that, Dan?
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 03:38 PMIf sacrifice for this war isn't necessary, then you know what else isn't necessary for this war?
Casualties.
Think about it. Maybe if we had sacrificed by paying a war tax, the gov't would be able to afford body armor and up-armored humvees.
But, since repubs keep saying sacrifice isn't necessary, the troops keep on a' dyin. Nice show of support, there, repubs.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 03:52 PMYes Jay-- those can be included in my discussion points, along with: Are we doing enough for vets after they return from the battlefield, in terms of psychological counseling, medical expenses, and career training?
My feeling is we are not, but I would like Eli's perspective, as he is more closely impacted and can give a vet's perspective.
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 03:52 PMMac,
No.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 03:53 PMJay:
I'm not sure where you get this idea that soldier's don't have body armor. Maybe you've come across some people that I didn't, but not once in my tour did I encounter a soldier without body armor.
As for armored vehicles, this has been a learning process for the military. Nobody anticipated the level of insurgency we've faced or their tactics, and how could they have? Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to say now that Humvees should have had more heavy armor before deploying. Today, units deploying are equipped with heavier armor. The army was starting to put reactive armor on Bradley Fighting Vehicles while I was there in 2003.
Dan:
I can't say if "the American People" or if "leaders" are doing enough. Those generalizations are just too broad. Some people love the military and will do anything to support servicemembers. Some people don't care either way. Some people despise the military and everything it stands for.
I will say that too many people swallow the word of cable news or major newspapers as gospel, and I can say from experience that reporters who have any clue at all what they're talking about when it comes to Iraq are indeed a rare species.
For people who want to really support the military, read the blogs of soldiers, contractors, civilians, independent journalists, etc. who have been or are currently there. Give yourself a variety of first hand perspective, and turn off the TV. These guys don't do "in-depth" reporting form the damn green zone. I could write a book on the factual errors, misrepresentations, and outright lies I've seen on major TV stations and newspapers regarding Iraq and that's just from my one year experience.
Thanks Eli,
Any recommended books, web links, etc.?
Dan,
It doesn't really matter, just do a search for "soldier blog" or "war blog" or "iraq blog" or something like that and see what comes up. There was one independent reporter I found weeks ago that I really liked, but I can't think of his name at the moment. If it comes back to me I'll post it on here.
Taking a bit of time to browse the writing of a few people will really give an idea of just how complex the situation actually is. Sunni Vs. Shiite is very simplistic. There are a plethora of different factions in Iraq right now with different goals and different ideas as to how best to achieve those goals.
Of course, whatever you find should be taken with a grain of salt, to include my account. Still, a few hours just reading that stuff and you'll probably be better informed than most Americans. There is a lot of information and a lot of different perspectives that most people are missing out on watching five minute segments of CNN.
The above posting addressed to Dan and signed by Dan should have my name at the bottom. I've been staring at this screen too long....
Posted by Eli on October 22, 2007 04:34 PM"I'm not sure where you get this idea that soldier's don't have body armor"
Probably from the thousands of body armor purchases and shipments made to Iraq from the families of soldiers at home.
Did you miss all of that?
"Nobody anticipated the level of insurgency we've faced or their tactics"
This is a myth. The War College and other war planners pre-invasion widely predicted the type of entrenched insurgency encountered post Iraq. they also predicted many of the problems the US faced due to not sending in enough troops to successfuly occupy Iraq.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 04:38 PMThanks Eli-- I will do that. If you think of any specific sites that are noteworthy, please post them.
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 04:46 PMJay:
I'm well aware of the news stories concerning families sending gear overseas. The fact remains that not once did I encounter a soldier who didn't have body armor. Every soldier in my unit if 500+ was issued IBASS before deploying.
I don't know how accurate those news accounts regarding families sending equipment were. All I can tell you is what I saw. There were a lot of units deployed at the same time as me that I never came across, but there were thousands of individuals that I crossed paths with during that tour and not one of them had not been issued body armor. If you can show me a specific case, I'd be interested to read about it.
Please sight your sources for war planners who anticipated the level of resistance or the tactics used. When you can show me a war planner who predicted the need for reactive armor plates on BFV's because of the ability of RPG7's to pierce standard Bradley plating, I will concede your point. I'll admit that there was some anticipation of guerilla fighting. Even I expected that, and I'm just a lowly infantryman with no training in war planning or military intelligence. The point of that comment was the anticipation of the need for heavier armor than what our vehicles were typically equipped with. If you have any sources anticipating that need, I would be very interested to read them.
