NRO contributor Smith "hard-pressed" to find U.S. service members who would say "it's not going well" in Iraq
SUMMARY: In a post
on the NRO military blog
The Tank, W. Thomas Smith Jr. asserted that he had been to Iraq, spent
"[d]ays -- sometimes weeks -- at a time" with units in action, and
would be "hard-pressed to find one American Marine or soldier (or a Brit)
who would say to me 'it's not going well.' " However, there are several examples
of active-duty or retired service members
expressing discontent with progress in Iraq through media outlets.
In an October 28 post on National Review Online's (NRO) military blog The Tank, NRO contributor and Family Security Matters contributing editor W. Thomas Smith Jr. asserted that he had been to Iraq, spent "[d]ays -- sometimes weeks -- at a time" with units in action, and would be "hard-pressed to find one American Marine or soldier (or a Brit) who would say to me 'it's not going well.' " However, seven service members finishing tours in Iraq wrote an op-ed published August 19 in The New York Times stating that they were "skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day." Additionally, an October 27 Washington Post article quoted service members who were critical of the Iraq war or skeptical about news of progress in Iraq.
Smith was responding to an appearance by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) on NBC's Meet the Press earlier that day, during which Dodd stated: "Listen to the ground -- troops on the ground. They will tell you over and over again, despite the fact their willingness to serve, this is not going well at all, and it's affecting us everywhere else in the world, Tim." From the October 28 Meet the Press interview:
DODD: But I came to the conclusion almost a year ago -- in fact, I was here, having just come back from, from Baghdad. We talked at this table. And I met with young soldiers over there who said this is just not working. We need to change this policy. I think we want some decisive action here, we want some clarity on this. We're not getting it. In my view, we should be changing the fundamental policy. That is not to walk away diplomatically from the region. There are many things we can do, Tim, to make a difference. But I think we're, we're deluding ourselves in believing that $10 billion a month, almost 4,000 lives lost, almost 29,000 injured, 80 to 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives, four million have left the country. Listen to the ground -- troops on the ground. They will tell you over and over again, despite the fact their willingness to serve, this is not going well at all, and it's affecting us everywhere else in the world, Tim.
In contrast to Smith's assertion that he would be "hard-pressed" to find a U.S. or British soldier who would state that "it's not going well" in Iraq, the October 27 Washington Post article included interviews with soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division in southwestern Baghdad. The article stated that when Sgt. Victor Alarcon was "[a]sked if the American endeavor here was worth their sacrifice -- 20 soldiers from the battalion have been killed in Baghdad," Alarcon responded: "I don't think this place is worth another soldier's life." The article also quoted Lt. Col. George A. Glaze saying, "I'm frustrated. After 14 months, I've got a lot of thoughts in my head. Do they fundamentally get giving up individual rights and power for the greater good? ... I'm going to leave here being skeptical of everything." Additionally, the article quoted Staff Sgt. Richard McClary stating that Americans "just know back there what the higher-ups here tell them. But the higher-ups don't go anywhere, and actually they only go to the safe places, places with a little bit of gunfire. ... They don't ever [expletive] see what we see on the ground."
Further, the New York Times op-ed by the service members, who were "at the tail end of a 15-month deployment" in Iraq, stated: "The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere."
Many Iraq veterans have also spoken out against the war. In an October 15 op-ed posted on washingtonpost.com, 12 former Army captains stated: "Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles." Additionally, according to a New York Times article discussing a Times/CBS News national poll conducted in May, "two-thirds" of military members and their immediate family members who responded to the poll "said things were going badly" in Iraq.
According to his biography on NRO, Smith directs the conservative Family Security Foundation's Counterterrorism Research Center; the foundation owns and operates Family Security Matters, an organization that published a list of "The Ten Most Dangerous Organizations in America" on October 25, which named Media Matters for America the most "dangerous" organization.
Smith's work has been published by U.S. News & World Report, as well as Townhall.com.
From Smith's October 28 post on NRO's The Tank, titled "Who is Sen. Chris Dodd Talking To?":
Politicians like Dodd have to constantly remind us that they've been to Iraq, though they never tell us how they are almost always surrounded by an entourage of civilian staffers and military public affairs officers, and escorted to relatively safe sectors of the country. Yet somehow their having been to Iraq means they can make offhand remarks about what the troops are supposedly telling them, and so the American people should believe what they (the politicians) are telling them based on their little week-long fact-finding missions.
But what Dodd said this morning about what the troops are telling him is extremely difficult for me to believe.
I've been to Iraq myself, twice, and with a U.S. Marine infantry battalion task force, a Marine Expeditionary Unit, Marine snipers, fire-team and squad-sized foot patrols, an Army cavalry unit, even British contractors (former Royal Marines, SAS, etc.) in the backcountry, in the tougher neighborhoods, on the dangerous main supply routes. Always operational. Always in action. Days -- sometimes weeks -- at a time with each unit.
And I would be hard-pressed to find one American Marine or soldier (or a Brit) who would say to me "it's not going well," and not because they were spinning anything for me, because they certainly griped about other things. Fact is, the overwhelming majority of the troops know it's going far better than what the papers and politicians like Dodd are reporting.
In fact, a few weeks ago I learned that some of the really brand-new boot Marines are actually frustrated because of a lack of action in places like Ramadi. They enlisted to fight, but perhaps a bit too late. Things are going so well in much of Iraq that the only shots any new U.S. troops are hearing are those on Iraqi Army and police firing ranges.
Why isn't Dodd talking about that?
