Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

every reasonable thing to make them (troops) safe

This includes supporting the liberal assertion that they are war criminals----an assertion the enemy continues to parrot to justify a homicide bombing to this day

Accusing them of torture----even though the assertion was found to be unfounded. The enemy continues to parrot this line too in order to justify blowing up our soldiers and Iraqi kids because of it.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

A few thoughts:

- All mother's (and fathers) want their sons/daughters home; not just the liberal ones

Agreed.

- If you don't support the war, that means:

             - you don't support using all available and necessary force to fight the war

             - you don't support killing the enemy

             - you don't support adding more troops if needed to keep our forces safe

Wrong. You can have grave moral and practical reasons for not believing this is a justified or necessary war yet believe that since we are in it, we have to do whatever is needed to finish the job right.

- When you "support the troops; but don't support the war"; you get Black Hawk Down scenarios.  I don't know a single parent that wants this administration to supoort our troops; like the Clinton administration supported our troops in Somalia.

This only holds true if what you said above is the case. But it isn't. If one day one of my daughters gets pregnant out of wedlock, I can hold to the position that her actions were not the morally right nor practically smart thing to do. Yet, I can still love and support my daughter, do whatever is necessary to see that she has a healthy pregnancy and that her and her child have the resources and support they need to go on with their lives and have a happy and loving home. Once you're in a situation, you have to deal with what is, not what it should have been. This war is no different. We're in it. We have to do it right. If that means more troops, so be it. But that doesn't preclude me or anyone else from having the right to voice our opposition to the thinking that got us in the conflict to begin with. Hopefully by voicing our concerns, the powers that be will think a little harder and dig a little deeper into the intel the next time they have a notion to begin an armed conflict.

- How long is long-enough to stay involved in Iraq?  I love the talk of setting a timetable; we still have bases in Germany and Japan.  We formally occupied both for over 10 years after the WW2.  I guess we should have left both of those countries after a couple of years.

168877[/snapback]

No one on this thread has said a thing about a timetable.

[japantiger 4,051]

Thanks for the reply:

I don't really know any right wing wackos; I'm sure they exist; just like their counterparts on the left. I know my beef with most of the liberal establishment. I'll try to address it this way:

I don't know of anyone in the military establishment that would reject good advice. I just haven't heard the liberal establishment provide any. Saying we need to get out; wrong war, wrong place; etc., is not advice on how to prosecute the current War effort. Frankly these are not the actions of a partiot or what I expect from my countries Leadership. If the political leaders on the left had good advice and recommendations; they could work thru both the House and Senate Armed services committees, their other channels into the Pentagon, the Press, etc., to effect the War fighting strategy and executional changes. They would take ownership for their ideas and work like mad to see their "good ideas" implemented.

Since they have made no attempt at this; I have to assume they really don't have any ideas to help. Not sure about you; but I don't really need leaders who only point out problems; I am looking for leaders with solutions. I don't hire and promote people like that; and I don't let my kids get away with that behavior either.

You think Iraq is a strategic mistake; not sure what that is based on: generally strategic mistakes are not evident at the time. Rarely has eliminating a ruthless; murderous genocidal dictator; who has attacked two of his neighbors; who has openly supported terrorists (yes; this is accurate) in a strategically important region proven to be a mistake. Only if we fail to leave behind a stable democracy will it be a mistake; to leave ensures a self fulfilling prophecy. I am sure there are considerations I am not taking into account.

I cannot think of a single historical context that would support your claim of this being a poorly executed war; without regard to who is responsible for prosecuting it. We projected force 12,000 miles from home; in less than 6 months; engaged and routed an entrenched half-million man army with a much smaller force; moved more people, farther and faster than any campaign in World history; with minimal loss of troops, civilian life and damage to infrastructure. Surely you are not talking about that war?

If you mean the current Terrorist War; elaborate how you would execute it more effectively. Please describe:

- the enemy

- how more troops would lead to a different outcome against this enemy

- how many more troops would be required for a successful outcome

- other changes your would make to ensure the effort is successful

Just because our leaders can say something, doesn't mean they should. Our freedom of speech should be accompanied by an equal level of maturity and restraint; lest it does provide aid and comfort to the enemy. If you think we are doing it wrong; make some recommendations on how to change it. If not; demonstrate some maturity and leadership by showing restraint.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

You think Iraq is a strategic mistake; not sure what that is based on: generally strategic mistakes are not evident at the time.  Rarely has eliminating a ruthless; murderous genocidal dictator; who has attacked two of his neighbors; who has openly supported terrorists (yes; this is accurate) in a strategically important region proven to be a mistake.  Only if we fail to leave behind a stable democracy will it be a mistake; to leave ensures a self fulfilling prophecy.  I am sure there are considerations I am not taking into account. 

