The Coalition of the Very Small

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Has anyone noticed that we don’t hear much about the “Coalition of the Willing” anymore?</p>

<p>In the past two years, Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Tonga, Hungary, Portugal, Moldava, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukiraine, and Singapre have all removed their troops - just like the U.S. will once we’ve spent $2 trillion to support the Ayatollah.</p>

<p>The good news, though, is that Palau is still there, and the Solomon Islands is contributing $1,700 toward the costs. (Maybe they can use it to buy body armor.)</p>

<p>Where do I send a thank you note? ;)</p>

2

<p>This is a good one! The Coalition of the Very Small authored by “Mini” LOL</p>

<p>next responder should be weenie. :)</p>

3

<p>So true. It’s not a coalition unless France and Germany are on your side. Well, unless you’re dealing with Iran in which case working with them is “outsourcing diplomacy”.</p>

<p>By the end of the year the US will have withdrawn just under 1/2 of the troops it had in Iraq at the peak of last year. That other nations are withdrawing theirs is hardly a surprise or in anyway note worthy. YMMV</p>

<p>If you read beyond the NY Times, you’ll see that Iraqi troops have taken on primary responsibility for security in the majority of the country and are doing well. In the part that remains under our control, we’re earning praise for how they’re handling things. Read what the mayor of Tall Afar wrote about my nephew’s unit:</p>

<p>

</p>

4

<p>NJres:</p>

<p>:) :slight_smile: :)</p>

5

<p>The letter to the 3rd AC was the subject of some discussion on an invitation-only private listserv where I have the honor of being only two career civilians in a group dominated by field grade officers, both active and retired. It is out of bounds me for me to quote any other participants but I’ll quote my own response to a discussion of the letter to the 3rd AC in the context of media coverage:

</li>
</ul>

6

<p>“The nuts and bolts of Iraqi politics make only a distilled appearance in most U.S. media. To get a sense of where things stand, e.g., extensive interviews with Jaafari or Sistani, you have to go picking through foreign sources…”</p>

<p>TheDad, I agree with your post. What we typically see from the American press is what the White House wants heard. I have been very disappointed with the coverage. Canned press conferences and photo ops seem to rule the day. The soldier asking SoD Rumsfeld about the armor on the vehicles and catching him off guard was the most refreshing moment in the press coverage on this war. Heads must have rolled for that one.</p>

<p>What is so very real to me is the time I have spent trying to find current news on Afghanistan. Now that things have heated up along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, there is a little more news, but not much. My daughter’s boyfriend serves with the 10th Mountain Division. He was set to deploy to Afghanistan until the troop cutbacks. His brigade was the one whose deployment was cancelled, but up until it was, I was trying to educate myself better on the current events and polital and tribal factions in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, the best basic article I found on the geography, people and politics in laymen’s terms was in Outdoor Magazine’s November issue. It was an article by Mark Jenkins on his walk through the Wakhan Corridor and discussed Afghanistan more than reaching the summit of a never before climbed mountain. Sad that an outdoor magazine had more than the international section of most media outlets. I read it through a couple of visits to the dentist and was quite happy when I found it online. </p>

<p>Too bad that, as citizens, we are not given the same information our soldiers are given in their courses on the geography, peoples, customs and politics of the countries where they are going. However, I suspose it wouldn’t be in the White House’s best interest. There would be no one left to hood wink.</p>

7

<p>

Actually, I’d say that the Matt Lauer interview of the soldier in Iraq was the most refreshing and telling of the distorted view that the media has been providing. In case you missed it, Lauer was asking the soldier about morale and essentially was twisting his arm to get him to say that morale was bad. After several straight forward answers that it was not bad, the soldier finally said, “If all we knew about the war was what the media covered, of course our morale would be bad.”</p>

8

<p>OMGosh, so if the soldier knew maybe some truth, then morale would be bad? </p>

<p>The truth is scary and its best we hide it from America
Who is left in the coalition anyway? And how much have we spent? And for what exactly?</p>

9

<p>I missed that interview. Failure all the way around. Our military has been given a job to do whether we personally believe in the cause or not, and I think attemps to portray them as “spent” and possessing poor morale does no one good if its not the truth. I would love to see more substantiated facts and actual statements made by those in control of the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq before the spin doctors start to spin.</p>

10

<p>CGM, you’re assuming the press always tells the truth. That’s scarey. Whether you’re looking at the canned reports on the one side or reporters trying to make a point on the other, it often strays from facts that can be substantiated and quotes taken in the context in which they were intended. Ratings driven media wants to cover what sells. I just want the unvarnished picture. I’ll make up my own mind from there.</p>

<p>The soldiers know more truth about this situation than I ever will. I dare not judge for them.</p>

