<p>My own attitude is a lot like that described by originaloog: I thought the war was a horrible mistake from Day 1, and I am dismayed by the long-term harm that it continues to do to our country, but I would be more than happy to have our President turn out to be right some time. The current situation is just so horrible and hopeless; I would far rather be proved wrong and have some measure of peace and stability in that part of the world. I also think that it’s not at all obvious that immediate withdrawal is the right thing to do.</p>
<p>But here’s why I don’t express more glee at the good news that “seeps” out of Iraq: Because more often than not, it has turned out not to be good news at all. All those great stories at the outset about our military successes – and you’ll have to take my word for it that I was plenty happy about that then; if we were going to war, I sure wanted it to work out they way our leaders said it would – turned out very shortly to be part and parcel of a massive strategic miscalculation that put us in the current pickle. The constitution and democratic government? It was an obvious disaster then – playing to the American electorate, and having nothing to do with the rule of law or democracy in Iraq – and it has turned out to be worse than I thought possible. Capturing Saddam was great, except look how beautifully that has worked out. And all the hoopla over Saddam, his relatives, Zarqawi just depresses me because it reminds me how many people think that will make a difference, and I don’t. (Also, I kind of believe that if you’re fighting to establish the rule of law, executions by bombing are a poor way to accomplish your goal.)</p>
<p>Also, I have to laugh at your choice of words – as if all this great news was “seeping” out of Iraq. The Administration, which has the biggest megaphone in existence, is quick to trumpet anything that looks remotely like a success.</p>
<p>I haven’t responded to this thread before, but I’ll tell you exactly what I thought when I read the original story: That’s hopeful. It would be great if it can be sustained. If I were running the show, I might have waited a few weeks to try to tell this story, because if it turns out to be nothing but a short pause in the killing, this story is going to contribute to the impression that our leaders are deluded.</p>
<p>And that’s what I think today, too. I would never have been reasonable for anyone to believe the new strategy would work overnight. I hope the new strategy works, but really the last week tells me nothing one way or the other about whether it will. The Administration’s gun-jumping “good news” claim on the basis of one good night only makes things look worse than they really are. But how they really are is still plenty bad, and there hasn’t been any actual good news.</p>
<p>And this is part of the pathetic world view of the dwindling band of Bush supporters: that any of the above makes any substantial positive difference. It’s a cartoon-world checkers-playing mentality that ignores the fundamentals of the driving political, ethnic, and religious forces that are rending the reason and which via the USA’s clumsy arrogance has made the region grotesquely worse for our interests, and a huge cost of blood and dollars, while ignoring or devoting insufficient resources to the problem roots in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the endless cycle of mutual stupidity between the Palestinians and the Israelis that underlies everything. Our involvement in Iraq has done more to fuel terrorist recruiting than anything else. “Cheering” the cited events is like crowing about how clean your wing mirror is when you’ve crashed your car into a bridge abutment.</p>
<p>
For the most part, not happening. Another one of those desperate Rovian propaganda riffs to get people to **** and clap louder that, as with so many administration spins about Iraq, bear little or no resemblance to the reality on the ground.</p>
<p>
Hope only to the profoundly ignorant who haven’t a clue about they dynamics of Iraqi society and politics. Three years ago, I said that the best the U.S. could hope for, from a menu of stable, democratic, and pro-American was two out of three. Our colossal misunderstanding and mismanagement has now reduced that to one out of three…if we’re lucky. Folks who cheered the Iraqi constitution and subsequent elections were chasing will o’wisps and clutching Fools Gold.</p>
<p>I read the news that “only” ten bodies were reported in the morgue instead of the usual “40 to 50”–we’re supposed to jump up and down? Today it’s back to 60 or so. This is civil war, folks.</p>
<p>Look, we WON the war. Having supported Saddam’s chemical weapons attacks on his own people and on Iran, having killed a million people - half of them children under age 5, having lied to the entire world, the U.S. deposed Saddam Hussein (making sure that he not be tried for the chemical weapons attacks), found and destroyed the thousands of tons of WMD, and installed a democratic puppet government in Baghdad, creating more than two million refugees, including virtually all the secular elite.</p>
<p>Now we are surprised when they are united by only one thing - wanting to kill us. </p>
<p>We would LIKE there to be stablity; we would LIKE there to be an end to killing; we would LIKE there to be democracy; we would LIKE there to be permanent U.S. military bases in the country; we would like there to be U.S. control of the oil pipelines; we would LIKE Halliburton to make a few bucks. Other than the last, I think we need to learn it isn’t always about us.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I’ll bet there isn’t a single major neocon theorist who doesn’t own shares in America, I mean, well, you know what I mean.</p>
<p>Whatever happened to the Coalition of the Willing? :eek:</p>
<p>Maybe the neocons would be more believable if they showed the least sign of concern for making sure our soldiers are properly equipped and our wounded veterans are properly cared for. </p>
<p>You want to compare deafening silences?</p>
<p>I posted about the possibility that DragonSkin armor, currently used by the Secret Service, might save lives and limbs for our troops. Not one of you said anything.</p>
<p>I posted, as did others, about the awful conditions at Walter Reed’s outpatient facility. Where the physical plant is deplorable, brain-injured vets often get no services to help them make or keep appointments, veterans are forgotten for weeks on end, and soldiers with psychological problems are put in charge of suicidal patients. Not one you expressed the least bit of concern or regret for how our soldiers are treated once they’re of no use to you.</p>
