Letters to the Editor
-
Maybe it's in the grammar
Perhaps Mr. Kagan means the "civil" war is over, civil as in "not rude." Could he be saying that up to now everyone has been behaving nicely but today the gloves are off?
Or perhaps he is just watching an alternate reality Iraq war.
Or perhaps he is smoking crack.
-
Errr....
"The critique of the war never was, in whole or in part, that the people who hatched lacked military experience. That's a pathetic straw man that I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to see as ignorance on your part."
Don't be a fool. The critique - ad hominem of course - of WAR PROPONENTS AND THEIR MOTIVES (not the war itself) is often based on that. Look at Glenn's blog and forthcoming book. Except of course where it doesn't fit (as in McCain's case) where other ad hominems are found.
"People who need to feel brave, resolute and strong by casually sending others off to war have long provoked the disgust of decent people -- long before the "chickenhawk" term or Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney existed."
Or at least you hope so, if your new book is going to sell any.
There are many cynical (and highly plausible) explanations as to why wars are fought - it doesn't surprise me that you favor the one that requires the least thought, the least knowledge, and an insight in to the male psyche of such complexity it could be adequately enscribed in a fortune cookie. It's the Oprah school of foreign policy analysis.
-
It's deja vu all over again
I wrote this back in 2003, but I think it still applies:
George Bush the Second , a nimble logician
Has offered to us this profound proposition:
The harder the bad guys in Baghdad attack
The closer we are to the prize in Iraq.
Following this is a simple conclusion
As what seems a crisis is but an illusion.
In fact, we have found just the metric we seek:
It lies in the tally of bombings per week.
And taking this thought to the end of the line,
We can count as success every missile and mine
And there at the end will be triumph complete:
When they set off a nuke in the heart of Tikrit.
-
@DClaw1
Inspiring, very! But who is equal to the story of Christopher Hitchens' war? Think of the logistics problems; the guy has to be tailed by a booze-filled fleet of C-130's! Heroic flying, "over the Hump and straight to the chump" as one pilot put it.
-
Brave Proximity Warning
So far afield from his fellow Brothers in Arms. Will he survive the torrents of liberalism unaided by others as Resolved as he?
-
@Derbig
“Okay, in March, they're calling him "ni**er", but next January they'll be ready to lay down their lives for him? And as far as the enlisted men go, what was the headline today? Oh yeah, "Most who Die in Iraq Poor White Southerners".
Now are they gonna be eager to take an IED for Obama? Somehow, I don't see it. In fact, just as I could fell that "ni**er" coming, I can see the next right-wing gas cloud taking shape: "Troops don't Respect Obama"
Others have already answered you as I thought I did in a larger context. Jkalos knows the answer better than I do because he has been a grunt and he knows that you fight only for your buddies and platoon sergeant and politics is only something to think about when you are removed from combat areas. There has been ample testimony from Iraq veterans who were totally opposed to the need for the war and are now fighting to end it as soon as possible who did their job as professionally as they could during their tour in Iraq. You swear allegiance to the constitution not men.
While in the military, you are restricted on how you participate in political activities for very good reasons. What you hear on personal views about government and politicians from active duty military does not affect the job of the high quality professionals that we have in today’s military. They are all volunteers not draftees. That holds just as true for enlisted as it does officers.
I notice in your latest post that you are now talking about senior officers and the very top military leaders. That is a different ball game and yes they get elected partially through politics and yes they can be highly influenced by top civilian leaders. Our government wisely chose to give control to civilian leaders. What has been most disgusting to see about the Busheviks is how they have politicized the military more than any time since Nixon and to a lesser degree, LBJ and Reagan. Generals have three choices, give in to bad civilian orders, take advantage and gain stars by wooing bad civilian leaders, resign and leave the military.
Having heard from people who know Obama far better than you or I do, I have considerably more faith in his decision making skills than I do with McSame and Billary. Since Obama is a good listener and wants to hear dissenting views even more than consenting ones, I have faith that he will make far better decisions for all involved. It won’t be easy because once he can find some solution to Iraq and Afghanistan, he will have to make big and bold cuts in defense spending and everyone will have their personal priorities to save in and out of the military.
That's the last you will hear from me because I am off to a symphony concert.
-
@Proximity Warning
Did you find the WMDs? Good for you! Wow, we'll show those doubters now!
-
If you listen to John McCain...
This isn't war, it's just a very noisy peace.
The war is over, people are dancing in the streets and practically farting rainbows. Too bad they interrupted his speech to report on the growing violence in Iraq.
-
there are probably subtleties I don't know about but ...
Moktada al Sadr (and his father) come from the slums of Baghdad .. they are Shiia, they are nationalists, they have reached out to Sunnis from time to time. They oppose the formation of a tripartite Iraq ... They are wary of Iran.
My impression is the Sciri is much more pro-Iranian, they are interested in a southern Shia "state" which will have all that oil revenue (and the Kurds will have their oil fields, leaving the Sunnis with the "capital" (which they have left in droves) and little else).
I am curious of the whereabouts of Ali Sistani ... He apparently is part of the Iraqi elite (which Chalabi is part of -- the wealthy upper class) ... he saw Al Sadr as a rival ... and really did a number on his reputation in the first years of the occupation.
Al-Sadr for all intents and purposes WON the battle of Najaf ... against the United State and the "Alliance" ... it was, irrc, a large part of his expanding his base to become a national figure ...