Home for Christmas
The hyperventalation going on in the Old Media regarding troop levels in Iraq is simply ignorance of how the military works. I know that you hear SecDef Rumsfeld say "we will begin drawing troops down in Iraq...." but really he knows the media simply are playing dumb or are in fact just plain stupid. He gives them words that they want to hear. The Democrats are demanding "withdrawal" and thus the media is always asking moronic questions as to when "we will be withdrawing from Iraq" as if withdrawal solves all of our problems or is how the world works.
There is always troop ROTATIONS going on at any one time. Troops may be on their first, second or third "tour" but in no way does this mean, like World War II, that those troops have been in a constant state of war for the past two years in Iraq. This army is an all volunteer force and therefore, will individually or with units be going in and out of this theatre of opearations as the Pentagon sees fit.
We will always have a presence in Iraq whether we maintain 150,000 troops or 15,000 troops in the future. So, if we say we are "drawing down" some troops in Iraq, it does NOT mean or imply that the Democrats were right and we are now "withdrawing" from Iraq. The Old Media will broadcast it that way, but we know how smart they are, now don't we. If we used their logic in regards to the Second World War, then because we have withdrawn 95% of our armed forces from Germany since 1945 then it stands to reason we somehow lost the war as they are want to make such an inference. Nonsense.
You will occaisionally hear administration officials in Washington and Baghdad make all the right clucking noises regarding "withdrawal" but make no mistake about it, we are there to stay and to stay for the long haul. Iraq is but the second front on the War on Terror and there are still other objectives that demand our attention namely Tehran and Damascus. Iraq is a splendid jumping off point into both Iran and Syria and to leave this area in such haste would be foolhardy to say the least.
There is always troop ROTATIONS going on at any one time. Troops may be on their first, second or third "tour" but in no way does this mean, like World War II, that those troops have been in a constant state of war for the past two years in Iraq. This army is an all volunteer force and therefore, will individually or with units be going in and out of this theatre of opearations as the Pentagon sees fit.
We will always have a presence in Iraq whether we maintain 150,000 troops or 15,000 troops in the future. So, if we say we are "drawing down" some troops in Iraq, it does NOT mean or imply that the Democrats were right and we are now "withdrawing" from Iraq. The Old Media will broadcast it that way, but we know how smart they are, now don't we. If we used their logic in regards to the Second World War, then because we have withdrawn 95% of our armed forces from Germany since 1945 then it stands to reason we somehow lost the war as they are want to make such an inference. Nonsense.
You will occaisionally hear administration officials in Washington and Baghdad make all the right clucking noises regarding "withdrawal" but make no mistake about it, we are there to stay and to stay for the long haul. Iraq is but the second front on the War on Terror and there are still other objectives that demand our attention namely Tehran and Damascus. Iraq is a splendid jumping off point into both Iran and Syria and to leave this area in such haste would be foolhardy to say the least.
posted by Xmarine | 6:49 AM
19 Comments:
If you mosey on down to the Gallup Poll you will find that Rumsfeld was telling the American people what they want to hear. We actually figured out Rummy wasn't really drawing down the troops a while back:
1.) Daily Kos
2.) The Huffington Post
3.) Think Progress
...you get the idea.
Oh, and while you're talking about the media scewing information, you might be interested in this story about the military requiring soldiers to get approval before making internet postings because they're posting views of opposition to being in Iraq, etc.
Ah yes, that rascally Rumsfeld couldn't fool you guys, could he? Thank God you guys are on top of things.
What corporation would allow their own employees to post negative postings about their company? There is not a single entity in the world that would knowingly allow their own people to denigrate their organization before the public. Why should soldiers get a pass, especially when national security is such a high priority in the military?
Are you loyal to nothing? Is anarchy the rule of the day?
The one thing I learned about communism is that they don't suffer anarchists very well. They either ended up in Siberia or the grave. Most unfortunate.
There's a difference in doing something to willingly harm the objectives of the military and simply posting political opposition.
We've had so many letters and post cards from former wars, especially WWI and WWII talking about how terrible war can be and of the confusion on the battlefied. But the DoD seems to think that inappropriate today. Political motives? Hmmm...I just don't know.
I don't understand how you can sincerely imply that I am an anarchist, speak of communism (communists governments are notorious for restricting freedom of information) in a negative connotation, and then defend obviously political restrictions on information in the same post.