<p>Not one of you even seems to have voted against the politicians in your party who consistently voted NO on issues of interest to military families and veterans, according to both the IAVA and the DAV, including rehabilitation services for brain-injured vets.</p>
<p>And now? </p>
<p>Now you all are gleeful about sending 21,500 more troops into a situation where we KNOW they won’t have enough trucks, jammers, or armored vehicles. Not one of you has murmured a word of regret about this lack of equipment. I don’t think you’ve even acknowledged it. </p>
<p>SJMom wants to know why someone doesn’t suggest something “intelligent” instead of wanting to know why she doesn’t send her kid to war. I’ve asked time and time again for those of you who live in states that are not carrying their fair share of the National Guard and Reserve mobilizations to please advocate for more troops from your state to go, so that the units from states like Vermont, Hawaii, and yes, Louisiana, that have done more than their fair share can have a respite. Again, the silence was deafening.</p>
<p>“Maybe the neocons would be more believable if they showed the least sign of concern for making sure our soldiers are properly equipped and our wounded veterans are properly cared for.”</p>
<p>Make it profitable and they’ll show concern.</p>
<p>People are not the concern of the war machine. It’s all about corporate profit.</p>
<p>Let’s see…lots of industries are very concerned about a profitable continual war, including,</p>
<p>Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, Bechtel and Halliburton, Blackwater and Vinnell Corp. Of course, Exxon has also had a few swell years.</p>
<p>The war machine has been very profitable to some people. Those people, of course, do not have loved ones on the front lines, so they have only the potential for financial gain, not emotional loss.</p>
<p>Fundingfather: According to this poll of just under a year ago, 72% of our troops favored a pull-out within a year’s time. Yes, it’s fair to say that pulling out would support the vast majority of the troops as they view the situation they’re in. </p>
<p>However, this misses the point. They don’t decide. The president decides, in consultation with Congress; and these decisions should reflect over the long-term the voters’ perceptions of what is right for the nation. The troops do what they’re told. What they think is largely irrelevant. Nonetheless, in terms of sending troops to fight a war where the best we can achieve is a stalemate (and by the definition of the war’s planners have already achieved defeat), there’s no stretch in saying that is an act of both patriotism and loyalty to troops to call for our withdrawal as soon as possible.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, FF, you never did respond to the fact that the Pentagon itself issued a report saying that intelligence was inappropriately skewed by this Administration to argue for war. You said that the left asserted this without proof, though there is ample proof that I have articulated. And now there’s also a Pentagon report to that effect as well.</p>
<p>OMG. It’s far, far worse than I thought. Not only isn’t your average Freeper the least bit ashamed of the deplorable conditions and shoddy treatment our wounded soldiers are getting in Walter Reed’s outpatient facility–they’re furious at the Washington Post for exposing it.</p>
<p>They aren’t the least bit remorseful. Out of 92 comments, only about 6 were supportive of the troops deserving better conditions. And at least 3 of those were from people who actually have been to the outpatient facility for themselves or a loved one.</p>
<p>isn’t it scary, that when the truth is out, they go after the reporters…but not surprised</p>
<p>it is like people are wearing blinders</p>
<p>I can bet you its just a few people making those posts, that is the way it works</p>
<p>It is meant to seem it a bunch of different people, but when you look deeper its just a few, posting under different names, and they email each other to action to make the opponents seem to be a large group, when in fact, it is not</p>
<p>Could be. It was really shocking though, almost no interest in making conditions better for the wounded soldiers, just in keeping the conditions quiet.</p>
<p>I know that. It’s just that if anyone has to go to Iraq, it should be the children of those who still believe in this fantasy. But as with Dick Cheney and Vietnam, these children have other priorities. Peace unto those who children are serving.</p>
<p>
That is not the point and such a reading is, to use your word, disingenuous. The point is that if you support this war, your kids should be fighting it. But no, long many of the right-wing blogosphere serving in the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, it’s other people’s children you want to see in Iraq.</p>
<p>
Bully for you. But any involvement as has not yielded any particular knowledge, understanding, or wisdom.</p>
<p>No aspersions on SJMom’s family–and no guesses at to what this quote means in her particular case–but this quote could easily describe the families of the civilian contractors that are so controversial. I am not sure all of those folks have an unbiased perspective on the war. </p>
<p>People like Gens. McCaffrey and Odom, on the other hand, have no dog in the hunt but love of country. They have the training and experience to know what they’re talking about, and they’ve been right all along about the course we are headed on.</p>
<p>I’d like to point out that there have been more murderous attacks on Iraqi civilians today, including one at a funeral in Bagdad. In doing so, I will undoubtedly raise the ire of some CCers, who will then accuse me of being “gleeful.” I’m not. I occasionally post these news reports to remind the “101st Fighting Keyboardists” (as TheDad so aptly described them) that this is not a theoretical conflict, but one in which innocent people are massacred every day. And it’s a conflict we’re responsible for inflaming by our president’s ill-advised invasion.</p>
<p>BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide bomber struck a funeral in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least seven people as militants show increasing defiance to a major security operation in the capital.
The attacker, wearing a belt packed with explosives, followed a funeral procession into a tent before detonating the blast in a mostly Shiite district of eastern Baghdad, police said. At least 15 people were injured.</p>
<p>In other bloodshed across Baghdad, a car bomb and a suicide attacker killed at least 11 people. About 12 miles outside the capital, a truck carrying chlorine gas ran over a roadside bomb. Two people died in the explosion and nearly 150 exposed to the fumes were treated for injuries, said Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, a military spokesman.</p>