However, there are several examples of active-duty or retired service members expressing discontent with progress in Iraq through media outlets.
Problem is, these guys refuse to recognize them because they think these soldiers are all "phony" soldiers. Hence they can't find anyone who disagrees...
Well "several" members vs. the majority of the active duty soldiers in iraq does not give those "several" very good leverage.
"Well "several" members vs. the majority of the active duty soldiers in iraq does not give those "several" very good leverage"--TheMarlboroMan
Wake the F up! Show me where the "majority" of our troops think that things are going just ducky in Iraq. Give me a poll, a link, something that backs up your assertion.
Then, if you believe what you're saying is true, there's no reason you shouldn't go sign up. Too old? Have your kids or grandkids go there. Then you'll really have something to cheerlead.
Until then, grab some humility, and pray that those who are there come back unharmed. That's the least you can do, and unless you're there already, it seems you are all for doing the least.
Actually I would have gone, I was in the Guard, but now I'm disabled.
My brother & best friend are both there. Both in army - my brother is a blackhawk pilot and Lt. , my friend is involved in seek & destroy missions in baghdad.
I hear many many great things going on there.
So unless YOU have actually any first hand knowledge, it would be wise to shut your mouth because your rant & rave serves no purpose.
Oh no I am a citizen NO ONE gets to tell me what I can or cant say about policies done in MY NAME and with MY tax dollars you fascist weasel.
yes...you are a citizen and you have that right. It was the military that defended that right over and over. Some how..somewhere, you got the mistaken belief that your rights are worth more than others, and your opinions better than others. Go ahead and call me names and insult me, you are well aware that you have that right as well, as you exercise it often with anyone who does not agree with you.
Actually, if you want to go all "historic" on us, it would behoove you to realize that it was the colonial citizens that fought for those rights to begin with, and the subsequent U.S. citizens that preserve those rights. The military has never defended those rights - the military is a tool which kills people and breaks things only with the authorization of the citizens or their representatives. And for those in the military who risk their lives to perform that duty, the citizens are unendingly grateful.
I have many tools in my garage for which I am unendingly grateful, but I refuse to assume bended knee and bowed head in humble reverence before my belt sander, for it knows nothing about foreign policy.
Neon, your metaphor will appear insane to the Bushbots, meaning it's very reasonable.
I get pretty bored of these confused bedwetters blabbering on about our rights being graciously rationed out to us by the military and the government.
You have to remember that the bedwetters are the ones who vote for a "leader". They don't want a competent federal employee to work for them, they want a quasi-mother who will give them a rights allowance and will hug them and pat them on the back when they're scared.
"Some how..somewhere, you got the mistaken belief that your rights are worth more than others,"
I don't see anywhere in his post where he said anything that would give you that impression.
"and your opinions better than others."
Of course he thinks his opinion in better than yours. It is called thinking you are right. Presumably, you think your opinion is better than his, or you wouldn't be arguing with him.
"Go ahead and call me names and insult me, you are well aware that you have that right as well, as you exercise it often with anyone who does not agree with you."
While calling names and insulting others might not be the best way to win an argument, there isn't anything inherently wrong with it. I love how pansy ass so many right-wingers are.
Yours was a reasonable point. If YOU are reasonable I will be too. MM has not acted in this fashion. Back to the point. The military isnt protecting any of my freedoms in Iraq, THAT is the point. I am not a pacifist. I do not object to the use of the military for any reason just for reasons that cannot be morally justified or are for any reason not crucial to our country. These soldiers sign up out of a sense of duty, to protect us. Who protects them? Who protects them from having their lives used cheaply by a President who would use them for purposes that dont fit those criteria? The answer to that is only ONE mechanism exists to provide exactly that protection, public opinion. I dont know where you got the idea I think my opinion means MORE than anothers beyond the point it is more cogent. Can you perhaps provide a quote of me saying something like that or was that just a baseless attack on ME?
Solon;
Name calling, like "facist weasel" certainly improves the tone of the debate, doesn't it?
Marlborough has been here attacking us and calling us names for a few days now. I will respond to anyone any way I choose. If you thought you had any input into that decision I make you were deluding yourself. I didnt see you in here attacking him while he was insulting us. You stay civil which you usually do so will I. Marlbourough hasnt so he gets what he gave.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html
Oh well.
So says the person who would support the party of taxes and bureaucracy...
You are one scary lefty. Thank goodness all you do is hyperventilate on the net. You're a "fascist", you're a "moron", you're an" idiot", is your calling card. That's all you got, and it's silly: and HILARIOUS.
Ask for proof, get a sob story. Considering you said in a previous thread you were in the national guard, the obvious questions are a) when? and b) was your disability due to NG service in war? Inquiring minds want to know.
So, in other words, you have no real information to back up your stance... except a pack of hear-say nonsense. There's no reason anyone should believe you...about anything you say, who you know or what you've done. You've used this 'ammunition' at least a couple times today. Back up your opinion with legitimate information.
"My brother & best friend are both there[...]I hear many many great things going on there."
Yeah, and my best friend is a Marine who's been to Iraq and back twice now. I hear about many many horrific and morally reprehensible things going on there. Neither his anecdotes nor your friend and brother's show the whole picture. And I don't how you're defining "great things," but not getting maimed or killed is the only great thing that my friend has experienced so far.
"I hear many many great things going on there."
Really...many great things you say? If that were the case don't you think FOX News would have a two hour show every night touting the many great things happening in Iraq.
An occasional good day or the temporary decrease of violence in one isolated area does not constitute many great things.