11

<p>“OMGosh, so if the soldier knew maybe some truth, then morale would be bad?”</p>

<p>The point is, CGM, the soldiers DO see the media coverage of the war. But they also see the reality of the war by actually being there. They see that what you see is NOT the truth or at least not the whole truth. But, then again, you have proven time and time again that the only thing that is true in your mind is that which agrees with your worldview.</p>

12

<p>Speaking of news that isn’t reported here, the following is an excerpt from an Iraqi newspaper on a new US strategy in dealing with armed “insurgents”. Thanks to <a href=“http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/[/url]”>http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt; for posting it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not sure how I feel about spending US tax dollars paying Iraqis not to attack us.</p>

<p>In a similar vein, one of the most intriguing suggestions for Iraqi reconstruction I’ve heard was a proposal early on to set up a formal system of distributing dividend checks from the Iraqi oil production to every Iraqi citizen, along the same lines as oil dividends are distributed in Alaska. Had this been done, there would have been an actual cash-money stake in political stability and economic growth for all Iraqis plus cash-money to prime the economy at the local levels. The theory was that a lot of turf-battles become less important when all factions are economically enfranchised and have a direct incentive to accomplish a shared goal. It also would have provided every Iraqi with a concrete (cash-money) confirmation that the reconstruction government was improving their lives.</p>

13

<p>The point is that they don’t. We don’t. If we don’t how do they?</p>

14

<p><a href=“Web Page Under Construction”>Web Page Under Construction;

15

<p>The troops in the field don’t talk much about it, their prime goal being to cover each other’s asses and keep their own covered in return, which is as it should be. </p>

<p>But opinions about what we’re doing there and how effective we are are about as diverse as those expressed on this board. Some opinions have changed between a first tour and a subsequent tour.</p>

<p>I am aware of conflicting opinions in the O-4 to O-6 levels. The skeptics, at all ranks, tend to be more cautious in what they express in public out of fear of retribution from a superior. And some of the skeptics have severe reservations but haven’t been able to quite make themselves walk “over the bridge” to the other side yet. </p>

<p>Once out of the service, many are less reticent. The fact that a former SecNav under Reagan, a recently retired three-star admiral, and two Bronze Star winners are running for Senate or House as anti-Bush anti-Iraq War Democrats is just the tip of the iceberg. One of my correspondents who is still pro-Bush has mixed feelings about the two Command Sergeant Majors running for Congress…there’s a part of him that would like to hear them speak on the House floor.</p>

<p>The active duty and veteran vote is not going to go for the Republicans this year by anywhere near the margins it has in the past couple of elections.</p>

16

<p>I think it’s very telling that 12 Iraq veterans are running for Congress right now–and 11 of them are running as Democrats.</p>

<p>Check out this article about Tammy Duckworth, from the Washington Post <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/18/AR2006021801295.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/18/AR2006021801295.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

17

<p>Let’s remember how “effective” is defined. If it means turning the country over peacefully to the party overwhelming favored by the Iraqi people, then it means giving the country to an Ayatollah whose social policies make Iran’s current democratically elected government look like liberals. </p>

<p>Did anyone ever stop to think that the Sunni insurgents are on “our side”? :mad:</p>

<p>As for “paying” Iraqis not to attack us, look to Afghanistan: opium production is up from $40 million under the Taliban, to $4.3 billion under the American-backed warlords. They are sitting pretty fat and sassy. Probably funding the insurgency in Iraq, too.</p>

18

<p>TheDad, I agree once again. No one has paid a higher price for this war than those who served. I’m glad to see them running for office. I don’t expect their opinions to be anywhere near the same. They weren’t going in, and their experiences were certainly as varied as their assignments. And, I also agree that as soon as the bullets start flying, political opinions don’t matter. It’s all about you and your buddies keeping each other alive. No matter what one’s political affiliation, there’s something very noble about that kind of devotion, and I admire the ability to make that kind of commitment and feel that kind of comradery. I hope they have sound political strategies going into the elections. I woulod love to support them at home as well.</p>

19

<p>If they’re running as a Dem, they better be prepared for the party pulling a “Hackett” on them. The current issue of Mother Jones has an enlightening story on how it all went down with Mr. Hackett. Lots of rumors and innuendo. Hackett says he knows the source of the rumors. “As much as I’d like to grab that son of a ***** and wring his neck, it hurts bad enough I’d just as soon let it go.” Does anyone here think that he’d let it go if it were someone connected with DeWine? Probably not, don’t you think? That means it must be someone from his side of the aisle. Who would have ever thought such a thing possible?</p>

20

<p>Me!! I would!!! Maybe we should call it a “Hackett job”. :wink: Do you think Hilaryites want a party full of Hacketts newly elected, telling her she is full of it?</p>