Politics and War

[LongHaul]

I took the weekend off to clear my head and kick back. Planned to watch some Basketball and eat some junk food. In surfing the channels I came upon a panel discussing the opposition to Bushs plan for Iraq and the bills which went through the House and Senate. Bush plans to veto, congressman plan counter actions, people line up on this side or that. Those of you that have read my posts know I am anti Bush. I dont like his politics, his attitude, or is his leadership of the armed forces. I not only want the man out of office Id like to see him in jail. BUT all the talk about the war lately isnt about George W Bush its about those American soldiers under arms in a combat zone at the directions of the Commander in Chief. Congress fighting with the President and the Military Chiefs can be seen as politics in action but when that political action endangers American citizens it should not be taken in stride. If the discussion in Congress was to put 50,000 citizens in say Chicago at risk of their lives would any of us just pass by the story and not be concerned?

 

When the American public decided it wanted an end to the war in Viet Nam congress began military budget cuts and restrictions were put on military spending. Congress wanted to force and end to the war. Those of use that can remember the final days of that military conflict that police action know what we saw as the final days. We watched the evacuation of the US Embassy in Saigon as the North Vietnamese Army came in. Those of you that cant remember or dont remember can Google it if you like or ask someone that should know. My point is that the last American to leave Viet Nam under fire was a United States Marine. A United States Marine with the task of defending the withdrawal of Embassy staff and materials. The task of defending non military personnel as well as military personnel. That United States Marine was ready to do that AT ALL COSTS.

 

What ever our side in the politics of this war or administration Id like everyone to remember the Americans that are in harms way. Before we call for Congress to stop the War, let us call for Congress to see that we do everything we can to protect the soldier in the field. Bring the soldiers home using a plan of action designed to maximize efforts to bring them home safely.

 

 

Im including a link to a very emotional clip. This clip is designed to stir emotions. It is not bloody but it is not for the more sensitive either. Its about those that have stepped up to Do Their Duty to Their Country

LongHaul

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[TheScout]

The safety of our troops should not be our top priority. Accomplishment of the mission is always first. It is an unfortunate fact that sometimes American soldiers die doing their job.

 

 

"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson

[KC9DDI]

TheScout - that's a very unfortunate truth. However, at some point, doesn't someone in power have to weigh the positive vs. negative consequences? At what point have too many American soldiers died for a "mission" that continues to be ambiguous, and, many might say, unnecessary?

[LongHaul]

>>The safety of our troops should not be our top priority. Accomplishment of the mission is always first.

[Gonzo1]

LongHaul,

I guess we have something in common. I didn't care for the President either. Don't agree with his politics, his leadership of the military or management. I think he should be in jail too. Oh, wait a minute, I'm talking about Clinton, I think Clinton should have been convicted by the Senate and imprisoned.

 

Now, remember, every military today is a volunteer.

NONE OF US KNOW ALL OF THE DETAILS. WE ARE NOT THERE.

I retired from the Army Reserve in June, 2006. From 2001 to 2004 I served as an aide to a brigadier general, I guarantee you, the general public has no clue of what's really going on in Iraq because the general public isn't attending briefings, meetings, receiving intelligence reports, talking to on-the-ground commanders, and it should be that way. How would you like it if President Bush said publicly what we're gonna do? Hey terroists, we're going to attack your building on Monday morning. C'mon, not gonna happen.

 

I hope you don't forget LongHaul, we were attacked. Not just on September 11, 2000, but at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, at a US barracks complex in Riyyad (sp), Saudi Arabi, in 1993 at the WTC, USS Cole, overseas embassies in several countries.

 

It's far better to fight the enemy over there than over here. The American public is not ready for car bombings at your local mall. But, surrender, let the terrorists wait us out and they'll bring the fight back over here.

 

For the record, I don't agree with everything President Bush does or says, I think there could be a different approach in Iraq today, but they didn't ask Captain Gonzo for my opinion. Regardless of what Katie Couric tells you on TV, we're winning. We have some difficult times too.

 

Did Amy Carter serve in the military? No

How about Chelsea Clinton? Uh, no.