"I was in the guard, but now I'm disabled" that my friend is a perfect cop out. Did you ever serve active duty? It seems to me that folks who blindly support the military machine in this country have a duty to enlist and serve actively. The fact of the matter is that you can point to brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, and dogs down the street who have probably have more courage than you. As a disabled person, I hope you are not soaking up benefits off of my tax dollars. A true conservative would never do such a thing. Anyway, as long as you are not in a wheelchair you should be able to find a way to serve actively. I wouldn't expect any less from a high minded patriot as yourself.
"Actually I would have gone, I was in the Guard, but now I'm disabled."--Marlboroman
Yeah, and I walked on the moon.
"My brother & best friend are both there. Both in army - my brother is a blackhawk pilot and Lt. , my friend is involved in seek & destroy missions in baghdad."--MM
Yeah, and I walked on the moon.
"I hear many many great things going on there."--MM
Yeah, and I walked on the moon.
"So unless YOU have actually any first hand knowledge, it would be wise to shut your mouth because your rant & rave serves no purpose."--MM
Well. This statement proves to me that you are indeed a phony soldier. Marlboroman, quit trying to blow smoke up my ass.
A real soldier would never, NEVER tell another person to shut their mouth--in essence stomping all over their 1st ammendment rights which that soldier swore to defend.
You remind me of the proverbial grade school bully who can't string together a coherent thought, and therefore starts swinging because that's his form of effective communication.
Now, go back and read my first reply to your first post. You will find no personal attack there other than "wake the F up." Allow me to take the high road, and apologize for the "F".
However, other than anecdotal evidence (which is impossible to verify in this forum) you have yet to provide anything substantial to back up your assertions. My point being, anyone can say anything. But, posters who stick to verifiable facts tend do be the ones who earn respect from other posters.
Also, you claim republicans are pro-war, no matter what. Maybe you should know that the military is majority republican (60%), and that the commanding officers are even higher (66%).
That should give you a hint as to whether they believe in the reasons they are there.
Like I said--WAKE the F up!
Try a link or something, because up until now, you've written nothing to back up your argument or change my mind. It makes me think you're just a partison hack like so many that troll this fine web site.
I'll catch up with you tomorrow. Gotta go cash my welfare check, and make my Caddy payment.
Here's the procedure.
Step 1. Make a statement.
Military support for the Iraq occupassion is as low as the presidents approval rating
Step 2. Provide a link to support your statement.
The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll...(link)
Step 3: Actually provide a poll that is current and reflects the current circumstances.
You have a more recent poll?
This is Rino Hunter's method--he never offers any decent refutation, and he only asks for some other type of source because of some little characteristic that doesn't even pertain to the overall argument (NEVER doing, or at least linking to, any research he himself has done on your source or claim), and he never comes up with a well-reasoned reply as to why your substantiation does or does not materially support the claim you made.
"and he never comes up with a well-reasoned reply as to why your substantiation does or does not materially support the claim you made"
It doesn't support the claim he made, because conditions in Iraq have greatly improved in many areas since that time. The surge has worked in many aspects. A poll from 10 months ago doesn't do any good when the conditions on the ground were completely different back then. And I never said that most soldiers think that Iraq is going well. I simply made the factual observation that the poll that was cited isn't relevant anymore. It's outdated. So unless you can come up with a more current poll you can't prove your claim.
Perhaps you should come up with a more current report showing that it's all hunky dorey now. Haliburton is still overcharging, blackwater kills for fun, and half of the new buildings are made from dog poop and you're claiming success. Prove it, RINO.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/why_its_working_____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839.html
Rino, you sight the one of the biggest rags, The New York Post? And then you take a March 2007 article from the Washington Post? March 2007? Did you know that since March 2007 672 US soldiers have died?
Rino,
Thanks for posting some sources. Now we can have a rational debate.
First, I'm sorry to be petty, but these are opinion pieces, not journalism supported by the same rigorous standards of investigative reporting for which newspapers take responsibility for accuracy.
Now, opinion pieces can be quite insightful and valuable (depending on who wrote them and how well they research), but NEITHER of the sources you cite deal with the OPINIONS OF SOLDIERS who are experiencing the war. One is a retired general and the other is a columnist. Since this thread is about the opinions of soldiers, that's a pretty significant fault, wouldn't ya say?
Other major errors:
The first source goes into great detail about Anbar province. However, situations in Anbar started to change before the surge, as has been repeatedly
and exhaustively
demonstrated.
The lack of violence in Baghdad and other cities has been attributed to mass exoduses and de facto ethnic cleansing: [link to www.newsweek.com]
The pieces also discuss the infrastructure improvements in Iraq. The NPR piece above mentions quite a few glaring failures here, and the following provides some interesting tidbits on the Iraqi infrastructure rebuilding and resulting suicides from corruption scandals:
[link to www.nytimes.com]
(Full disclosure: this is a columnist op-ed, but it is very well-linked with sources--36 of them!--which your op-eds, regrettably are not. The first cites NO sources AT ALL; the second cites 2, an article with which the column disagreed and dismissed out of hand with no detailed discussion, and a blog.)
Also mentioned in your sources are grand plans for sharing oil revenues. Apparently that's not going so well: [link to www.forbes.com]
So, we asked you for sources and you provide two cherry-picked op-eds written by political hacks with little to no experience in Iraq, citing few or no sources and making claims that are easily refutable. Nice work.
You sited 2 two articles from March, touting military gains, Before the blodiest summer of the war, before largest single event of mass killing since September 11, 2001 (500 dead and entire city blocks leveled to the ground), and still very high levels of violence. see MM
Your post is pathetic. I sited the GOA and Military Times. You sited Rupert Murdock's @ss rag contributors (Robert Kagan~ Weekly Standard). Then you site one of the rags directly.