I cannot think of a single historical context that would support your claim of this being a poorly executed war; without regard to who is responsible for prosecuting it.  We projected force 12,000 miles from home; in less than 6 months; engaged and routed an entrenched half-million man army with a much smaller force; moved more people, farther and faster than any campaign in World history; with minimal loss of troops, civilian life and damage to infrastructure.  Surely you are not talking about that war?

If you mean the current Terrorist War; elaborate how you would execute it more effectively.  Please describe:

- the enemy

- how more troops would lead to a different outcome against this enemy

- how many more troops would be required for a successful outcome

- other changes your would make to ensure the effort is successful

Just because our leaders can say something, doesn't mean they should.  Our freedom of speech should be accompanied by an equal level of maturity and restraint; lest it does provide aid and comfort to the enemy.  If you think we are doing it wrong; make some recommendations on how to change it.  If not; demonstrate some maturity and leadership by showing restraint.

168902[/snapback]

Well, there's a load of polite sounding condescension in that post. "Demonstrate some maturity and leadership by showing restraint." I wish our leaders had done that in the lead up to this war when our leaders appealed to us on a visceral level instead of a more thoughtful one.

Your dividing up our war efforts in Iraq is convenient, I suppose, for your argument. Beyond that benefit, it makes little sense. Winning phase one matters little if the prospects for phase two are ultimately not so great. Yes, our brave military men and women could route anyone in a conventional war. Nation building, as GWB often said in 2000, was really beyond what they are designed to do. Phase II is nation building, plain and simple.

I don't know why you think strategic blunders are darn near impossible to spot in advance. Such assessments are made every day in a variety of fields. Some folks are better at it than others, of course. Those who act viscerally are rarely very skilled at it, in my experience. The stategic blunder was articulated reasonably well by this fellow:

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041130090045/...oref/cheney.htm

That was Dick Cheney in 1991. A wiser, less wealthy, Dick Cheney. "Inherently unstable." That's one clue that you are on the precipice of a strategic blunder. What is the foundation on which a long-lasting democracy will be built? Sure, I'll hope for it now that we are there. I'll hope I'm wrong and that Dick was wrong in 1991. But it is hardly a hope based on reason, logic or empirical evidence.

Saddam was a bad guy. Still is. A real SOB. He also held together a region drawn together as a country by the British that never should have been a country. The factions are too deep. We often don't appreciate how difficult it is to hold such factions together. Tito held Yugoslavia together and the world saw little evidence of the ethnic tension smoldering beneath the surface. Franco held Spain together despite, as Tiger in Spain has recently pointed out, the divisions in that country are great. Most American don't even realize the language differences there. So what if Spain breaks up? Probably not that big a deal. But what about Iraq? It has served as a counterweight to a larger threat--- Iran --- which is why we have pictures of a smiling Rumsfeld shaking hands with our then buddy, Saddam-- who also happens to be the holder to the keys to Detroit for his generous contributions to a Catholic church there, BTW. But I digress. He was once our ally in that he hated Iran at least as much as we did. Iran wanted nothing more that Saddam overthrown. They tried and couldn't pull it off-- at least directly. A certain crook named Chalabi persuaded a far less wise Cheney and Dubya of a lot of things and that changed.

Of course, we overthrew Saddam fairly quickly, as we always have had the power to do, if necessary, and Iranians are dancing in the street. Osama is thrilled-- he hates infidel secular Muslims at least as much as he hates us, but Saddam ruled with too much of an iron grip for Osama or Iran to get any traction in getting him overthrown. We have done the devil's bidding. Granted, the whole lot of them are evil b*****ds, Saddam included, but the reality is there was no reasonable workable solution in 2003 for us to sweep down and establish democracy in Iraq. I hope I'm wrong, but it has always seemed sooooo obvious to me, that, yes, I've been exasperated with the boneheadedness of this administration. War on Terror? Where is that, exactly? It was never centered in Iraq until we located it there. You obviously believe otherwise, so our ability to have much of a discussion on this is probably limited by the lack of overlap in our frames of reference. You think I'm out of touch with reality and I think the same of you.

It was a colossal strategic blunder that should have been obvious from a mile away. But we are there and need to try to make it work. I've got no magic solutions for that. I don't favor immediate pull-out. I favor making sure our troops are well equipped. I also favor blunt honesty over PR spin and overly rosy scenarios. I'm glad schools are functioning in certain remote areas in the country, etc, etc. But we still can't secure the highway to the airport and the factionalism is a potential powderkeg. At this point we pray alot and do our best. And hope. But hope is not a plan, but it was the closest thing this adminstration ever seemed to have before launching into this.

[AURaptor 1,126]

That was Dick Cheney in 1991. A wiser, less wealthy, Dick Cheney.

Yeah, because men of the like of Dick Cheney don't ever advance their careers or achieve any sort of success, right ?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

That was Dick Cheney in 1991. A wiser, less wealthy, Dick Cheney.

