Constructive gadfly
Published on September 16, 2007 By stevendedalus In Politics

I have been accused many times by some radical JoeUsers for not supporting our troops or for that matter even respecting them even though the bloggers knew I was a WWII Marine, which, however, was no excuse for not “supporting” our fighting men and women. In fact that in itself was all the more reason for supporting them. The problem here is in the semantics of support: it either means let the troops alone to do their job; or question the value of what they are supporting, along with the strategy their commanders dictate.

It is true in WWII—no bloggers then but an abundance of letters to the editors—the nation, not unlike on 9/11, was in unison. I’m sure had there not been severe censorship, there would be, though minimally, servicemen who were against the overriding strategy and particularized tactics but in the main it was left to pundits to question. With the exception of Tarawa—a tiny desolate atoll costing thousands of casualties within the 72 hour duration—marines in general did not say, “Why Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo or Oki?” After all, these were stepping stones to Imperial Japan. I am certain that some troops in Iraq have questioned “Why knock down this door, assault Fallujah again, Anbar two more times, climb onto the deathtrap humvee?” But I’m equally certain that it didn’t matter because they follow orders.

As far as civilians go, it is a duty in a war of choice and not clear as to its objectives requires questions just as the right wing and I continually badgered Clinton’s selected wars. 

I owe no apology to the troops for my trying to safeguard their rights as humans engaged in an arena of chaos that never should have taken place.

While some JoeUsers are prone to give me history lessons, I ask, what should their position be in face of the following facts:

The initial catalyst for the war was that Saddam promoted transnational terrorism by colluding with Al Qaeda, building WMDs, all of which constituted preëmptive war.

Hans Blix and his UN inspectors had no respect for the US.

Fraudulent Niger documents on aluminum tubes and yellow cake.

The integrity of a highly respected secretary of state and general jeopardized by a misinformed administration.

Preëmptive war defied international law, and worse partly on the shady advice of Ahmad Chalabi and his ilk.

Humanitarian realization that never materialized.

That Saddam was an evil dictator was the argument, oblivious to others who were just as evil.

Suspicion that the real motive was indeed oil and military bases in the Mideast and protecting Israel.

Endless array of Commanding Generals withdrawing from Iraq operations while our Grunts stuck it out.

The main thrust of the surge misplaced as Petraeus and Bush claimed victory in Anbar when in fact it was secured before the surge and omitting the political failure aspect.

Those of you who support the troops fighting midst this nebulous theater of war do an injustice to their rights as citizen soldiers.

You owe them an apology.



Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 16, 2007
Serving soldiers who are citizens are soldiers first, and civilians after. That's how it must be in time of war - because no war in the history of wars has ever been concluded with even a measure of success when the chain of command has been placed in jeopardy. In a battle situation there is no time to hold a focus group and debate the merits of any given battle-plan or strategy. War is about killing - killing more of theirs than they kill of ours - debates about the political merits or demerits of a war, at least among the soldiers who actually fight the battles - are conducive to only one thing; demoralization of the troops doing the actual killing.

Certainly, American servicemen and women are still citizens, but they are no longer citizens first and foremost and they, particularly those who serve voluntarily, are subject to a further and more demanding discipline. The discipline of war - and that's just as it ought to be. Those whose first duty is to question and, if necessary, hold to account the political masters of the Generals, the political originators of wars and the strategies of wars, are the citizens who remain behind - who should at all times consider it a requirement of their status as citizens that they keep those they have elected to giovern and to carry on wars in their name on a short leash. On a short leash, and with a substantial whip ready to their other hand, in order to discipline the fools who inevitably come to believe that they have been elected because they are right, and that being right means that they are at liberty to do whatever they want.

Questioning and holding to account are right and proper for citizens who remain behind. What is neither right nor proper is to actively seek to undermine an administration thast has lead the country into war, or to pubicly call into question (as Billary has recently done) the probity, integrity, and competence of a serving Commander in the Field. That she had the right to speak her mind is undeniably true. That she has a duty to question ongoing strategy (particularly when that strategy shows few or no signs of yielding success) is also true.