Heck of job Rino. Heck of a job.
It doesn't support the claim he made, because conditions in Iraq have greatly improved in many areas since that time. The surge has worked in many aspects. A poll from 10 months ago doesn't do any good when the conditions on the ground were completely different back then. And I never said that most soldiers think that Iraq is going well. I simply made the factual observation that the poll that was cited isn't relevant anymore. It's outdated. So unless you can come up with a more current poll you can't prove your claim.
Your statement is simply an assertion in good faith. And no matter how much violence goes down, no matter how many fewer soldiers die, it is MEANINGLESS if the govenment does not move to... as the president said 9 months ago
"make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible"
If no American soldier died in Iraq tomorow or ever again, the SURGE sould still be a failure. because Bush's goal in Iraq is to form a "Unity Government" with all three factions coexisting peacufully. In September when Gen P. testified before congress the ...
The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, will report that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks to measure the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq are unfulfilled ahead of a Sept. 15 deadline for Bush to give a detailed accounting of the situation eight months after he announced the policy, according to three officials familiar with the matter.
That means that despote the "success" you and others are touting the Iraqi govenment could only must a 27% effort on it's own political end.
No matter how you try and spin it the Surge policy is a failure. Why should American invsest money effort and blood, ours and thiers in a government that cant even muster HALF of a failing effort. Oh and dont tell me about AQI taking over. They cant Iraq is 80% Shia, and they hate AQ more than we do. Fist of all they are Sunni fundamentalist, 2nd, the majority of them are foriegn meddler. Once we leave, and we will leave and al Satar becomes the new big d*ch their AQ will be crushed by the Shia milita. Plus the Sunni are tired of seeing them kill other sunnis so AQ has no real allies in Iraq. What genocide... please The Saudis will bankroll a sunni resistance, possinly even invade. Sadar may be a snake but he is not stupid. He showed restraint early in the surge by pulling his militai.
AL-SADR'S CEASE-FIRE: Moqtada al-Sadar just ordered "to suspend all its activities for six months until it is restructured in a way that helps honor the principles for which it is formed." Has al-Qaida's failure and the success of the surge persuaded al-Sadr to join the political process?
He wont jeporize his new power by doing something stupid like comminting genoide. My worry is the Kurds and Turkey.
My Apologies for my horrid spelling and grammar...Whi is this so HUGE???
Whi is this so HUGE???
Darn it. Can't I get one error-free post? BTW. I typed that because my text looked massive.
Ok, so let's try this again. Could you please provide some sources to say that the surge is working? Could you please provide evidence to show how the situation on the ground is so completely different that the poll cited is no longer relevant?
Here's some thoughts as of August 2007 that indicate the situation hasn't changed much:
[link to query.nytimes.com]
"Try a link or something, because up until now, you've written nothing to back up your argument or change my mind"
No, but he did blow your ad hominem personal attack out of the water by showing you that he actually has people close to him serving in Iraq and would've himself if he would've had the chance. So sorry, you at least don't get to use the "chickenhawk" insult on him.
Sorry Rino, 2 DO NOT make a majority
Stop gushing over his ability to insult people and look at where this conversation bgan
"Well "several" members vs. the majority of the active duty soldiers in iraq does not give those "several" very good leverage"
the latest Military Times poll completely disproves this.
The Military Times? Why should we believe anything from a left wing liberal rag like that? <saecasm>
Really? just by having people there you know makes a difference? Well then, my brother (a forward observer) got a purple heart there for wounds received from an enemy shelling, my brother in law just returned from his 3rd tour and has to go back in a month, one of my wife's best friends husband was abducted from the baghdad airport last year - they found him, it had to be a closed casket funeral because all they had were parts, so I guess that lends credence to my opinions too, right RINO?
"...so I guess that lends credence to my opinions too, right RINO?"
No, Snoopy, not to them...they act like they have a f-ing monopoly on the Iraq war because they support it blindly and without question. They act as though if you have a brain and reach a conclusion that this war is tainted in so many ways that you are not entitled to your opinion. It's either Bush's way or no way. Like "my President right or wrong..." Got it?
My point was simply that you couldn't discredit that particular poster by calling him a "chickenhawk." I don't believe that being involved or close to the war in some way gives you any more credibility to talk about it. I was simply pointing out that it's a common tactic of the left to attack the messenger by saying that they don't have the credibility to talk about war since they never served and aren't connected to the war.
Oh, and of course the right NEVER attacks the messenger!!! (Anita Hill and Graeme Frost come to mind! There may have been one or two in between!)
Also, to be fair, at the time The Rick questioned TMM's military involvement (never using the word "chickenhawk," might I add), he had nothing else to go on because TMM had failed to provide any sources, and it was the lack of "a poll, a link, something that backs up your assertion" that (I believe) led The Rick to conclude TMM lacked firsthand experience.
Wrong again, being involved in a war does in fact give you more credibility to talk about it. For example, I would give more credence to a person who just returned from Iraq who talked of success then you talking of successes in Iraq. Nice try thought, such a statement was a very passive attempt to give yourself credibility while trying to obtain the approval of other posters here who have opinions on the war but haven't served. The difference though, is that the folks here who haven't served DON'T SUPPORT A WAR BASED ON LIES, that in and of itself lends each person here credibility. Credibility that you will never have.
Get 'im, Chris, get 'im! I've enjoyed reading you and Solon mopping the floor with Rino Hunter!
