« The King's Gold | Main | Russia - The Forgotten Threat »

The Way the Troops Want to be Supported

This video excerpt of an NBC interview with troops reacting to criticism of the war can now be found on You Tube.


The reporter ended it with "[The Apache Company] worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for." One soldier in the piece says they want to be supported "all the way."


Comments (46)

The Spc said: "If they (the... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The Spc said: "If they (the American people) don't think we're doing a good job, everything we've done here is in vain." Reminds me of a current quasi-propaganda radio campaign by the pentagon; it changes its name , but last i heard, it was SupportOurTroops.mil, and the voice (of an airman, i think, says: "...(your letters) fill me with a sense of pride, and i never would have felt it (Pride), if it hadn't been for all of you." WHAT THE F???? If there's no more esprit de corps in the non-marines than what they can glom onto from Outside, from Anywhere, we're worse off than I thought. When I was in, we had a (mild, humourous) DISDAIN for civilians. Now they pout about some Joe Blow they don't know????" Not that they ALL think this, but it must be the "Army of One" philosophy coming home to roost. ("One" NOT meaning unit cohesion, but plainly ,by the ads, ego development/ self-realization). Sorry, we can't hold hands in combat. Once again, these complainers are being put forward as representative of a disillusioned military. I would say not being allowed to WIN the war is the reason, but they would get Court Martialed for saying so. Meanwhile this cynical psy-ops media campaign grinds on. Operation Allaboutbush.

"People are dying here. You... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

"People are dying here. You know what I'm saying? You may support the troops, but you're not supporting what they do. But that's what we're sweatin' for, what believe for, what we're dyin' for. It just don't make sense to me." --Spc. Johnson.

It doesn't make sense to a lot of Americans, Spc. Johnson. Just don't let those bastards drag you down, Specialist.

"One thing I don't like is when people say they support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Staff Srg. Shagan (pardon the spelling).

Damn straight, Sergeant. Keep up the good work despite them.

"I don't support the war, b... (Below threshold)
Clay:

"I don't support the war, but I support the troops." It's the battle cry of the lukewarm. The jellyfish who wants it both ways. The invertebrate who is opposed to war, but doesn't have the cojones to be honest. You can't support a soldier who is mowing down 'insurgents' and be opposed to the war. There is no valid dissection of the troops from the war.

As Americans, we have the right to give voice to our opinions. So, please, don't kinda, sorta protest. Grow a spine, show those who support the war that you've got balls. Come out and say you're opposed to every part of the war...including the troops. At least you'd be respected. Or not.

Rummy, " I doubt the the co... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Rummy, " I doubt the the conflict would last 6-months"!

The only persons responsible for loosing this war is the Bush administration.

bryan, I didn't know you ha... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

bryan, I didn't know you had served. Thank you for your service.

Sorry, we can't hold hands in combat. Once again, these complainers are being put forward as representative of a disillusioned military.

Would that be comparable to a few retired generals coming forward to complain about Rumsfeld, and then being treated as represenative of the military?
It seems minority opinions are only treated as truth when you happen to agree with the opinion being espoused?

Rummy, " I doubt the the co... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Rummy, " I doubt the the conflict would last 6-months"!

The only persons responsible for loosing this war is the Bush administration.

Barney:Th... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Barney:

The only persons responsible for loosing this war is the Bush administration.

What war was won through withdrawal?

"An overwhelming majority o... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."

You tell 'em Lorie!


Zogby = zero credibility.</... (Below threshold)

Zogby = zero credibility.

heralder: the grunts' in th... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

heralder: the grunts' in the video and the retired generals' complaints are a symptom of a badly mis-managed war. If this war would have ended 2 1/2 years ago, those grunts would not have been dwelling on the chorus of complaints back home. We were firmly in the just-around-the-corner mindset then. The generals were more in-the-loop and had to implement a variety of strategic objectives that were not militarily sound. They had to retire before going public. Rumsfeld was notoriously prickly, moody, and thin-skinned, and was no help in the chain of command. There has been and still is a dual-track policy, and one of the tracks is war with Iran, and needs to be stopped.

Also from the same Zogby po... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Also from the same Zogby poll:

Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don't believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

Further on:

A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

Curiously absent from the Zogby poll is the failure to ask the troops if they'd like to leave within the year knowing their mission has been accomplished or leave before the mission is complete. Hmmm, now why wouldn't Zogby ask a question directly related and give context to the 72% figure? Hmmm, I can't imagine...

