Memo to the Troops

Published on October 21, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Why would you retain loyalty for a commander in chief that ordered you into a combat zone without sufficient protective gear?

Were you that naive to think that a war of choice had such urgency, equivalent to post Pearl Harbor, that you would forgive your leaders for lack of preparation and strategy?

Why hold Kerry hostage for not voting the $87 billion when you knew that appropriations were but an Administrative afterthought and political ploy, and would take months to implement, nor even now have you perceived its effects?

Is not this afterthought evidence enough that the administration and Pentagon deliberately sent you into harm’s way without the necessary numbers and combat equipment?

Have you no guilt that your presence in Iraq has preëmpted the support for your comrades in Afghanistan?

Are you still not questioning your commander in chief while you patrolled the streets of Baghdad in your “civilian” humvees lacking side armor?

Did you still feel comfortable in your body armor that could barely stop a sidearm bullet without the necessary ceramic component?

Are you not misleading your families when you echo your president that the situation is well in hand when you know it isn’t — especially when a recent survey states that two-thirds of military personnel and their families believe Bush underestimated the number of troops needed for your mission?

Are you that gung ho that you do not harbor the slightest resentment that the much heralded coalition is nowhere to be seen, tucked away in their enclaves?

Are you still convinced that Kerry, who had some combat experience, would not empathize with your combat needs and forge a strategic initiative designed to strengthen the front lines and end the war with honor?

Wouldn’t you rather have General Zinni or Wes Clark as your Defense Secretary or either one coaxed out of retirement for appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

Is it not time to be honest with yourselves?

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

stevendedalus

on Oct 21, 2004

Would you accept this line of questioning from someone when you went off to fight in World War II with the Marines? Seriously answer it honestly, because I know not all soldiers in World War II were well equipped and I know that some plans failed (i.e. Battle of the Bulge, etc.).

We thought "bullet proof" vests were for the Mafia. Of course, we didn't have anywhere near today's combat gear and certainly didn't expect what didn't exist. After the disaster at Tarawa, they did come up with the amphibious tractor, though. The difference was in the kind of war, a war of necessity and world freedom that was not open to debate. A war of choice, however, is much different. To call it "sedition" is ridiculous when I perceive troops waving the flag without the necessary gear that should have been available to them to assist them in keeping them out of harm's way. All I'm doing is trying to do is to awaken them from their foxholes that they shouldn't be so docile as to defend an administration that recklessly drew them into a combat zone without the decent minimal care for their lives. Grunts are citizens too; they can vote for whomever they choose, but they should not knee-jerk into the decision without reassessing leadership. This has nothing whatever to do with sedition or encouraging insubordination--when you get orders you follow them loyally. I'm talking about the scuttlebutt after the fact; obviously, most grunts are Republican so naturally they favor the current commander in chief but if most were honest they would acknowledge that it is because he is a Republican and not that he had their safety in mind. Grunts that are Democrats, too, surely not as many, would vote for Bush simply because he is the commander in chief as did those in WWII, not many because most were teenagers, aligned themselves with FDR despite the many blunders, which I would be first to acknowedge. But there is a vast difference in the scope of WWII and Iraq; after all, it is a limited war against an enemy and would be ludicrous to compare with the enemies of the big war subject to infinitely more problems and challenges.

stevendedalus

on Oct 21, 2004

Clark doesn't get along with other generals.

Perhaps that's a plus with today's Pentagon.

He's calling for VOTES. Not a revolution, not an insurrection.

Thanks, friend.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 21, 2004

(Grim X is in the Army)

I am medically retired Army and now I am a college student.

Former Army, but still was Army Active Duty, from a long line of Army Soldiers.

CraigAlan

on Oct 21, 2004

Thanks, friend.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, stevendedalus.

Where'd drmiller go? I was just beginning to enjoy my debate with him.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 21, 2004

I have at least two close friends of mine over there now in Iraq, Jedziniak (US Army 11B with 101st ABN) and Voskoyan (US Marines Infantry), I have a couple of friends who have been over there, one was a Chemical Corp Sgt, who got to deal with a lot of things first hand, including lack of infantry support.

The only people I have met that seem to be traumatized or deeply effected from their tour in Iraq were Medics, probably due to the fact that everything that you could ever imagine seeing in a field hospital they have seen, that and probably the Morticians are the most effected mentally. We had one medic come to Fort Benning to change his MOS from Medic to 11B (Infantry), he did fine for a couple of weeks than just went downhill, last I heard he was being sent back to the Medics and most likely Honorably discharged because he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress (don't know if I have the name quite right) from what he has seen.

