Letters to the Editor
-
Purgo: Overwhelming public support?
I remember the country being pretty seriously divided over the Iraq invasion. Wasn't there a huge protest rally in Washington just before the invasion? Admittedly, the hawks were more effective at intimidation (witness the ridiculous spectacle of people smashing Dixie Chicks albums with bulldozers), but anti-war sentiment was very real, and by no means confined to a small fringe.
As for Titus Pullo, I'd believe your Marine before I believe some loudmouth chickenhawk who never saw military service in his life -- like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and a great many more in this administration. But I also recognize that a man who has sacrificed an enormous amount, including the lives of many of his friends, has a vested interest in believing that the sacrifice was worthwhile, no matter what the grim facts to the contrary may be.
-
Marines and Reid's Whoopin'
So, Mr. Pullo, what's the end result of Reid's or Grieve's ass-whooping from the men in your unit? True, they may be scared to go to Iraq -- I sure would be. I agree that Congress needs to exercise its power of the purse and take some action to correct the dreadful outcome of the horrid neocon war policies of this administration.
But to call Reid a chickenshit for not going to Iraq to tell a marine face-to-face that the battle is lost... well really what's the point? Saying that the war is lost is not a reflection on the service-men and -women. It's an indication that the policymakers screwed the pooch.
And your assertion that Grieve is whining, well isn't that the point of the media? To complain, to highlight missteps or poor policy or ineffective leaders? To ensure that our so-called representatives are actually serving the public good?
-
"tell me how Reid is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy"
Well, assuming our enemy is the folks who attacked on 9/11 (that would be Al quaida), and their main strategic goal is to foment a civilizational clash between the west and islam in order to eventually re-establish the caliphate.
Presumably, if we believe our Glorious Leader, the reason for his animosity is that they "hate our freedom".
Therefore, let's ask ourseleves who is most responsible for turning a regional conflict into a potential civilizational clash? Who is responsible for stripping POWs (sorry "enemy combatants") of their Geneva protections? Who has advocated a theory of executive rule in which one of the co-equal branches of our government is much much more equal than the others? Who has asserted the right and practiced locking up American citizens without trial and torturing them until they're crazy? Who has asserted the right to ignore the laws of this country if he feels it is in the interest of national security as determined solely by him?
Let me give you a hint: it ain't Harry Reid.
Krugman pointed this out YEARS ago in a column calling Bush a Manchurian Candidate and this has only gotten truer as the situation has deteriorated.
And Titus, please if you don't mind, answer the orginal question: "what's the best possible outcome you can see in Iraq from this point forward?"
-
Question for Titus Pullo
I use my real name too, but don't know what that means in the long run.
Anyway -- here's the question: Based on your comments denigrating Sen. Reid, is it fair to say that you do NOT approve of civilian control of the military? Or do you put a finer point on it -- should only those civilians WHO HAVE SERVED IN THE MILITARY be allowed to become President and Commander in Chief, or members of Congress? Like it or not, Congress does have constitutional duties and powers related to the military; thankfully, the President does not have unilateral control of the military in every sense.
Secondary questions -- do you admit the generally accepted fact that Pres. Bush had to get rid of a large part (maybe even most) of the senior military command connected with the war in Iraq to find someone like Petraus who would implement the "surge strategy"? And what do you make of the senior generals and admirals who reportedly turned down offers or inquiries to become the "war czar" for this President? Are THEY "chickenshits" too?
Is everyone who disagrees with this President and his strategy a "chickenshit"? Is it necessary to stoop to such idiotic name-calling? Does it make you TOUGH and a non-sissy? Does being TOUGH make you right, and those you disagree with wrong?
Grow up and act like an adult. Disagree without being monumentally disagreeable yourself, OK? That goes for others who like to throw the trash-talk around too...
-
"...aid and comfort to the enemy."
Wouldn't that be total 5 year incompetence by the opposition, even to the point of getting the local populace to oppose the terrorist?
Wouldn't that be coming in to a peaceful population and watching it devolve into civil war?
Wouldn't that be sending untrained, unarmored troops, that speak no more than a few unintelligible phrases in the local dialect, into an area where the main idea is to win the hearts of minds of the locals?
Some fool politicians two continents and an ocean away? Who cares?
-
Men, man your keyboards
::newsreel flickering::
The men of the 101st fighting Keyboardists are hard at work protecting your freedoms. Your freedom of speech:
"Reid is giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
Your freedom of press:
"I think the media is to blame for all the bad news coming out of iraq."
Your freedom against unlawful imprisonment:
"If you're not a lawbreaker, you shouldn't care about habeus corpus."
Your freedom to assemble and address your greivances to your government:
"Democrats are traitors."
So next time you hear "Support your troops", tie a yellow ribbon around your tree for all the hard working men on the front lines with the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. Put a sticker on your SUV. Go shopping. Buy some gas. Because our boys in Iraq need the support that you provide to the men of the 101st fighting Keyboardists, so that they can continue to put the lives of good americans at risk for your freedom. And if you don't, you're a godless terrorist.
-
Chickenhawk or Chicken Salad?
The so-called surge (read: escalation) is not a strategy. The desire to tamp down the daily carnage in Baghdad is not a strategy. They are, at best, operations in search of a strategy.
This war was lost before it was started, because it was based on lies about non-existent WMD and imaginary connections to al-Qaeda and 9/11. The U.S. invasion touched off a struggle for power between two key factions in post-Saddam Iraq; and the Bush-Cheney neocons had no plan for dealing with the inevitable Sunni-Shiite reckoning. Instead, the occupation consists only of ad-hoc operations which invariably involve lots of driving around and kicking down of doors, toward no discernable goal (though at great cost).
I can understand why those "on the ground" support their "mission". I mean, my god, how could they get out of bed and risk their lives every day if they did NOT believe it was for a good cause? But that is why the Constitution places decisions of war and peace not with individual soldiers or "battlefield" commanders, but with an elected Congress that is responsible to the public. (Red state christians and corporate lobbyists, mainly; but still.)
This entire fiasco was cooked up by a bunch of chickenhawks, a surprising number of whom look startlingly like Karl Rove and talk in soft feminine voices like Alberto Gonzales. America's and indeed the world's anger should be directed at them, not at those like Sen. Reid who are heroically trying to stop the insanity known as this generation's Vietnam.