Barney is another typical l... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney is another typical liberal who is trying to make excuse for the traitorous and despicable behavior of the liberal left in this war. The biggest mistake of Bush in this war was not to plan for the betrayal of the liberals against America. He lacked a plan to deal with the propaganda war the liberal left has been willing to wage against him and the US military on behalf of the terrorists.

Again, liberals are not honest enough to admit who they are and their responsibilities. They never apologized for the genocide in Indochina due to their policies. They will never accept their responsibility in the GWOT. I expect the liberals would behave as Barney would. They are simply in a moral sewage and they know it. So they have to lie/distort to cover up their despicable stand.

Oops, I meant to add this, ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Oops, I meant to add this, also from Zogby:

...29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately," while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay "as long as they are needed....Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows."

Um, I'm no pollster, but is thiswhere Zogby plucked the 72% number from? Because, frankly, that looks like a mixed bag of opinion from mixed branches. Just curious.

Oh, and one last thing: Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies helped sponsor the poll. Certainly there's no bias on their part asking in framing questions in a way that supports their viewpoint. Nah, couldn't be.

When it comes to this poll, I believe the phrase I'm looking for is "inherently flawed."

Cant wait to see the lib re... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Cant wait to see the lib reaction when san fran or berkeley or their dope stash is bombed.

Will they grow a set then?

"Will they grow a set the... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Will they grow a set then?"

Those Cowards? Never! Those losers will just smoke Oregano and put on a fake stoned face.

"The biggest mistake of Bus... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"The biggest mistake of Bush in this war was not to plan for the betrayal of the liberals against America. " posted by LAI

I agree, that would have been sooo much easier than running the war competently, but since he did neither, we are sh*t out of luck

I support the troops and op... (Below threshold)
Larkin:

I support the troops and oppose the civilian leadership that has led us into disaster in Iraq.

It wasn't the troops who disbanded the Iraqi military and police throwing half a million angry Iraqi men into the streets with no way to put food on the table. It wasn't the troops who conducted a sweeping deBaathification program that crippled the Iraqi government and threw more thousands out of work. It wasn't the troops who decided only 150,000 of them should take on this war. It wasn't the troops who promoted the (first) Iraqi election that the Sunnis boycotted. It wasn't the troops who forced a Constitution on the Sunni population that they overwhelmingly opposed. It wasn't the troops who put Shiite extremists closely allied with Iran into the Iraqi government. It wasn't the troops who failed to understand the depth of the Sunni-Shiite schism in the Islamic world.

The troops have done their job in Iraq (brilliantly I might add). It's the civilian leadership in the Pentagon and White House that has failed to do theirs. It's the incompetence of people like Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld that has denied our troops the convincing victory they would otherwise have been able to achieve with different leadership.


If my local police force se... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

If my local police force sets up a field sobriety checkpoint that clogs up traffic for miles and doesn't catch any drunk drivers can I oppose it or would opposing it mean I don't support my local police force?

Um, I'm no pollster, but... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Um, I'm no pollster, but is thiswhere Zogby plucked the 72% number from? Because, frankly, that looks like a mixed bag of opinion from mixed branches. Just curious.
Peter F.

29% said out immediately
+22% said out in 0-6 months
+21% said out in 6-12 months

= 72% out in 12 months or less

of course, it is not specific if these numbers overlap and I'm not familiar with how the poll was done. If they do overlap, then clearly you're boosting the number by counting the same people more than once.

To add to Larkin's list.<br... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

To add to Larkin's list.
Bush has made two recent changes in the rules of engagement:
1) Iraqi officials can no longer abort an active mission involving US forces.

2) Iran agents are now legitimate target.

What I want to know is, why did it take the Bush administration nearly four years to figure out that:
A) Command and control powers of US forces by a foreign government was a bad thing.

B) Releasing Iranian agents back into the population was coddling terrorists.

one troop talked about "aba... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

one troop talked about "abandoning the mission"
As we all know "the mission" has morphed. What is our "mission" now? (by the way I can tell you from experience is that a troop's main mission is keep his/her buddies alive and stay alive themselves..)

We can and do support the warrior without supporting the Commander-in-Chief who hasn't been right yet.