Yeah, because men of the like of Dick Cheney don't ever advance their careers or achieve any sort of success, right ?

169007[/snapback]

Huh?

[japantiger 4,051]

Thanks for the reply.

Your point regarding our leaders exercising restraint prior to the war is irrelevant. The hoopla and repercussions regarding the intelligence used, etc., is old news. It happened. Can't be changed; Bush was re-elected.

We are there; that is all that matters to the ultimate outcome in Iraq (and our troops). The reality is the only weapon our enemies have that can defeat us is “PR”. Their attacks have no bearing on the process of building a free Iraq (the loss of life is unfortunate, surely). But the only way the terrorist attacks succeed is if our leaders lose resolve, openly support the terrorist position and force us out now; this is what the left leadership does daily. That is why failure of our leaders to show any restraint is not a patriotic act. They in fact become a weapon of the enemy. You can’t be a responsible leader of this country and then tell a 20 year old Marine and his family that what he is doing is a mistake.

I broke the war in effort into two pieces in response to your statement that the war was a disaster; I was trying to understand which war you were talking about. As you call it; phase 1 was a tremendous success; we don’t need to debate that point; though prior to the war and until Saddam’s statue fell the liberal establishment seemed to think that our forces were doomed.

Phase 2 is still underway. To say it is going badly is like the people that were ready to end phase 1 after we had a convoy get lost and ambushed on day 3 of the war. Remember all that wailing and nashing of teeth from the left? You would have thought that our D-day invasion had been thrown back in the sea; instead we had one small convoy get lost; militarily insignificant. But the opponents used that as proof positive that our armies could not succeed against the “elite” Iraqi army (funny; the Iraqi forces always had “elite” in the press in front of their names; apparently the press really doesn’t understand what that word means; or really doesn’t know “boo” about the military in general; wonder which it is?).

The phase 2 strategy we are using in Iraq is really the same one used after WW2 in Germany and Japan.

• Remove the dictator

• Disband the dictators army; build up a new smaller force from scratch

• Remove the previous bad guys from positions of power

• Build a democracy where it did not previously exist (popular government, elections, draft a constitution).

• Provide the military infrastructure until the new democracy can stand on its own.

I guess the guys who did this after WW2 got it wrong then too; oh actually that is what the NY Times said at the time; at least they are consistently wrong. That must be where your comment about the “the prospects for phase two are ultimately not so great”. Since it went so badly 60 years ago, I guess that’s why you think it is doomed to failure in Iraq. The difference is we are only 3 years into phase 2. Judging it currently is like judging the phase 1 war effort based on that one convoy loss. We formally occupied Germany and Japan for over 10 years; and continued to be involved in the day to day functioning of those countries for nearly 30 years; we still have bases there today.

Our own country fought a War of liberation for over 7.5 years; before entering an 8 year period of instability until we drafted a working constitution, elected a president, formed a supreme court, etc. Nearly 16 years; and you expect the Iraqi’s to do it in 3?

[TrueBlue72 0]

Japantiger, you are far to logical and support your position too well with facts for the liberales to manage any valid arguements against it. Against such arguements, they typically (see above thread) distortions, deflections, name calling and outright lies. That is the liberal way!!!!

An even better question might be, "does the left HONESTLY do anything or is everything they say and do simply for political advantage?" I've come to the belief that the latter is true.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Your point regarding our leaders exercising restraint prior to the war is irrelevant.

It was relevant in the context I used it which was pointing out the irony of you smugly stating:

Just because our leaders can say something, doesn't mean they should. Our freedom of speech should be accompanied by an equal level of maturity and restraint;

I broke the war in effort into two pieces in response to your statement that the war was a disaster; I was trying to understand which war you were talking about.

Well, that is not why you did it because I didn't make the statement that "the war was a disaster" , thus requiring clarification as to what "phase" I was referring. Read my post again. I said that going to war itself was a "strategic blunder." You asked me why I thought it was a "strategic blunder" and yet you didn't reply to any of my points on this, including Cheney's rather insightful comments in 1991. Not a one of them. You would rather argue with the "liberal establishment" strawman you've created than engage in a meaningul discussion in which you have to actually respond to real points that have been made.

though prior to the war and until Saddam’s statue fell the liberal establishment seemed to think that our forces were doomed.

This is funny. "The liberal establishment." During the election I was repeatedly told that Kerry and Edwards were the two most liberal senators in the country. Got any quotes from them dated prior to the statue falling that indicated they thought our forces were doomed? You are making stuff up.

Our own country fought a War of liberation for over 7.5 years; before entering an 8 year period of instability until we drafted a working constitution, elected a president, formed a supreme court, etc. Nearly 16 years; and you expect the Iraqi’s to do it in 3?

