Recruiting blues

[mrsx]

So are the dems ready to attack saudia arabia, is that your implication?

I don't speak for the dems - and I didn't vote for them either. Nor do I think that military attack is the way to approach the Saudi problem. I do believe that Bush & Co are in no position to pressure either the Saudis or the Israelis because of the special interest groups (Carlyle Group and AIPAC) to which it is fundamentally beholden. Here, as in so many other places around the world, I think a strategy of working from behind the UN would be more to our advantage than going it alone with six-guns blazing. Thank you for abstaining from name calling and personal attacks. I will try to treat you with the courtesy you have shown me.

 

[mrsx]

Sounds like sour grapes to me....Please explain to me how Downing Street has any relationship to how the US should conduct OUR affairs. I don't know of any documents that have ceded our soveriegnty to any foriegn power.

The memo provides evidence that the Administration intended to attack Saddam no matter what was going to happen at the UN and that the facts were being wrapped around that determination. The memo comes from the head of MI5 and reports on his briefings in Washington in the spring before the attack.

 

[no1tovote4]

America's support for her troops was never higher than on VJ day in 1945. Thirty years later, that support was at the lowest point in modern times. As the military undertook a generation-long task of rebuilding from the ground up in order to produce the finest fighting force in the history of the world, some basic principles emerged to be codified by CJCS Colin Powell and known as the Powell Doctrine:
(1) The military must not be used for projects that do not have the full support of the American people. Bush violated this not in Afghanistan but in Iraq. His claim that 9/11 changed everything was inaccurate. Remember the huge demonstrations here and around the world?
(2) Military force must be the last option. Bush claimed that diplomatic options had been exhausted. The Downing Street Memo shows that this was disingenuous on his part as he planned to go to war in Iraq all along.
(3) Overwhelming military force must be used to bring about a swift, decisive result. Bush ignored this principle and brushed aside the warnings of Gen. Shinseki and the professionals to follow his neocon amateurs. The generals were right.
(4) There must exist a clear and articulated exit strategy from the outset. Bush still hasn't been able to come up with any strategy, much less an exit strategy.
By violating the Powell Doctrine - at a time when its author was Secretary of State no less - Bush has got us into a helluva jam. No one is going to defeat us in the field. My central concern is that we are going to undo the work of Colin Powell and the others who rebuilt not only the military but America's support for the military after the Viet Nam War. Recruiting problems and opinion polls support my concern. Name calling and personal abuse won't make the facts go away.

There was no "exit strategy" in Germany, in fact we are still there. There was none in any of wars we have fought. There was a plan for victory, it was followed, now there is a plan for rebuilding being followed, portions of the plan are made more difficult because of insurgency, but it was redacted and the redacted plan is being followed.

There are articles about the "dangerous occupation" of Germany after the war and they read much like the articles written today about Iraq. Simply saying there was more "support" for the troops doesn't make it so you can ignore the fact that there was no "exit strategy" as you are demanding now.

The "exit strategy" is likely to be, "We will withdraw as we can when the Iraqis have enough security personnel to begin taking over."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't speak for the dems - and I didn't vote for them either. Nor do I think that military attack is the way to approach the Saudi problem. I do believe that Bush & Co are in no position to pressure either the Saudis or the Israelis because of the special interest groups (Carlyle Group and AIPAC) to which it is fundamentally beholden. Here, as in so many other places around the world, I think a strategy of working from behind the UN would be more to our advantage than going it alone with six-guns blazing. Thank you for abstaining from name calling and personal attacks. I will try to treat you with the courtesy you have shown me.

The saudi poison has spread. Alquaeda REALLY IS a global terror organization. Wahabbi madrassas are worldwide.

The U.N. is a joke. A bad one. Hopefully Bolton will force it to rise to some sort of moral standard.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

WE (America) will be in Iraq for well over 50 years, if you want the honest answer. WE need a strong presence in the region, without treading on Muslims holy sites (as found in Saudi Arabia)....Iraq is our best bet to influence democracy's growth in the region.

