- comment
.... - body
- My grandfather fought in Sicily, in Normandy, and in the Battle of the Bulge.
He won 2 Silver Stars, the French Medal of Honor, 3 bronze stars, and 3 purple hearts.
My grandfather thinks the War in Iraq is wrong and that we should withdraw immediately.
I think Patton would agree with him.
- comment Karen Duncan
- body
- I'm not sure what the point of this post is.
And I would actually disagree with your characterization of Americans as hating a loser. Actually, the whole thing seems overwrought.
There are certainly times when nothing less than victory is acceptable. World War II was one of those times. And the men who fought were brave and noble. They truly were the greatest generation. My dad was one of them and I'm enduringly proud of him.
But I don't feel the same way about losing a baseball game, for example. No, not even if my Yankees lose.
And for all the bluster of that article, Americans actually did lose in Vietnam. And we are losing in Iraq.
No, not a cut and run screed. But we've got to listen to the generals, the military experts, the people who have devoted their lives to studying military strategy, not to the arrogant civilians and political appointees who have denigrated and disrespected our military leaders.
Generals are coming forth to criticize the Bush Administration's conduct like I've never seen before. Even during Vietnam, the military never critized a president like this.
It's not because they're disloyal Americans. It's because something is going very wrong over there. Our troops have not been given the resources they need. And a lot more needs to be corrected.
Going into Iraq was a strategic blunder that made us more unsafe. We needed to secure Afghanistan, stand up to Iran and North Korea, be vigilant with the Saudis and Pakistanis and negotiate with the Syrians, who are more secular, to drive a wedge between the Sunnis, Shiites, secularists, and Wahhabists.
Instead we dumped our resources into the one country that hated the militant Islamists. We've got women in burqas all over the place in Iraq now (if they actually wanted to wear them, I wouldn't care, but lots of them just do it out of fear; they used to be secular and dressed in western-style clothers before our invasion of Iraq).
The fundamentalist Shiites are in he ascendancy in Iraq now and they have kinship with the Iranians. There is a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. And the Wahabbists like Osama bin Laden are flourishing in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And the Taliban is staging a resurgence in Afghanistan.
There is no glory in our strategy. The military leaders know this.
So should Republicans who hide behind patriotisim and call any critic of this mess "cut and run Democrats." No we're not.
We would just like a more intelligent policy that actually protects us and stops helping militant Islam rise.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- But we've got to listen to the generals, the military experts, the people who have devoted their lives to studying military strategy, not to the arrogant civilians and political appointees who have denigrated and disrespected our military leaders.
I agree -- the last time we let politicians run a war, we lost in Vietnam.
God forbid we let politicians take over from the generals in the War on Terrorism.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- AIAW, just for discussion purposes, what would be your strategy in fighting the War on Terrorism, not just for security concerns, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.?
I'd be interested in reading your thoughts!
- comment Karen Duncan
- body
- Thank you Shaun. I've been busy, but in fact I'm planning a post on my own site, AIAW on just this topic.
I am very concerned about issues of national security and foreign policy.
I don't think you'll like all of my answer, but you will see that I'm far from a "cut and run" dove.
My main point is going to be that we went after the wrong enemy. It's as if we missed the target by a mile and brought down a couple of sparrows in a nearby tree instead.
Iraq should never have been invaded to start with. This is important to admit because the only way you learn a lesson is to first admit you made a mistake.
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it was a largely secular country. It was run by a tyrant but one who was not a real threat to us.
Before dealing with Saddam Hussein (and I don't want to give the impression that I liked him or anything) we needed to take out our real threats. We should have concentrated on the Taliban in Afghanistan, al Qaeda, which we had on the run and let escape into the lawless tribal lands along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and dealt with Iran, Syria and (surprise) Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is a huge and unrecognized danger. Officially, its King and the Royal House of Saud are our allies. And President Bush has a good relationship with the Saudi royal family.
But they sit on an unstable throne and hold it only as long as they don't upset the radical clerics in their country.
It's those clerics who have provided the ideology for bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. That dangerous, militant ideology comes from Wahabbism, a dangerous sect within the larger sect of Sunni Islam.
It's the Wahabbi clerics who also provide the teachers and the funding for the madrassas, the radical Islamic schools, and the mosques throughout Europe and the Middle East that are the breeding grounds for young, dissaffected terrorists.
To fight radical Islam you have to go to its spiritual center, its heart and soul and that's Saudi Arabia.
By attacking secular Iraq, we've squandered valuable resources from the real fight and the real danger and this disturbs me greatly because I don't believe that Islam is a friend of the West. At least not the militant Islam of the Wahabbis and of the Shiites of Iran.
And the cousins of the Iranian Shiites, the Iraqi Shiites, who are every bit as militant as the Wahabbis, are in the ascendancy in Iraq now. They've filled the power vaccum left by Saddam.
I know we can't just leave Iraq. We've destabilized it. Colin Powell's "pottery rule" is true. We broke it. Unfortunately, we own the mess there. We owe it to the Iraqis to stabilize the country. And we owe it to our own security to do so.
I don't know how to do it. I am, after all, not a military strategist. But I think it would help greatly if Rumsfeld were fired.
He's an arrogant disaster who has ignored and walked over those who might know how to fix it. We need to get knowledgeable competent people to take over and then pray very hard that they can do something.
Not very upbeat, but that's the truth.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- So President AIAW would have invaded Saudi Arabia and fired Rumsfeld?
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Not a General here - career death long before that, but a lifetime of military study and still working in the field as a contractor.
I've written about this WW IV and the campaign in Iraq.
OIF was strategically sound to take out Hussein.