It's funny to see conservatives criticize progressives as communists or anarchists, and then to think back to the days of the Red Scare and then the Civil Rights Movement where the term "communist" was arbitrarily tagged to anyone who held opposing views.
The truth is that there is no justification for the war in Iraq besides the whole "the world is better off without Saddam" thing, and so the only thing left to do is to attack dissenters of the war.
Posting the horrors of war is not news. When GI's sent letters back to family about the horrors of what they saw, you will note, that the media did not display them in front of the entire world then lament about the loss of each and every soldier that died each day, unlike today's news.
Clearly, there is a leftwing/democrat agenda to sway the American people to their side at the expense of our troops in the field.
The communist conspiracy run rampant in this country during the 40's and 50's was quite evident especially since we know so much about it from Soviet-era archives. Their efforts paid off during the 60's when libs embraced sex, drugs and rock & roll and demanded withdrawal from Viet Nam.
I know, history is such a bummer to liberals. Perhaps that is why they are so eager to forget it.
You don't simply oppose war in general. You seem to only oppose AMERICA waging war period. Nevermind when other nations go to war or use assymetric means to wage war against us or our allies.
Thus lies the inherent weakness of your "anti-war" position.
Are you defending Joe McCarthy and his Red Scare along with numerous uses of the "communist" tag to argue against the Civil Rights Movement?
I didn't oppose attacking Afghanistan. I have nothing bad to say about American troops in Yugoslavia, about the first Gulf War,WWI, WWII, etc.
Well, we went to Yugoslavia to get rid of Milosevic for being a bad guy, you say. But there was a U.N. Resolution and the U.S. said, "hey, we're going in to get rid of this bad guy," not the lie of "ok, this guy has got tons of WMDs and is buddy- buddy with terrorists."
Just because I don't agree with your view, doesn't make me on the polar opposite end. If you don't agree with the Iraqi War, then you're against all wars and only for other countries waging war! If you don't agree with tax cuts, then you must be for 98% income taxes and 8 trillion dollar deficits! If you don't agree with Bush's unprecedented levels of spying, then you must love terrorists and want them to run the country!
Sounds ridiculous when you get to the point and don't pussyfoot around what you're trying to say, doesn't it?
Why yes I am. The Red Scare was not a bogeyman or a witch hunt. There was active communist cells working within all levels of the American government as is evidenced by what was uncovered during those investigations and information released from Soviet archives after 1990.
I don't believe I have called you a "communist" however, most liberals do show empathy or sympathy with the communist cause or ideals. Hollywoods love affair with Castro comes to mind. Most unfortunate when you consider what a barbaric system of government it truly was in every nation and culture it rose to prominence in. Far exceeds anything the Nazi's did to Europe and the Jews.
I look at history in its totality. I don't pick and choose what I like about this or that era. Your insistence at rejecting the premise for the second front in Iraq rings hollow and I'm simply looking for consistency. You may have "liked" the afghan war and all previous wars but that puts you at odds with even your own party, thats if you are a registered democrat.
By the way, the Russians were extremely angry with Bill Clinton during the Yugoslav "war" that he waged, because billy-bob was entirely against what the UN wanted for this region. It did not authorize war against Milosovic. Bill Clinton along with Blair, Shroeder and other Nato leaders attacked Yugoslavia. We had less allies during that conflict than we do now in Iraq. It was only a "UN" operation when the "war" ended. Interesting side note, it was a Republican from California that enacted the War Powers Act on a very close floor vote, forcing that impeached President from Little Rock to end his dirty little war against Milo in Belgrade.
from wikipedia:
The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations to use force in Yugoslavia but justified its actions on the basis of an "international humanitarian emergency". Criticism was also drawn by the fact that the NATO charter specifies that NATO is an organization created for defence of its members, but in this case it was used to attack a non-NATO country which was not directly threatening any NATO member. NATO countered this argument by claiming that instability in the Balkans was a direct threat to the security interests of NATO members, and military action was therefore justified by the NATO charter.