This piece gives the valid opinions of a few...I respect that..but to think that all troops on their 2nd or third deployment share that viewpoint is naive....(that is why it wrong to compare this to Viet Nam...in Viet Nam we served one combat tour unless we volunteered..of course the draft provided plenty of replacements)

Oh yeah...when will our government show respect to the fallen by allowing images their flag draped coffins coming into Dover...
Where is the RESPECT there? Where are your demands that Bush allow this?

For all the lib trolls here... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

For all the lib trolls here:

Can you name any of the original lib ideas??

We know they hate walmart, big business and Big Oil, love the environment, prefer cheap gas and energy, love abortions, hate self-reliance, hate Fox, love the alphabet media, hate small govt, defends rights of child molestors, hate free speech if you dont agree with them, and support the parole of people like Tookie.


Larkin:All fine an... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Larkin:

All fine and dandy. But it doesn't quite explain how one gets around the moral paradox of supporting the troops while simultaneously opposing the mission they've been sent to do. Answer how the two might be mutually exclusive and unrelated.

Larkin,You posted ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Larkin,

You posted the same simplistic comments before. I would attempt to explain, but since the answer is complex, I do not think you or any other liberal can grasp it. Oh, you forgot to blame the drug companies, insurance companies and Halliburton. YOu must be slipping. Same old song. You liberals bore me. Oh, but the way, I have noticed liberals posting that we have lost the war. Present tense. Wow. Their dream come true. ww

"Clay" here are some "jelly... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

"Clay" here are some "jellyfish" websites
Iraq Veterans Against The War
http://www.ivaw.org

Military Families Against the War
http://www.mfaw.org

Veterans for Peace
http://www.veteransforpeace.org

Oh yeah...when will our ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Oh yeah...when will our government show respect to the fallen by allowing images their flag draped coffins coming into Dover...

nogo, as someone of military background you of all people should know that not showing flag-draped coffins has been official Pentagon/SD for some 30+ years now. It didn't happen in GW1, Grenada, Panama, Somalia or any other time. Show the families respect and not splash their grief all the front pages of every newspaper in the country. That shows respect, honor and dignity to the living and the dead.

sean:

If they do overlap, then clearly you're boosting the number by counting the same people more than once.

Is that the collective/general "you're" or is that more of a personal address?

I apologize for my error co... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I apologize for my error concerning Military Families against the War...that is a british organization..
Here in the Homeland is Military Families Speak Out..

http://www.mfso.org

..please tell these folks that they cannot be for the warrior without being for the war..
See ya tomorrow

..please tell these folk... (Below threshold)
Clay:

..please tell these folks that they cannot be for the warrior without being for the war..

Happy to do it. In the meantime, would you deliver your message to my brother in Iraq and my cousin in Afghanistan? I double-dog dare you.

Bush Sr. was the first to d... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Bush Sr. was the first to do it (ya want a link)..even Reagan allowed it.. it still is not right...we had slavery here for over 200 years before it was abolished but that did not make it right
"Splash" They might want their loved one recognized for their sacrifice..Their names are not on the outside of the flag draped coffin...These brave men and women and their family and friends deserve more than "Seven Killed in Iraq Today" ...papers are not going to put every coffin, every day in their paper...

Is that the collective/g... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Is that the collective/general "you're" or is that more of a personal address?
Peter F.

Collective. I meant whoever is conducting the poll and presented the 72% amount for the first time.

Clay...I will be happy to s... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Clay...I will be happy to send them a message that I pray they and their buddies come home safe..as I am sure everyone here desires..if you could post a mailing address I am sure folks would respond in a positive manner
....Knowing that you have family in combat explains your emotional attachment to this issue...I disagree with you but I do understand the fear anyone has when a family member is in combat...

nogo:I stand corre... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

nogo:

I stand corrected. You are right, I was wrong; Pre-GHWB, coffins were shown. In 1991, the Pentagon disallowed cameras returning to Dover and, later on, as an across the board policy. I agree with that policy as they are images far too often exploited, for better or worse, by politicians and anti-war activists. Let the families welcome their loved ones home in peace and privacy.

Larkin:(I agree wi... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Larkin:

(I agree with you on many of the mistakes that the Bush administration made, I don't think that you understand the demographics and history.)


RE: It wasn't the troops who promoted the (first) Iraqi election that the Sunnis boycotted.
Free elections are a good idea, don't you agree? The Sunnis boycotted the first election because they want a return to the status quo: mainly Sunnis control. They didn't get it, and they shouldn't. It is a decision that they regretted and corrected the second time around. Sooner or later Constitutional government must happen, and minority (Sunni) rule isn't going to be the result.