But, in 03 during major combat actions I wrote about Rumsfeld's mistakes. He should have been fired in 03. There were huge mistakes.
You have to define 'victory'. I've written about that too.
There are several fights, wars if you will, going on at the same time.
And, by the way the greatest generation for accomplishment fought the war of 1775-1783. The generation that made the greatest sacrifices fought the war of 1861-1865. Both on our terrain. Both had American against American.
7 Comments:
He won 2 Silver Stars, the French Medal of Honor, 3 bronze stars, and 3 purple hearts.
My grandfather thinks the War in Iraq is wrong and that we should withdraw immediately.
I think Patton would agree with him.
And I would actually disagree with your characterization of Americans as hating a loser. Actually, the whole thing seems overwrought.
There are certainly times when nothing less than victory is acceptable. World War II was one of those times. And the men who fought were brave and noble. They truly were the greatest generation. My dad was one of them and I'm enduringly proud of him.
But I don't feel the same way about losing a baseball game, for example. No, not even if my Yankees lose.
And for all the bluster of that article, Americans actually did lose in Vietnam. And we are losing in Iraq.
No, not a cut and run screed. But we've got to listen to the generals, the military experts, the people who have devoted their lives to studying military strategy, not to the arrogant civilians and political appointees who have denigrated and disrespected our military leaders.
Generals are coming forth to criticize the Bush Administration's conduct like I've never seen before. Even during Vietnam, the military never critized a president like this.
It's not because they're disloyal Americans. It's because something is going very wrong over there. Our troops have not been given the resources they need. And a lot more needs to be corrected.
Going into Iraq was a strategic blunder that made us more unsafe. We needed to secure Afghanistan, stand up to Iran and North Korea, be vigilant with the Saudis and Pakistanis and negotiate with the Syrians, who are more secular, to drive a wedge between the Sunnis, Shiites, secularists, and Wahhabists.
Instead we dumped our resources into the one country that hated the militant Islamists. We've got women in burqas all over the place in Iraq now (if they actually wanted to wear them, I wouldn't care, but lots of them just do it out of fear; they used to be secular and dressed in western-style clothers before our invasion of Iraq).
The fundamentalist Shiites are in he ascendancy in Iraq now and they have kinship with the Iranians. There is a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. And the Wahabbists like Osama bin Laden are flourishing in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And the Taliban is staging a resurgence in Afghanistan.
There is no glory in our strategy. The military leaders know this.
So should Republicans who hide behind patriotisim and call any critic of this mess "cut and run Democrats." No we're not.
We would just like a more intelligent policy that actually protects us and stops helping militant Islam rise.
I agree -- the last time we let politicians run a war, we lost in Vietnam.
God forbid we let politicians take over from the generals in the War on Terrorism.
I'd be interested in reading your thoughts!
I am very concerned about issues of national security and foreign policy.
I don't think you'll like all of my answer, but you will see that I'm far from a "cut and run" dove.
My main point is going to be that we went after the wrong enemy. It's as if we missed the target by a mile and brought down a couple of sparrows in a nearby tree instead.
Iraq should never have been invaded to start with. This is important to admit because the only way you learn a lesson is to first admit you made a mistake.
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it was a largely secular country. It was run by a tyrant but one who was not a real threat to us.
Before dealing with Saddam Hussein (and I don't want to give the impression that I liked him or anything) we needed to take out our real threats. We should have concentrated on the Taliban in Afghanistan, al Qaeda, which we had on the run and let escape into the lawless tribal lands along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and dealt with Iran, Syria and (surprise) Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is a huge and unrecognized danger. Officially, its King and the Royal House of Saud are our allies. And President Bush has a good relationship with the Saudi royal family.
But they sit on an unstable throne and hold it only as long as they don't upset the radical clerics in their country.
It's those clerics who have provided the ideology for bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. That dangerous, militant ideology comes from Wahabbism, a dangerous sect within the larger sect of Sunni Islam.
It's the Wahabbi clerics who also provide the teachers and the funding for the madrassas, the radical Islamic schools, and the mosques throughout Europe and the Middle East that are the breeding grounds for young, dissaffected terrorists.
To fight radical Islam you have to go to its spiritual center, its heart and soul and that's Saudi Arabia.
By attacking secular Iraq, we've squandered valuable resources from the real fight and the real danger and this disturbs me greatly because I don't believe that Islam is a friend of the West. At least not the militant Islam of the Wahabbis and of the Shiites of Iran.
And the cousins of the Iranian Shiites, the Iraqi Shiites, who are every bit as militant as the Wahabbis, are in the ascendancy in Iraq now. They've filled the power vaccum left by Saddam.
I know we can't just leave Iraq. We've destabilized it. Colin Powell's "pottery rule" is true. We broke it. Unfortunately, we own the mess there. We owe it to the Iraqis to stabilize the country. And we owe it to our own security to do so.
I don't know how to do it. I am, after all, not a military strategist. But I think it would help greatly if Rumsfeld were fired.
He's an arrogant disaster who has ignored and walked over those who might know how to fix it. We need to get knowledgeable competent people to take over and then pray very hard that they can do something.
Not very upbeat, but that's the truth.
I've written about this WW IV and the campaign in Iraq.
OIF was strategically sound to take out Hussein.
But, in 03 during major combat actions I wrote about Rumsfeld's mistakes. He should have been fired in 03. There were huge mistakes.
You have to define 'victory'. I've written about that too.
There are several fights, wars if you will, going on at the same time.
And, by the way the greatest generation for accomplishment fought the war of 1775-1783. The generation that made the greatest sacrifices fought the war of 1861-1865. Both on our terrain. Both had American against American.
Post a Comment
Home