Than again we have had infantry come back and they were just fine mentally. So it is a hell of mess whether you think the war is wrong or right, it is a mess on a soldier's mental state, some get through it and some don't, I think most do because they have their duty to the United States Army. Anyways I got off-topic so I will go back to responding to Steve's response.

I perceive troops waving the flag without the necessary gear that should have been available to them to assist them in keeping them out of harm's way.

Once again I know that my fellow infantrymen in the United States Army have their gear (especially since some of them came back this last summer and said they had it), the ones who probably did not are rear guard and personnel in the Quartermaster Corp. Though that is being taken care of by General Cody the VCSA, who said they are buying 800,000 sets of this new gear for the currently 640,000 Active Duty soldiers, so if they already had the new gear they are going to get even newer gear but it does take time does it not? Can't expect to supply the entire military in one day with all the new gear when the money is being held up by Congress, right?

I'm talking about the scuttlebutt after the fact; obviously, most grunts are Republican so naturally they favor the current commander in chief but if most were honest they would acknowledge that it is because he is a Republican and not that he had their safety in mind.

Actually most Enlisted are Democrats or at the very least 50-50, most officers are Republican or Conservative, in the Army at least.

As for them just voting for C in C, that is wrong you and I know Soldiers can think for themselves, because if they only supported the C in C they would not have voted for Dole in 1996, right? Just because soldiers must follow the C in C, and respect him/her, does not mean Soldiers can think for themselves. Each soldier thinks for him/herself and makes up their own mind not because they are ordered to support a certain way.

Well I typed enough for now.

- GX

Lee1776

on Oct 21, 2004

As a soldier, I will inform you a few things that a non-soldier who sips from the Moore and Kerry’s cup don't know or refuse to believe.

Why would you retain loyalty for a commander in chief that ordered you into a combat zone without sufficient protective gear?

Loyalty is a value that is in all branches of the service, we do our job to the C-in-C even when we personally do not agree with him. It is at the ballot box where we will post our disagreements to the President (if we have one); unlike others who are so willing to throw loyalty to the wind and the media every time a camera appears to be near.

For the eight years that Clinton was in office the Democrats short changed the military every chance they had (check Kerry's record on this). President Bush had no control over the first year’s budget of his Presidency. In the next two years that followed that body armor and armored vehicles you keep screaming about was starting to be issued to the infantry and armored units. Sorry to say it had not reached the non-combat units before the war kicked off. That is going from a point where only Special Forces had it and nobody else, to all the combat arms having it in two years. To be honest, that is a very fast change for the military in general. The bidding process alone takes at least six months on a fast track. Something Kerry's is now complaining Bush had avoided with Hallabertin.

Add on at least six months for the producers to tool up and crank out enough for the 400,000 combat arms personnel. That’s not even counting the armored vehicles which takes much longer or the fact that it cost near $40 million just to cancel the existing contract for the soft sides (something I remember reading happened before the Iraq war even started). It takes time for a military to be upgraded after so long of neglect.

Were you that naive to think that a war of choice had such urgency, equivalent to post Pearl Harbor, that you would forgive your leaders for lack of preparation and strategy?

If we could see into the future like Kerry says he can, then I would have complaints. You need to read Gen. Tommy Franks book about the strategy used. It worked wonders. The estimates of causalities were in the 10,000 mark for some liberal rags for the initial invasion. Churchill and Roosevelt had made plans for post war Europe well before the end of WWII, they just forgot to add the USSR factor in and look what happened, a Europe cut in two, needing a Marshal Plan (created after the war) to save what was left of the West. One of my jobs is to produce plans for just in case events. Seldom do they work perfectly. Bush had a plan, it may not have worked perfect, but it was there. Just because Kerry says he didn’t have a plan does not make it true. Look at Kerry's, plan it is just like Bush’s but with us pulling out much sooner leaving the country to fall apart as South Vietnam did in the early 70s.

Is not this afterthought evidence enough that the administration and Pentagon deliberately sent you into harm’s way without the necessary numbers and combat equipment?

No, because the Generals on the ground said that no more troops were needed. If you say Bremer said we needed more. Who cares, if I was President I would listen to the Generals not the politicians. As for equipment use my statement above.

