Tuesday, January 01, 2008


Thought of the Day

When conservatives talk about supporting the troops, they mean doing everything possible to help them win the war they're fighting. Liberals never seem to talk about victory, but rather see "support" as turning soldiers and veterans into another victim group, dependent on government health and welfare services.

Will it work? So far, at least, I think a large majority of our service personnel think of themselves as warriors rather than participants in a social welfare program. But there is a certain logic to the Democrats' approach: if one's only concern is the safety of the troops, the simple solution is never to fight. And if, like most liberals, you have no intention of ever fighting, then you might as well take credit for keeping the troops safe. But that isn't what most Americans, or most soldiers, have in mind when they think of an effective military.

John Hinderaker


This post is completely gutless. Supporting the troops to me means:

1) Only ordering them into combat when it is absolutely necessary (not on a flimsy claim of WMD) and with as much support from the rest of the world as possible. President Bush should have asked his Father about how to do this.

2) Actually giving them what they need once they are in harm's way, including MRAP's, Body Armor, proper support personell and enough troops when they are asked for.

3) Being accountable for your own actions. This means being willing to admit to mistakes and move on, and not reducing the entire strategy of the war to ridiculous phrases like "stay the course" and "freedom is on the march."

For you to take the stance that Republicans "love troops more" than other parties shows how little of an argument that the blind supporters of this administration cling to in lieu of admitting that perhaps this entire thing is a fiasco. I wonder, time and time again, how and why the righties in this country don't demand more accountability and competency from their presidency.
Thanks for the Democratic talking points, yet again. Niether a fiasco nor really that bad a job as wars go. Try to get a little knowledge of military history before you post in the future. We admire your passion but your ignorance of history drains your comment of effect.
I would like to compliment you for simply wrapping up my comments as "liberal talking points" and not actually addressing them for being either valid or invalid. Good "Republican-ing."

Amateur historian that I am, I am still convinced that a wise (or at least less of a dip-shit) commander-in-chief sends overwhelming force from the beginning of any conflict. This president tried to change the entire middle east on the cheap, using only a few combat divisions and when Chief of Staff of the Army (General Eric Shinseki) suggested that he needed at least 300-400,000 soldiers he was unceremoniously "retired" or when his Secretary of State, a retired 4-star warned him that if he "broke" Iraq he would "buy" it, he was ignored, and subsequently unceremoniously retired. The advice of respected administration personnel who had military expertise (not just heroic service keeping the Vietcong out of the greater Houston area flying obsolete F-102's in a wine-and-cheese ANG unit) was disregarded in favor of neo-con hawks like Cheney, Wolfowitz and one of the least competent people to ever serve in high office, Donald Rumsfeld.

Speaking of just spouting "talking points," what is your take on just listing that casualties in Iraq are down for the past 60 days as evidence that the "surge" is working? Is that just using "talking points" or not? As a follow-up question, what are we going to do when we can no longer sustain the troop surge? What then? What should we do when we have exhausted the manpower of our own Army, sent all of our boys and girls over there for their 4th and 5th tours and the Iraqi government still hasn't done anything? What about when Al-Sadr figures out that the surge is over and decides it's time to start acting out against the Sunni's again? Nobody seems to remember that one of the biggest flaws of our strategy over there was the failure to properly make an example of him.

Wouldn't a master of history, as you apparently present yourself, think that wars are won in the long-term, not is short "surges" that can't be sustained?

We simply cannot maintain the forces necessary to maintain peace and stability in Iraq, and our enemies know that better than anyone else. Our soldiers will start drawing down in July, and the Iraqis are smart enough to wait for us to leave and then Iraq will be up for grabs for whichever faction is the strongest. Perhaps our next president will have enough sense to never, ever again commit forces without a clear mission, enough forces to not only win the battles but win the peace, and an exit strategy. Go figure that a president and his team of cronies whom managed to avoid service in Vietnam would be so willing to commit forces to a conflict without any of the above. I once again don't understand why you accept such terrible leadership.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?