Chickenhawk is not an insult. What is insulting to actual soldiers is having people talk of how good war is, or how well the war is going, but never having the courage to serve themselves. That my friend is insulting. Cheerleaders are fine, but to talk of great things in war serves only one purpose. That purpose is to marginalize the horrors of war. It is a great conservative propoganda trick. You, my friend, serve that entity with unending faith. So, the label of chickenhawk is only an insult to those who feel guilty about supporting a war they don't have the courage to serve in. Are you a chickenhawk, well are ya?
"...the military is majority republican (60%)...That should give you a hint as to whether they believe in the reasons they are there."
Wait, are you saying that they became Republicans during their time over there, or are you saying that the majority of our troops are gullible because they're Repubes??
Since Stars and Stripes published a poll of servicemen IN Iraq who say they want to be brought home within a year. Perhaps the reluctance to speak out about what a catastrophe Iraq is has more to do with military protocol than anything else.
He
HEY Solon WAKE THE FCK UP --138000 troops approx.1935 surveys --they used in he article to justify this stance about what the troops thought--What is is valid staticcastal sample???
Hey moron GROW A BRAIN. Just because YOU dont understand statistical analysis doesnt mean it isnt a well known science. It is a VALID way to find an opinion among a group of people.
Let's see. There are 400 million Americans, but only about half are eligible to vote, and of those, only half ever actually vote.
So, only 100 million show up at the polls in national elections, and their votes have recently been evenly divided. Of the 50 million GOP voters, presidential approval ratings have dropped to almost 20%, so that leaves only 10 million still "with" Bush.
Of the seven GOP candidates for president in 2008, McCain is perhaps the most "Bush-like", and he's polling at 10% ... which would take it down to 1 million "for" Bush and his policies.
There are 999,999 in the military, and they have to do what the Commander in Chief says, and are under orders to support Bush.
That leaves ONE person in America who actually supports Bush -- Dick Cheney -- and HE has no support whatsoever!
So, there are about 300 million Americans right now. So, does that mean you won't be satisfied with any poll result of American public opinion unless they have interviewed at least 4.3 million people?!
And, by the way, what is "staticcastal"? Maybe you meant scatological?
How many young soldiers are going to express reservations about the war to a stranger? And to someone from the right wing media? It goes against the grain. It risks repercussions. That's why it's so impressive whenever there are soldiers who speak up with reservations about the war. It takes guts to speak up.
This joke of a reporter is claiming that he is hard pressed to find soldiers that are fed up with and coming out about the Bush regimes terrible policy of still (or ever being in) Iraq??
I'm not even a reporter...... I'm a frickin truck driver and I have spoken to four soldiers that have returned from that cesspool and they were none to kind with their words about BushCo.....
To all you Bush defenders:
Knowing full well that this regime in the WH sent those boys and girls to fight the 'fight for our very lives' please explain why they didn't send:
Enough troops in the first place?
Enough armored vests or humvees?
Why did BushCo (2 months before they deployed them) lower by almost 25%: Hazard pay and VA benefits?
Why did they turn 90% of our energy and resources to Iraq (A country that couldn't hurt us. Even if we gave them another 8 years to build up!)?
The War on Terror was being fought in Afganistan and now it is in Iraq (thanks to the neo-con con of 'mushroom clouds' and outdated and worthless WMD's), if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why are we not fighting them?
Oh wait..... I forgot, the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family have been in bed together since the 80's.
Please, also explain why between Sept 12, 2001 and Sept 14, 2001 over 130 of Osama bin Laden's family were secretly whisked out of the USA, while the FBI wanted to at least ask a few questions to them....any of them...... by AIRPLANE!
Even Bill Clinton couldn't get back to the states by plane until several days later.
And you still have the audacity to defend these lying bastards!
Are you so unwilling to admit that this is no longer your party?
Capt, you need to address the comment about the Bin Laden family members leaving the US to Richard Clarke, who during his "promote the book" piece on "60 Minutes" sometime back, stated he ok'd the departures because he felt the request didn't need to go any further up the chain of command.
That is true enough but WHERE does the buck stop again? It is called the BUSH administration for a reason.
Yup, and Mr. Clarke's book painted such a rosy picture of that administration that he was allowed to hawk his book on "60 Minutes." (But that appearance probably came after his "conversion", right?)
OSCAR,
As Solon said......it's called the Bush regime for a reason.
I read Clarke's book and came to appreciate his coming more or less clean on his part of the 9/11 and bin Laden affair.....
Here's the thing,
If Clarke allowed the bin Laden family to be whisked away on his own perogative, why then didn't or hasn't the Bush regime prosecuted Clarke to the full extent.....
Unless of course, as I said and Solon 2nd, the bin Laden family was secretly taken out of the US, did come from the higher ups!
SNOOPY:
You're EXACTLY right.
The way the Rightwing attempts to deny REALITY is to set conditions on FACTS which they themselves decide are valid or not.
Rightwinger, "The sun does NOT come up in the East."
You: "The Washington Post had a story on planetary movement the other day ..."
R: "That Liberal Rag? It's totally biased to the Left, so it is unreliable. Do you have any PROOF?"
You: "Well, the science departments at Harvard and Yale describe the phenomena of planetary rotation, and what that means to perceptions on earth..."
R: "Sure, all those Socialist Liberal Professors with their indoctrination lies, cloaking their propaganda as 'science'. How about a RELIABLE source?"
You: "This morning, I personally witnessed ..."