RE: It wasn't the troops who forced a Constitution on the Sunni population that they overwhelmingly opposed.
No, and it wasn't the Bush administration, either. The Iraqi Constitution was approved by the majority of Iraqis.


RE: It wasn't the troops who put Shiite extremists closely allied with Iran into the Iraqi government.
No, but that's the way the majority voted.


RE: It wasn't the troops who failed to understand the depth of the Sunni-Shiite schism in the Islamic world.
And, apparently, neither do you.

Reality check:
1. The Shiite out-number the Sunnis 2-to-1.
2. The Sunnis were in power under Saddam.
3. Many Sunnis want to regain their former power and privileges.
4. That isn't going to happen.
5. In the event of full-scale civil war, the Shiites (with or without help from the Kurds) will exterminate the Sunni.
6. Constitutional government that protects the rights of all Iraqis will prevent this.
7. The Sunnis, more than any other group, appear to be undermining the process toward stable Constitutional government.
8. If the process fails, the people who are more likely to be ethnically cleansed are the Sunni.


What is the worst-case scenario?

If the Sunni and the Shiites absolutely insist on fighting each other to the death, the Middle East may errupt in ethnic violence that spreads throughout the region. However, the two groups will spend a lot of time and energy killing each other. They will be too busy fighting each other to stage many attacks against the West. A stable Iraqi government may emerge, built on the bleached bones of the Sunni. And the Iraqi Sunni will become the laughing stock of the region: they had the opportunity to seek a political settlement, they rejected it in favor of war, and they paid a terrible price for their lack of vision.

Hey Nogo, seven just die... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Hey Nogo, seven just died in my city alone. One of those deaths was thought to have been a smoldering fire. It was a smoldering corspe , body , dead person on the side of the road in broad daylight.

Did that sink in fool? The fire department was called to put out what was called a smoldering pile of trash. It was a fricken human being. Police are being shot at every day here , should they just give up too?

"Oh yeah...when will our government show respect to the fallen by allowing images their flag draped coffins coming into Dover...
"Where is the RESPECT there? Where are your demands that Bush allow this?"

You don't give a shit , you just want to use it as propaganda as a democrat tactic. You are basically saying that the Government is not showing any respect at all, You are pathetic , get a life. Oh ya , that is your life , Bashing Bush.

Amazeing how many lying lef... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Amazeing how many lying lefties there are on this blog. They have to be lying as no one could be as stupid as they are. Frigging cowards.

Getting back to the origina... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Getting back to the original topic, I can certainly understand these soldiers' frustrations.

Not too long ago I was in a van from the airport to the hotel, and there was a couple behind me saying some pretty bad things about the war in Iraq. They didn't notice that the guy in the very back was not in uniform but was probably in the military. He was. In fact, he was on leave after his second tour, and he let them know how wrong they were.

It has got to be extremely hard living with danger every day, thousands of miles from home, with the memory of fallen friends and the horrors of combat. But then be told that the war, the hell that you have to live with every day, is a "fruitless war" (Senator Feingold, June 21, 2006).
I can't imagine what it's like to lose a close friend and have a political leader call the cause that they died for a "mistake" or a "failed policy"

Even worse, you find out that some (perhaps) many think that the cause that you are suffering for is actually making things worse:

"My colleagues, if we continue to be stuck in Iraq, we are facilitating al Qaeda's future. We are facilitating their recruitment. We are facilitating the growth of their operations in places like the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia. We are facilitating al Qaeda if we continue to make this mistake in Iraq over and over again." (Senator Feingold, June 21, 2006)

"Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition, extends the time it will take Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant, and exposes more coalition forces to attack at a time when Iraqi security forces are increasingly available and capable." (General Casey)

"Sectarian violence is spreading throughout Iraq and the presence of our troops is fueling the insurgency." (Rep. Schakowsky)

"If we [the U.S. military] leave Iraq, then the insurgents will leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave Iraq." (Speaker Pelosi)

A friend of mine has a family member who is going to Iraq as part of the "surge". That's hard enough for the soldier and the family, but it is worse to hear that their child is expected to put it all on the line for "a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed (Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi).