Your analogies are pretty laughable. Where to start with someone who seems to honestly think that our invading Iraq is on par with our fighting for our own freedom in the 1700s? Tell me, in the American part of your analogy, who were the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds? Who were the suicide bombers? Who were the highly motivated terrorists coming in from all sides of the country to disrupt the efforts? The American revolution started with US! Most successful "revolutions" start with the people who want freedom badly enough to risk their lives for it-- they don't just help out the outside invading force. Find another more apt analogy, if such exists. This one is just one more effort to equate criticism of this adminstration with a lack of patriotism.

[japantiger 4,051]

Texas Tiger;

Your exact quote is below (your are correct; you did not say disaster):

"I think it has been prosecuted by the Pentagon, not the troops on the ground, very badly".

Without regard to who has prosecuted this war; I again struggle to understand your definition of badly.

I don't think invading Iraq is on par with our Revolution in American history; I do not use this as a patriotic reference. I use the American Revolution as a correct historical analogy, like the aftermath of WW2; for what is happening on the ground currently, the strategy being employed (a very successful strategy in the past) and for how long this will likely take.

The unpatriotic acts that I refer to are our leaders and the media aiding and abetting the enemy by furthuring their propoganda efforts by being openly critical of the war fighting effort. This is very simple and straightforward; PR and propoganda are the only effective war fighting tools the terrorists have.

Apparently Cheney changed his mind. His actions and subsequent language would indicate that he did. No personal knowledge of this one way or the other.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Texas Tiger;

Your exact quote is below (your are correct; you did not say disaster):

"I think it has been prosecuted by the Pentagon, not the troops on the ground, very badly".

Without regard to who has prosecuted this war; I again struggle to understand  your definition of badly. 

I don't think invading Iraq is on par with our Revolution in American history; I do not use this as a patriotic reference.  I use the American Revolution as a correct historical analogy, like the aftermath of WW2; for what is happening on the ground currently, the strategy being employed (a very successful strategy in the past) and for how long this will likely take.

The unpatriotic acts that I refer to are our leaders and the media aiding and abetting the enemy by furthuring their propoganda efforts by being openly critical of the war fighting effort.  This is very simple and straightforward; PR and propoganda are the only effective war fighting tools the terrorists have. 

Apparently Cheney changed his mind.  His actions and subsequent language would indicate that he did.  No personal knowledge of this one way or the other.

169097[/snapback]

By prosecuted badly I was referring to having inadequate troop levels from the beginning to maintain better control from the very beginning, i.e. less looting, establishing stability, who was "in charge" etc. Once the Baathists fell, there were not enough troops to establish control and in that void there was too much chaos and neighborhoods and cities became ruled by whoever stepped in to fill the void. A certain amount is unavoidable, but better planning could have made a huge difference. Remember the huge weapons depot that was left unguarded and subsequently was looted-- tons of it? Many of the problems that have continued stem from inadequate troop levels from the start. Rumsfeld was very stubborn about doing this with a skeleton force. The level of resistance was not at all anticipated by this administration, and thus not really planned for.

Frankly, strong historical analogies aren't always easy to come by. Fact patterns are rarely sufficiently similar to draw anything other than the broadest of parallels. If you really researched these two, though, you would find they have very little real applicability in determining the time table for success.

Cheney may have changed his mind. But in my referring to a "strategic blunder" his phrase "inherent unstable" in referring to the chances for a democracy there is pretty important. He was spot on. And that fact didn't change in 12 years. The potential instability in Iraq is "inherent." My other points regarding doing Iran and Osama's dirty work were not replied to, so should I assume you agree with those?

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

TT, I cannot agrue you on the points that the troop levels immediately after the fall of the Baathist regime should have been greater. I agree with you in that regard. However, that was not, in my understanding, where this thread was headed. Would you have supported the war if we had sufficient troop levels to do the job and do it correctly? Would you have supported the war if the Pentagon, Rumsfeld, et al. have "prosecuted" the war correctly? Or would it still be "wrong war, wrong time"? As far as supporting the troops by insisting they have body armor, up armored HMMWVs and other things to protect themselves, how about supporting military spending in peacetime, a concept that seems foreign to some Democrats?

The historical references that everyone tries to use ("the insurgences are like us when we were fighting the British", yada, yada......yada) are grossly inadequate. This situation is much more complex, with many more players, including those "freedomn fighters" (ie, criminal and murderers) from other countries that plant the IEDs and attackj our troops.