Many on the left of Western politics saw the NATO campaign as US aggression and imperialism, while critics on the right considered it irrelevant to their countries' national security interests. Veteran anti-war campaigners such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Justin Raimondo, and Tariq Ali were prominent in opposing the campaign. However, in comparison with the anti-war protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the campaign against the war in Kosovo aroused much less public support. The television pictures of refugees being driven out of Kosovo made a vivid and simple case for NATO's actions. The personalities were also very different — the NATO nations were mostly led by centre-left and moderately liberal leaders, most prominently U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Anti-war protests were generally confined to the far left and Serbian emigrés, with many other left-wingers supporting the campaign on humanitarian grounds.
Soooo, I rest my case.
Well, yes, we all know that there were Soviet spies, just like there are terrorists, but most people will agree that McCarthy and the HUAC abused their powers terribly. President Eisenhower was especially critical of McCarthy and you can see that in his personal letters. I know wikipedia says that McCarthy's blacklisting of actors, writers, etc. didn't happen, but the President of the U.S. at the time seems to think otherwise.
If you look at all of history, then you will recognize that there has been no successful occupation of the Middle East by non-Middle Eastern forces without the use of extreme measures to exterminate most of not all opposition, including many civilians. And what part of history ties Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda? Could it be the attempted war with Iran, a known harborer of terrorists? Or could it be because most Islamic nations shared hostility towards Saddam because of his persecution of non-secular Shia?
You have not called me a communist, but the implication is there. I've never advocated a universal healthcare or free, legal weed for hippies (joke, I realize not very communist) because I believe our nation, right now or anytime soon, cannot handle universal healthcare and I don't think marijauna is something to be considered a legislative priority. And again, my friend, you're confusing socialism and true communism with Soviet, Chinese, and Korean communism. While I've said it once, I'll say it again: true socialism and communism are impossible forms of government because they require a more or less selfless populus. The communism we have seen has merely been a way for politicians to squeeze richess out of the country for as long as they possibly could. You tell a person that everyone gets free everything and then you take everthing and give them nothing. You call Hitler a dictator yet his party, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers Party, was used to entice the people--a free car and free medicine for people who had none. The Soviets and the Chinese have done the same, why do they not deserve the same reputation as what they truly are--totalitarian oligarchies.
Sorry, I meant NATO, not the UN, and the President as well as many other political leaders were very open about the reasons for going to Yugoslavia.
And you seem to have it in your head that I'm a leftist extremist. Of course, then we must go back to the if I'm not on the far right, then I must be on the far left frame of thought. Oh, and I'm not a registered Democrat. ;)
LOL! Okay, allright, I take it you are pleading for mercy? Don't like to be associated with the "far-left" whether by inference or implication? I see.
You must forgive me for being so naive but your blog is entirely an anti-Bush screed. Rather, sadly, one-dimensional. So, I should be allowed to assume that indeed you are part of the left, whether "far-left" or "middle-left" or even I dare say "right-left". ;)
Since you are not a registered democrat, I take it you are Republican? Or someother animal?
I do consider ALL socialism whether it be American, English, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, Cuban etc as being anti-God, anti-freedom and anti-American. It does not comport with our constitution of life, liberty and property. They are mutually exclusive.
I pick on liberals for their hypocrisy in foreign affairs because evidentally they have decided to ignore history which affects/effects our relations with the nations of the world. I know you feel that I have classed or catagorized you with them unfairly but you are precariously close to their side and I would advise you to move away from them lest you become collateral damage in our war of ideas. :)
Perhaps you should come out here to California to widen your perspective, I understand the cheese is great. ;)
Have a great New Year! Cheers.
Haha, I'm not ashamed of being a progressive, and I'm sure as hell not a Republican. I tend to vote Democrat, but I'm very disappointed because most dems don't actualy know what they think.
Why won't you answer my question on how Iraq and Al Qaeda are historically linked, instead of personally attacking me?
And, yes, I do criticize Bush because he makes it so easy. I'm sure you had Plenty to say about Whitewater and the Lewinsky-thing, but they had half as much evidence for Whitewater as they do for the Plaime affair, Frist's insider trading, and Tom Delay's general disposition to violate the law and to be a bastard in every way possible; and the Lewinsky thing didn't end up with over 100,000 troops going to a country looking for WNDs that didn't exist--in other words, it didn't affect the American people in a serious way. Wait, it hurt the reputation of the office of the president! Of course, people wouldn't have ever known about it if Republicans could've found dirt for Whitewater (Clinton, himself, requested a special prosecutor) then they wouldn't have needed some other scandal.