Out soldiers are being asked to fight and die for this. I hope that more of them speak out about what is going on. If the country thinks that President Bush lied to get us into war, then impeach him. If the country thinks that he hasn't managed the war well enough, then they should impeach him. If the country wants to change the way that the war is being fought, then people should propose changes. But right now, the country is well on its way towward talking itself into defeat. And certain people need to be more careful about what they say when we have soldiers in harm's way.

check this out from Pelosi'... (Below threshold)
jp:

check this out from Pelosi's "Friends of God" "documentary"....


its the pic of the abu ghraib propoganda. note it comes right after Jerry Falwell telling her that evangelicals were serious about what they were doing and intend on taking America back for God.

http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/lnIsX3Nx7Wf9/__sr_/8ce3.jpg?tkn=phYlCwFBDkfCqGtT&saveas=FoG_Propoganda_1

http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/lnIsX3Nx7Wf9/__sr_/4513.jpg?tkn=phYlCwFBfzbX41Y6&saveas=FoG_Propoganda_2


"If the country thinks... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"If the country thinks that he hasn't managed the war well enough, then they should impeach him."

Come on now , that is obsurd. It's not even an impeachable offense. Democrats complain about the handling of the war while knowing their leaders would have faired far worse . In fact they are too incompetant and cowardly to protect our Country by taking us to War. They ridicule someone for doing the things they haven't the guts to do. It's that simple.

But it doesn't quite exp... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But it doesn't quite explain how one gets around the moral paradox of supporting the troops while simultaneously opposing the mission they've been sent to do. Answer how the two might be mutually exclusive and unrelated.

Moral paradox? Mutually exclusive? OK, now you're just playing dumb, aren't you? How's this:

A school district eliminates the art and phys. ed. programs. If you oppose this decision, are you against teachers?

To quote an earlier poster,

If my local police force sets up a field sobriety checkpoint that clogs up traffic for miles and doesn't catch any drunk drivers can I oppose it or would opposing it mean I don't support my local police force?

If too many of your local firefighters die while rushing into empty burning buildings, and you call upon the fire department to issue better protective gear and be more conservative about sacrificing lives when no one will be saved, does that mean that you oppose firefighters?

C'mon, now. I expect the "if you don't support the war, you're against the troops" from the more simplistic trolls on here, but you are more thoughtful than that.

Rob LA ca:RE: No i... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Rob LA ca:

RE: No impeachment for incompetence
I don't agree. I see impeachment as a political remedy for an extreme situation. If you want a high crime, then try murder two: depraved indifference homicide. He failed to take simple, rational steps as Commander and Chief to protect the lives of our soldiers on the battlefield.

Now, do I really think this is a good idea? No. My point is the same that I've made in this forum and others for a long time. If you think that President Bush took us to war for invalid reasons or lied to us about it, then seek a political remedy (e.g. voting him out of office in 2004). But adopting a pure anti-war position as many on the Left have done while we have troops on the battlefield is a terrible choice.

In going to war in Iraq we had a national debate (look at the resolution authorizing force). In that debate, the doves had numerous opportunities to voice their objections, and they failed. The decision to go to war was made. Once that the debate was held, the decisions was made, and our troops started down the road, there is no turning back. You don't get to revisit the debate or change your mind. Wars are won or lost. Period. End of discussion. The only arguments now should be how to best fight the war.

Dennis Miller was interviewed the other day by someone who asked him,, "Do you REALLY support the war in Iraq?" He said something like, "Even if I didn't, I wouldn't tell you about it until the last soldier is home safely."


RE: "Democrats complain about the handling of the war while knowing their leaders would have faired far worse . In fact they are too incompetant and cowardly to protect our Country by taking us to War. They ridicule someone for doing the things they haven't the guts to do. It's that simple."

Yes, and I would add some additional points:

1. The Left have totally failed to present valid alternatives: they just complain.

(a.) For example, in the debate over whether or not to go to war, we asked what we should be doing to prevent Saddam from providing WMD technology (especially chemical weapons or knowledge about how to make them) to terrorists. We asked what would be done to prevent the further suffering of the Iraqi people (especially the Shi'ites and Kurds) as the country sank deeper and deeper into trouble. (Iraq was essentially a country run by gangsters.) We asked what could be done to remove the threat from Saddam so that we could get our troops out of Saudi Arabia (as per Bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war). The Left had no answer.