Have you no guilt that your presence in Iraq has preëmpted the support for your comrades in Afghanistan?

No, I think Afghanistan is doing very well. The elections went off without any violence.

You may say Kerry's canned line about Osama escaping, but most soldiers believe we got him. The only thing we have heard from him is only one or two audio tape that could easily been made before then. Also we have over half his know body guards in jail. Why would his body guards not be with him?

Did you still feel comfortable in your body armor that could barely stop a sidearm bullet without the necessary ceramic component?

When Bush did it, Yes. You are going to have to send me a link on this one, all armor issued to my units before departure from Fort Lewis received the full set. All units leaving mobilization stations are being issued armor. But when Clinton sent us into Bosnia without any armor at all, NO.

Are you still not questioning your commander in chief while you patrolled the streets of Baghdad in your “civilian” humvees lacking side armor?

Again see the first response on this post. Again Clinton did the same thing in Bosnia.

No, I tell my wife what I hear from those that are there on the ground. Which is not 100% of what Bush is saying, but it is a hell of allot closer then what Kerry is preaching. There are allot of good things happening there too, it is just the Media makes money by showing the worse. Oliver North is the only newsmen who are reporting the good side that the soldiers deployed see daily. Some of use know that sometimes things will get worse before they get better. While people like Kerry does not have the fortitude to take some lumps and will pull stakes the first time something does not go perfect. Remember we got our asses handed to us on a platter the first year of WWII.

Are you that gung ho that you do not harbor the slightest resentment that the much heralded coalition is nowhere to be seen, tucked away in their enclaves?

I'm happy with the coalition that we have. The Brits, Pols, Japanese, Koreans and Auses are good fighters. The Germans are coming now even if Kerry is not elected. The Russians are to busy right now. That leave the French, who have publicly said they will not send any troops no matter who is in office, or the Chinese (Clinton's strategic Allies). While Kerry has publicly insulted the Allies we do have now. I don't know where Kerry is going to find this Grand Coalition he is talking about to take over Iraq when we leave. Could you please enlighten me, because Kerry has not. Remember Hitler believed that the US and England was still willing to talk peace and there was phantom armies coming to save him in his bunker. Look what those delusions did for him.

WITH HONOR???????, The man has no honor. The man left the country of South Vietnam get annexed by the North and didn't even want use to help Kuwait with our first "Grand UN sanctioned Coalition".

Sorry to say, I have more experience on the front line then that man does. You can ask over 250 of his comrades from Vietnam what they think of his Vietnam experience. Franklin Roosevelt, Lincoln, Adams, ect.. These Presidents had no combat experience. My uncle fought from Normandy to Berlin and has more combat infantry experience then all the present Generals combined, but I would not leave him in charge of mowing my lawn, let alone being President. Any experience that Kerry had gained during the Vietnam war matters less to me then the experience he got from denouncing the war while it still was going on in order to be elected to political office.

PS: Kerry spent less time in Vietnam then Bush spent in flight training.

Wouldn’t you rather have General Zinni or Wes Clark as your Defense Secretary or either one coaxed out of retirement for appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

I think he has some good Generals now. To show how smart Wes Clark was in Bosnia, he had an attack company shipped by a one month slow boat from the US, while a full company was sitting in Germany ready to fly there. If I was going to bring a General out of retirement it would be Swarzkoff. I think Franks would be another good one. I would not want the poster child of a political hack put in charge. That maybe one of those reasons you don't understand why the military wants Bush.

Is it not time to be honest with yourselves?

The thing is, WE ARE BEING HONEST WITH OUR SELVES. It is you who are ignoring the fact that we, the people within the military, know what’s going on. Kerry and his people are saying anything to get elected weather it is true or not. Unfortunately you’re willing to take the word of someone that has no idea what real life is like, over those who have the boots on the ground.

That is why Kerry is only getting 16% of the military vote.

That is My Two Cents
PS: Sorry Steve I forgot you where in the military meny years ago. Please disregard any snide remarks above saying that you was not.