Whining and complaining from those who have become the arbitors of morality ("it's an immoral war") is very hypocritical, and only distances their point of view from the majority of Americans.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Maybe looking at the following statement by the President you can glean some clarity (but I doubt it). " My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. (meaning Hussein)

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government."

Did I forget to mention that this is from 1998 and President Bill Clinton said it, and was approved by the House and the Senate? It is called the Iraq Liberation Act, and predates anything the current resident of 1500 Pennsylvania has said or done!

 

[mrsx]

There was no "exit strategy" in Germany, in fact we are still there. There was none in any of wars we have fought. There was a plan for victory, it was followed, now there is a plan for rebuilding being followed, portions of the plan are made more difficult because of insurgency, but it was redacted and the redacted plan is being followed.

There are articles about the "dangerous occupation" of Germany after the war and they read much like the articles written today about Iraq. Simply saying there was more "support" for the troops doesn't make it so you can ignore the fact that there was no "exit strategy" as you are demanding now.

The "exit strategy" is likely to be, "We will withdraw as we can when the Iraqis have enough security personnel to begin taking over."

The defeat of Germany in WWII long predated both the Powell Doctrine and the sort of problems it was designed to avoid. Germany was utterly defeated militarily and effectively occupied by the Allied powers. Our continued presence there was predicated on the Soviet threat. Iraq just isn't that kind of war. I don't know if you support the Powell Doctrine and think Bush satisfied its conditions or if you think the doctrine is irrelevant. Thank you for treating my expression of opinion with courtesy. I shall attempt to do the same to you.

 

[mrsx]

WE (America) will be in Iraq for well over 50 years, if you want the honest answer. WE need a strong presence in the region, without treading on Muslims holy sites (as found in Saudi Arabia)....Iraq is our best bet to influence democracy's growth in the region.

Whining and complaining from those who have become the arbitors of morality ("it's an immoral war") is very hypocritical, and only distances their point of view from the majority of Americans.

It might have better served the interests of candor to have announced the 50 year plan before the invasion. Back then the timetable was "six months to a year." We'll have to see how well the plan of occupying Arab countries with American troops works and how long it lasts. We certainly don't need to squat in the God-forsaken desert as a target for every jihadi with an RPG in order to project power in the region. I'll bet Bush announces a phased pull-out before the '06 Congressional elections. We'll be gone by '09 no matter who is president. You heard it here first.

Your complacency about the majority of Americans is belied by polls showing that 52% of us now think the whole Iraq adventure was a mistake and has not made us safer. Look back a couple of pages and you will see the link.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

MRSX, You are gullible and naive, if you ever thought that the US deployment to the Middle East would be 6 months to a year. I don't recall reading or hearing any of our administration officials saying that would be the length of our presence in the area. The only people who have espoused that opinion have been from the media and from the left fringe of the Democratic party (which are you?)

I got some beachfront property in FL that I will GIVE to you, if the US has no presence in Iraq in 2009....you are naive and gullible to believe that!

I would much rather fight every infidel intolerant radical islamic murderer in the desert in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan than on the streets of NY, LA or Chicago. If we can keep them busy and eliminate them "over there," we are certainly protecting our innocent civilians, aren't we?

 

[mrsx]

MRSX, You are gullible and naive, if you ever thought that the US deployment to the Middle East would be 6 months to a year. I don't recall reading or hearing any of our administration officials saying that would be the length of our presence in the area. The only people who have espoused that opinion have been from the media and from the left fringe of the Democratic party (which are you?)

I got some beachfront property in FL that I will GIVE to you, if the US has no presence in Iraq in 2009....you are naive and gullible to believe that!

I would much rather fight every infidel intolerant radical islamic murderer in the desert in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan than on the streets of NY, LA or Chicago. If we can keep them busy and eliminate them "over there," we are certainly protecting our innocent civilians, aren't we?

