Support our troops at home and abroad

This is such a chickenshit position to take. It sounds oh-so-compassionate, but a major point seems to fly over their heads - those who are fighting this war want to fight it. They volunteered for it. I'm sure there are those over in Iraq who don't agree with this war, but apparently they don't disagree with it enough to stand up for themselves and thus easily dismissed.

And the only way to truly win a war is the model we established in World War II: unconditional surrender by the enemy, the utter destruction of the culture and government that led to the war

By enemy do you mean islamic terrorists in general, Arab foreigners fighting in Iraq, former Baathist military types, or any other groups I'm forgetting who are fighting our forces and new Iraqi forces? Iraqi fighters from Saddam's army I can see, but do you really think unconditional surrender will ever come from foreign terrorists, from Zarqawi? Won't the "utter destruction of the culture and government" mean destroying all of militant Islamic fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, and so on in addition to those in Iraq? How do you propose we achieve this, and how long will it take?

Dos that stupid people in large numbers mean CINDY SHEEHAN and her group of nuts? dose it include the jerks at PETA? or what how about the liberals lead by TED KENNEDY?

those who are fighting this war want to fight it. They volunteered for it.

While I don't doubt that this is the opinion of probably most of those fighting in Iraq, it is disengenuous to say that all of them volunteered for this war. Many of them volunteered for guard and reserve duty, a weekend a month and two weeks a year (or whatever it is), and weren't really expecting a year or two at war in Iraq. Just sayin...

"...but do you really think unconditional surrender will ever come from foreign terrorists, from Zarqawi?"

Most folks would consider death an unconditional surrender, so I would answer yes.

"How do you propose we achieve this..."

See above.

"...and how long will it take?"

It takes as long as it takes, that is the point of the post as I read it.

can tell the terrorists that if they just hang on long enough, we'll take our ball and go home -- and even tell them just how long they'll have to hold out.

Or, in the alternative, we can tell the Iraqis that it doesn't matter how long it takes them to get their sh!@ together, Uncle Sam will always be there subsidize them and do their fighting for them.

Many of them volunteered for guard and reserve duty, a weekend a month and two weeks a year (or whatever it is), and weren't really expecting a year or two at war in Iraq.

That's like saying, "I was just having sex, I was expecting someone to get pregnant." If you are in the military, active duty or not, then you better well expect to be sent into combat at any moment.

Many of them volunteered for guard and reserve duty, a weekend a month and two weeks a year (or whatever it is), and weren't really expecting a year or two at war in Iraq. Just sayin..

As a former reservist, I get to call bullshit with authority on you, mantis. Reserve duty isn't just weekend drills. It's full military responsibility that allows you to hold a civilian job at the same time. As a former Marine, my reserve units were called up before active duty Army units, and I was told that when I enlisted.

So yes, they VOLUNTEERED for this war. And you have every right as a military person to not fight in a war you feel is unjust. You'll likely be imprisoned for a short time, but if you feel something is wrong, you're less of a man / woman to go through with it anyway for your own convenience.

It takes as long as it takes, that is the point of the post as I read it.

I read it to mean we will not give the terrorists a date to hold out for. Fine. Does that mean we cannot estimate how long this project will take? 10 years? 20? Or is the answer "just shut up and wait while lives are lost and tax dollars are spent"?

Sharp,

I understand that by signing up for reserve or guard duty, they sign up to be pulled up for active duty abroad at any time (and that are a full military responsibilities, didn't mean to denigrate). I was just suggesting that some may not agree with this war at all, but still do their duty because that is what they signed up to do (which I commend them for).

"Does that mean we cannot estimate how long this project will take? "

I wouldn't want to try to estimate it, no. I don't see why you couldn't if you really want to.

It will take as long as it takes, or more likely, until the Sean Hannitys of the world find that it is no longer a useful rhetorical device to accuse all Bush critics of getting troops killed by traitorously undermining our courageous War President(TM).

Personally, I will support NO candidate who even implies that the US was misled into the war in Iraq.

Such a candidate is obviously either incapable of reasoned thought, or is a lying political opportunist.

I wouldn't want to try to estimate it, no. I don't see why you couldn't if you really want to.

To tell the truth I have no idea how long this would take. If we are pegging "unconditional surrender" as the goal, and if we keep large forces in Iraq and maintain military bases there I imagine it will go on indefinitely. This is especially the case if the achievement of surrender actally means we have killed or captured all the various opposition forces. How do we know when we're done? How can surrender work if your enemy is hidden? How do we stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq?

How long are we willing and able to fight this war? The answer "as long as it takes" is no answer at all. There are factors involved beyond just the will of the war's supporters.

Aren't any of the conservatives here concerned about how much this war is costing? Will it be worth it?

We still have troops in Germany and Japan 60 years after the end of WWII. We still have troops
in SKorea 50 Years after the end of the Korean War. In fact wherever America has faught a major war, we have left a sizeable amount of troops
behind. After the Gulf War I we had 15K troops
in Saudi Arabia for over a decade to contain Saddam Hussein. I don't realy know what the rational basis for the libs/dems/MSM wanting a
date certain for the total widthdrawl of American
forces.