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #16 By: stevendedalus - 10/21/2004 4:31:56 PM
Would you accept this line of questioning from someone when you went off to fight in World War II with the Marines? Seriously answer it honestly, because I know not all soldiers in World War II were well equipped and I know that some plans failed (i.e. Battle of the Bulge, etc.).
We thought "bullet proof" vests were for the Mafia. Of course, we didn't have anywhere near today's combat gear and certainly didn't expect what didn't exist. After the disaster at Tarawa, they did come up with the amphibious tractor, though. The difference was in the kind of war, a war of necessity and world freedom that was not open to debate. A war of choice, however, is much different

Pardon me but the European theatre was *not* awar of necessity. The pacific theatre was different now *that* was a war of necessity! The Euorpean theatre was a war of choice. And in the European theatre they did not al ways have the required equipment either. And we ain't talking about bullet proof vests either! Try short on ammo of ALL kinds, gasoline, tanks, trucks, aircraft, etc...

Grunts are citizens too; they can vote for whomever they choose, but they should not knee-jerk into the decision without reassessing leadership. This has nothing whatever to do with sedition or encouraging insubordination--when you get orders you follow them loyally. I'm talking about the scuttlebutt after the fact; obviously, most grunts are Republican so naturally they favor the current commander in chief but if most were honest they would acknowledge that it is because he is a Republican and not that he had their safety in mind.

They don't need any help from anyone on who to vote for.From your original post one could construe that you believe that they need help to find the right path. When in actuality nothing could be further from the truth!

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #11 By: Texas Wahine - 10/21/2004 4:16:58 PM
Cause he's not in the Army . . . he's a college student

I'm sorrry, I was under the mistaken impression that Grim was still in. But besides that does that mean his words carry any less weight than one who is currently in?

Texas Wahine

on Oct 21, 2004

But besides that does that mean his words carry any less weight than one who is currently in?

Yes and no. No because he understands the military and has good insight on issues that impact our troops. Yes because it isn't his ass on the line.

drmiler

on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #24 By: Texas Wahine - 10/21/2004 5:32:11 PM
But besides that does that mean his words carry any less weight than one who is currently in?

Yes and no. No because he understands the military and has good insight on issues that impact our troops. Yes because it isn't his ass on the line.

I'm sorry but here is where we part company. Maybe his butt isn't on the line presently but it was at one time as was *mine* 75-81 USN. And as such (being Americans too) our words should carry just as much weight as anyone elses.

citahellion

on Oct 21, 2004

I have to agree with drmiler on the sedition issue.
I did not see, anywhere in the "memo", any indication that its intent was to make you go vote for someone. Yes, it mentioned Kerry by name once. It also mentioned Bush, Wesley Clark, and several others who aren't running for president. I did not see the word "VOTE" anywhere.
What I did see was a bunch of leading questioned apparently designed to foment anger, discontent, and resentment, with a final call to "be honest with yourselves" which implies that you should acknowledge and act upon those feelings.

Texas Wahine

on Oct 21, 2004

Well, I disagree with you drmiler. You cannot claim that military and foreign policy decisions affect you in the same way they affect an active duty soldier. While I have nothing but gratitude and appreciation for the faithful service you and Grim have both given, it's not you guys making the sacrifices and facing the danger today. There is a distinction.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 21, 2004

stevendedalus

on Oct 22, 2004

What I did see was a bunch of leading questioned apparently designed to foment anger, discontent, and resentment, with a final call to "be honest with yourselves" which implies that you should acknowledge and act upon those feelings.

Fair enough but it was clear that I was talking about reflections of the military.

Sorry Steve I forgot you where in the military meny years ago.

Accepted without malice.

Any experience that Kerry had gained during the Vietnam war matters less to me then the experience he got from denouncing the war while it still was going on in order to be elected to political office.

Nevertheless, he walked the walk, however short. I don't resent him just because I spent 22 months in the Pacific.

As I said in a recent blog, I'm tired of hearing Kerry bring up Tora Bora and I believe bin Laden is either dead or dying from kidney ailment, in either case he's been rendered ineffective.Notwithstanding, the elections--I praised it incidentally in a blog--the country is still overrun with warlords and terrorists.

I repeat This has nothing whatever to do with sedition or encouraging insubordination--when you get orders you follow them loyally.

WiseFawn

on Oct 22, 2004

Sedition is a ridiculous claim! Asking these questions is obviously asking soldiers why they would consider voting for Bush, under the circunstances, and not Kerry? You guys are the ones that act as if they can not think on their own. As if even hearing these questions would be harmful. Shall I now expect to hear that stevendedalus has been hauled in for questioning?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!