We may not be as far apart on this one as it seems. "US deployment to the Middle East" is not the same thing as occupation of Iraq. There are a number of Gulf states where our presence is welcome and it is possible that the autonomy provisions of the new Iraq Constitution (when finally written) will permit the Kurds to invite us to hang out around Mosul, which they would certainly do. A similar deal may even be worked out with the Shia for Basra. Staying where the locals welcome you is one thing. Kicking down doors in the alleys of Tikrit is quite another. I can't see much reason to keep heavy divisions out in the sand when there is no force to oppose them. The sooner we move in this direction the better. The Sunnis will sort it out on their own now that Saddam is gone (and we had better hang him before we go!). We can't sort it out for them and a long as the locals see us as occupiers rather than allies our troops will be a magnet for every jihadi and pissedoffnik in the entire Arab world. Saudi Arabia would much rather have their islamists in Iraq trying to kill Americans than back home in Saudi trying to overthrow the royal house. I doubt Jordan wants Mr. Moussawi back either.

 

[GotZoom]

We may not be as far apart on this one as it seems. "US deployment to the Middle East" is not the same thing as occupation of Iraq. There are a number of Gulf states where our presence is welcome and it is possible that the autonomy provisions of the new Iraq Constitution (when finally written) will permit the Kurds to invite us to hang out around Mosul, which they would certainly do. A similar deal may even be worked out with the Shia for Basra. Staying where the locals welcome you is one thing. Kicking down doors in the alleys of Tikrit is quite another. I can't see much reason to keep heavy divisions out in the sand when there is no force to oppose them. The sooner we move in this direction the better. The Sunnis will sort it out on their own now that Saddam is gone (and we had better hang him before we go!). We can't sort it out for them and a long as the locals see us as occupiers rather than allies our troops will be a magnet for every jihadi and pissedoffnik in the entire Arab world. Saudi Arabia would much rather have their islamists in Iraq trying to kill Americans than back home in Saudi trying to overthrow the royal house. I doubt Jordan wants Mr. Moussawi back either.

Finally...something we can agree upon.

 

[no1tovote4]

The defeat of Germany in WWII long predated both the Powell Doctrine and the sort of problems it was designed to avoid. Germany was utterly defeated militarily and effectively occupied by the Allied powers. Our continued presence there was predicated on the Soviet threat. Iraq just isn't that kind of war. I don't know if you support the Powell Doctrine and think Bush satisfied its conditions or if you think the doctrine is irrelevant. Thank you for treating my expression of opinion with courtesy. I shall attempt to do the same to you.

I think that this particular occupation is much more difficult than the one in Germany, that the enemies have taken lessons from previous encounters in other countries and know that Type IV warfare is needed. This type of warfare can only be lost through a loss of will, they simply do not have the power to defeat the US other than in the US Media itself. If they are able to convince the citizens that fighting terrorism in Iraq isn't worth it, they will have won otherwise they cannot. In time we will have enough Iraqi forces trained and willing to undertake their own security, at that time we will be able to leave it to them and go.

There is far more of an "exit plan" here than there ever was in other wars and it is even being carried out; almost every engagement with the enemy now includes Iraqi forces ones that didn't exist before. That it doesn't suit your political stance is understandable, but to say it doesn't exist at all is simply directly ignoring the factual information that we have.

While I think we should not have "disbanded" the Iraqi army and that having a viable force of their own to undertake their security from the beginning would have expedited the process immensely, I cannot wish them back in existence or go back in time and correct the issue. We must work with the current situation and realize the problem is being worked on and, in time, will be solved.

We must also realize that leaving now will simply cement the idea that human rights and freedom for the Arab people is not one of our goals, and since this, IMO, is the very reason we have the enmity that we have today, we must realize that we cannot leave immediately without not only losing this one Battle in Iraq, but we would also be seriously undermining any and all future efforts that may be needed in the WOT.

 

[mrsx]

We must also realize that leaving now will simply cement the idea that human rights and freedom for the Arab people is not one of our goals, and since this, IMO, is the very reason we have the enmity that we have today, we must realize that we cannot leave immediately without not only losing this one Battle in Iraq, but we would also be seriously undermining any and all future efforts that may be needed in the WOT.

On-going occupation by troops who do not speak Arabic and are not Muslim is going to continue to create more problems than it solves. As long as we support Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and stay cozy with repressive regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. few people in the Arab world are going to take our proclamations about human rights and freedom seriously. The damage done already to our reputation will take generations to repair - once we stop making it worse and begin to work on it. It is hard for most Americans to realize how much the Arabs know about us and how much they despise us. Imagine how the racist slurs so freely bantered about on this board are being taken in the cafes of Amman and Alexandria - because they are being read there more avidly than they are in our own country.