What I see is majority party in control of two branches of the government that has hijacked American ideals of religion and morality, violated those ideals, and abused the power alloted to by a national tragedy for their own personal motives.
And here's this final tidbit so you can know the basics of what I believe so you can stop calling me whatever comes to mind:
1. Iraq War=It's good Saddam is gone, but that's not why the war began and victory requires a committment that most Americans, obvious by record low enlisment numbers since Vietnam, aren't willing to make.
2. The War on Terror, if we plan to win it, is going to involve political, economic, and probably military action against Iran and Saudi Arabia--despite the whole oil-thing. We're also going to have to make Israel more accountable for their actions.
3. A strong military is important, but you don't necessarily have to use it every chance you get or if it suits your personal motives (it's widely accepted, even by Republicans, that Bush had plans to invade Iraq well before 9/11).
4. Federal taxes, believe it or not, are a duty that Americans have and one of the main reasons the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.
5. You cannot completely privatize major government functions because private companies are profit-oriented and have much more incentive to cut corners and cheat recipients. To maintain a force to properly oversee private companies performing public duties would cost more money than having a federal agency in the first place.
6. Supply-Side economics is flawed: corporate profits go up, but wages stay the same, and the government gains more and more debt.
7. Yes, the U.N. is a sham, but much of the world sees it as a legitimate IGO; thus, the U.S. needs to work with the few major allies we have remaining and demand reform instead of ignoring it or walking out of international discussion--most empire have fallen because they have ignored the world around them.
8. Extremely limited federal government and strong state government is, in theory, a good idea, but wasn't even practical immediately following the American Revolution, let alone 297 million people. This was made obvious by the Articles of Confederation, the Civil War, extreme corruption of state governments especially during the late-19th and early 20th centuries, the Great Depression, and the Civil Rights movement.
10. Christian fundamentalism has as much place in the government as Islamic fundamentalism does. From reading the New Testament many times in my ol' Christian days I follow the idea that Jesus taught separation of church and state through his constant criticism of the Pharisees and Sadducees--the major Jewish political leaders at the time, who often told the Jews one thing and then dealt under the table with the Romans.
11. As far as social questions such as gay marriage, I believe (you're going to love this) such policy should be left to state governments for the time being because I don't see a need for federal preemption at the time.
That's about all that applies to anything we've talked about or anything we could possibly talk about. If you have any questions feel free.
None of my comments are going through...are you trying to get rid of me?
LOL, no I'm not trying to get rid of you or "ignore" you. I usually post all comments while at work. Come to think of it, I'm not being very "productive" while waiting for comments....makes working more fun though!
So sorry to offend you with my criticism of your blog. If it makes you feel any better, I do enjoy reading your blog, even though it crucifies the Bush Presidency.
You mentioned that I didn't answer your question regarding the historical connections between Al Qaida and Iraq? Let me answer that one.
Does it matter that there is a paper trail? If we found one, would you believe it, after all coming from this Bush White House? Iraq does indeed have an irratic history of terrorist support as do most Middle Eastern states.
After 9/11, if you did not cooperate with America in regards to handing over all terrorist elements within ones borders, it had to be assumed you were in bed with the enemy. Surely, after the fall of Kabul this should have been a wake-up call for all dictators around the region that America was on the war-path. Apparently, Quaddafi of Libya got the message.
You may not like the idea that the enemy is stealthy and countries purposefully cover up their trails in regards to Al Qaida. If they did not, then America would be breaking down their door.
Once again, "evidence" is not needed when dealing with foreign powers. Typically, evidence throughout history has been flimsy at best when deciding to wage war.
Finally, what makes you think there is NO PAPER TRAIL? Perhaps this trail is so sensitive that we don't want to reveal how much we indeed know? There is still secrets from WWII that we are just now learning about, 60 years after the fact.
My position is after 9/11, if you do not cooperate with us on the War on Terror, then you are hiding something. Al Qaida is not the ONLY terror organization out there and the policy of exporting terrorism to achieve political ends is no longer to be tolerated. If that means war then so be it.
Veni, Vidi, Vici.
It seems we're getting nowhere. You aren't going to get me to believe that a country that was embattled with the fundamentalist Middle East (e.g. the 8-year Iran-Iraq War when the U.S. supported Saddam and supplied him with weapons) had close terrorist ties, and I obviously cannot persuade you of the opposite.
