Letters to the Editor
-
Physical appearance has a lot to do with it
Unfortunately, physical appearance has a lot to do with it. Neocon chickenhawks like the the Kagans, kristols and Goldbergs who are so generous with the blood and lives of others, are now using their great influence to take revenge. They were the nerdy, awkward, klutzy, physically unattractive boys who were ridiculed by the girls and pushed around by the jocks at school. They weer the out of shape wimps who would remind the teacher she forgot to assign the class homework. They were the creepy boys who would stay around after school to search the trash cans for used sanitary napkins to sniff and rub over their faces. They look at the troops as the embodiment of the those who had made them feel so bas about themselves and their message is:'you guys want to come home? fight your way back, you losers'.
-
Doesn't the military already keep track of this sort of thing?
I'm about 99.9 % sure that the US military already knows exactly how long any given soldier has spent inside a combat zone as opposed to on leave.
In fact, I would guess that the US military has been compiling this information on each and every one of its soldiers since World War ONE. It is simply a basic part of the information a modern army needs to perform its duties.
-
On the subject of physical appearance
Guys like the Kegan kiddies might well have benefited from six mile runs and other physical training that is part of basic training, and continues when you're out in the 'real' Army (or Marine Corps). Heck, even the USAF and Navy are going to put you through your paces, physically, even if they don't put you on the ground in Faluja or Anbar province patrolling where the IEDs are.
Which might be a very big part of the reason the Kagan kiddies would not be seen in any of the branches of the Armed Forces.
-
Notes on natural selection and warrior gods
The fact that Kagan is fat and a chickenhawk is worth a comment, but not a post.
-- abbbb1
The post was not about what sags under Kagan's chin but what comes out of his mouth.
The fact that Kagan is a chickenhawk should not be a post-- you are right. It should be an entire book. It should be taught in universities. That an entire class of privilaged, cowardly, draft-dodgers took this nation to war and kept it there without making a single personal sacrifice is worth exposure for the scam that it is. This is unnatural behavior- suicide, not just for a country, but for any tribe or even species to be led from the rear by the most cowardly among them.
That Kagan is a fat slob may not even be worth a comment except if you tie it to his lineage as an armchair warrior. When people talk for a living, generation after generation, they do get fat and flabby. That would not warrent derogatory notice either unless if the talking is aimed at conning other people to go fight their deranged wars for them. If it's OK for a square-jawed candidate to be marketed as a strong leader, regardless of his acual record, then it's OK for a fat slob to be singled out as someone you don't want to follow into combat.
-
Apparently Glenn thinks rotating individuals, groups, and his tires, are all the same.
That's all revolting enough. But to then watch Fred Kagan sit around opposing Senator Webb's attempts to relieve some of the strain on our troops -- all because it would require too much paperwork to figure out and because they haven't yet won Fred Kagan's war and thus deserve no breaks -- is almost too much to bear.
Senator Webb is a fast learner in the ways of Washington. Bypassing commanders and imposing bureaucratic rules on deployments is the time-honored way of destroying the efficiency of anything.
I suppose there are at least two ways to accomplish something like what Webb proposes. First, wipe out the concept of unit. No consistency, no history, no relationships, no personal chain of command. Base group membership solely on time in the field. Interestingly that could completely pull out experienced people and substitute huge amounts of novices in one fell swoop. Oh yeah, that'll be messy.
Then there is the Greenwald method where individuals and units are tracked and matched. So let's hypothetically have a force of ten units with ten troops each. I'm mathematically challenged, but if I recall correctly that's 10 to the 10th power of possible combinations of troops with an additional doubling of states for in field and out. I have no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong. So a group of 100 has how many possibilities? Ten million times two? Gosh, I wonder what it would be for a couple hundred thousand?
Next, we have the Ad Hominem of making fun of what someone looks like. You also forgot to call him "four-eyes". But you know, I think Churchill was short and dumpy also. By the way Glenn, where's your picture? Come to think of it, what service were you in?
Which brings up the next point. In America, one is not required to put their life at risk, to have a valid opinion. That covers BOTH sides of the argument. I presume no one wants the country to be run by the only people that could argue about how to use the military. In that instance... the military. I believe that's called a Junta.
OTOH, I think it's pretty funny that Glenn et al, having NO traction with the anti-war and lost lives idea, is devolving into the argument for making it more comfortable.
Lastly, I'd like to hear a response to this fellow from the last thread....
But according to Gen. Petraeus, Mr. Crocker and the consensus view of U.S. intelligence agencies, if the U.S. counterinsurgency mission were abandoned in the near future, the result would be massive civilian casualties and still-greater turmoil that could spread to neighboring countries. - Hiatt
It is on the basis of that sentence that Hiatt turns the argument in his editorial to defend remaining in Iraq. We disagree with him, but the point is, he doesn't just pull the admonition not to leave out of thin air, as you seem to imply. There is a logic to his argument and you don't really engage it.-- Dairystatedad
It is a valid point which I don't remember being addressed in quite some time if ever. Are you interested in lives of the Iraqis or just the Americans. If just the Americans why not go isolationist? Inquiring minds want to know.