Truth for the Troops

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Truth for the Troops

By Richard Cohen

Thursday, December 8, 2005; Page A33

If, as Samuel Johnson said, "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," then "support our troops" is very close by. It is being used to deflect criticism of the war in Iraq, or to rebut those who call for a pullout or question how incompetents seized control of the government in a coup by ideologues. In the lexicon of some, the only way to support our troops is to ensure that more of them die.

The utter tastelessness of this approach was on display Tuesday when Vice President Cheney spoke to the 10th Mountain Division and the National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division at Fort Drum, N.Y. These are storied outfits. The Mountain Division is Bob Dole's own, and those of us who followed him as he campaigned for the presidency in 1996 will never forget the day in New Hampshire when some of the division's World War II veterans gathered to hear from their old comrade in arms. There was Dole, trying as ever to be stoical, but that day his voice cracked and emotion rocked him and, along the wall of the hall, a mighty cynical press corps fought hard to hold back the tears.

As for the 42nd Division, it is my own. Its famous Rainbow Patch -- Douglas MacArthur said "the 42nd Division stretches like a rainbow from one end of America to the other" -- is among my mementos. I make no great claim to military service -- I was a reluctant Vietnam-era enlistee in the National Guard -- but I trained at Fort Drum, wore the Rainbow Patch and keep it to this day on the bulletin board in my office. By accident and happenstance, it's my outfit. Somehow, it matters.

So I don't need any cheap reminders about supporting the troops. On the contrary, it's the other way around. It is the reminders who need reminding that they owe the troops the highest level of respect. That means, among other things, explaining clearly and honestly why they are being sent into harm's way. If that cannot be done -- if you cannot tell soldiers why they might die -- then you cannot send them. At the very least, you must stick to the strictest truth.

But Cheney was not strictly truthful. He turned the war in Iraq into a war against terrorism, when it is only partly that. The Sunni insurgents have no designs on America. And to say, as Cheney did, that terrorists "believe that, by controlling an entire country, they will be able to . . . establish a radical Islamic empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia" is to give credence to the fantasies of Islamic nut cases. This may or may not be the goal of certain terrorists, but it is clearly beyond their reach -- and no reason to fight in Iraq.

Similarly, Cheney once again implied a link between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Saddam Hussein. His words were slippery, but his meaning was clear: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq . . . we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq . . . and the terrorists hit us anyway." Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here.

As I recently wrote, I do not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq -- not yet, anyway. The arguments advanced for staying make sense to me, and Cheney mentioned some of them in his speech. There is reason to fear civil war in Iraq, the country's dissolution, the creation of a haven for terrorists and the precipitous loss of American prestige, which could encourage even more terrorism.

But I do not fear the emergence of a vast, radical Islamic empire stretching from Granada to Jakarta, and neither do I believe that toppling Hussein dealt a blow to terrorists or made the United States one iota safer. Soon enough we will exceed in military deaths the number of civilians killed on Sept. 11 -- and the culprits, including Osama bin Laden, are still on the loose, still posing a threat. This is a policy that collapsed of its own stupidity.

By dint of heroic effort, the Bush administration long ago lost any credibility. But if we are going to stay in Iraq -- if additional Americans are going to be asked to die -- then Bush, Cheney and others should avoid emotionally compelling, but intellectually fatuous, arguments. As far as the troops are concerned, pay them the ultimate respect for their ultimate sacrifice: Stick to the truth.

 

[TheDude]

Why bother posting stuff like this here? It will just be labled 'Liberal Lies'.... Also, the part about Osama Bin Laden is irrelevant, apparently he has been 'marginalized', so the repubs here tell me. He's an after thought now.

 

[Calabrio]

I guess Johnny didn't read the entire article... I quote:

As I recently wrote, I do not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq -- not yet, anyway. The arguments advanced for staying make sense to me, and Cheney mentioned some of them in his speech. There is reason to fear civil war in Iraq, the country's dissolution, the creation of a haven for terrorists and the precipitous loss of American prestige, which could encourage even more terrorism.

The rest of the article is fluff, distortion and pure nonsense. This guy doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground regarding foreign policy or the state of the world.

And I say this having reviewed his body of work for the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401528.html

 

[fossten]

"Similarly, Cheney once again implied a link between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Saddam Hussein. His words were slippery, but his meaning was clear: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq . . . we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq . . . and the terrorists hit us anyway." Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here."

Cheney never tried to connect Saddam to 9/11, he connected (easily) Saddam and Al Qaeda.

 

[MonsterMark]

Why bother posting stuff like this here? It will just be labled 'Liberal Lies'....

More liberal lies...debunked.

The Truth On the Ground

By Ben Connable

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?


Open optimism, whether or not it is warranted, is a necessary trait in senior officers and officials. Skeptics can be excused for discounting glowing reports on Iraq from the upper echelons of power. But it is not a simple thing to ignore genuine optimism from mid-grade, junior and noncommissioned officers who have spent much of the past three years in Iraq.

We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger and deprivation for an increasingly unpopular cause. We know that there are no guarantees in war, and that we may well fail in the long run. We also know that if we follow our current plan we can, over time, leave behind a stable and unified country that might help to anchor a better future for the Middle East.

It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would almost certainly lead to a violent and destabilizing civil war. The Iraqi military is not ready to assume control and would not miraculously achieve competence in our absence. As we left, the insurgency would turn into internecine violence, and Iraq would collapse into a true failed state. The fires of the Iraqi civil war would spread, and terrorists would find a new safe haven from which to launch attacks against our homeland.