 

[5stringJeff]

Imagine how the racist slurs so freely bantered about on this board are being taken in the cafes of Amman and Alexandria - because they are being read there more avidly than they are in our own country.

You have stats on readership of this board in foreign countries? By all means, please share!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

On-going occupation by troops who do not speak Arabic and are not Muslim is going to continue to create more problems than it solves. As long as we support Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and stay cozy with repressive regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. few people in the Arab world are going to take our proclamations about human rights and freedom seriously. The damage done already to our reputation will take generations to repair - once we stop making it worse and begin to work on it. It is hard for most Americans to realize how much the Arabs know about us and how much they despise us. Imagine how the racist slurs so freely bantered about on this board are being taken in the cafes of Amman and Alexandria - because they are being read there more avidly than they are in our own country.

Whose side are you on mrsx? Seriously . This is all leading up to war. Theocratic islamism is incompatible with modern multiculturalism. (republicans are not really theocrats, by the way, muslims are.)

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I am pretty certain most PEOPLE abhor the violence perpetrated in the name of their religion (no matter it buddhism, islam, hindu or christian)(except for those, like you, who hate our government even more than those who would rather seperate your noggin from your torso even while you support them)... the only slurs thrown out here are directed at radical islamic murderers who have hijacked a religion to further thier goals of repression and thuggery. I know many Muslims who HATE the fact that these radicals are making a mockery of their religion.

Your perception of Arabs thoughts are nothing more than opinions based on your view of the world, and not reality. I would prefer to get opinions from Muslims directly and not filtered through your hatred of our country.

 

[mrsx]

You have stats on readership of this board in foreign countries? By all means, please share!

I don't have stats on the readership, but I did meet and have corresponded with two Muslims who have posted here. One is a girl from Egypt, the other a Muslim living in Europe. I also think there is a wider point here: the Arab world is plenty techno savvy and whether many of them have the stomach for the rhetoric on this particular board or not, they know a great deal more about us than we know about them. There is a racist violence that underlies much of the right wing rhetoric in this country and it angers many outsiders. We see things like the Abu Ghraib affair from the opposite end of the telescope than do the Arabs. Perhaps you will see one of the bully-boys respond to my remarks with a variation on the usual potty mouth flame about nobody telling him what he can say. He doesn't realize it is hurting those troops he makes such a fuss about supporting.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There is a racist violence that underlies much of the right wing rhetoric in this country and it angers many outsiders.

There is a racist violence that is openly advocated and funded by the rulers of most countries of the muslim world and serves as the main message forming the dialogue between the tyrants and the ruled:" Blame Israel, Blame the U.S. Kill the Jews, Kill americans".

Why is your perception so one sided? Guess what. Their rhetoric angers me. Where's your sensitivity to my feelings?

 

[mrsx]

Whose side are you on mrsx? Seriously . This is all leading up to war. Theocratic islamism is incompatible with modern multiculturalism. (republicans are not really theocrats, by the way, muslims are.)

I am - very seriously - on the side of my country and the values I believe it stands for. I agree with you about the war with theocratic islamism. The problem is that what started out as a civil war within the Arab world - with most Arabs looking for Western help in modernizing their societies and economies - has become a holy war against the infidel invader in which the islamists have gone from being seen as nut cases to being seen as great heroes in Arab history. It hasn't helped to have Republican superstars like Gen. Jerry Boykin, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Junior Graham denouncing the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, as a child molester and terrorist or claiming that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians or Jews. I can see why you want to put these crazies back in the attic at this time, but the GOP leadership was sure loving them back when they thought they were bringing in the voters.