 

Secret Service protection is required, not optional for the president's family, even his siblings have some protection. Secret Service was beefed up for many people and provided for others not normally "entitled" to it due to their office. It's not their job to make sure the twins are sober, just safe.

 

If you listen carefully to President Bush, he says that the troops will come home when the job is done. Not some artificial deadline.

 

Take a look at history: WW II ended in 1945, but, we still have troops in Germany and Italy, the Korean War ended in 1953. What's up with that? Can't they take care of themselves by now?

 

 

[ASM915]

Well stated Captain Gonzo.

 

LongHaul, to bad the politicians think that they have to control everything. "We'll put through a bill stating a pullout deadline, and then add several attachments to it to blackmail the Pres. into signing it, because if he vetos it, he'll hurt the American people here at home."

Yea, real nice of the DC crowd. I agree. Do everything to keep them safe. Find another way to bring everything to an end without cutting the military budget.

 

Also LongHaul, just remember, every new President usually end up having to clean up his predecessors mess, 2008 for Bush (it could have been handled better), Bush for Clinton (if the hormones and the liberalism could have been kept under control, maybe several of Gonzo's references could have been prevented), I'm sure Daddy B. had a few loose ends for Clinton (I don't really recall many other the 1st Gulf, but who knows whee Sadam would have stopped). Usually everyone leaves a little mess for the next one.

[TheScout]

"Is exactly why I am anti Bush. Send Americans out to die as long as that does not include his daughters."

 

If this is the only reason why you are anti-Bush this seems quite foolish. I am pretty sure that Bush doesn't control whether his daughters decide you should enlist or not, just any person does not decide for his/her childeren.

 

It is unfortunate that you seem to despise politics. This is how decisions are made in a democratic society. I think we would be hard pressed to point to many conflicts waged by democratic societies that were not affected by politics in one way or another.

[LongHaul]

I'll give this one more try. The topic of this thread was not whether you support the President or agree with the mission in Iraq. The topic of this thread was a cautionary observation. Let's not make the same mistake again. As Americans let's see to it that politics does not endanger Americans in a combat zone to garner election votes.

 

My opinion of Bush has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this post. I brought it up because there seems to be a prevalent attitude today which holds that if your anti Bush your not supporting the "troops". In 1972 Nixon won the election by a clear margin. The majority of the American public supported Nixon. They also wanted an end to the war in Viet Nam. The manner in which those troops were pulled out of Viet Nam was in my opinion appalling. People were so focused on ending the war they ignored the fact that it was a shooting war. Americans are under fire in Iraq and any exit plan has to take into consideration their safety while retreating and exiting the country. The mission must be the SAFE withdrawal of American troops. That is NOT done by Congress passing bills to force the Military Commanders into a course of action the Military Commanders didn't develop.

LongHaul

 

 

[SWScouter]

Perhaps this is rhetorical but, of all those people slapping each others backs and shaking each others hands for getting the US out of Vietnam, who took responsibility for the million vietnamese slaughtered after the US pullout?

[packsaddle]

I wish terrorists actually did have a single organization and a political unit (country) of origin. They don't. Instead we have the SLA, the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kosinski, etc., and their counterparts in numerous other countries. The terrorism war has been going on for as long as people and societies have existed. But since we did identify the 9/11 terrorists, I would have been much happier if we actually had gone after them and gotten them. We didn't. We diverted treasure and blood to Iraq. And now the terrorists that we didn't get are coming to us in Iraq. If anyone really thinks this is a good thing, or somehow optimal, I'd love to read the explanation.

 

However, Iraq may be many things but it isn't Vietnam. The American people might have bought a lie in both cases and the American people might have made poor electoral choices in both cases. But Iraq and Vietnam are quite different and the failures of Vietnam are neither identical to - nor related to - the failures in Iraq. Ultimately, the American people are responsible for both debacles.

 

Gonzo1, I have to admit I'm reluctant to call this war one way or the other as I think the answer is going to wait for all of us until its conclusion, whenever that occurs. THEN we can argue more intelligently over whether we won or not. Likewise, in retrospect, it is tough to compose an argument that we WON in Vietnam but there was PLENTY of argument at the time, right up to the last days.