Is life better in Iraq for the majority of Iraqis today than it was four years ago? I say yes. Car bombs and having foreign troops in your country sucks, but so does being ruled by a meglomaniac like Saddam Hussein. Was this war justified? Maybe, maybe not, but the world is a better place even if we never find the stockpiles of WMDs that Saddam had (that means bio and chem that Saddam did have, not just nuclear, which I believe he never had.) That is enough for me to support our troops and our President in this time of war. The time for politics is past, the time for working together and getting our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible is now. I support the withdrawal of troops out of Iraq as much as the next guy, but only at the proper time. To do so now, without stability of the new Iraqi government in place, would be a grave injustice to those who have served and died during the, in your words, poor prosecution of this war.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

TT, I cannot agrue you on the points that the troop levels immediately after the fall of the Baathist regime should have been greater.  I agree with you in that regard.  However, that was not, in my understanding, where this thread was headed.  Would you have supported the war if we had sufficient troop levels to do the job and do it correctly?  Would you have supported the war if the Pentagon, Rumsfeld, et al. have "prosecuted" the war correctly?  Or would it still be "wrong war, wrong time"?  As far as supporting the troops by insisting they have body armor, up armored HMMWVs and other things to protect themselves, how about supporting military spending in peacetime, a concept that seems foreign to some Democrats? 

The historical references that everyone tries to use ("the insurgences are like us when we were fighting the British", yada, yada......yada) are grossly inadequate.  This situation is much more complex, with many more players, including those "freedomn fighters" (ie, criminal and murderers) from other countries that plant the IEDs and attackj our troops. 

Is life better in Iraq for the majority of Iraqis today than it was four years ago?  I say yes.  Car bombs and having foreign troops in your country sucks, but so does being ruled by a meglomaniac like Saddam Hussein.  Was this war justified?  Maybe, maybe not, but the world is a better place even if we never find the stockpiles of WMDs that Saddam had (that means bio and chem that Saddam did have, not just nuclear, which I believe he never had.)  That is enough for me to support our troops and our President in this time of war.  The time for politics is past, the time for working together and getting our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible is now.  I support the withdrawal of troops out of Iraq as much as the next guy, but only at the proper time.  To do so now, without stability of the new Iraqi government in place, would be a grave injustice to those who have served and died during the, in your words, poor prosecution of this war.

169151[/snapback]

My position has been consistent all along. This war was a strategic blunder that took the bulk of our attention and resources from the real War on Terror.

Having said that, as I said in this thread, once we committed our troops there, we need to provide them the resources they need, including armor and troop support. Also, once we've removed Saddam, which is what many of our enemies have also wanted, but couldn't do, we created a real void in the balance of power that we cannot now easily walk away from, so I have not argued for early withdrawal. In fact, I would favor a draft so that we can assure we have the troops to meet the commitments we have created. We need to face the reality of our rhetoric. If it is now American policy to routinely remove dictators that violate human rights, we will need one hell of a big army. China, for example, which oddly enough is one of ours, and Walmart's, top trading partners. There's a model of democracy for you.

My biggest complaint is the BS PR campaign and the lack of honesty throughout the whole process. As the book "Good to Great" states, to truly progress one must "Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith)". Any criticism of any decision and those with fascist tendencies among us say we're not supporting the troops. That crap gets old.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

So, if I understand you correctly (and please, tell me if I don't), you would support increased defense spending from Congress, given that body armor and uparmored HMMWVs aren't produced overnight with the simplicity of paper towels. Also, once we committed those troops to the war effort, we should support them to do their job (not compare them to Nazis and minions of Pol Pot) and support the administration's policies and "prosecution" of the war.

Or do we criticize and offer no viable solutions to the situation? Don't tell me why we can't do something, tell me how we can.

It is easy to point fingers and criticize.

Challenge: Given the current situation in Iraq (such as if you were elected President tomorrow and you had inherited the Iraq issue from the former regime), what would you do differently to bring about a solution that brings our troops home and provides a stable government in Iraq?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

you would support increased defense spending from Congress, given that body armor and uparmored HMMWVs aren't produced overnight with the simplicity of paper towels. Also, once we committed those troops to the war effort, we should support them to do their job (not compare them to Nazis and minions of Pol Pot)

I'd support increased spending, but think we can't keep borrowing to meet our commitments. So I would support losing my tax cut-- you decide what matters and what you are willing to pay for and you pay for it. I haven't seen a single Republican with a plan to pay for anything they want to do, including this war. What is yours, BTW?

So I support it more than they do. I'd give up my tax cut, along with everyone else in the middle class and higher to pay for our commitments. Shared sacrifice-- not just the military families carrying the entire burden. If our troops can lose life and limb, the rest of us can tighten our belts, too. How about you?

I'd support a draft, too, if we can't sell this war enough to get adequate levels of volunteers. If we are going to support this war, we need to field the troops to do it, right? Would you?

and support the administration's policies and "prosecution" of the war.

In a democracy you never give a blank check to your government. For example, this would include all the policies that have led to millions of dollars missing through Haliburton and its subsidiaries. You don't support that, do you?