"Please sight your sources for war planners who anticipated the level of resistance or the tactics used."
Google Iraq War planning and War College.
There were multiple, massive war games regarding an invasion of Iraq and the main conclusions were that we'd need "several hundred thousand troops" to be successful and that we'd encounter a massive, well-organized and well-supplied insurgency for years to come...particularly if the predicted power vacuum borne from incompetent after-invasion planning occurred.
Might be worth your time to do some research some of this...it may well surprise you how many failures in Iraq were due to strategic incompetence...rather than battlefield errors...has has been implied by some right wing media sources.
I imagine that supporting the troops means not needlessly sending them into harm's way...and if you still insist on doing so...I would think you at least owe it to them to do it by the book instead of cutting corners.
I can't imagine you don't agree.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 06:07 PMSite your sources or zip it Jay.Or are you going to keep on trying to bash a vet?
LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS!
Posted by on October 22, 2007 07:42 PMA lot of interesting reading (and rambling).
We thinkers need to realize that Paul Menger is giving his 'opinion'. It may or not be true. He doesn't provide sufficient (any) documentation to support his 'views'.
What we could do is asssume he is right; bring all our troops home as the Democrats demand.....then wait.
Then when they 'nuke' America.....we can call Mr. Menger.....and he will say he is sorry that he was wrong. And that will make everything right.
Ludicrous, eh?
Posted by L. Bell on October 22, 2007 08:50 PMHere's the source that I think Jay is referring to:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/Display.Cfm?pubID=182
I have only scanned it briefly, but it seems they really did anticipate a lot of the current problems, and even warned against doing many of the things the administration has done, such as disband the Iraqi army.
"While a struggle for power between civilian and military elites would contribute to Iraqi fragmentation, the military can also serve as a unifying force under certain conditions.
In a highly diverse and fragmented society like Iraq, the military (primarily the ground forces) is one of the few national institutions that stresses national unity as an important principle. Conscripts are at least publicly
encouraged to rise above parochial loyalties and may be stationed in parts of the country far from their ethnic kinsmen. To tear apart the Army in the war’s aftermath could lead to the destruction of one of the only forces for
unity within the society. Breaking up large elements of the army also raises the possibility that demobilized soldiers could affiliate with ethnic or tribal militias."
Dan
Perhaps the independent reporter he was referring to was Michael Yon. He is not supported by a medai corporation but by readers.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
Posted by RU Serious on October 22, 2007 09:29 PMMac that is an excellent paper from the war college.
It is common knowledge (to those who take the time to educate themselves on the matter) that "Desert Crossing"...the last war game to fully simulate an Iraq invasion, called for at least 400K troops...and even then didn't guarantee success against the widely predicted, well-organized, well funded and well supplied insurgency. To impy that somehow the civilian military leadership was unaware of the possibility and in fact, probability, that we would face the dangers we have (next gen IED's etc) in Iraq is ridiculous at best and shameful politically motivated posturing at worst.
If you folks on the right do bother to read the paper referenced by Mac above, please pay special attention to the parts in which it is made clear that the Republican leadership decided to simply ignore the best advice of the best military minds at our disposal and move forward with flawed plans that remain in place today....and continue to place our troops in harm's way without the resources necessary for success in Iraq. Pay special attention to the ongoing problems that stem from insufficient force size.
Which brings us back to the 800 lbs gorilla in the room.
We need at least 150K more troops, indefinitely, for our troops to have a chance at success in Iraq. According to our own generals we don't have the capability to sustain a 30K troop surge, let along a 150K troop extended escalation...SOOOOOO....how do you guys want to break it to our troops on the ground that while we want them to continue to stand on death's doorstep, we won't give them the tools needed to win because a draft would be too politically damaging to the political party that needlessly sent them to battle in the first place?
I sure don't want to have that conversation with anyone in the sandbox...so I advocate either starting the draft and getting our men and women the help they need...or letting them redeploy home or to positions of secure support in country.
Just one guy talking, but the other option...that of current Republican favor...namely letting them dangle in combat zones without the necessary resources for success while this thing drags out until it's the next admninistration's problem...is simply the worst form of cowardice...and not an option...at least for those folks who truly do support our armed forces.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 10:03 PMThanks RU, I will check it out.
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 10:39 PM