R: "Not even a good try. That's YOUR opinion. I'm looking for FACT. So far, you've presented nothing!"
You: "On the military blog, there's a description of a new morning in Iraq, with the "sun rising in the East" ... "
R: "Phony Soldiers. No good. Got anything else?"
You: "How about a literary description? In 'Old Man and the Sea', Hemingway ..."
R: "He's a commie. No good. What else?"
You: "OK. Where do YOU claim the sun comes up?"
R: "Typical distraction, changing the subject. It's YOUR claim, YOU have to prove it with a RELIABLE source!"
You: "Well, if you're just going to sit there and deny every historic, scientific, and printed account of what I claim, your denial simply cannot be shaken."
R: "I WIN! I've destroyed all Liberal arguments!"
I needed that laugh. Thanks Tex.
Nice, Tex. That was like a condensed version of every 300+ comment thread I've seen since I started reading and posting here.
Unfortunately, I'm betting the ones who really would benefit from understanding your post will get nothing from it. ;0)
Yeah, but I was kinda sorry to see the last one (on BillO on teachers that don't preach about the nobility of America) get archived. We had a brand new neocon join the fray and make a lot of extraordinarily debunkable statements, but then the discussion got archived, and there they are, undebunked...
I guess debunking neocons isn't really sporting isn't it? It's like shooting fish in a google search. But kind of fun in its own perverse way!
Sweet!!! Can you just post that everytime this guy gets a new sock puppet?
The "surge" is working. Iraq is getting better. Shhhhhh.
shhhhh....
that's the sound of a deflated tire. One area of Iraq sort of stabalizes, another gets worse. No more soldiers to abuse by endless rotations. So withdrawals will happen no matter what your ideology.
"Things are going so well in much of Iraq that the only shots any new U.S. troops are hearing are those on Iraqi Army and police firing ranges."
And the 65 Americans who died in Iraq last month, I guess they didn't hear any shots either?
"Who is Sen. Chris Dodd Talking To?"i
Maybe he talked to these guys on his way up the Capitol steps last month.
I loved reading about the Young Republicans who had never served in Iraq yelling "Traitor" to the veterans!!
Check your Stars and Strips TMM. Their last pol showed no great difference between the troops and the general population in their opinion about the occupation of Iraq.
Hey Eweston --do ypu have some numbers or just rhectoric??
He is citing the same poll I did. Do you have an actual point or what?
The morale of the troops, while important, does not give any strong suggestion of how the occupation is going. It's good that the troops are feeling good--but if they are hunkered down in the green zone, or driving around in armored vehicles, they don't know how the occupation is going, any more than an LAPD squad car knows what's going on in South Central. Marlboro Man, are your family fluent Arabic speakers? Unless they are, what they know is under attack/not under attack. The occupation of Iraq is not a war: there are bo enemy troops, no positions, no strongholds, no advances, no retreats, no battles of massed forces. In World War II or Korea (or the three-week actual Iraq War) soldiers could tell how they were doing: they had a position, and they were advancing. Now? They drive around, and people shoot at them and they shoot at people. A week goes by, and they drive around the same area. People shoot at them and they shoot at people. If there's less shooting, are we winning? Or have they just decided not to shoot this week? If an american soldier feels that things are getting better because he or she is not getting shot at so much, I'm happy that they feel reasured.
Of COURSE some of them will say things are going well. We all know how hard it would be to be active in the military and say otherwise. There is almost certainly a clear majority who think things really suck, but we all understand that they would not want to be on air, or on record, as saying things suck. They are soldiers, and are told what to do, what to say, and even when asked to be candid find it tough to say something that will get back to their squad.
Tell me, oh war mongers, what happens to almost EVERY SINGLE RETIRED commander or serviceman or woman. What happens when they speak of this war? I'll have to answer you because you have not been paying attention: they tell us that the war was mismanaged, that this was is illegal, that this administration knows nothing about beginning or ending a war, and that, yes, "IT IS NOT GOING WELL IN IRAQ!"
Get real. Does anyone really think things are going well in Iraq? OK, besides Cheney, Haliburton, Kellog, Bush, the oil companies... anyone else who does not monetarily benefit. NO!!
There is not a single government beyond BushCo that thinks things are anything less than crap there. No military (besides ours if they are still active) think that this mess was handled well. Have you been overseas and talked to anyone about this?? It is difficult to find even one cheerleader of Word War Cheney-Bush outside of illiterate Americans.
When Bush-Cheney are ousted, then I'd like to revisit those who said things went swimmingly and see if anyone agrees. Please, we are all in on the joke that is Bush's war, and it is not funny, no matter how many times he looks under his desk.
Kellog? Are you saying our troops are cereal killers? Or are the warmongers back home just Froot Loops?
Sorry, Scooter, I know you were being serious, but--perhaps recalling my childhood spent in Battle Creek--I couldn't resist. Let's just say I know a flake when I see one.
Political L-R..please do not sugar-coat your POSTs
I can't believe there was no reference to the military record of General Mills.
Piss him off and he will be a frosted flake.
the filibuster continues....can't you pro-occupation people ever read?
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34538&archive=true
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.
The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”
Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.
Mary, Stars and Stripes is obviously a left wing liberal publication. Why should we believe anything from the left wing media? I never heard about this alleged poll on FOX. Oh wait, I forgot...FOX doesn't cover the Iraq war. :>)
Faux follows the Basil Fawlty policy regarding mentioning the war, without the humor...
...and Sean Hannity (like Manuel) must be from Barcelona. ;>)
A liberal's idea of finding out if things in Iraq are going good or bad is to site examples from the mainstream media or NPR. Not much credibility there. Prove to me that things are going bad.