When I'm in charge of anything I want people who are honest with me. I can't stand asskissers. Let me know what you think, disagree if you wish, but at least be open to consider my arguments and conclusions.

In Viet Nam some opposed the government's prosecution of the war because they thought we should just pull out. Others opposed it, including many in the military, because they thought the military's hands were too tied and they weren't allowed to win it. Wesley Clark, for example, is still convinced we could have won that war. My dad fought two tours but was frustrated that LBJ's adminisration wouldn't let them do what they needed to do to win it. He was also pissed that LBJ's friends, e.g. the same Brown and Root making a killing today, was making a killing then-- party was not the distinguishing factor.

In a democracy our adminstration needs to be straight with us and lead us-- meaning selling us on a direction. I'll judge the policies as they come along, regardless of who is President or Defense Secretary.

Challenge: Given the current situation in Iraq (such as if you were elected President tomorrow and you had inherited the Iraq issue from the former regime), what would you do differently to bring about a solution that brings our troops home and provides a stable government in Iraq?

Tough one. As I've said repeatedly on this board, and elsewhere, I don't claim to have easy answers to this complex situation, but dismissing all criticism is certainly not the answer. I would bring together an array of military men and military minds from different political persuasions and hold some pretty intense sessions and see who made the most sense. First, I would insist that no one pull any punches, say exactly what they thought, and insist that they talk freely in front of each other and not rush out to the nearest camera to stab each other in the back. I'd tell them we're putting party and the past behind and putting America's interest in the forefront and that I absolutely wouldn't tolerate anyone who was going to advise me to play politics with this issue. We'd go from there.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

I'd support increased spending, but think we can't keep borrowing to meet our commitments. So I would support losing my tax cut-- you decide what matters and what you are willing to pay for and you pay for it. I haven't seen a single Republican with a plan to pay for anything they want to do, including this war. What is yours, BTW?

So I support it more than they do. I'd give up my tax cut, along with everyone else in the middle class and higher to pay for our commitments. Shared sacrifice-- not just the military families carrying the entire burden. If our troops can lose life and limb, the rest of us can tighten our belts, too. How about you?

Yes, I would support giving up my tax cuts if I knew that the money would be used wisely. I am far from an expert on budget and government matters, but it is my firm belief that we are taxed enough. The money that we send to the federal (and state, for that matter) is not used in and efficient nor an effective manner.

As far as how to pay for this war, I don't have one, just as you don't have a plan for how to extradite us from the war. I suppose that one might be the use of Iraqi oil, but that is flawed even without the sabotage of the oil industry in Iraq. Personally, I think Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and other "allies" should pony up some of the bill. But, when we cannot even use Saudi soil to launch aircraft or ground troops, that idea ain't exactly going to fly, is it?

   I'd support a draft, too, if we can't sell this war enough to get adequate levels of volunteers. If we are going to support this war, we need to field the troops to do it, right? Would you?

I do not. I have seen the capabilities of the soldier who wants to be there, as opposed to one that does not. I have seen senior NCOs that have stated to me personally, if I had ben drafted, I would have been in Canada. But yet they volunteered for military service. An interesting seemingly paradoxical situation. I cannot explain it. But I would not support a draft.

Tough one. As I've said repeatedly on this board, and elsewhere, I don't claim to have easy answers to this complex situation, but dismissing all criticism is certainly not the answer. I would bring together an array of military men and military minds from different political persuasions and hold some pretty intense sessions and see who made the most sense. First, I would insist that no one pull any punches, say exactly what they thought, and insist that they talk freely in front of each other and not rush out to the nearest camera to stab each other in the back. I'd tell them we're putting party and the past behind and putting America's interest in the forefront and that I absolutely wouldn't tolerate anyone who was going to advise me to play politics with this issue. We'd go from there.

Thank you for your honesty. Too back the Dems and Reps in Washington today don't feel the same way.

I don't have the solution either, but it is my contention that we (and I include pols in this statement) must be united in our commitment to this war and stop the soundbites and start working towards a solution. But too many want to suggest that we pull out or go around making comparisions that harm troops or even hold an administration responsible for the actions of renegade soldiers. To constantly criticize the administartion and not also point fingers at the other side is wrong. There have been enough mistakes to go around. Now is not the time to work against each other, it is time to work together. That goes for both sides of the aisle.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

it is my firm belief that we are taxed enough.

I look at what I pay in taxes and believe that it should be enough. But I also look at my paycheck and think it should be enough to live on, but it really depends on what I choose to spend--- and what my wife chooses to spend.

Our government needs to work the same way. Most of us make tough decisions and don't buy everything we want. That's why I drive a 10 year old car.

If we say we need to support a war, then we need to finance it. That break from reality is one of my key concerns over the way this administration has done things. Tell us its important and make the case for why we should sacrifice to fund it. This is part of what supporting a war means. There are ample historical analogies for this one. Instead we hear, let's fund it and cut taxes again. We've entered fantasy land in regard to budgets and the cost of war.