Speaking as a retired Sailor and father of a Marine, please understand me when I say it doesn't matter whether a servicemember agrees or disagrees with the war in Iraq. Our oath revolves around "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" and the enlisted oath includes "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

The only way to righteously and conscientiously refuse to obey is if the order they're refusing is illegal. If they refuse and the order is later determined to be legal, then they can expect to spend some amount of time in unpleasant circumstances, as Mr Sharp said.

What it boils down to is the individual servicemember's opinion on "whether or not we should go to war" or whatever just doesn't matter. We all know this. We all accept this, or we take steps to separate ourselves from the military.

I'll close out by reinforcing Jay's response to the last point: there are a whole lot of people who say the words "I support our troops" who are either flat-out lying, or don't understand the concept of support. See, I did that without calling them "idiots."

Oops.

No appeasment and the unconditional surrender of every Islamic country in the world is my goal. Too bad we will not do this until they nuke some of our cities.

I think it's funny how Bush fanbois say you can not support the troops unless you also support the current Administration in power and it's policies. Yet they were singing a different tune when Clinton took our soliders into military actions.

Hippocrits?

Such a candidate is obviously either incapable of reasoned thought

Along with half of your fellow Americans

a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - 7/26/2005

"2. Advocate for a responsible exit plan with a timeline"

Can you imagine if there had been calls for this in WW II? Imagine if, let's say, the Allies called for an exit strategy no later than December 1, 1944. At that time the Germans were retreating back to the Fatherland, and morale was beginning to crumble if if they hadn't realized defeat would soon be at hand. What if we just up and stopped, pulled back to Britain and France and put down our guns? In short, Germany would have revitalized its war machine, millions of more Jews would have died (if not completely been annihilated from Eastern Europe altogether) and fascism would have won out through much (if not most) of Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

Instead, just 15 days later after that mock "exit strategy" date, came the Battle of the Bulge, and just 2 1/2 months after that came the firebombing of Dresden—effectively and summarily crushing the will of not only the people but of the Nazis, too. Less than 2 months after Dresden, Berlin fell.

The lesson? Do not set arbitrary dates and pronounce exit strategies. Jay's right: When exit strategies or withdrawals are set, as in the case of Vietnam, they open the doors to murder and mayhem on an unimaginable scale.

In affect, an exit strategy is like pleading "no contest" to your enemy. You are saying, in essence, you win, we give up, we're going home. Is that victory? Absolutely not. It is retreat. And that is grossly and highly unacceptable, particularly in the case of Iraq. To give up and go home on some arbitrary date will unleash hell upon the Iraqi people; embolden the likes of Zarqawi to mold Iraq into another theocratic state a la Afghanistan; embolden Iran to crush the rising democratic influence inside its borders; signal to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon to abandon their democratic reforms because America isn't serious; and, worst of all, let every terrorist group around the globe again know that America is indeed the "paper tiger" bin Laden called us in the late 90s just before murdering 3,000 Americans.

So stop concerning yourself with and wringing your hands over how long this will take because it's going to take a long while. A good damn long while probably. And Bush has made no bones about that whatsoever.

And the only way to truly win a war is the model we established in World War II: unconditional surrender by the enemy, the utter destruction of the culture and government...

An interesting point, but I'm not sure we'll ever get that signing-on-the-deck-of-Missouri kind of moment. I agree that the enemy needs to be fully and completely aware that we intend to win; a message that has not been fully received yet. I agree we need to wipe out the ill-named insurgents in towns like Tal Afar, Fallujah, Ramadi and the like, they need to be crushed. We are not doing that and that is a mistake. But my disagreement with that strategy is when it comes to fighting in large cities, like Baghdad, and what kind of strategy to employ. I think the large sweeps are working in Baghdad (for the most part), but the same strategy is not working in the towns I mention above, where I think the utter destruction of the town (and the supply line of weapons and weapons intel is flooding in from Syria) would really demoralize the enemy and the people who are supporting them.

In order to win a war, you have to be more of a bastard than the other guy. And right now, we're not being that bastard.

"There is nothing good about war. But there is good in why we fight them." --anonymous

So stop concerning yourself with and wringing your hands over how long this will take because it's going to take a long while.

Oh, ok, we'll just go back to sleep now.

mantis:

And if you can cherrypick from that article...

"Still, on the question that tests fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January."

And there's that pesky third paragraph:

But an ambivalent public also says sending troops to Iraq wasn't a mistake, a sign that most people aren't yet ready to give up on the war.

Also, 49% believe they were not misled.

And what's that phrase? "Survey has an error of + or -4%?"

Moving on...

Let's stay till the US body count is around 57K - then we'll have another reason to think we know how to WIN a war.

Oh, ok, we'll just go back to sleep now.

No, "wake up and smell the cat food" as They Might Be Giants so eloquently put it.