We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Apparently, the concept of "the enemy of my enemy, is my friend" eludes you. We supported Russia during WWII against the Nazi's even though they were as if not more brutal than Hitler's Germany. Both countries carved up Poland in 1939.
The Iran-Iraq war was no different. Saddam's Iraq was fully funded and supported by Russia as was evidenced by the vast majority of their military constructed and logistically supplied along Warsaw Pact lines. Yes, they received some aid from us, because Iran had become our arch-rival in the Gulf.
Why do we wage war with some countries while leave others alone even though it would appear they are both culpable for atrocities?
Answer: It depends on who attacks us. If the don't attack us, we generally leave them alone. Obvious exceptions might be some distant scirmish involving army or marines but cannot constitute "war" as we generally define it.
I am aware that Russia aided Iraq as well, but again...how was Saddam a terrorist threat? He had no WMDs, there were little or no Al Qaeda in Iraq until after we invaded, and, again, Iran had openly supported terrorists and there is substantial evidence of actual nuclear projects well before 9/11.
White House leaders have even admitted that Iraq was not the threat they believed it to be, and adopted a "well Iraqis are better off" defense of the war.
Saddam himself doesn't personally make terror attacks but certainly orders others to do so. He materially supported Palenstinian terrorism against Israelis and no, he has no right to do this.
Russia didn't merely aid the Iraqi's but were involved in its entire construction and disposition. Saddam himself was a great admirer of the greatest of all dictators, Josef Stalin. So naturally, he would gravitate towards the Soviet state for support, doctrine and logistics in waging war. Thankfully, like the Soviets before them, they were quite inept at fielding armies.
Apparently you have forgotten that the Axis of Evil includes: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. One down, two to go.
If you libs/progressives would stop opposing our offensive against the Axis of Evil then perhaps we can get this war done, once and for all.
In regards to administration officials "clarity" on Iraq, it is often said that "hindsight is 20/20".
Haha...no, on one of my post made before this discussion I talk about the "Axis of Evil." The fact remains, despite how much of a dick Saddam was, he wasn't a legitimate threat to national security (not even to Israel, who could take Iraq almost as easily as we did) especially compared to Iran and North Korea who pose urgent and NUCLEAR threats.
Iraq not a threat? What about his constant targeting and firing on our aircraft over the no-fly zone established after the first gulf war? What about the assasination attempt on GH Bush in which Clinton ordered the Cruise Missle attack on Baghdad in retaliation? What about the attack on the USS Stark during the late 80's by an errant Iraqi fighter? Why wait to be attacked at all by the likes of Saddam?
You see, its 9/11 that makes all the difference. We can no longer suffer fools like Saddam who are a clear and present danger to us and to our allies in the region. If you can't see the strategic implications of defying a vengeful America then indeed you should not be ruling your own country. Lets not be so naive.
Saddam Hussein has never been a threat to the land that is America (a solution to him shooting at American planes would've been the same as it had been for years--bomb the AA) and had no link with Al Qaeda and no WMDs. The War in Iraq did not increase national security. In fact, military enlistment dropped dramatically, our nation went into all kinds of debt (most of which, is owned by China through bonds), and numerous military research projects had to be cancelled because of debt caused by the almost haft-Trillion dollars spent in Iraq coupled with massive tax cuts. We're not going to get anywhere on that issue.
Furthermore, I will say this again: the Cold War is over. We do not have the support of the entire Western Hemisphere and can no longer use the philosophy that America can do this and that because it wants to and is the most powerful nation in the world--smart leaders will know to get out of our way. The fact of the matter is, if China and North Korea wanted to take a shot at us right now...we'd be screwed. We're weaker now throughout the world than we've been since before WWII. Much of that has to do with Iraq and loss of support throughout the war. The world wanted Saddam gone, but they also were aware that he was no more a threat to American land than Canada. We had much of the world behind us going into Afghanistan and when we decided to invade Iraq, most of that disappeared. Again, we're not going to get anywhere on that issue either, I would assume.
Let's talk about Russia...we can both agree about Russia. ;)
Since you're the one I seem to have the most arguments and political discussions with as far as blogs go, I thought you might enjoy this.
Post a Comment
<< Home