[Piglet 0]

Seems to me, the big question is not just the amount of taxes, it's whether we get value for what we pay. By that standard, we're still paying too much even after the cuts.

Government needs to be efficient. If our schools worked, if our parks were safe, if our roads were repaired and the people were fed and the cops trusted and the military had the equipment it needed, most of us would gladly pitch in maybe more than we're paying now and call it a good deal. But they're not. Everything's being mismanaged, so of course the people are mad and feeling overtaxed. Especially when we read about money going to pay corporations to outsource our jobs, or for studies of cow farts. Who wants to pay for that?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Seems to me, the big question is not just the amount of taxes, it's whether we get value for what we pay.  By that standard, we're still paying too much even after the cuts.

Government needs to be efficient.  If our schools worked, if our parks were safe, if our roads were repaired and the people were fed and the cops trusted and the military had the equipment it needed, most of us would gladly pitch in maybe more than we're paying now and call it a good deal.  But they're not. Everything's being mismanaged, so of course the people are mad and feeling overtaxed.  Especially when we read about money going to pay corporations to outsource our jobs, or for studies of cow farts.  Who wants to pay for that?

169182[/snapback]

Nobody may disagree with that, but it is really a much broader issue for separate thread. And the way that argument is commonly used these days is somewhat analogous to me going to the grocery store, buying $230 worth of groceries, refusing to put anything back, but telling the cashier I'm only paying $100 because the quality of the food is crap. But even worse, it is actually more analogous to me saying the quality is crap, so I refuse to pay more than $100 now, but charge the difference to my kids because I don't want to have to decide what I want to put back. Let them pay later for my crap now. States have to pay, or cut-- except in Arnold's California where they borrow, too. This administration just runs the bill higher than ever and charges it.

[japantiger 4,051]

TT and Known, thanks for the update:

TT; please, the Facist comment above is way out of bounds. It is not Facist to insist on leaders offering solutions rather than endless whines and complaints. Leadership is about owning problems and coming forth with solutions. Real leader work within the system to change it. No one should give the goverment a "buy". When lives are at stake, we should expect a different level of leadership. Also, I would genuinly like to see a good idea come out of an honest debate. That does not have to be carried out in the press. It can be carried on behind close doors. This could happen if the opponents were genuinly interested in offering solutions rather than making political hay. This also assumes it is not already being done.

More troops is the most often posited solution; have not heard one leader on the ground ask for more troops. What would more troops do to address the situation? Maybe a different mix of troops; maybe more emphasis on recruiting and training Iraqi's, but more bodies?

Not sure where the draft comments came from. We haven't done that is over 30 years. We really do not have a recruiting problem. We had 3 months where we missed quota, by I believed a combined 5500 recruits. Last month was over quota. The all volunteer force is the best way to go. More professional, committed, better trainined, etc.

Funding would not be an issue if every government agency/department froze spending for one year. Problem continues to be spending increasing faster than taxes come in. That is not cutting anything. That is holding the line for one year. The should be the easiest thing in the world to do.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

TT and Known, thanks for the update:

TT; please, the Facist comment above is way out of bounds.  It is not Facist to insist on leaders offering solutions rather than endless whines and complaints.  Leadership is about owning problems and coming forth with solutions.  Real leader work within the system to change it.  No one should give the goverment a "buy".  When lives are at stake, we should expect a different level of leadership.  Also, I would genuinly like to see a good idea come out of an honest debate.  That does not have to be carried out in the press.  It can be carried on behind close doors.  This could happen if the opponents were genuinly interested in offering solutions rather than making political hay.  This also assumes it is not already being done. 

More troops is the most often posited solution; have not heard one leader on the ground ask for more troops.  What would more troops do to address the situation?  Maybe a different mix of troops; maybe more emphasis on recruiting and training Iraqi's, but more bodies? 

Not sure where the draft comments came from.  We haven't done that is over 30 years. We really do not have a recruiting problem.  We had 3 months where we missed quota, by I believed a combined 5500 recruits.  Last month was over quota.  The all volunteer force is the best way to go.  More professional, committed, better trainined, etc. 

Funding would not be an issue if every government agency/department froze spending for one year.  Problem continues to be spending increasing faster than taxes come in.  That is not cutting anything.  That is holding the line for one year.  The should be the easiest thing in the world to do.

169188[/snapback]

JapanTiger:

Any criticism of any decision and those with fascist tendencies among us say we're not supporting the troops.

This statement applies to whom it applies to. If that's not you, fine. Deflecting every criticism of the government as being from someone who doesn't support the troops is hardly consistent with democratic tendencies and is the very height of politicizing the situation.

This could happen if the opponents were genuinly interested in offering solutions rather than making political hay.