 

War, as the saying goes, is politics (diplomacy) by other means. I heard Dr. Rice say this and I think she was correct. War and politics, in our political system, are inseparable. A politician will always be commander-in-chief. The military will always answer to the constitution and their civilian bosses. And the American people will get exactly and precisely their electoral due, for better or worse. Exactly as it should be.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure where the notion that unless the president had children in the Armed Forces he is unable to commit the Armed Forces to combat came from. Is this to be the new standard? That to run for president you have to have a child committed to the Armed Forces in a combat unit so if an armed incursion occurs that child is automatically deployed? How do the current list of candidates from both sides of the aisle stack up on this idea? Who has the child 19-30 yrs or so? When did this get added to the Constitution as a requirement of the presidency?

[GernBlansten]

OGE,

One would expect that if the president was in a protracted unpopular war and had children of service age, it would help his image and cause if at least they would voluntarily serve those soldiers returning or at most actively serve in the forces. The Bush twins chose neither, electing to party it up. They are wasting an enormous opportunity to demonstrate their family commitment to the cause. There seems to be little personal sacrifice coming from those politicians who promote war.

[Gonzo1]

LongHaul,

It seem to me that democrats are makingpolitical hay out of the war and THEIR anti-war stance. When I was a general's aide, the insde scoop was that this war on terror would last 7-15 years at the least. It would take place in many countries and allies may change along the way.

 

I thik the media was with "us" (America) until we captured Saddam and Bush declared "mission accomplished" on the carrier. Not the best move in my opinion. It seems that the "mainstream media" turned on us at that moment.

 

I agree that safety is paramount for the troop. I abhor your use of the term "retreat". We may as well throw up our hands and wave a white flag.

 

Would you agree that one measure of success might be thenumber of personnel captured on the battlefield? To date, we have taken thousands prisoner. THOUSANDS! Our enemy has 2 US soldiers. That's right, 2.

 

I agree that congress has no business dictating to military comanders how to do the job. Let the people who have the knowledge make the decisions. How would Lovie Smith like it if we critisized his coaching in the Super Bowl, we're not football coaches.

 

Here's an example of how biased the media is. During the time when democrats were in the minority, news reporters would ask Harry Reed and nancy Pelosi what they thought of a particular subject/topic. Now that republicans are the minority, reporters STILL go to Reed and Pelosi. Doesn't seem fair (unbiased), does it?

 

Packsaddle,

I believe we won in Viet Nam, but the "scoreboard" shows it differently. I wrote a paper on Kennedy's "best and brightest" and proved how they were neither best nor bright. Wars must be fought on the battlefield, not the floor of the house or senate. For what it's worth, Pelosi should get her rear end back to Washington and out of the middle east. I wonder how many trips Dennis Hastert took overseas? I don't think he did, but I could be wrong.

 

I've heard on talk radio lately (yes, I'm one of THEM) who referred to Walter Cronkite as being somehwat responsible for ending the Viet Nam war with a single broadcast, not sure what is meant here.

 

Remember, you're either with us, or, you're with the terrorists.

 

Gonzo

[packsaddle]

Gonzo1, I suggest a short exercise. List the original military and political objectives that were in place when the Vietnam War started. Pick your starting date, whether during Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson, but don't go past the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Now explain to me how those objectives were successfully achieved. If you can do that - show that a simple majority of the objectives were achieved - at the price we paid, and if you still believe we won, I'll consider your claim.

 

As for Speaker Pelosi, if she vanished off the planet as I write this, her district would probably replace her with someone equivalent. The new Speaker, whoever it was, would probably irk you in an equal manner. This is the basis of my premise that when you aim your ire at Pelosi (whoever), it ought to be aimed at the people who elected her (whoever). They are the ones who chose their representative and they are the ones who helped set the current political structure. As someone (was it you Gern, Hunt?) said, we get pretty much what we deserve. Gonzo1, although we do not share all views on all matters, for you right now it seems that you think the glass is half empty. Although perhaps for different reasons, I couldn't agree more.

[LongHaul]

>>Remember, you're either with us, or, you're with the terrorists.