(b.) As another example, I have repeatedly asked in this forum (and others) what is the plan proposed by the Left for Iraq? I always get the same answers: talk about the decisions of the past, followed by vague hand-waving. No specifics. Even now, even after they have the political power, they are trying to defer the problem to the President and reserve the right to criticize his ideas without presenting any plans of their own.

(c.) I don't see a plan from the Left for dealing with Iran, and I don't see a plan for dealing with the spreading of Islamic extremism.

2. I think that the Left have said a lot of things against the war that have encouraged the enemy. Because the enemy cannot win on the battlefield, convincing the American public of quitting becomes their only hope for victory. In Bin Laden's letter to Mullah Omar, he talked about a "media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government." That campaign would stress that the "government would bring them more losses, in finances and in casualties." The Left have been doing a first rate job of turning that goal into a winning strategy.

Brian:Your firefig... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Brian:

Your firefighter analogy is interesting.

If you propose minor changes in how firefighters do their job or what equipment is used, then I think that is very constructive. However, I can tell you the people in a certain town in Massachusetts a few years ago were very, very careful when talking about a certain decision made by the fire chief when he sent firemen into a building and they didn't come out. People up here would have thought that it would be in bad taste to tell the family and friends of dead firemen that they sacrificed their lives foolishly.

And we aren't talking about minor tactical changes, here.

To use your analogy correctly, imagine taking firefighters away from home and dropping them into huge forest fire out West. Every day these men get to live in Hell, do an extremely difficult job, watch their friends die, and turn on the TV to listen to the folks back home saying that they shouldn't be there because the job is impossible, the job shouldn't be done at all, and they are making things worse. Kind of demoralizing, isn't it?

"The Left have been doing a... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"The Left have been doing a first rate job of turning that goal into a winning strategy."

I agree completely.

Kind of demoralizing, is... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Kind of demoralizing, isn't it?

Yes, I'm sure it would be. However, if it's true, why would you rather keep your mouth shut, spare their feelings, and have more of them die? Or speak up, hurt their feelings, and have more of them live?

People up here would have thought that it would be in bad taste to tell the family and friends of dead firemen that they sacrificed their lives foolishly.

It's appropriate to be sensitive to the feelings of those involved. But only up to the point when that sensitivity gets in the way of speaking the truth and saving more lives.

By your rationale, if we discover hard, irrefutable proof that Bush lied us into the war and he manufactured false evidence, we should keep quiet because it might be in bad taste to tell the families of the dead soldiers they sacrificed their lives foolishly. If you believe that, then we have fundamentally different views about what's important in life.

Brian:RE: What has... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Brian:

RE: What has been said (speaking up)
If the Left had made the case that certain changes in our soldiers responsibilities or tactics would keep them out of harm's way or greatly reduce their risk, then that is a responsible, adult argument to make. If the Left had made the case that "redeploying" them can be done without changing the outcome, then that would be a responsible, adult argument. It is also completely sufficient to affect change in a positive way. The country would strongly prefer not to have our troops at risk, and any changes that reduce that risk would be embraced immediately. I'm sorry to say that isn't how the argument has been made.

It is simply demoralizing to our troops and totally unnecessary to tell them that they are making things worse. THAT is what has been routinely stated.


RE: "By your rationale, if we discover hard, irrefutable proof that Bush lied us into the war and he manufactured false evidence, we should keep quiet because because it might be in bad taste to tell the families of the dead soldiers they sacrificed their lives foolishly."
No, I said exactly the opposite. In fact I said, "If the country thinks that President Bush lied to get us into war, then impeach him." I later said, "If you think that President Bush took us to war for invalid reasons or lied to us about it, then seek a political remedy (e.g. voting him out of office in 2004)." They would not have sacrificed their lives foolishly: they would be victims of fraud.

Furthermore, your argument is a non sequitar: the Left is a long, long way from proving fraud, but even if it could, my quotes above having nothing to do with fraud. They deal with the Left's concept of the war being "fruitless", the mission being "impossible", and the presence of our troops "fueling" the violence.

I disagree with your viewpo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I disagree with your viewpoint. And I'll also point out that you can no longer attack "the left", for this is now the prevailing view throughout the country, and even among many Republicans.

Brian:You disagree... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Brian:

You disagree, but you can't say why?
You acknowedge that some part of what is being discussed is the majority view in the country, but not that the Left has been leading the debate?
(In particular, I haven't seen polls that suggest that our troops are making things worse.)

I've stated my position very carefully, and I've explained the reasoninng behind it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy