Letters to the Editor
-
I think the authors, and the left, are more caught up in delusional, sanctified thinking.
Don Rumsfeld had it RIGHT! He wanted to figure out how to operate the military on a less costly basis. Lighter, with fewer people. More ass-kickers, and fewer typists and food service workers in places like the Pentagon. More and better technological weapons, to find people like bin Laden hiding in caves and vaporize them. Better intellignece, to root out people like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad hiding in Pakistani neighborhoods and whisk them off for unrestrained interrogation. There are always problems in warfare, but I perefer Rumsfeld's vision to these authors' vision.
Naturally, now, these authors will go on a book tour that will feature them on 10 or 12 different NPR and PBS interview programs. The nation's public broadcasting system used essentially to campaign against the current mission of U.S. armed forces. (Of course the left will say, "But we're sticking up for American military personnnel!" However, the "sticking up for them" consists mostly of sticking up for having more of them, with more costly health care, and more benefits, and more low-tech costs. Not killing more of our enemies more efficiently and at lower cost.
-
Gary, I have a memory of a prediction of the cost
at the onset of the war, which was also in the 4 trillion range. I believe that estimate came out of Stanford, and was put out there as the war began. Too lazy to look it up, but I do remember the cries of outrage that greeted that estimate.
-
Iraq And 9/11
This Administration continues to link the attacks on 9/11 to the Iraq War. They are perpetuating a lie, pure and simple, that Iraq (or forces supported by Iraq) was in some way to blame for the attacks on that day.
The fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Arabs continues to escape the Administration and that goes a long way to explain the the twisted logic and mislead justification for the invasion of Iraq. Neocon stupidity prevailed and we are left with human casualties and financial ruin.
Three trillion dollars is nothing compared to the loss of respect for America and the increased hatred of our foreign policies by the rest of the world.
Bush has merely increased the fodder for future terrorist action against the US.
-
curious
The section of this article that concerns the inadequate care that our veterans receive should be of particular interest to everyone, because it's the clearest preview of "universal health care" that exists today. My fiance is a doctor at a VA hospital, and she deals with the difficulties in that system every day.
The constant repitition of "here's how the Iraq war was a bad thing now that we have the advantage of hindsight, and by the way, Bush sucks" articles makes me wonder, why does no one ever bring up the cost, in dollars or lives, of World War II?
When the US entered that war, many in the country wanted us to just stay home and let Europe sort out their problems. Then we were attacked by Japan, so we declared war on Germany and invaded North Africa. Why was no one outraged by this "change of course"? Sure, Germany and Japan were allies, but President Clinton's attorney general showed concrete evidence of Al Qaeda's cooperation with Iraq in 1997 when they brought their indictment of Osama bin Laden to the courts. Yet an invasion of Iraq is seen is "taking our eye off the ball" and somehow unconnected to Al Qaeda.
Now, there's no argument that it could have been handled much better, and that the reasons given for going in were flimsy, but why was no one complaining about the cost of going after Hitler or Tojo? Where was the demand for an exit strategy in early 1944?
If it wasn't for oil, because oil prices have gone up since the invasion, and if it wasn't for popularity, since Bush's has never been lower, could it be that there are reasons to topple a dictator and free a people that are more important than money and worldwide popularity?
Speaking of "economic cost", we had over half a million casualties in that war, and yet the years following were some of the best economic times that this country has ever enjoyed. How was that possible? We fought a massive, world-wide war and didn't go into debt. How did that happen?
Could it be that the reason for our deficit isn't the war after all? Sure it contributes to it, but when you increase spending in all areas of government, you increase debt. How many entitlement programs do we have now compared to the 1940s? How easy is it for people to sit at home with their hands out compared to then, and what is their "economic cost" to this country?
One last note: no amount of diverted cash will "fix" Social Security. The best fix, besides privatization, is to repeal the 1983 law that allows Congress to spend the excess each year, so that the money being contributed will actually build up and be available for future generations.
-
"the "sticking up for them" consists mostly of sticking up for having more of them, with more costly health care" -- Elephantman
I smell sneering condenscension for those who actually put on a uniform and stand in the ranks. The kind of sneering that comes through when George Will explains why he claimed whe wanted to go to divinity school only until his chances of being drafted diminished. The arrogance of somebody like Jonah "my mom got me this job at NR" Goldberg toward those who did not choose to hang around the cocktail-party circuit of Washington to assert what masculine warriors they are.
Yes, Elephantman, the troops are really just a bunch of recipients of care from a nanny state to you. Why, they actually expect to be PAID instead of going over there to kill Iraqis for free, as the free marketplace would expect them to do!
When I was much younger, those of us sleeping on the roof of an armored vehicle, stoically ignoring the rain, warming ourselves by standing behind the idling engines of a Chinook, eating crap out of cans and otherwise doing our best all knew that people like you sneered down your noses at us when.
Do you have to make it so obvious?