It is not just opponents who make political hay out of the situation. If you don't think politicizing the "War on Terror" has been Rove's chief tactic since 9/11, I'm not sure what you have been observing. This administration actually got tremendous support from the opposition party until the Republicans used the War on Terror as a political weapon, particularly in te 2002 elections.

More troops is the most often posited solution; have not heard one leader on the ground ask for more troops.  What would more troops do to address the situation?

We'll see what they say in their memoirs. If they are on the ground, they already know what the answer would be to the request. If you don't think more troops at the outset would have helped to establish order more quickly, e.g. lessen looting, lessen the void of authority filled by various groups right after the fall, and provided security for places like weapons depots with tons of weapons that are now likely being used against us, why don't you think that?

You've still never addressed my reasons for considering the war a strategic blunder, BTW.

[CCTAU 3,344]

I've had this discussion often enough, both with people who support the war more than I do and with people who support it less, that I've figured it's more about not assuming what the other guy's thinking than anything else.

Most conservatives I know who like the war don't think it is enough to just kick ass. They also want to be right.

Most liberals I know who don't like the war do respect soldiers, and agonize the way only a bleeding-heart can, about whether their protests might put good, brave people in harm's way. 

You want honesty? Then recognize that SUPPORTING THE TROOPS and SUPPORTING THE WAR are not the same thing, and it's possible to have one without the other.

The ones who say, "support the troops--bring them home" think that the best way to support the troops is to only call on them to face danger where there is a real need--and that Iraq ain't it.  They think that it would be best to end the "unjust" war, have them stop doing the wrong thing, and bring them someplace safe.  And their anger is not directed at the who they see as victims of the higher-ups.  And when they talk about nazis, they mean the ones giving the orders, not the ones who bravely follow them.

I think there's a lot wrong with their argument.  I doubt that your typical marine is going to appreciate much being called a helpless victim and a pawn.  And when I ask the lefties how safe the troops, and all the rest of us, will be in our own homes if we don't bring the fight to the terrorists' homes, I don't get much of an answer.

But it seems to me that what they say is neither unpatriotic nor dishonest.  It's just poorly thought out, and it errs on the side of having too much heart.

We ought to question the government's premises frequently, without being called traitors and liars for it. 

"My country right or wrong" is like "my mother, drunk or sober."  --GK Chesterton

168473[/snapback]

Yep. Its like the anti-gun rape victim. She usually just ends up a rape victim WITH A FREAKING GUN.

It's all bleeding heart till it happens to you. Just like 911. All liberals wanted blood. But then they realized that after the TV goes off, they can't see it from their house. So what's the problem.

The world will eventually be saved by love, just not ours.

[japantiger 4,051]

We are at war; this isn't a silly political game. When we show division, it is a victory for our enemies. Critisizing the conduct of the war (wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, not enough troops, too many troops, too many people killed, not enough people killed, ad nauseum, etc..) all-the-time is not a sport; it carries consequences. The only weapon the bad guys have is our lack of resolve. Criticism without offering a viable alternative is irresponsible.

I don't think the naysayers do it because they "love" too much. I think they are for the most part disingenuous; and in rare casesy naive.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

We are at war; this isn't a silly political game.  When we show division, it is a victory for our enemies.  Critisizing the conduct of the war (wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, not enough troops, too many troops, too many people killed, not enough people killed, ad nauseum, etc..) all-the-time is not a sport; it carries consequences.  The only weapon the bad guys have is our lack of resolve. Criticism without offering a viable alternative is irresponsible. 

I don't think the naysayers do it because they "love" too much.  I think they are for the most part disingenuous; and in rare casesy naive.

169941[/snapback]

japantiger, I couldn't have said it better myself! I salute you, sir!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

We are at war; this isn't a silly political game.  When we show division, it is a victory for our enemies.  Critisizing the conduct of the war (wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, not enough troops, too many troops, too many people killed, not enough people killed, ad nauseum, etc..) all-the-time is not a sport; it carries consequences.  The only weapon the bad guys have is our lack of resolve. Criticism without offering a viable alternative is irresponsible. 

I don't think the naysayers do it because they "love" too much.  I think they are for the most part disingenuous; and in rare casesy naive.

169941[/snapback]

Well, I think you presume to know too much about what people's motives are or aren't. This country is not great because everyone gets in lockstep with their gov't just because there is a war going on. No one who is critical of how this is being handled or whether we should be there in the first place thinks it's a sport. That's just some silly strawman you keep setting up to make your diatribes look more convincing than they are. We are, or should be, mature enough to hear criticism without knee-jerking into hyperpatriotism and castigating anyone who dares to voice their concerns. It's this kind of rhetoric that continues to poison the water of reasonable debate and discussion about virtually any political matter in this country and I for one am sick of it no matter what side it comes from.