Anyone who has spent even a day in the Middle East should know that the Arab street would not thank us for abandoning Iraq. The blame for civil war would fall squarely on our shoulders. It is unlikely that the tentative experiments in democracy we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere would survive the fallout. There would be no dividend of goodwill from heartbroken intellectuals or emboldened Islamic extremists. American troops might be home in the short run, but the experienced professionals know that in the long run, quitting Iraq would mean more deployments, more desperate battles and more death.

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken. In that event, both the Iraqi people and the American troops will pay a long-term price for our shortsighted delusion.

The writer is a major in the Marine Corps.

 

[Vitas]

More liberal lies...debunked.
The Truth On the Ground

By Ben Connable

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work?

That is what a very dear friend told me when he came back from Iraq. To me, it is progress for International Freedom, for all Nations.

It is, also, the defense of the United States of America, after the 010911 attack against us. It is that that is more important, to us.

But, equally important, is that, when Nations come together, and collectively decide that the bad nation should correct its actions, that nation should understand, after the era of post 010911, that there are consequences for defying International Law.

Let's hope that Nations will understand this principle, forever, after this Iraqi war. Diplomacy is the only way to resolve conflict; conflicts are a part of life. But for France, and Germany, this principle could have begun over two years ago.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

"Similarly, Cheney once again implied a link between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Saddam Hussein. His words were slippery, but his meaning was clear: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq . . . we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq . . . and the terrorists hit us anyway." Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here."

Cheney never tried to connect Saddam to 9/11, he connected (easily) Saddam and Al Qaeda.

You just continue to refuse to acknowledge FACTS! Let's break down this QUOTE from Cheney:

"We were not in Iraq......." <- an obvious reference to Saddam

"... and the terrorists........." <- an obvious reference to Al Qaeda..... so I'm not disputing that Cheney made a reference to them.....

"... hit us anyway." <- an obvious reference to 9/11

So how can you sit there and make the statement that "Cheney never tried to connect Saddam to 9/11"??? He did it years ago, and he continues to do it today.

This is a perfect example why I don't waste alot of my time debating with people like you who........ not only refuse to pull their heads out of their a-s-ses and acknowledge FACTS....... but twist other's words around to support some fictitious position of yours. You've criticized me for "drive-by posting" in another thread. Well pal, THIS is why. YOU and the others like YOU on this board make it pointless.

*owned*

 

[MonsterMark]

This is a perfect example why I don't waste alot of my time debating with people like you who........ not only refuse to pull their heads out of their a-s-ses and acknowledge FACTS....... but twist other's words around to support some fictitious position of yours. You've criticized me for "drive-by posting" in another thread. Well pal, THIS is why. YOU and the others like YOU on this board make it pointless.

I guess it is pointless when we post fact after fact, ie: reality. I am so glad YOU KNOW what Saddam was ready and willing to do in the post 9/11 era. As Bush said last night, Saddam had every opportunity to reveal his weapons program to the UN, BUT HE REFUSED. As the Commander in Chief of our great Country, Bush did THE ONLY THING HE COULD DO. Remove Saddam from power and the threat he represented.

IRAQ is voting tomorrow. ? for you. Have you even voted the last 8 years?

 

[RB3]

So how can you sit there and make the statement that "Cheney never tried to connect Saddam to 9/11"??? He did it years ago, and he continues to do it today.

Perhaps its because Cheney never tried to connect Saddam to 9/11.

The quote you cite certainly says no such thing. It is Cheney reminding people that 9/11 (a terrorist attack on the US, in case you've forgotten) took place before the war in Iraq, in reponse to those who continue to claim the war in Iraq is the cause of terrorist attacks.

Apparently, you are so blinded by your ideological bias (or perhaps it's the fixation on men's behinds which is contained in virtually every one of your posts) that you are no longer able to grasp the actual meaning of a simple declarative sentence.

 

[fossten]

Perhaps its because Cheney never tried to connect Saddam to 9/11.

The quote you cite certainly says no such thing. It is Cheney reminding people that 9/11 (a terrorist attack on the US, in case you've forgotten) took place before the war in Iraq, in reponse to those who continue to claim the war in Iraq is the cause of terrorist attacks.

Apparently, you are so blinded by your ideological bias (or perhaps it's the fixation on men's behinds which is contained in virtually every one of your posts) that you are no longer able to grasp the actual meaning of a simple declarative sentence.

LOL Johnny, you have been *owned*

 

[TheDude]

Perhaps its because Cheney never tried to connect Saddam to 9/11.

The quote you cite certainly says no such thing. It is Cheney reminding people that 9/11 (a terrorist attack on the US, in case you've forgotten) took place before the war in Iraq, in reponse to those who continue to claim the war in Iraq is the cause of terrorist attacks.

Apparently, you are so blinded by your ideological bias (or perhaps it's the fixation on men's behinds which is contained in virtually every one of your posts) that you are no longer able to grasp the actual meaning of a simple declarative sentence.

So he is possibly blind sided because of homosexual tendencies?

 

[fossten]

So he is possibly blind sided because of homosexual tendencies?

You have to admit, he DOES refer to heads up arses quite frequently.

Reminds me of the movie "Men at Work" with Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Remember the truck driver working with them that kept tying up prisoners in homo poses?