You can ask the soldiers. See the link to Stars & Stripes above your post.
A hivemind idiots idea of telling us how GOOD things are in Iraq are to repeat all the nonsense Rush TOLD them to believe. Prove to me they are GOOD.
"...the mainstream media or NPR."
As opposed to what, the White House? Oh, yea, they're credible. They're the ones who lied to get us in there in the first place. Or FOX News? FOX either doesn't even cover the Iraq war or they give little slanted, rosy pieces that ignore the realities of the continuing violence.
Answer this...What are the present military and political objectives in Iraq and what has happened recently that has significantly chnaged the downward course of sectarian violence? Every single day I read and hear of more violence, of more bombings, of more deaths (but of course you wouldn't hear that on FOX)...where have we made any significant progress that would indicate an end to the war?
You know, I really hate silly ad hominen attacks, but Fluggegecheimen's post may very possibly be the single stupidest things I've ever read.
I give up Flug. Things are goind great. Why don't you go over and check out the real estate market. Buy some land and invest in the local businesses. Things are going great. Your investment will be safe. Money in the bank.
Idiot.
Here's another story that should make the trotsky's happy!
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_ramadi_071028/
Hey ProudMoron when are you going to realize the Cold war is over? You could look it up. This whole commie thing is SOOOO 80's
Have ever heard recent democrat party talking points or a platform? Check it out. Communism has killed millions of people over the years, has put millions more under its boot and is alive only in the democrat party here in the USA and a few despots scattered over the world.
At least that is the stupid propaganda that ReNAMBLACANs like YOU ProudMORON keep spewing. And yet there are NO communists I know of among the DemocratIC leadership. Then again since you are so STUPID you dont even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US, why should we take any delusion you have about anything seriously?
there are over 3800 servicemen who would say things are not well.
Personally, I have to restrain myself: my sources are active-duty, comrades and friends of my son (who finally got out of the Bungle - at least the military Bungle) and I will not betray even the units involved. First-hand, but anonymous, they are vociferous in their condemnation of all things Bungle, including that foredoomed "surge".
Perhaps that is due to my own, well-known, aversion to Repugnants, and the rants are therefore free; but nonetheless unanimous: the invasion was a mistake, the occupation was a mistake, the "surge" was a mistake, and they wanna come home, alive, now.
Conley, that's a point I was trying to make above. Most of these guys in the military who know the war was a mistake and want to get out aren't usually going tell that to just anyone. First, they are professionals and have an obligation to do what they ordered to without complaint. Secondly, there could be unwanted repercussions for speaking out against the war while on active duty. That's why I admire these young guys who eventually speak their minds openly and honestly. But it's perfectly understandable why more don't speak publicly about their reservations and we shouldn't hold that against them. They're stuck in a lousy situation because of the mendacity of this administration. All we can do is hope for their safe return.
Well put, Conley
I'd like to add another point about the troop surge. If it's a success (as RINO, among others who stand at a right angle to reality, asserts), then logically GW & Co. have to admit that their strategy for the first 3 1/2 years of the war was a failure. But no, they and their sycophants in the opinion-making press claim that the Iraq strategies have been successful, and that the troop surge is simply more successful.
And logic wept.
Smith Jr. and all the other pundits, arm chair experts and delusional bushies: if you don't think that the soldiers want to leave Iraq, you aren't paying attention.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602402.html?hpid=artslot
..."Next month, the U.S. soldiers will complete their tour in Iraq. Their experience in Sadiyah has left many of them deeply discouraged, by both the unabated hatred between rival sectarian fighters and the questionable will of the Iraqi government to work toward peaceful solutions.
Asked if the American endeavor here was worth their sacrifice -- 20 soldiers from the battalion have been killed in Baghdad -- Alarcon said no: "I don't think this place is worth another soldier's life." ...
It is never going well for the soldiers who have to fight the war. Never, except for the sociopaths and the criminally insane. The threat of being killed and killing in a zone where many of the most basic rules of humanity are thrown out is nothing to cheer about. War is a meat grinder of flesh, bones, and humanity. Wars are always bad for the soldiers and the civilians in the war zone. The perceptual gap many conservatives cannot overcome is that national policy on when and what wars to wage war are required by our Constitution to always be up for debate. Any behavior otherwise and we can just flush the good old U.S. of A. down the toilet. Besides the human toll as described above, continual war is an attractive option for authoritarian facist a-holes, who's only desire is to maintain power, since once committed to war, anything other than total support for the war and by association the war makers, could be legally, politically or rhetorically deemed as treason. The framers knew this.