 

[Annie]

I am - very seriously - on the side of my country and the values I believe it stands for. I agree with you about the war with theocratic islamism. The problem is that what started out as a civil war within the Arab world - with most Arabs looking for Western help in modernizing their societies and economies - has become a holy war against the infidel invader in which the islamists have gone from being seen as nut cases to being seen as great heroes in Arab history. It hasn't helped to have Republican superstars like Gen. Jerry Boykin, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Junior Graham denouncing the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, as a child molester and terrorist or claiming that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians or Jews. I can see why you want to put these crazies back in the attic at this time, but the GOP leadership was sure loving them back when they thought they were bringing in the voters.

I agree that the bolded folks go over the top at times. (this coming from a Christian Catholic, as opposed to the non-Christian Catholics). General Boykin I view differently, he just was not PC enough:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20031022.shtml

The latest proposed victim in our struggle against terrorism is Army Lt. General William G. "Jerry" Boykin, recently named Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. His mission is to reinvigorate the search for bin Laden, Mullah Omar and other leaders of global terrorism. By training and experience he is marvelously prepared for his new duties -- having risen from a Delta Force commando to top-secret Joint Special Operations Command, through the CIA, to command of the Army's Special Forces. For a quarter century he has been fighting terror with his bare hands, his fine mind and his faith-shaped soul. It is that last matter -- his faith, and his willingness to give politically incorrect witness to that faith in Christian churches -- that has drawn furious media and political fire in the last week. The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Howard Dean, The Egyptian Foreign Minister and other less lofty entities have all called for his removal from office because of his expressed religious views. And, of course, these calls for his head are all made on behalf of religious tolerance.

While the full text of the general's comments will not been released by the Los Angeles Times columnist who secretly recorded them during the general's witness in churches in Oklahoma, Oregon and Florida, the purportedly scandalous bits have been selectively published in print and on television. General Boykin said the terrorists come from "the principalities of darkness," that they are "demonic," and they hate us because "We're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian, and the enemy is a guy named Satan." The general also recounted the time he was chasing down a Somali warlord who was bragging that the Americans would not capture him because his god, Allah, would protect him. "Well," Boykin responded, "my God is bigger than his God. I knew my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

In short, General Boykin is being accused of calling America a Judeo-Christian country, the war on terrorism a religious war, and of expressing his belief in the truth of the New Testament of the Bible. While his critics concede that he has a right to express his religious views, they argue that his expressed opinions of the Islamic and Christian religions make him unfit to perform his duties of helping to lead in the war on terrorism. I am inclined to believe that he is splendidly fit for such combat, and I thank God that we have such a man as General Boykin in our midst.

The purported fear is that the general's comments may have ruffled the feathers of our esteemed enemy -- the millions and millions of fanatical Islamists, or that his statement may so inflame the passions of the millions of good Muslims that they will discard their peaceable ways and pick up the bloody sword of jihad. What utter balderdash. Whether or not American officials chose to call this a religious war, it is utterly clear that our enemy, bin Laden and the other terrorists, are motivated by Islamic religious fanaticism. They say so in their founding documents and every day, in every way, around the world. However peaceably we may interpret the Koran or assess the history of Islam, at this time and in these places one would have to be swayed by a spirit of detachment from the facts not to see that a sizable percentage of Muslims believe they are in a religious war with non-Muslims. They are consciously at religious war with the Jews in the Middle East, with Hindus in the subcontinent and with Christians everywhere. It shouldn't be a firing offense for the occasional American general to return the compliment. Indeed, I am heartened by General Boykin's fighting spirit.

Nor is it factually wrong or religiously insensitive to point out that the United States is a Judeo-Christian country. We are. It is an uncontestable historic and cultural fact. We are also a country that strives in both law and habit to be impeccably tolerant and respectful to all other religions and to those who believe in no religion at all. But in rallying our countrymen to the defense of our lives and property at this time of peril, we are entitled to invoke -- as Lincoln once did with such dignity and passion -- the mystic chords of our memory. And it is well to recall that when Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met in Placentia Bay off New Foundland on the heavy cruiser Augusta on August 9, 1941, to rally our nations to our common defense, they sang three songs with the assembled sailors: "O God, Our Help in Ages Past," "Eternal Father, Strong to Save" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers."

Let me ask you this: Who was had more photo ops in churches? Bush or Kerry? Bush or the Clintons?