Whether it was in any way proper for her to do so, or to give even tacit support to the traitorly cattle of MoveOn.org is another question entirely. Since MoveOn.org and its supporters are doing everything in their power to undermine the unity essential to any nation at war, since they have (with no justification whatever) referred to Petraeus as 'betrayus' thus accusing a serving officer of betraying his country, they are as far as I can see inolved in lending aid and comfort to those who wish to see as many dead Americans as possible returning home in bodybags, so that they and their supporters including Billary are in fact nothing but traitors and should be treated as traitors.
on Sep 16, 2007
 
in lending aid and comfort to those who wish to see as many dead Americans as possible returning home in bodybags, so that they and their supporters including Billary are in fact nothing but traitors and should be treated as traitors.
To this point I was partially with you,but this is more outrageous than move on. Though over the top Move On was cheaply carried away with the rhyme and no one should have taken it seriously. As for "Billary"
That she had the right to speak her mind is undeniably true. That she has a duty to question ongoing strategy (particularly when that strategy shows few or no signs of yielding success) is also true.
what's the beef? You seem loath to even make this observation. Overall, you make good points.
on Sep 16, 2007

I don't question your right to take the president (or anyone else) to task for the war in Iraq (or anywhere else).  Not only do I respect your right to do so, but I think you have earned it more than more (including myself).  What I do question is your logic, motivation and ability to see passed your biases.

Like most people against this war, you are acting as if things are static.  You are still arguing about the justifications to go to war with Iraq, but that part of the war has been over for years.  You still say that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism because Al Qeada wasn't part of Hussien's government... but today, Iraq has become the epicenter of the war on terror, and Al Qeada, the Talliban, Syria and Iran are major players.  To argue that it has nothing to do with terrorism is both living in the past and denying reality.

As for your own service, when I bring it up, it is by way of example.  I've asked you how you would have reacted to the same dissention among Americans when you were Island Hopping and doing your duty.

The list you proves my point.  War is not static.  By the time WWII ended the U.S. was not fighting for the same reasons as when we first got involved.  When it was clear that the tactics being used weren't working, the commanders were changed and new strategies were drawn up.

As you well know, the Allies were losing miserably for a long time.  If it wasn't for Operations Overlord and the Nuking of Haroshima and Nagasaki, WWII would have lasted many many years longer.  

You can support the troops, the operation or the war on Islamist Terrorism if you want... or not.  However, in your oposition, at least have the decency to use the facts as they are now, not press inspired illusions such as Nigger denying that Hussein tried to be yellowcake or the only reason we went was WMD.

 


btw, this may come as a surprize to you, but while we disagree almost all the time, I read your articles because I enjoy them and do appreciate the insight from your experience.
on Sep 16, 2007

but today, Iraq has become the epicenter of the war on terror, and Al Qeada, the Talliban, Syria and Iran are major players. To argue that it has nothing to do with terrorism is both living in the past and denying reality.
The so-called epicenter of terrorism is overblown. The only reason that they even have a small foothold is that we are still there. When we leave the Iraqis will do as the Sunni Sheiks have done in Anbar. For us to remain because of Al Qaeda is about as ineffective as trying to track down Qaeda in Afghanistan.

btw, my list was only to remind supporters of the deceptively simple lunacy of this war. 

btw, this may come as a surprize to you, but while we disagree almost all the time, I read your articles because I enjoy them and do appreciate the insight from your experience.
I thank you for that.

on Sep 17, 2007
lw making a boo-boo
on Sep 17, 2007
OUCH LW, YOu got me there!!  Oooooooooh, I'm in trouble now!
on Sep 17, 2007
Despite the necessity for the reasons for being there today (completing the transition to a STABLE government, assisting in getting the infrastructure up and running, etc. in addition to dealing with AQI), folks who argue that this was a "Preëmptive war defied international law" are mistaken. Under international law, a cease fire agreement is just that - an agreement between both parties to STOP SHOOTING. Nowhere does it say that hostilities end. If Iraq, as was show during the Clinton administration, violated this agreement, it was well within our legal rights to resume the conflict. Since Hussein had shown no inclination to abide by agreements he made, the only way to end the hostilities was by removing him.