Put pressure on the President to win the damn war out right. And let our troops do their damn jobs.

"I think it's funny how Bush fanbois say you can not support the troops unless you also support the current Administration in power and it's policies. Yet they were singing a different tune when Clinton took our soliders into military actions."

You know I just don't remember the Rethugs protesting in the streets and screaming for our immediate withdrawal from Kosovo during the Clinton years. But I did spend the last part of his term in a dungeon self-flaggelating myself as penance for voting for that piece of shit, so I could have missed it.

I saw a poster on campus today that really pissed me off. It was a giant full-color montage of left-wing rhetoric and general misinformation. On one side, it said that Sadaam had killed "millions" - why did it take the US so long to intervene? On the other side it stated that the US had no right to go to war with Iraq and that Iraq wasn't worth the cost.

WTF?

I should take a picture of it. Seriously, it's messed up. I particularly loved the Abu Ghraib pictures splattered in all their glory throughout the poster with the implication that all soldiers do this sort of thing to prisoners. But support the troops, yeah!

BTW, I just love how some people scream about the cost of the war ($$$!) but demand that our tax dollars go to support some babymachine on welfare because it's "for the children" or something like that. Yeah, American children are fine and dandy, but don't you dare try to liberate a brutally oppressed people because that's just too expensive.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the ones that continually complain about being mislead into the war the ones most likely to ignore the facts in every matter and are therefore guilty of the dishonesty they would have us believe Bush is? Cherry picking polls, outright lies, nothing gets in the way of pushing their corrupt agenda. I guess the first casualty of peace is truth.

Gary: "Let's stay till the US body count is around 57K - then we'll have another reason to think we know how to WIN a war."

Maybe you could explain what you meant because I am very confused. Are you being sarcastic? Do you think we should stay or shouldn't stay? I'm pretty sure you aren't serious about 57K US deaths because even if the rate of casualties remain constant in Iraq (rather than decreasing at all over time) it would take more than 57 years for that to happen. So does 57K have a significance I'm missing? Is it the death toll from some other conflict?

And Jay Tea, many of us who support Bush think he's a big doodyhead, at least part of the time. It's just, you know, not a deal breaker or anything. ;-)

bullwinkle... they do say that you can't cheat an honest man. maybe that's what that means.

Peter F.,

How did I cherry pick? This is the comment I was responding to:

Personally, I will support NO candidate who even implies that the US was misled into the war in Iraq.

Such a candidate is obviously either incapable of reasoned thought, or is a lying political opportunist.

jmaster didn't comment on it being a good idea or not, but on whether we were misled. I was responding to that.

Now that the Sunnis are on board with the constitution, the gloom and doom talk looks sillier and sillier.

mantis:

Let me elaborate: Yes, a cherry-picked a poll number that supports your implied argument/claim of "no one supports Bush on the war" but never really addresses jamaster's issue: he believes that Americans or political candiadtes who believe we were "misled" into war are "incapable of thought". (A point I disagree with, by the way. I think there are many other factors involved.) By the same measure, though, one could also say that 49% of the people believe we were not "misled" into war. Also, perfectly valid. Is citing this poll a good way to support an argument? Not really.

All I'm saying is that you've cherry-picked a poll number to support your argument; and that for anyone to use either poll number is propping up their argument on stilts made of toothpicks. Polls are not an indication of morality (what's right and wrong), they're just (often questionable) measurements of general opinion and trends that offer little in the way of true and meaningful insight into real issues. Just my opinion, though.

Onward...

Ol' BC:

Um, more like a slightly reduced silliness. Sunni cooperation and capitulation is tenuous. There's a long way to go, especially before this upcoming election.

An election, I should add, that ALL supporters and opponents of the Iraq War should pray is as nonviolent as January's elections.

Yes, a cherry-picked a poll number that supports your implied argument/claim of "no one supports Bush on the war"

That's not my argument, explicit or implied (in fact the "no one" part you just pull out of thin air). I was just suggesting that jmaster was, in essence, saying that half of his fellow citizens were incapable of reasoned thought. This follows quite logically from what he wrote, and is separate from my other questions about the duration of the war, which I'm much more interested in than polls.

mantis:

Thin air? OK, fair enough, you didn't actually say it. Thinly veiled and in a round about way? Yeah, I'd say so. Could I prove it? Maybe. Why else would you keep that poll at the ready? To prove that 49% of Americans disagree with you? Hardly. No, it shows that 51% believe the war is wrong. Therefore, it supports an anti-war stance; a stance that no regular visitor to Wizbang! is unfamiliar with you taking. Anyway, that's where I see the ever-so thinly veiled implication. Just my calm opinion on the matter.

But let's get back to the point of thread: Is the duration of the war more of a concern to you than winning it? And let's be specific: Is it the length of the Iraq War or the War on Terror that concerns you most and why?

Our main problem today is that we have gotten so accurate with our weapons that we had very little collateral damage and commensurate civilian casualties. A good thing and a bad thing. We would have had to