We did not fully debate, the administration lied and distorted, and the Congress abdicated it's constitutional responsibility to be the only ones capable of taking the nation to war. So now we are stuck having the debate whether to continue or not. And the debate is being distorted by not only the threat of treason, but by "Support the Troops" rhetoric. We did not send troops to Europe on D-day in order to "Support the Troops", or for the opportunity to have fukkin bumper magnets on our cars. We did so in the greater interest of our nation while knowing troops sent to war are killed, maimed and sometimes damaged in ways we do not fully comprehend. It is unfortunate we did not follow our Constitution and make sure we had a damn good reason for starting this war, but what is required now is a damn good reason to continue this war. Relative to the cost in blood and treasure I haven't heard any.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
A Marine is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, going to tell a civilian in a combat area that their mission is a failure!!! This argument being made by our Draft-Dodging Hypocrites in the White House is the scoundrels blanketing themselves in a bloody cloth of PATRIOTISM.A Patriot does not lie to a nation willing to lay their lives, their treasure, and their children's futures on the word of their Commander in Chief!A Patriot does not trade a bunch of empty, useless wholes in the tundra of Alaska for Star War fantasy missiles that will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER protect anything but the Republican's alliance with the Military Industrial Complex. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan before we ever mobilized against any other foe. We are now with a broken National Guard in materials that should be replenished instead of No-Bid Contracts to political allies with tax dollars hustled offshore to Dubai to shelter from American taxes.The Republicans view the military as a political coffer, not a sacred trust, and responsibility!I could make this argument for pages of examples like logistics privatized until we find ourselves paying top dollars for rat infested berthing in enlisted quarters of a Naval Hospital meant for out patient care of returning military! Walter Reed's Commander was living next door to the very same barracks, and said he knew nothing!If you vote for a Republican, you should forget ever making a creditable argument about national security, or our military since you would have chosen to stand with the scoundrels that brought us to this place!Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Less than five minutes to find dozens of blogs, posts, and letters from active soldiers, and vets AGAINST the occupation. Probably if you looked somewhere besides under your mommys' skirt you could have found them too. Chickenhawk.
Hey Mary59 -Without help from the group here -What is the size of aa Battallion???
If all these troops want to leave why is it most of them there are on therir second or third tour of Iraq or Afganistan???Explain that PLEASE
Hey Solon tou there???
Sorry-Have to find a KYBD that knows how to spell--Solon -are you there???-Where's your buddy NavyGuy--Just remember the campaign slogan"From Bush to Buccaluck"--Thanks
I dont live on this site. Are you pining for me to mop the floor with you again? Why are they on their second and third terms? Maybe because they are having their tours extended and told they ARE going back to Iraq whether they reenlist or not the only difference is they reenlist with a bonus.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21362930/
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army will continue to rely on an unpopular program that forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates, despite repeated pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reduce and eventually eliminate the practice.
Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said Thursday that the number of soldiers kept on duty has actually increased in recent months as a result of President Bush's orders to increase troop levels in Iraq this year to help quell the violence.
http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/veteran_army_reenlistment_success_mostly_due_to_stoploss_o.htm
Excerpt NY Times OpEd by Will Bardenwerper "Party Here, Sacrifice Over There ":
why are the desertion rates going up?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/us/23awol.html?hp
The new figures also show a faster acceleration in the rate of desertions over the previous two fiscal years than announced. In 2006, for instance, desertions rose by 27 percent, not 17 percent, as the Army had previously reported, a spokesman said.
The revised figures show 2,543 desertions in the fiscal year 2005, an 8 percent increase from the 2,357 the year before. Previously, the service said 2005 desertions dropped by 17 percent, to 2,011 from 2,432.
Mr. Smith should have talked to the soldiers interviewed for this story:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39788
Sorry Solon I know these people personally --they left and worked for State Dept in Lousianna --For State Dept in Iraq and Afganistan and now back in the U.S. ARMY-Part 2 Officers are comminssoned for "LIFE" they know when they accept the commission --Military reenlistment bonuses are not NEW (MORON)If you had a Nuc Weapons MOS or Crypto it could quite good --Stop loss is not reenlistment-138000 and look at your dessertion numbers moron-Figure the percentange --
Buccake, are you really a Marine?
A battalion is 500 to 1200, depending on which branch of the service you are refering.
Now, try to answer my question to you from a few days ago: What Department issues the pay checks for Marines?
WOW you really are stupid. It amazing how ignorant you are. First are you really claiming you know ALL the troops in Iraq personally? I dont believe it. Second you really need to learn to READ. No stoploss isnt reenlisting but like the letter I read personally if YOU are taken to Germany and told YOU ARE GOING back to Iraq. Either we stoploss you or you can reenlist and go there with a signing bonus it just might induce you to reup. You really need to hire that five year old to explain the posts to you. You have the reading comprehension of a pile of bellybutton lint. Your stupidity is getting boring. Its a waste of time to post to you since you then answer something that you pull out of your ass instead of what I posted. You are more ignorant than dirt and I really am tired of wasting my time swatting away your moronic attempts at a point. Not to mention the effort of wading through your incoherence. I advise you to stop mixing your antipsychotics with Wild Turkey
Hey TheDick,I mean TheRick--Did I say I was a Marine???Actually it is done now by Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) You idiot ONLY THE ARMY AND MARINES HAVE BATTALIONS AND ONE OF THE LARGEST WAS IN GERMANY BACK IN 80's or early 90's AND IT HAD APPROX 428 according to the organizational chart
Sad to see you firing blanks: as did, I am sure, therick, I double-checked my own understanding on the internet. 300-1200 is the "normal" range of U.S. battalion sizes. More, the U.S. Navy has had construction battalions since WWII. "Most" combat battalions run from 500-1000 personnel - not all of whom are necessarily carbine toters.
You may google yourself, but here is the easy answer, if you wish to read a bit on Wiki.
You are a moron and you never know what you are talking about. Ignorant, brainwashed and annoying is no way to go through life cretin
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
2007 poll, the results are astounding.
"Actually I would have gone, I was in the Guard, but now I'm disabled."--Marlboroman
No shock there. Why is it that RW'ers who actually serve in the cause they advocate are as rare as hen's teeth yet LW combat vets are so common? Heck, in 2006 the GOP couldn't find hardly any Republican vets to run against all those Democratic vets.
For fun you should compare the number of Republican Congressional vets vs Democratic ones. It's nearly as low as the number of black Republican Congresspersons.