Are you going to say that the US forces in Operation Desert Storm were in the wrong? That liberating Kuwait, with a massive international backing no less, was against international law?

on Sep 17, 2007

The so-called epicenter of terrorism is overblown. The only reason that they even have a small foothold is that we are still there. When we leave the Iraqis will do as the Sunni Sheiks have done in Anbar. For us to remain because of Al Qaeda is about as ineffective as trying to track down Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Oh yes, if we pull out of Iraq, out of the goodness of their hearts the others will leave Iraq to let them work things out for themselves.  Iran, Syria, Al Qeada, The Taliban and the other players have no more interest in Iraq than to fight for the rights of the Iraqis agaisnt the evil empire that is the U.S.

btw, my list was only to remind supporters of the deceptively simple lunacy of this war. 

Should we list all the parallels between the accusations of lies to get us into WWII and Iraq?

on Sep 17, 2007

Under international law, a cease fire agreement is just that - an agreement between both parties to STOP SHOOTING. Nowhere does it say that hostilities end. If Iraq, as was show during the Clinton administration, violated this agreement, it was well within our legal rights to resume the conflict. Since Hussein had shown no inclination to abide by agreements he made, the only way to end the hostilities was by removing him.

Exactly, which is why ceasefire agreements are a mistake from their inception.  The U.S. has NEVER been able to enforce a ceasefire agreement without appearing to be the bad guy.

Prs. Bush (Sr) made 2 major mistakes in Desert Shield/Storm.  The first was going to the United Nations. Yes, it gained him some benefits and respect in the short term, but the UN ended up betraying the Coalition and funding Hussein's killing fields, rapes and tortures.  Any blood on Hussein's hands is shared by the UN.

In fact, the UN has never met an opportunity to sponser rape and murder they didn't like.

 


on Sep 17, 2007

Stevendedalus, Congratulations for a Three-peat Feature!!!

on Sep 18, 2007
Nowhere does it say that hostilities end. If Iraq, as was show during the Clinton administration, violated this agreement, it was well within our legal rights to resume the conflict. Since Hussein had shown no inclination to abide by agreements he made, the only way to end the hostilities was by removing him.
I made this same point on JU years ago and went unheeded but clearly ending the truce in no way meant ground forces.
on Sep 18, 2007

In fact, the UN has never met an opportunity to sponser rape and murder they didn't like.
I suggested in a blog some time ago that UN members pledge to develop democracy in their respective countries or get thrown out.

Stevendedalus, Congratulations for a Three-peat Feature!!!
Thanks! Did I deserve it?

on Sep 18, 2007
Are you going to say that the US forces in Operation Desert Storm were in the wrong? That liberating Kuwait, with a massive international backing no less, was against international law?
Dumb parallel.
on Sep 18, 2007
Dumb parallel.

It's not a parallel. The initial push for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the ground invasion of Iraq was a continuation of the Desert Storm activities. Since the hostilities never officially ended, Iraq's violation of the cease fire agreement meant we had every legitimate reason we could want to go in and finish the job. All of the other excuses given (WMD, Al qaeda, etc.) were unnecessary and distracting. If Bush and crew had come forward and said "We need to finish what we started the first time because of the various attacks on our troops.", how many of us would not have supported him? And it wouldn't be coming back to bite him in the backside today.

I made this same point on JU years ago and went unheeded but clearly ending the truce in no way meant ground forces.


Oh, really? Then what would you have done? More air raids, with the added expense and inevitable civilian casualties? More sanctions? Oh, yeah, those were so OBVIOUSLY working. (insert appropriate notice of sarcasm here).

Hussein, and Iraq by extension, gave up any and all pretense of seeking a peaceful resolution when he continued to fire upon US (and allied) aircraft over the no-fly zone. Since the ceasefire (or the seeking of same) was a good part of why we didn't go into Iraq the first time, he willfully gave up any protection from a ground invasion.

And yes, it did require ground forces. Due to Saddam's actions of constantly moving around, as well as the air defenses around Baghdad, special ops actions or air raids to take him out were not given significant chances of success. The fastest way to remove him from power was to remove his power base (the Baath party and the army, mostly one and the same).
on Sep 18, 2007
Now I can say welcome back (poo-poo head) and really mean it!
I's okay to say shithead, but thanks all the same.
2 Pages1 2